Edible Cutlery

MANUFACTURING OF EDIBLE USING

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
Group No: 10 (PGDM A)
Rajeev Ranjan()
Ashesh Pasari (31)
Vishesh Pillai (33)
Shihkar Sodhani (53)
AGENDA
Why Edible Cutlery
About the Product
QFD Process
Customer Requirements
Technical Descriptors
Relationship between Requirements and Technical
descriptors
Interrelationship matrix
Customer competitive assessment
Technical competitive assessment
Prioritize customer requirements
House of Quality
Conclusions
WHAT IS (QFD)?

Quality Function Deployment

Structured process
Define customer needs
Plans to produce product
to meet customer needs
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
WHY EDIBLE CUTLERY???
Disposable Cutlery Options till no
w..
Plastic : Thin and Thick
Paper : Coated or Laminated
Thermocol: Low grade
Natural : Fibre, Bamboo
and Leaves
Competitors

Similar Environmental friendly products.

Wooden Cutlery
Bamboo Cutlery
Bioplastic Cutlery
Earthenwares
Edible Cutlery by Bakeys
Edible Cutlery (Spoons presently) are 100% Vegetarian
High Nutritional Value
Takes a lot lesser time to decompose and acts as a good fertilizer
Does not dominate the taste of the food being consumed
Its a Low Cost & Environment Friendly solution
QFD PROCESS
1.Customer requirements
2.Technical descriptors
3.Relation between requirements & technical descriptors
4.Inter-relation matrix
5.Customer competitive assessment
6.Technical competitive assessment
7.Prioritize customer requirement
1. CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS
Methodology Used: Customer Survey
Respondents: 30
Most preferred
Plastic & Paper Thermocol Wood & Leaves Edible
Disposable Cutlery
% 28% 7% 24% 41%
1 2 3 4 5
Preferred Features Environment Low
Strength Disposability Light Weight
Friendly Cost
Least Preferred Finishing
Which Aesthetic
Finishing Shape & Style
feature
1. CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS
Low Cost
Light weight
Features
Environment Friendly
Disposability
Cust
Durability (Life span)
ome Performance
Strength
r
Req Appearance(Shape & Style)
uire
men
ts Aesthetics

Finishing
2. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTORS
Technical Descriptors
Body Parameters Powertrain
Dimension Material Engine Transmission
Pass Com
Carg
eng Alu posi Orie Effic Gear
Len Widt Heig o Stee Pow
er mini te Type ntat CC ienc Rati Type
gth h ht Volu l er
Volu um Mat ion y o
me
me erial

Engine Type

Engine Capacity

Drive (M/A)
Features
Seating Capacity

Luggage Space
Custo
mer
Head room & leg room
Requir
ement
Fuel efficiency
s
Performa
nce Acceleration Time

Value for money

Aerodynamic look
Aesthetic
s Look of grandeour

Fit & finish

3. RELATION BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS & TECHNICAL DESCRIPTORS
Strong Relation || Moderate Relation || Weak Relation
Technical Descriptors
Body Parameters Powertrain
Dimension Material Engine Transmission
Pass Com
Carg
eng Alu posi Orie Effic Gear
Len Widt Heig o Stee Pow
er mini te Type ntat CC ienc Rati Type
gth h ht Volu l er
Volu um Mat ion y o
me
me erial
Engine Type
Engine Capacity
Drive (M/A)
Features
Seating Capacity
Custo Luggage Space
mer
Head room & leg room
Requir
ement Fuel efficiency
s Performa
Acceleration Time
nce
Value for money
Aerodynamic look
Aesthetic
Look of grandeour
s
Fit & finish
4. INTER-RELATION MATRIX Strong
Relation
Neutral
Relation
x Negative
Relation

Technical Descriptors
Body Parameters Powertrain
Dimension Material Engine Transmission
Pass Com
Carg
ange Alum posit Orie
Leng Widt Heig o Pow Effici Gear
r Steel iniu e Type ntati CC Type
th h ht Volu er ency Ratio
Volu m Mate on
me
me rial
Engine Type

Engine Capacity

Drive (M/A)
Features
Seating Capacity

Luggage Space
Custom
er Head room & leg room
Require
Fuel efficiency
ments Performan
Acceleration Time
ce
Value for money

Aerodynamic look
Aesthetics Look of grandeour

Fit & finish

5. CUSTOMER COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

Technical Descriptors

Body Parameters Powertrain

Dimension Material Engine Transmission

Pass Com
Carg
ange Alum posit Orien
Leng Widt Heig o Powe Effici Gear
r Steel iniu e Type tatio CC Type
th h ht Volu r ency Ratio
Volu m Mate n
me
me rial
Engine Type 5 5 5
Engine Capacity 4 4 5
Drive (M/A) 3 3 5
Features
Seating Capacity 4 4 4
Custom Luggage Space 3 4 4
er Head room & leg room 4 4 3
Require Fuel efficiency 3 4 3
ments Performan Acceleration Time 3 3 4
ce
Value for money 3 4 3
Aerodynamic look 4 3 4
Aesthetics Look of grandeour 3 4 4
Fit & finish 4 3 4

Our Renault Hyundai

Product Duster Creta

Customer Competitive
Assessment
 6. TECHNICAL COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
Technical Descriptors

Body Parameters Powertrain

Dimension Material Engine Transmission

Pass Com
Car Gea
ang Alu posi Orie Effic
Len Wid Heig go Stee Typ Pow r Typ
er mini te ntat CC ienc
gth th ht Volu l e er Rati e
Volu um Mat ion y
me o
me erial
Engine Type 5 5 5
Engine Capacity 4 4 5
Drive (M/A) 3 3 5
Features Seating Capacity 4 4 4
Custo Luggage Space 3 4 4
mer Head room & leg

Requir room 4 4 3
ement Fuel efficiency 3 4 3
Performa
s Acceleration Time 3 3 4
nce
Value for money 3 4 3
Aerodynamic look 4 3 4
Aestheti
Look of grandeour 3 4 4
cs
Fit & finish 4 3 4
Technical Our Product 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Competitive Renault Duster 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Our Renault Hyunda
Advntage Hyundai Creta 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Product Duster i Creta

Customer Competitive
Assessment
 7. PRIORITIZE CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

Technical Descriptors

Body Parameters Powertrain

Dimension Material Engine Transmission

Carg Passa Comp
Orien
Lengt Widt Heig o nger Alumi osite Powe Effici Gear
Steel Type tatio CC Type
h h ht Volu Volu nium Mate r ency Ratio
n
me me rial
Engine Type 5 5 5 8 5 1.00 1.50 12
Engine Capacity 4 4 5 7 4 1.00 1.40 10
Drive (M/A) 3 3 5 7 5 1.67 1.40 16
Features
Seating Capacity 4 4 4 6 4 1.00 1.30 8
Custom Luggage Space 3 4 4 2 3 1.00 1.00 2
Prioritiz
er Head room & leg room 4 4 3 5 4 1.00 1.40 7
e
Require Fuel efficiency 3 4 3 7 4 1.33 1.50 14
Performanc custome
ments Acceleration Time 3 3 4 5 4 1.33 1.00 7
e r
Value for money 3 4 3 8 4 1.33 1.40 15
require
Aerodynamic look 4 3 4 4 4 1.00 1.00 4
ment
Aesthetics Look of grandeour 3 4 4 7 4 1.33 1.30 12
Fit & finish 4 3 4 6 4 1.00 1.20 7
Our Product 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Importan
Technical Competitive
Renault Duster 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Our Renault Hyundai ce to Target Scale up Sales Absolute
Advntage
Hyundai Creta 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Product Duster Creta customer Value factor point Weight

Customer Competitive
Assessment
 HOUSE OF QUALITY

Technical Descriptors

Body Parameters Powertrain

Dimension Material Engine Transmission

Pass
Carg Comp
ange Orien
Lengt Widt Heig o Alumi osite Powe Effici Gear
r Steel Type tatio CC Type
h h ht Volu nium Mate r ency Ratio
Volu n
me rial
me
Engine Type 5 5 5 8 5 1.00 1.50 12
Engine Capacity 4 4 5 7 4 1.00 1.40 10
Drive (M/A) 3 3 5 7 5 1.67 1.40 16
Features
Seating Capacity 4 4 4 6 4 1.00 1.30 8
Custom Luggage Space 3 4 4 2 3 1.00 1.00 2
Prioritiz
er Head room & leg room 4 4 3 5 4 1.00 1.40 7
e
Require Fuel efficiency 3 4 3 7 4 1.33 1.50 14
Performan custome
ments Acceleration Time 3 3 4 5 4 1.33 1.00 7
ce r
Value for money 3 4 3 8 4 1.33 1.40 15
require
Aerodynamic look 4 3 4 4 4 1.00 1.00 4 ment
Aesthetics Look of grandeour 3 4 4 7 4 1.33 1.30 12
Fit & finish 4 3 4 6 4 1.00 1.20 7
Our Product 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Importan
Technical Competitive Our Renault Hyundai
Renault Duster 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ce to Target Scale up Sales Absolute
Advntage Product Duster Creta
Hyundai Creta 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 customer Value factor point Weight

Customer Competitive
Assessment
CONCLUSION
Drive Type: Highest in absolute weight, customers prefer to have a choice of
manual and auto options

Value for money: Second in absolute weight, Customers perceived value

needs to be taken into account

Engine Type: Fourth in absolute weight, customers will be more delighted to

choose from petrol and diesel variants

Engine Capacity: Relatively less absolute weight, unless they face issues with
drivability or power delivery

Fuel Efficiency : Third in absolute weight, customers will prefer cars with more
mileage

Look of grandeur: Fourth in absolute weight, expectation by a customer who

graduates from a hatchback to Compact SUV
Thank You