Example of DFSS Project

April 21, 2010: Version 6

Case Study of the Securekey Project

by Ray Balisnomo

DFSS in New Product Development

Synopsis of DFSS Method2

Define

Measure

Analyze

Design

Optimize

Verify

Project goals Customer analysis Create team

Capture voice of the customer Determine project schedule Review risk assessment

Develop CTQs Determine project schedule Review risk assessment

Develop models Review CTQs

Review CTQs Test tolerances Optimize design

Compare product to initial specs Document development

This DFSS Approach is NOT Practical


DFSS Design Scorecard

Critical to Quality (CTQ) Management

Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design

Process Design

Process Capability

Component Capability

Subsystem Capability

System Capability

Customer Satisfaction

We use the other DFSS Tools (e.g., DOE, Regression, Pugh matrix, ANOVA, etc.) to close the gap between what the customer desires & how the actual product performs..

DFSS in Practice at Ingersoll Rand

Pred

ictV

alid

ate


Customer surveys or interviews

(Focus Groups)

MarketingRequirements Document

Kano Analysis

AHP Pair-wise Comparison

Quality Function Deployment

(HOQ-1)

System-level CTQ’s.HOW do we measure success?

Prioritized or WeightedCustomer Needs (WHAT’s)

Performance needs

Excitement needs or Delighters

Basic Needs (e.g., Test Requirements)

Product Specifications

Imp

orta

nc

e o

f the

WH

AT

s (A

HP

) 1

5 1

4

3 5

1 0

Tim

e to

rek

ey

cy

lind

er

Plu

g p

ull s

tren

gth

Ke

y in

se

rtion

& e

xtra

ctio

n fo

rce

Nu

mb

er o

f rek

ey

s to

failu

re

Ke

y o

pe

ratin

g to

rqu

e

Nu

mb

er o

f life c

yc

les

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ou

r Cu

rren

t Pro

du

ct

1

Kw

ik S

et

2

Rie

lda

3

Be

st

4

Imp

rov

em

en

t Fa

cto

r 5

1 .2

0 .8

1 .2

1 .0

Ov

era

ll Imp

orta

nc

e

6

6 1 .2

3 .2

4 2 .0

1 0 .0

Pe

rce

nt Im

po

rtan

ce

7

5 2 .6

2 .7

3 6 .1

8 .6

Ma

x =

1.0

Ou

r Cu

rren

t Pro

du

ct

Kw

ik S

et

Rie

lda

Be

st

Min

= -1

.0

1

2

3

4

Dire c tio n o f Imp ro v e me n t 1

Ea s y to Re k e y

Hig h ly Se c u re

Op e ra te s Smo o th ly

Re k e y a b le Mu ltip le T ime s

1

2

3

4

Imp o rta n c e o f th e HOWs 1

52

.9

21

8.6

49

9.0

33

6.1

19

3.8

23

7.8

Pe rc e n t Imp o rta n c e o f th e HOWs 2

3.4

14

.2

32

.4

21

.8

12

.6

15

.5

Ma x = 3 2 .4

Pe rc e n t Imp o rta n c e o f th e HOWs

Min = 3 .4

Kwik s e t 4

Rie ld a 5

Be s t L o c k s 6

Ta rg e ts fo r Ou r Fu tu re Pro d u c t 7

1 2 3 4 5 6

T ra d e o ffs

Sy n e rg y 1 .0Co mp ro mis e -1 .0

Dire c tio n o f Imp ro v e me n t

Ma x imiz e 1 .0Ta rg e t 0 .0Min imiz e -1 .0

Sta n d a rd 9 -3 -1

Stro n g 9 .0Mo d e ra te 3 .0We a k 1 .0

New SecureKey

Co n c e p t Se le c tio n

Be tte r 1 .0Sa me 0 .0Wo rs e -1 .0




Customer Needs

System Design


Pred

ict


System Level Q.F.D.

I

mp

or

ta

nc

e

to

t

he

C

us

to

me

r

1

38

42

8

12

T

ime

t

o

re

ke

y

cy

lind

er

P

lug

p

ull

st

re

ng

th

K

ey

I

ns

er

tio

n

&

Ex

tr

ac

tio

n

Fo

rc

e

K

ey

O

pe

ra

tin

g

Fo

rc

e

N

um

be

r

of

C

yc

els

t

ill F

ailu

re

1

2

3

4

5

Ma

x

=

5.

0

Pe

rc

ep

tio

ns

o

f

Be

st

Pe

rc

ep

tio

ns

o

f

Kw

iks

et

Pe

rc

ep

tio

ns

o

f

Rie

lda

Min

=

0

.0

1

2

3

4

Dir ec t ion o f I m pr ov em ent 1

Eas y t o Rek ey

High ly Sec ur e

O per at es Sm oot hly

Rek ey ab le M ult ip le Tim es

1

2

3

4

I m por t anc e of Pr oduc t At t r ibut es 1

41

4

35

4

20

0

11

4

15

0

M ax = 414. 0

I m por t anc e of Pr oduc t At t r ibu t es

M in = 114. 0

Bes t Per f or m anc e 3

38

00

12

5

48

0K

3.

8

3.

2

Kwik s et Per f or m anc e 4

23

66

55

22

K

4.

2

2.

3

Rielda Per f or m anc e 5

27

45

30

32

0K

5.

2

3.

5

Tar get Va lues 6

38

00

30

50

0K

3.

5

2.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Tra d e o ffs

Sy ner gy 1. 0Com pr om is e- 1 . 0


M ax im iz e 1. 0Tar get 0. 0M inim iz e - 1 . 0


St r ong 9. 0M oder at e3. 0W eak 1. 0

http://www.tow.com/photogallery/2006/20060313_key/images/fullsize/20060313_key.jpg


Pugh Matrix for Concept Selection




Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design


Pred

ict


D

ire

ct

ion

o

f

Im

pr

ov

em

en

t

1

C

lea

ra

nc

e

bt

wn

T

on

gu

e

Pin

a

nd

R

S

ide

ba

r

E

nd

P

lay

b

tw

n

Ho

us

ing

a

nd

P

lug

C

lea

ra

nc

e

bt

wn

T

on

gu

e

Pin

a

nd

K

ey

R

ac

k

Pin

C

lea

ra

nc

e

wit

h

Plu

g

Slo

t

1

2

3

4

I

mp

or

ta

nc

e

of

P

ro

du

ct

At

tr

ibu

te

s

1

414

354

200

114

150

Ma

x

=

41

4.

0

Im

po

rt

an

ce

o

f

Pr

od

uc

t A

tt

rib

ut

es

Min

=

1

14

.0

B

es

t

Pe

rf

or

ma

nc

e

3

3800

125

480K

3. 8

3. 2

K

wik

se

t

Pe

rf

or

ma

nc

e

4

2366

55

22K

4. 2

2. 3

R

ield

a

Pe

rf

or

ma

nc

e

5

2745

30

320K

5. 2

3. 5

T

ar

ge

t

Va

lue

s

6

3800

30

500K

3. 5

2. 0

1

2

3

4

5

Dir ect ion of I m pr ovem ent 1

Tim e t o r ekey cylinder

Plug pull st r engt h

Key I nser t ion & Ext r act ion For ce

Key O per at ing For ce

Num ber of Cycels t ill Failur e

1

2

3

4

5

I m por t ance of t he Par t At t r ibut es 1

36

80

39

68

37

26

53

52

M ax = 5352. 0

I m por t ance of t he Par t At t r ibut es

M in = 3680. 0

Tar get Values 3

0.

00

5

in

0.

00

35

in

0.

01

85

in

0.

00

60

in

1

2

3

4


M axim ize 1. 0Tar get 0. 0M inim ize - 1. 0


St r ong 9. 0M oder at e 3. 0W eak 1. 0

Sub-system Level Q.F.D.




Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design


Pred

ict


Dire

ction

of

Impr

ovem

ent

1

Rac

k Pin

Cou

nter

-bor

e Dia

met

er

Rac

k Pin

Cou

nter

-bor

e De

pth

Sur

face

Rou

ghne

ss o

f Re

com

binat

ing S

ideba

r

1 2 3

Im

port

ance

of

the

Part

Attr

ibute

s

13680

3968

3726

5352

Max

= 5

352.

0

Impo

rtan

ce o

f th

e Pa

rt At

tribu

tes

Min

= 36

80.0

Tar

get

Value

s

3

0. 005 in

0. 0035 in

0. 0185 in

0. 0060 in 1

2

3

4


Clear ance bt wn Tongue Pin and R Sidebar

End Play bt wn Housing and Plug

Clear ance bt wn Tongue Pin and Key

Rack Pin Clear ance wit h Plug Slot

1

2

3

4

I m por t ance of Pr ocess At t r ibut es 1

281.

7

260.

3

260.

3

M ax = 281. 7

I m por t ance of Pr ocess At t r ibut es

M in = 260. 3

Tar get Values 3

1 2 3

Dir ect ion of I m pr ovem ent


St andar d 9- 3- 1

St r ong 9. 0M oder at e 3. 0Weak 1. 0

Component Level Q.F.D.




Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design

o Design of Experiments


Pred

ict


Design of Experiments: Recombinating Sidebar Spring Retention


Dire

ction

of

Impr

ovem

ent

1

Rac

k Pin

Cou

nter

-bor

e Dia

met

er

Rac

k Pin

Cou

nter

-bor

e De

pth

Sur

face

Rou

ghne

ss o

f Re

com

binat

ing S

ideba

r

1 2 3

Im

port

ance

of

the

Part

Attr

ibute

s

13680

3968

3726

5352

Max

= 5

352.

0

Impo

rtan

ce o

f th

e Pa

rt At

tribu

tes

Min

= 36

80.0

Tar

get

Value

s

3

0. 005 in

0. 0035 in

0. 0185 in

0. 0060 in 1

2

3

4






1

2

3

4


281.

7

260.

3

260.

3

M ax = 281. 7


M in = 260. 3

Tar get Values 3

1 2 3



St andar d 9- 3- 1



.028.069




Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design

o Design of Experimentso Gauge R& R


Pred

ict


Measurement System Analysis: Surface Roughness(Ra) Lck.Sidebar




Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design

o Design of Experimentso Gauge R& Ro Regression Analysis


Pred

ict


Binary Logistic Regression to Determine Upper Spec. Limit for Surface Roughness for Locking Sidebar

Ra

Ra

e

efailureP

2730

2730

1)(


Dire

ction

of

Impr

ovem

ent

1

Rac

k Pin

Cou

nter

-bor

e Dia

met

er

Rac

k Pin

Cou

nter

-bor

e De

pth

Sur

face

Rou

ghne

ss o

f Re

com

binat

ing S

ideba

r

1 2 3

Im

port

ance

of

the

Part

Attr

ibute

s

13680

3968

3726

5352

Max

= 5

352.

0

Impo

rtan

ce o

f th

e Pa

rt At

tribu

tes

Min

= 36

80.0

Tar

get

Value

s

3

0. 005 in

0. 0035 in

0. 0185 in

0. 0060 in 1

2

3

4






1

2

3

4


281.

7

260.

3

260.

3

M ax = 281. 7


M in = 260. 3

Tar get Values 3

1 2 3



St andar d 9- 3- 1



.028.069.92





Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design



Pred

ictV

alid

ate



D

ire

ct

ion

o

f

Im

pr

ov

em

en

t

1

C

lea

ra

nc

e

bt

wn

T

on

gu

e

Pin

a

nd

R

S

ide

ba

r

E

nd

P

lay

b

tw

n

Ho

us

ing

a

nd

P

lug

C

lea

ra

nc

e

bt

wn

T

on

gu

e

Pin

a

nd

K

ey

R

ac

k

Pin

C

lea

ra

nc

e

wit

h

Plu

g

Slo

t

1

2

3

4

I

mp

or

ta

nc

e

of

P

ro

du

ct

At

tr

ibu

te

s

1

414

354

200

114

150

Ma

x

=

41

4.

0

Im

po

rt

an

ce

o

f

Pr

od

uc

t A

tt

rib

ut

es

Min

=

1

14

.0

B

es

t

Pe

rf

or

ma

nc

e

3

3800

125

480K

3. 8

3. 2

K

wik

se

t

Pe

rf

or

ma

nc

e

4

2366

55

22K

4. 2

2. 3

R

ield

a

Pe

rf

or

ma

nc

e

5

2745

30

320K

5. 2

3. 5

T

ar

ge

t

Va

lue

s

6

3800

30

500K

3. 5

2. 0

1

2

3

4

5


Tim e t o r ekey cylinder

Plug pull st r engt h

Key I nser t ion & Ext r act ion For ce

Key O per at ing For ce

Num ber of Cycels t ill Failur e

1

2

3

4

5

I m por t ance of t he Par t At t r ibut es 1

36

80

39

68

37

26

53

52

M ax = 5352. 0

I m por t ance of t he Par t At t r ibut es

M in = 3680. 0

Tar get Values 3

0.

00

5

in

0.

00

35

in

0.

01

85

in

0.

00

60

in

1

2

3

4




St r ong 9. 0M oder at e 3. 0W eak 1. 0

Sub-system Level Q.F.D.


Tolerance Stack-ups using Monte Carlo Simulation





Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design




Pred

ictV

alid

ate



System Level Q.F.D.

I

mp

or

ta

nc

e

to

t

he

C

us

to

me

r

1

38

42

8

12

T

ime

t

o

re

ke

y

cy

lind

er

P

lug

p

ull

st

re

ng

th

K

ey

I

ns

er

tio

n

&

Ex

tr

ac

tio

n

Fo

rc

e

K

ey

O

pe

ra

tin

g

Fo

rc

e

N

um

be

r

of

C

yc

els

t

ill F

ailu

re

1

2

3

4

5

Ma

x

=

5.

0

Pe

rc

ep

tio

ns

o

f

Be

st

Pe

rc

ep

tio

ns

o

f

Kw

iks

et

Pe

rc

ep

tio

ns

o

f

Rie

lda

Min

=

0

.0

1

2

3

4

Dir ec t ion o f I m pr ov em ent 1

Eas y t o Rek ey

High ly Sec ur e

O per at es Sm oot hly

Rek ey ab le M ult ip le Tim es

1

2

3

4

I m por t anc e of Pr oduc t At t r ibut es 1

41

4

35

4

20

0

11

4

15

0

M ax = 414. 0

I m por t anc e of Pr oduc t At t r ibu t es

M in = 114. 0

Bes t Per f or m anc e 3

38

00

12

5

48

0K

3.

8

3.

2

Kwik s et Per f or m anc e 4

23

66

55

22

K

4.

2

2.

3

Rielda Per f or m anc e 5

27

45

30

32

0K

5.

2

3.

5

Tar get Va lues 6

38

00

30

50

0K

3.

5

2.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Tra d e o ffs

Sy ner gy 1. 0Com pr om is e- 1 . 0


M ax im iz e 1. 0Tar get 0. 0M inim iz e - 1 . 0


St r ong 9. 0M oder at e3. 0W eak 1. 0

http://www.tow.com/photogallery/2006/20060313_key/images/fullsize/20060313_key.jpg


Capability Studies: Plug Pull Strength





Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design



System Capability


Pred

ictV

alid

ate



Product Scorecard for System Level CTQ’s Parts DPM Performance

DPM Process DMP

Time to Rekey Cylinder 538 0

Plug Pull Strength 0 631

Key Insertion & Extraction Force 838 425

Number Cycles till Failure Metric moved to the Reliability Scorecard

Sub-total 1376 1056

Total DPMO 2432Equivalent Sigma or Z-score (short-term) 4.3

Microsoft Office Excel Worksheet





Customer Needs

System Design

Subsystem Design

Component Design



System Capability

Customer Satisfaction


Pred

ictV

alid

ate



Financial Benefit• Securekey because it’s sold as part of a complete lock

generates $250Million per month, or $8.33 Million per day.• As a stand-alone product, the key & cylinder generates at least

$70,000 a day in operating income or profit


Sajil Mathachan Kent Barker Scott Welsby Jason Clifford Brian WallsDesign Engineer &

Inventor

VAVE Engineer Leader of Design Team

Design Engineer Design Engineer

Security, Colorado

Congratulations Secure Key Teamon achieving DFSS Greenbelt CertificationTeam Members in Bangalore India (not pictured) : Ajeya Rao, Subashchandra Rai, and Jonah Pattar

Example of DFSS Project

Business

Transcript of Example of DFSS Project