QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri Quality Function Deployment QFD Benchmarking.

QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri

Quality Function Deployment

•QFD

•Benchmarking


New dynamicmarkets

Changingcustomer

expectations

DevelopManufacture

Service

Value Chain

Statutoryrequirements

IncreasinglyKeen competition

Ecologicalinfluences

Changes inavailability of

resources

Short productlife cycles

Economicinfluences

Innovativetechnologies

Increasingcost andcompetition

Growingcomplexity ofproblems

Increasinglydynamicenvironment

Expandingquantity andvariety ofrelevantinformation

Entrepreneural Environment [Eversheim 97]


Qua

lity

Man

agem

ent

MDS QFD CAAQC BM

Tec

hnol

ogy

Man

agem

entSolvecommunication

problems

VE TC

QFD BM

Market,Customers

Technology

“abstract,difficult toimplement

“Concrete, Detailed”

Deploymentof resources, Promoter

Communicate

Communicate

Key VE: Value Engineering, MDS: Multidimensional Scaling,CA: Conjoint Analysis, AQC: Attractive Quality criterion,

BM: Benchmarking, TC: Technology Calender,QFD: Quality Function Deployment

Bridging Innovation Management [Eversheim 97]


Examples of Failed Product Innovations

Frequently occurring external causes [Eversheim 97]

• Insufficient market preparation (e.g. dishwasher of 90 cm height)

• Customer requirements not met (e.g. German eco-car)

• Not technically perfected (e.g. first CVTs)

• Too late on the market (e.g. video 2000)


Examples of Failed Product Innovations

Frequently occurring internal causes [Eversheim 97]

Plenty of ideas but too little acceptance

• Lack of promoter

• Communication disfunctional

• Processing of subjects is unsystematic


A successful Innovation:Shower Head with Anti-lime System

(Friedrich Grohe AG, Germany) [Eversheim 97] Problem: Stagnation of own series of

products Main competitor brings out

new product feature (anti-lime deposit system)

Solution: Flexible beamformer/nozzles Lime deposits are more

brittle than silicone nozzles Lime loosens through

deformation of the beamformer

Action Required: Better approach to solution

than competitor Take the lead over

competitor by introducingadditional product features

Rapid reaction essential

Success Factors: Accurate, continuous market analysis Methodical approach to product

planning Technical implementation in close

cooperation with technologysuppliers (multi-component plasticinjection molding)

Uses plausible to customer


Qua

lity

Man

agem

ent

Identify market and customer requirements

Tec

hnol

ogy

Man

agem

ent

Develop technical solution

QFD BM

Market,Customers

Technology

“abstract,difficult toimplement

“Concrete, Detailed”

Deploymentof resources, Promoter

Linking problems and solutions [Eversheim 97]

Problems Solutions


Benchmarking

The next six slides consist of notes from

Tony Bendell, Louis Boutler, and Paul Goodstadt, Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage, Pitman Publishing, London, 1998 (HD62.15.B46)


• 1950s: The Japanese visited many thousands of American and European firms to absorb ideas regarding technology and business practices. Between 1952 and 1984, there were more than 42,000 contractual imports of knowledge. By 1960s, the Japanese were catching up.

• In 1979, Xerox in the USA and Rank Xerox in Europe found themselves depressingly behind Fuji Xerox in Japan. They benchmarked their practices with those of Fuji Xerox and regained leadership. Today, Xerox is believed to be the major expert in benchmarking.


• As the world becomes smaller, front-edge companies are realizing that they must match or exceed the best practices from competitors anywhere in the world in order to survive.

• If we set our improvement targets without reference to those outside, our targets may not be taxing enough and we will fall behind.

• During BM, it is not enough to compare output measures. We also need to understand ‘why’ through personal discovery.

• Public sector benchmarking is a new and underutilized concept.


Standard Process Classification System of the US-based

International Benchmarking Clearinghouse1. Understand markets and

customers

2. Develop vision and strategy

3. Design products and services

4. Produce and deliver

5. Develop and manage human resources

6. Manage information

7. Market and sell

7. Market and sell

8. Invoice and service customers

9. Execute environmental management program

10. Manage financial and physical resources

11. Manage external relationships

12. Manage improvement and change


The Xerox Benchmarking Process1. Identify benchmarking

subject

2. Identify comparative companies

3. Determine data collection method and collect data

4. Determine current competitive gap

5. Project future performance

6. Communicate findings and gain acceptance

7. Establish functional goals

8. Develop action plans

9. Implement and monitor progress

10. Recalibrate benchmark


Critical Success Factors used by Xerox while Conducting BM

• Customer satisfaction

• Employee satisfaction

• Return on assets

• Market share


In the BM Exercises Conducted by Xerox

Areas that have been benchmarked

Bechmarking partners

Manufacturing operations ----------

Manufacturing safety ----------------Factory floor layoutResearch and product developmentDistribution ---------------------------Billing and Collection ---------------Quality Management ----------------Quality improvement ----------------Supplier development ---------------

Saturn (a division of GM)Fuji-XeroxDuPontCummins EngineHewlett-PackardL.L. Bean Inc.American ExpressToyotaFlorida Power and LightHonda Manufacturing of America


Quality Function DeploymentBuilding the House of Quality [Jackson 88]

• Developed in Japan in the 1970s. First applied at the Kobe Shipyard of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

• In the early 1980s, Dr. Don Clausing introduced QFD to Xerox.

• The American Supplier Institute and GOAL/QPC led the movement in the US.


QFD is a structured method that

• uses the 7 M&P tools to identify and prioritize customer requirements,

• translates customer requirements into engineering requirements

• systematically deploys the engineering requirements throughout the company at each stage of product development and improvement.


Establishing Customer Requirements: Needs, Wants and Exciters

• Yesterday’s exciters are today’s wants. Today’s wants are tomorrow’s needs.

• Stratify customers into groups using a tree diagram, affinity diagram, Pareto diagram, or other method.

• Establish requirements each customer group through customer surveys, market research, analysis of service data, reviewing contractual requirements, or reviewing regulatory requirements.


The 7 Manufacturing & Planning tools are

• Affinity Diagram

• Interrelationship Graph

• Tree Diagram

• Matrix Diagram

• Process Diagram Program Chart

• Arrow Diagram

• Matrix Data Analysis


WHAT

HOW

What-How Matrix Relationship [Jackson 96]


Goal(What)

Objective(How)

Level 1 Matrix Deployment

Sell

Prod

uct

Make Profit

[Jackson 96]


Goal(What)

Objective(How)

Level 2 Matrix Deployment (and so on)

Sell Product

Adv

ertis

eRec

eive

Ord

ers

Man

ufac

ture

Pro

duct

s

Ship

Goo

ds

[Jackson 96]


Cus

tom

erR

equi

rem

ents

DesignRequirements

Des

ign

Req

uire

men

ts

EngineeringDesign

Eng

inee

ring

desi

gn

ProductCharacteristics

Deployment of Customer Requirementsto Product Characteristics

[Jackson 96]


Eng

inee

ring

Des

ign

ProductCharacteristics

Pro

duct

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Manufacturing/PurchasingOperations

Man

ufac

turi

ng/

Pur

chas

ing

Ope

rati

ons

Production/QualityControls

Deployment of Product Characteristicsto Production/Quality Controls

[Jackson 96]


Building the House of Quality

1. Establishing Customer Requirements

2. Determining Design Requirements

3. Developing the Relationship Matrix

4. Developing the Interaction Matrix

5. Establishing Priorities for the Design Requirements

6. Completing the House of Quality


Step 1 Establishing Customer Requirements

Design Requirements

Consumer Priority

Customer Requirements

Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility

CR-2 Ease of Operation

CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance

Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time

Cr-5 Highly Reliable

Strong

Medium

Weak

[Jackson 96]


Step 2: Determining Design Requirements

Design RequirementsConsumer Priority







Strong

Medium

Weak

Mea

n T

ime

Bet

wee

nF

ailu

res

= 5

000

hrs

Acc

urac

y=

0.0

001

in

Bui

lt-i

nSe

lf-T

est

Self

-Cal

ibra

tion

Com

pute

rC

ontr

olle

d

Mea

n T

ime

to R

epai

r =

0.5

hrs

Mod

ule-

leve

lR

epla

cem

ent

[Jackson 96]


Step 3: Developing the Relationship Matrix

Design RequirementsConsumer Priority







Strong

Medium

Weak

Mea

n T

ime

Bet

wee

nF

ailu

res

= 5

000

hrs

Acc

urac

y=

0.0

001

in

Bui

lt-i

nSe

lf-T

est

Self

-Cal

ibra

tion

Com

pute

rC

ontr

olle

d

Mea

n T

ime

to R

epai

r =

0.5

hrs

Mod

ule-

leve

lR

epla

cem

ent

[Jackson 96]


Consumer Priority







Strong

Medium

Weak

Mea

n T

ime

Bet

wee

nF

ailu

res

= 5

000

hrs

Acc

urac

y=

0.0

001

in

Bui

lt-i

nSe

lf-T

est

Self

-Cal

ibra

tion

Com

pute

rC

ontr

olle

d

Mea

n T

ime

to R

epai

r =

0.5

hrs

Mod

ule-

leve

lR

epla

cem

ent

Step4 Developing the Interaction Matrix

[Jackson 96]


Consumer Priority







Strong = 9Medium =3

Weak = 1

Mea

n T

ime

Bet

wee

nF

ailu

res

= 5

000

hrs

Acc

urac

y=

0.0

001

in

Bui

lt-i

nSe

lf-T

est

Self

-Cal

ibra

tion

Com

pute

rC

ontr

olle

d

Mea

n T

ime

to R

epai

r =

0.5

hrs

Mod

ule-

leve

lR

epla

cem

ent

1 2 3

1

4 5

BenchmarkingScore based on the degree

to which customer requirements are met

Technical BenchmarkingOur Company: O

Competitor ACompetitor BCompetitor C

5 BOCA

4

3

2

1

OBAC

BAOC

CBAO

OABC

CBAO

OBAC

Key Elements

Risk

WeightsAbsolute

Relative 108

12 9 15 14 2 8 327 15 14 6 24 3

X X X

A B C O

O C B A

B C O A

A B C O

A B O C

QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri Quality Function Deployment QFD Benchmarking.

Documents

Transcript of QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri Quality Function Deployment QFD Benchmarking.