QualityFunction
Deployment(QFD)
Outline
IntroductionQFD TeamBenefits Of QFDVoice Of The CustomerHouse Of QualityBuilding A House Of QualityQFD ProcessSummary
Introduction
Dr. Mizuno, Prof. EmeritusMitsubishi Heavy Industries
Kobe Shipyards, 1972
Toyota Minivans (1977 Base)1979 - 20% Reduction In Start-Up Costs1982 - 38%1984 - 61%
Dr. Clausing, Xerox, 1984Any Manufacturing Or Service Industry
QFD Team
Significant Amount Of TimeCommunication
Two Types Of TeamsNew ProductImprove Existing Product
Marketing, Design, Quality, Finance, Production, Etc.
Benefits Of QFD
Customer DrivenReduces Implementation TimePromotes TeamworkProvides Documentation
Customer Driven
Creates Focus On Customer RequirementsUses Competitive Information EffectivelyPrioritizes ResourcesIdentifies Items That Can Be Acted OnStructures Resident Experience/Information
Reduces Implementation Time
Decreases Midstream Design ChangeLimits Post Introduction ProblemsAvoids Future Development RedundanciesIdentifies Future Application OpportunitiesSurfaces Missing Assumptions
Promotes Teamwork
Based On ConsensusCreates Communication At InterfacesIdentifies Actions At InterfacesCreates Global View-Out Of Details
Provides Documentation
Documents Rationale For DesignIs Easy To AssimilateAdds Structure To The InformationAdapts To Changes (Living Document)Provides Framework For Sensitivity
Analysis
Voice Of The Customer
Driving Force Behind QFDCustomer Dictates Attributes Of Product
Customer SatisfactionMeeting Or Exceeding Customer ExpectationsCustomer Expectations Can Be Vague & General
In NatureCustomer Expectations Must Be Taken Literally,
Not Translated Into What The Organization Desires
Collecting CustomerInformation
What Does Customer Really Want ?What Are Customer’s Expectations ?Are Customer’s Expectations Used
To Drive Design Process ?What Can Design Team Do To
Achieve Customer Satisfaction?
Types Of Customer InformationSolicited, Measurable, Routine
Cus. & Market Surveys, Trade Trials
Unsolicited, Measurable, RoutineCustomer Complaints, Lawsuits
Solicited, Subjective, RoutineFocus Groups
Solicited, Subjective, HaphazardTrade & Cus. Visits, Indep. Consultants
Unsolicited, Subjective, HaphazardConventions, Vendors, Suppliers
House Of Quality
Technical Descriptors(Voice of the organization)
Prioritized TechnicalDescriptors
Interrelationshipbetween
Technical Descriptors
Cu
sto
mer
R
equ
irem
ents
(Vo
ice
of
the
Cu
sto
mer
)
Pri
ori
tize
d
Cu
sto
mer
Req
uir
emen
ts
Relationship betweenRequirements and
Descriptors
Building A House Of Quality
List Customer Requirements (What’s)List Technical Descriptors (How’s)Develop Relationship (What’s & How’s)Develop Interrelationship (How’s)Competitive AssessmentsPrioritize Customer RequirementsPrioritize Technical Descriptors
QFD Matrix
Absolute Weight and Percent
Prioritized Technical Descriptors
Degree of Technical Difficulty
Relative Weight and Percent
Target Value
Cu
sto
me
r R
eq
uir
em
en
ts
Pri
ori
tize
d
Cu
sto
me
rR
eq
uir
em
en
ts
Technical Descriptors
Primary
Pri
ma
ry
Se
co
nd
ary
Secondary
TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment
Cu
sto
me
rC
om
pe
titi
ve
As
se
ss
me
nt
OurA’sB’s
Cu
sto
me
r Im
po
rta
nc
eT
arg
et
Va
lue
Sc
ale
-up
Fa
cto
rS
ale
s P
oin
tA
bs
olu
te W
eig
htOu
rA
’sB
’s
Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements
andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
StrongMediumWeak
+9+3+1
Strong PositivePositiveNegativeStrong Negative
+9+3-3-9
Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors
(correlation matrix)HOWs vs. HOWs
Customer Requirements (What’s)
Cu
sto
mer
Req
uir
emen
ts(W
HA
Ts)
Pri
mar
y
Sec
on
dar
y
Ter
tiar
y
Technical Descriptors (How’s)
Tec
hn
ical
Des
crip
tors
(HO
Ws)
Pri
mar
y
Sec
on
dar
y
Ter
tiar
y
L - Shaped Diagram
Cu
sto
mer
R
equ
ire
men
ts
Technical Descriptors
Primary
Pri
mar
y
Sec
on
dar
y
Secondary
Relationship MatrixC
ust
om
erR
equ
irem
ents
Technical Descriptors
PrimaryP
rim
ary
Sec
on
dar
ySecondary
Relationship betweenCustomer
Requirements andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
StrongMedium
Weak
+9+3
+1
Correlation Matrix
Cu
sto
mer
R
equ
irem
ents
Technical Descriptors
Primary
Pri
mar
y
Sec
on
dar
y
Secondary
Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements
andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
Strong PositivePositiveNegativeStrong Negative
+9+3-3-9
Interrelationship between TechnicalDescriptors (correlation matrix)
HOWs vs. HOWs
StrongMediumWeak
+9+3+1
Customer Competitive AssessmentC
ust
om
er
Req
uir
emen
ts
Cu
sto
mer
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ass
essm
ent
Ou
rsA
’sB
’s
53125144
Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements
andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
StrongMediumWeak
+9+3+1
1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4
Technical Competitive AssessmentC
ust
om
er
Req
uir
emen
ts
Cu
sto
mer
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ass
essm
ent
Ou
rA
’sB
’s
53125144
Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements
andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
StrongMediumWeak
+9+3+1Technical
CompetitiveAssessment
OurA’sB’s
Prioritized Customer Requirements
Importance RatingTarget ValueScale-Up FactorSales PointAbsolute Weight & Percent
(Importance Rating)(Scale-Up Factor)(Sales Point)
739
102481
Cu
sto
me
r R
eq
uir
em
en
ts
Pri
ori
tize
d
Cu
sto
me
rR
eq
uir
em
en
ts
Technical Descriptors
Primary
Pri
ma
ry
Se
co
nd
ary
Secondary
TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment
Cu
sto
me
rC
om
pe
titi
ve
As
se
ss
me
nt
OurA’sB’s
Cu
sto
me
r Im
po
rta
nc
eT
arg
et
Va
lue
Sc
ale
-up
Fa
cto
rS
ale
s P
oin
tA
bs
olu
te W
eig
ht
1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4
53125144
53235244
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
15
3
Ou
rA
’sB
’s
Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements
andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
StrongMediumWeak
+9+3+1
Prioritized Technical Descriptors
Degree Of DifficultyTarget ValueAbsolute Weight & Percent
Relative Weight & Percent
aj
Rijci
i
n
1
bj
Rijdi
i
n
1
R is Relationship Matrixc is Customer Importance
R is Relationship Matrixc is Customer Absolute Weights
Absolute Weight and Percent
Prioritized Technical Descriptors
Degree of Technical Difficulty
Relative Weight and Percent
Target Value1 8 4 2 9 8 2 5
90133
2 3 4 3 1 3 1 5
739
102481
Cu
sto
me
r R
eq
uir
em
en
ts
Pri
ori
tize
d
Cu
sto
me
rR
eq
uir
em
en
ts
Technical Descriptors
Primary
Pri
ma
ry
Se
co
nd
ary
Secondary
TechnicalCompetitiveAssessment
Cu
sto
me
rC
om
pe
titi
ve
As
se
ss
me
nt
OurA’sB’s
Cu
sto
me
r Im
po
rta
nc
eT
arg
et
Va
lue
Sc
ale
-up
Fa
cto
rS
ale
s P
oin
tA
bs
olu
te W
eig
ht
1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4
53125144
53235244
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
15
3
Ou
rA
’sB
’s
Relationship betweenCustomer Requirements
andTechnical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs
StrongMediumWeak
+9+3+1
Strong PositivePositiveNegativeStrong Negative
+9+3-3-9
Interrelationship betweenTechnical Descriptors
(correlation matrix)HOWs vs. HOWs
QFD ProcessW
HA
Ts
HOW MUCH
HOWs
WH
AT
sHOW MUCH
HOWs
Phase IProduct Planning
DesignRequirements
Cu
sto
mer
Req
uir
emen
ts
Phase IIPart Development
Part QualityCharacteristics
Des
ign
Req
uir
emen
ts
Phase IIIProcess Planning
Key ProcessOperations
Par
t Q
ual
ity
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Phase IVProduction Planning
ProductionRequirements
Key
Pro
cess
Op
erat
ion
s
Production Launch
QFD SummaryOrderly Way Of Obtaining Information & Presenting ItShorter Product Development CycleConsiderably Reduced Start-Up CostsFewer Engineering ChangesReduced Chance Of Oversights During Design
ProcessEnvironment Of TeamworkConsensus DecisionsPreserves Everything In Writing
Top Related