Quality Function Deployment: Presented by Angela Presberry Mercena Johnson
Quality Function Deployment: Presented by Angela Presberry Mercena Johnson
Quality Function Deployment: Presented by Angela Presberry Mercena Johnson
Deployment
(QFD)
Presented by
Angela Presberry
Mercena Johnson
History of QFD
1966 - Dr. Yogi Akao (Japan)
Introduced Quality Function Deployment by
Kiyotaka Oshiumi, Bridgestone Tire
1972 - Dr. Shigeru Mizuno (Japan)
Professor emeritus - Tokyo Inst. Of Technology
First application was at the Mitsubishi/Kobe
Shipyard
1977 Toyota (Japan)
History of QFDcontinued
1978 First book written on QFD
QFD: The Customer-Driven Approach to
Quality Planning and Deployment (1994
Quality Resources: ISBN92-833-1122-1;
written by Mizuno and Akao; translated
by Glenn Mazur) and QUALITY FUNCTION
DEPLOYMENT: Integrating Customer
Requirements into Product Design
(Productivity Press: ISBN 0-915299-41-0;
written by Akao; translated by Glenn
Mazur
History of QFD
1984 Dr. Clausing (Xerox)
Brought to the United states
Quality Function
Deployment
At the time, statistical quality control,
which was introduced after World War II,
had taken roots in the Japanese
manufacturing industry, and the quality
activities were being integrated with the
teachings of such notable scholars as Dr.
Juran, Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa, and Dr.
Feigenbaum that emphasized the
importance of making quality control a part
of business management, which eventually
became known as TQC and TQM.
Deployed through:
Product Planning
Assembly/Part Development
Process Planning
Process/Quality Control
Benefits of QFD
Product Development/Implementation
time
Product Quality
Improves Customer Satisfaction
Promotes Teamwork
QFD Exercise #1
Benefits of Quality Function
Deployment (QFD)
Customer Information
Data can be collected in
many
different ways
Solicited, measureable
and routine
Unsolicited, measurable,
and routine
Solicited, subjective, and
routine
Solicited, subjective, and
haphazard data
Unsolicited, subjective
and haphazard data
Pg. 12-2 pp.320
* See Handouts
BREAK!!!!
A company that
manufactures
bicycle parts
wants to expand
their product line
by producing
handles for
mountain bikes.
Correlation
Matrix
Technical Descriptors
Customer
Needs
Defines relationship
between customers
desires and the firms
product/product
capabilities
Relationships
between
Customer Needs
and
Design Attributes
Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Engineering Measures
Primary
Secondary
Reasonable Cost
Aerodynamic Look
Nice Finish
Corrosion Resistant
Lightweight
Strength
Durable
Technical Descriptors
(HOWs)
The next step of the QFD process after
identifying what the customer wants is
HOW!
How can we satisfy these wants.
Regulatory standards and
requirements dictated by management
must be identified.
Brainstorming
Correlation between team and
customer critical
HOW CAN WE
ACCOMPLISH
WHAT
CUSTOMER
WANTS
Need 1
Need 2
Need 3
Need 4
Need 5
Need 6
Need 7
Prima
ry
Materials Selection
Manufacturing Process
Secondary
WHAT 1
WHAT 2
WHAT 3
WHAT 4
WHAT 5
WHAT 6
WHAT 7
ppss
i
i
h
ssh
n
n
o
i
aattio
l
l
e
RRe
HOW 7
HOW 6
HOW 5
HOW 4
HOW 3
HOW 2
HOW 1
Steel
Steel ranks strong in reasonable cost,
strength and durability in the
relationship between customer
requirements and technical Descriptors
It ranks medium in nice finish
It ranks weak in corrosion resistance
and being lightweight
No relationship with aerodynamic look,
leave blank
Titanium
Titanium ranks strong in
relationship between customer
requirements and technical
descriptors in nice finish, corrosion
resistant, lightweight and strength
It ranks medium in being durable
It ranks weak in reasonable cost
and aerodynamic look
Welding
Welding ranks strong in relationship
between customer requirements and
technical Descriptors as far as reasonable
cost
It ranks weak in aerodynamic look, nice
finish, corrosion resistant, strength and
durability
There is no relationship between welding
and being lightweight so leave blank
Forging
Forging ranks strong in the relationship
between customer requirements and
technical descriptors in strength and
being durable
There is a medium relationship in
aerodynamic look, corrosion resistant ,
cost and a nice finish
There is no relationship between forging
and being lightweight so leave blank
Powder Metallurgy
Powder Metallurgy ranks strong in the
relationship between customer
requirements and technical descriptors
in aerodynamic look and nice finish
It ranks medium in being durable and
corrosion resistant
There is a weak relationship with
strength and lightweight and
reasonable cost
Strong Positive
Positive
X Negative
* Strong Negative
Interrelationship Matrix
Next Correlate the
Interrelationship (Roof)
HOWS vs. HOWS
The main function of the
interrelationship matrix is to
establish a connection between the
customers product requirements
and the performance measures
designed to improve the product.
Steel
Steel is strong positive in
Welding
Steel is positive in Die casting
Steel is strong positive in Sand
Casting
Steel is strong negative in Forging
Steel is negative in Powder
Metallurgy
Aluminum
Aluminum is:
Positive in Welding
Strong positive in Die Casting
Positive in Sand Casting
Negative in Forging
Positive in Powder
Metallurgy
Titanium
Titanium:
It is a negative relationship in
Welding
It is positive in Die Casting
It is a strong negative in Sand
Casting
It is negative in Forging
It is a strong positive relationship in
Powder Metallurgy
Positive Correlation
Negative correlation
A strong positive
correlation would
be nearly perfect
correlation
(technical
descriptors
support each
other)
A strong
negative
correlation mean
technical
descriptors do
not support each
other
Our
Product
This is how
our Product
Ranked in
the Customer
Competitive
Assessment
Competition
As
Product
4
5
5
4
4
3
3
Bs
Product
2
3
3
2
2
4
4
Technical Competitive
Assessment
Steel Aluminum Titanium Welding Die-casting Sand
Casting Forging Powder
OURS
0
As
Bs
0
0
0
0
Prioritized Customer
Requirements
Customer rankings determine the
base that requirements are
prioritized.
1.Importance to Customer
2.Target Value
3.Scale-up Factor
4.Sales Point
5.Absolute Weight
Target Value
This is the column where the
QFD Team decides if they want
to:
keep their product unchanged
improve the product
or make the product better then
what the competition does.
Cost
+1
Look
Finish
Corrosion
Res.
Lightweight
+1
Strength
Cost
Look
Finish
Corrosion
Res.
Lightweight
Strength
Scale-Up Factor
The ratio of target value to the product
rating given in the customer
competitive assessment.
The question is what level is the product
on now and what is the target rating? Is
the distance within reason? The higher
the number, the more effort is needed.
Sometimes there is not a choice due to
difficulties in reaching target. Therefore
the target has to be reduced to
attainable levels.
Scale Up Factor
Cost
1.3
1
1
1
Weight
1.3
1
1.5
1.5
1
1
2
1
1
Absolute Weight
(Importance to the Customer x Scale-Up factor x Sales
Point) =
Absolute Weight
After summing all the
absolute weights, a percent
and rank for each customer
requirement can be
determined.
16
8
5
2
18
5
3
Prioritized Technical
Descriptors
This is a block of rows in the
foundation of the house
corresponding to each technical
descriptor. These contain degree of
technical difficulty, target value and
absolute and relative weights. The
QFD team identifies technical
descriptors that are most needed to
fulfill customers expectations and
need improvement
Points to Consider
Team should consider:
Available technology
Technical characteristics
Cost
Schedule
Supplier/subcontractor capability
Manufacturing capabilities
Personnel qualifications
Probability Factor
Probability factors represent
the perceived possibility of
achieving each how. A low
possibility factor can indicate
that a current solution will
not be competitive.
Probability factors are used
to weigh each HOW and
affect the final QFD results
Degree of Technical
Difficulty
This step provides objectives
that guide the design,
objectively assesses progress
Absolute Weight
Weights assigned to relationship matrix times
Importance to Customer
Relative Weight
Weights assigned to relationship matrix times
Absolute Weight
Steel
Aluminum
Titanium
Welding
Die Casting
Sand Casting
Forging
Powder Metallurgy
168
227
193
92
162
122
132
125
251
401
303
167
213
203
165
171
Design Requirements
Component Requirements
Process
Operations
Process Operations
Component
Requirements
2
Design
Requirements
Customer
Requirements
The
The Hows
Hows at
at One
One
Level
Level Become
Become the
the
Whats
Whats at
at the
the Next
Next
Level
Level
References
DR. RICK EDGEMAN, PROFESSOR & CHAIR SIX SIGMA
BLACK BELT Department of Statistics University of Idaho
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT DALE BESTERFIELD,
CAROL BESTERFIELD-MICHINA, GLEN BESTERFIELD,
MARY BESTERFIELD-SACRE 2003
KIPP REYNOLDS STUDENT EASTERN UNIVERSITY 2007