Quality

Function
Deployment
(QFD)

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Benefits Of QFD
 Customer Driven
 Reduces Implementation Time
 Promotes Teamwork
 Provides Documentation

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Customer Driven
 Creates Focus On Customer Requirements
 Uses Competitive Information Effectively
 Prioritizes Resources
 Identifies Items That Can Be Acted On
 Structures Resident Experience/Information

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Reduces Implementation Time
 Decreases Midstream Design Change
 Limits Post Introduction Problems
 Avoids Future Development Redundancies
 Identifies Future Application Opportunities
 Surfaces Missing Assumptions

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Promotes Teamwork
 Based On Consensus
 Creates Communication At Interfaces
 Identifies Actions At Interfaces
 Creates Global View-Out Of Details

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Provides Documentation
 Documents Rationale For Design
 Is Easy To Assimilate
 Adds Structure To The Information
 Adapts To Changes (Living Document)
 Provides Framework For Sensitivity
Analysis

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Voice Of The Customer
 Driving Force Behind QFD
 Customer Dictates Attributes Of Product
 Customer Satisfaction
 Meeting Or Exceeding Customer Expectations
 Customer Expectations Can Be Vague &
General In Nature
 Customer Expectations Must Be Taken
Literally, Not Translated Into What The
Organization Desires

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Collecting Customer
Information
 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?

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Types Of Customer Information
 Solicited, Measurable, Routine
 Cus. & Market Surveys, Trade Trials
 Unsolicited, Measurable, Routine
 Customer Complaints, Lawsuits
 Solicited, Subjective, Routine
 Focus Groups
 Solicited, Subjective, Haphazard
 Trade & Cus. Visits, Indep. Consultants
 Unsolicited, Subjective, Haphazard
 Conventions, Vendors, Suppliers
Besterfield, Mech. Eng.
 House Of Quality

Interrelationship
between
Technical Descriptors

Technical Descriptors
(Voice of the organization)

Requirements
Requirements
(Voice of the

Prioritized
Customer)

Customer
Customer

Relationship between
Requirements and
Descriptors

Prioritized Technical
Descriptors 1

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 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 Assessments
 Prioritize Customer Requirements
 Prioritize Technical Descriptors
1

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

QFD Matrix Technical
Relationship between
Descriptors Customer Requirements
and
Primary
Technical Descriptors
Interrelationship between
Secondary
WHATs vs. HOWs
Technical Descriptors
(correlation matrix) +9 Strong

Secondary
HOWs vs. HOWs +3 Medium

Primary
+1 Weak
+9 Strong Positive
+3 Positive
-3 Negative

Requirements
Requirements

Prioritized
Customer
-9 Strong Negative
Customer

Technical Our
Competitive A’s

Our
Assessment

B’s
A’s
B’s

Absolute Weight
Scale-up Factor
Degree of Technical Difficulty

Target Value
Target Value

Assessment
Competitive

Sales Point
Importance
Customer

Customer
Absolute Weight and Percent
Relative Weight and Percent
Prioritized Technical
1
Descriptors

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

Customer Requirements (What’s)

Secondary
Primary

Tertiary
Customer Requirements
(WHATs)

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Technical Descriptors (How’s)

Secondary
Primary

Tertiary
Technical Descriptors
(HOWs)

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 L - Shaped Diagram
Technical
Descriptors
Primary

Secondary

Secondary
Primary
Requirements
Customer

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Relationship Matrix
Technical
Descriptors
Primary

Secondary Secondary
Primary

Relationship between
Customer
Requirements and
Requirements

Technical Descriptors
Customer

WHATs vs. HOWs

+9 Strong
+3 Medium
+1 Weak

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Correlation Matrix
Interrelationship between Technical
Descriptors (correlation matrix)
HOWs vs. HOWs
Technical
Descriptors +9 Strong Positive
+3 Positive
Primary
-3 Negative
Secondary -9 Strong Negative
Secondary
Primary

Relationship between
Customer Requirements
and
Requirements

Technical Descriptors
Customer

WHATs vs. HOWs

+9 Strong
+3 Medium
+1 Weak
1

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Customer Competitive Assessment

5
3
Requirements

Relationship between
1
Customer

Customer Requirements
2
and
5
Technical Descriptors
1
WHATs vs. HOWs
4
4 +9 Strong
+3 Medium
+1 Weak

Ours

Assessment B’s
Competitive A’s
Customer

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Technical Competitive Assessment

5
3
Requirements

Relationship between
1
Customer

Customer Requirements
2
and
5
Technical Descriptors
1
WHATs vs. HOWs
4
4 +9 Strong
+3 Medium
Technical Our 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 4
+1 Weak
Competitive A’s
Assessment B’s

Our

B’s
A’s
Assessment
Competitive
Customer

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Prioritized Customer
Requirements
 Importance Rating
 Target Value
 Scale-Up Factor
 Sales Point
 Absolute Weight & Percent
 (Importance Rating)
 (Scale-Up Factor)
 (Sales Point)
2

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Technical
Descriptors
Primary Relationship between
Customer Requirements
Secondary and
Technical Descriptors
Secondary

WHATs vs. HOWs

Primary

+9 Strong
+3 Medium
5 7 5 1.2 +1 Weak
3 3 3 1.5

Requirements
Requirements

Prioritized
1 9 2

Customer
1
Customer

2 10 3 1.5 1 15
5 2 5 1 1.5 3
1 4 2 1
4 8 4 1.5
4 1 4 1
Technical Our 1 3 4 21 2 1 4
Competitive A’s
Our

Assessment
B’s
A’s

B’s

Absolute Weight
Scale-up Factor
Target Value
Assessment
Competitive

Sales Point
Importance
Customer

Customer

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Prioritized Technical
Descriptors
 Degree Of Difficulty
 Target Value
 Absolute Weight & Percent
n
a  Rc R is Relationship Matrix
j ij i c is Customer Importance
i 1
 Relative Weight & Percent
n
b  Rd R is Relationship Matrix
j ij i c is Customer Absolute
i 1 Weights 2

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Relationship between
Technical
Descriptors Customer Requirements
and
Primary
Technical Descriptors
Interrelationship between
Secondary
WHATs vs. HOWs
Technical Descriptors
(correlation matrix) +9 Strong

Secondary
HOWs vs. HOWs +3 Medium

Primary
+1 Weak
+9 Strong Positive
+3 Positive 5 7 5 1.2
-3 Negative 3 3 3 1.5

Requirements
Requirements

Prioritized
1 9 2

Customer
-9 Strong Negative 1
Customer

2 10 3 1.5 1 15
5 2 5 1 1.5 3
1 4 2 1
4 8 4 1.5
4 1 4 1
Technical Our 1 3 4 21 2 1 4
Competitive A’s

Our
Assessment

B’s
A’s
B’s

Absolute Weight
Scale-up Factor
Degree of Technical Difficulty 1 8 4 2 9 8 2 5

Target Value
Target Value 2 3 4 31 3 1 5

Assessment
Competitive

Sales Point
Importance
Customer

Customer
Absolute Weight and Percent 90
Relative Weight and Percent 133
Prioritized Technical
2
Descriptors

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 QFD Process

HOWs HOWs
WHATs

WHATs
HOW HOW
MUCH MUCH

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Phase I
Product Planning
Design
Requirements Requirements
Customer

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Phase II
Part Development
Part Quality
Characteristics
Requirements
Design

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Phase III
Process Planning
Key Process
Characteristics Operations
Part Quality

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.

 Phase IV
Production Planning
Production
Requirements
Key Process
Operations

Besterfield, Mech. Eng. Production Launch

 QFD Summary
 Orderly Way Of Obtaining Information &
Presenting It
 Shorter Product Development Cycle
 Considerably Reduced Start-Up Costs
 Fewer Engineering Changes
 Reduced Chance Of Oversights During Design
Process
 Environment Of Teamwork
 Consensus Decisions
 Preserves Everything In Writing
2

Besterfield, Mech. Eng.