Quality Function Deployment

1
Quality Function Deployment

• QFD
• Benchmarking

2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
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)

5
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

6
A successful InnovationShower Head with
Anti-lime System(Friedrich Grohe AG, Germany)
Eversheim 97
7
(No Transcript)
8
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)

9

• 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.

10

• 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.

11
Standard Process Classification System of the
US-basedInternational Benchmarking Clearinghouse

• 1. 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

12
The Xerox Benchmarking Process

• 1. 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

13
Critical Success Factors used by Xerox while
Conducting BM

• Customer satisfaction
• Employee satisfaction
• Return on assets
• Market share

14
In the BM Exercises Conducted by Xerox
Areas that have been benchmarked
Bechmarking partners
Manufacturing operations ---------- Manufacturing
safety ---------------- Factory floor
layout Research and product development Distributi
on --------------------------- Billing and
Collection --------------- Quality Management
---------------- Quality improvement
---------------- Supplier development
---------------
Saturn (a division of GM) Fuji-Xerox DuPont Cummin
s Engine Hewlett-Packard L.L. Bean Inc. American
Express Toyota Florida Power and Light Honda
Manufacturing of America
15
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.

16

• QFD is a structured method that
• uses the 7 MP 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.

17
Establishing Customer Requirements Needs, Wants
and Exciters

• Yesterdays exciters are todays wants. Todays
  wants are tomorrows 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.

18
The 7 Manufacturing Planning tools are

• Affinity Diagram
• Interrelationship Graph
• Tree Diagram
• Matrix Diagram
• Process Diagram Program Chart
• Arrow Diagram
• Matrix Data Analysis

19
What-How Matrix Relationship
Jackson 96
HOW
WHAT
20
Level 1 Matrix Deployment
Jackson 96
Objective (How)
Sell Product
Goal (What)
Make Profit
21
Level 2 Matrix Deployment (and so on)
Jackson 96
Objective (How)
Manufacture Products
Receive Orders
Ship Goods
Goal (What)
Advertise
Sell Product
22
Design Requirements
Engineering Design
Product Characteristics
Customer Requirements
Design Requirements
Engineering design
Deployment of Customer Requirements to Product
Characteristics Jackson 96
23
Product Characteristics
Manufacturing/ Purchasing Operations
Production/ Quality Controls
Engineering Design
Product Characteristics
Manufacturing/ Purchasing Operations
Deployment of Product Characteristics to
Production/Quality Controls Jackson 96
24
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

25
Step 1 Establishing Customer Requirements
Jackson 96
Strong
Design Requirements
Medium
Consumer Priority
Weak
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
26
Step 2 Determining Design Requirements
Jackson 96
Strong
Design Requirements
Medium
Consumer Priority
Module-level Replacement
Mean Time Between Failures 5000 hrs
Accuracy 0.0001 in
Self-Calibration
Computer Controlled
Mean Time to Repair 0.5 hrs
Weak
Built-in Self-Test
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
27
Step 3 Developing the Relationship Matrix
Jackson 96
Strong
Design Requirements
Medium
Consumer Priority
Module-level Replacement
Mean Time Between Failures 5000 hrs
Accuracy 0.0001 in
Self-Calibration
Computer Controlled
Mean Time to Repair 0.5 hrs
Weak
Built-in Self-Test
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
28
Step4 Developing the Interaction Matrix
Jackson 96
Strong
Medium
Consumer Priority
Module-level Replacement
Mean Time Between Failures 5000 hrs
Accuracy 0.0001 in
Self-Calibration
Computer Controlled
Mean Time to Repair 0.5 hrs
Weak
Built-in Self-Test
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
29
Benchmarking Score based on the degree to which
customer requirements are met
Strong 9
Medium 3
Consumer Priority
Module-level Replacement
Mean Time Between Failures 5000 hrs
Self-Calibration
Accuracy 0.0001 in
Computer Controlled
Mean Time to Repair 0.5 hrs
Weak 1
Built-in Self-Test
1
2
3
4
5
Customer Requirements
Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility
A B C O
1
O C B A
CR-2 Ease of Operation
B C O A
CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance
A B C O
Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time
A B O C
Cr-5 Highly Reliable
Risk
Absolute
12 9 15 14 2 8
3
Weights
27 15 14 6 24 3
Relative
108
Key Elements
X X X
Technical Benchmarking Our Company O Competitor
A Competitor B Competitor C
5
B O C A
O B A C
B A O C
C B A O
O A B C
C B A O
O B A C
4
3
2
1