Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

QUALITY FUCTION DEPLOYMENT

32,008 views

Published on

HI FRIENDS
HERE IS THE TOPIC IN TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Login to see the comments

QUALITY FUCTION DEPLOYMENT

  1. 1. QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT (QFD) CHAPTER 6
  2. 2. QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT (QFD) Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is an approach to design introduced in Japan in 1966 by Yoji Akao.
  3. 3. Dr. Akao is a professor of industrial Engineering at Tamagawa University in Tokyo and is one of the foremost leaders in the TQC movement in Japan. He has long led and participated in many of the key research committees of the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE), the Japanese Standards Association (JSA) and the Japanese Society for Quality Control (JSQC)
  4. 4. Why QFD? A lack of well defined product development processes in research and design can be the root cause for the ruination of a company. To have a successful product, we must understand user needs.
  5. 5. Why QFD? QFD provides a formal process to understand user needs and to weave these needs across the entire product development cycle including manufacturing.
  6. 6. DEFINITION OF QFD QFD is a very systematic and organized approach of taking customer needs and demands in the consideration when designing a new products and services or when improving existing products and services.
  7. 7. CUSTOMER DRIVEN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Design Requirements C u Sto mer vo ice P r o c e s s P a r t s D e s i g n Process Requirements Production Standards Parts Requirements Phase I: Product Planning Phase II: Part Deployment Phase III: Process Planning Phase IV: Production planning Phase I: Product Planning Phase II: Part Deployment Phase III: Process Planning Phase IV: Production planning
  8. 8. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>CUSTOMER DRIVEN </li></ul><ul><li>Creates forces on customer requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Uses competitive information effectively </li></ul><ul><li>Prioritizes resources </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>CUSTOMER DRIVEN </li></ul><ul><li>Identifies items that can be acted upon </li></ul><ul><li>Structures resident experience/ </li></ul><ul><li>Information </li></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>REDUCES IMPLEMENTATION TIME </li></ul><ul><li>Decreases midstream design charge </li></ul><ul><li>Limits post introduction problems </li></ul><ul><li>Avoids future development redundancies </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>REDUCES IMPLEMENTATION TIME </li></ul><ul><li>Identifies future application </li></ul><ul><li>opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Surfaces missing assumptions </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>PROMOTES TEAMWORK </li></ul><ul><li>Consensus based </li></ul><ul><li>Creates communication at interfaces </li></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>PROMOTES TEAMWORK </li></ul><ul><li>Identifies actions at interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Creates global view out of details </li></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>PROVIDES DOCUMENTATION </li></ul><ul><li>Documents rationale for design </li></ul><ul><li>Is easy to assimilate </li></ul><ul><li>Adds structure to the information </li></ul>
  15. 16. <ul><li>QFD BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><li>PROVIDES DOCUMENTATION </li></ul><ul><li>Adapts to changes, a living document </li></ul><ul><li>Provides framework for sensitivity analysis </li></ul>
  16. 17. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process BASIC HOUSE OF QUALITY MATRIX +9 Strong Positive +3 Positive -9 Strong Negative - 3 Negative +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Our Product A's Product B's Product Technical Our Product 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 Competitive A's Product 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 Assessment B's Product 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Absolute weight Sales Point Target Value Scale Up Factor Importance to Customer Customer Competitive Assessment Primary Prioritized Cutomer Requirements Interrelationship between technical descriptors (Correlation Matrix) HOWs Vs. HOWs. Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors HOWs Vs. HOWs . Target Value Absolute Weight Relative Weight Degree of Technical difficulty Prioritized Cutomer Requirements
  17. 18. Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable REFINEMENT OF CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATS) Secondary Teritary
  18. 19. Steel Aluminum Titanium Welding Die Casting Sand Casting Forging REFINEMENT OF TECHNICAL DESCRIPTORS Primary Manufacturing Process Material Selection Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Secondary Teritary Power Metallurgy
  19. 20. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Manufacturing Selection Process Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable STRUCTURING AN L-SHAPED DIAGRAM Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) (WHATS) Secondary Primary Secondary
  20. 21. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process Secondary Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable ADDING RELATIONSHIP MATRIX TO THE HOUSE OF QUALITY +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak` Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Primary Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors WHATs Vs. HOWs .
  21. 22. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process Secondary Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable ADDING INTERRELATIONSHIP MATRIX TO THE HOUSE OF QUALITY +9 Strong Positive +3 Positive -9 Strong Negative - 3 Negative Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Primary Interrelationship between technical descriptors (Correlation Matrix) WHATs Vs. HOWs. Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors WHATs Vs. HOWs . +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak
  22. 23. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process Secondary Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable ADDING CUSTOMER COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT TO THE HOUSE OF QUALITY +9 Strong Positive +3 Positive -9 Strong Negative - 3 Negative +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Our Product A's Product B's Product 3 4 2 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 Customer Competitive Assessment Primary Interrelationship between technical descriptors (Correlation Matrix) HOWs Vs. HOWs. Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors WHATs Vs. HOWs .
  23. 24. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process Secondary Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable ADDING TECHNICAL COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT TO THE HOUSE OF QUALITY +9 Strong Positive +3 Positive -9 Strong Negative - 3 Negative +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Our Product A's Product B's Product 3 4 2 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 Customer Competitive Assessment Primary Interrelationship between technical descriptors (Correlation Matrix) HOWs Vs. HOWs. Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors WHATs Vs. HOWs . Assessment B's Product 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Competitive A's Product 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 Technical Our Product 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0
  24. 25. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process Secondary Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable ADDING PRIORITIZED CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF QUALITY +9 Strong Positive +3 Positive -9 Strong Negative - 3 Negative +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Our Product A's Product B's Product Technical Our Product 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 Competitive A's Product 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 Assessment B's Product 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 8 4 1.3 1.5 16 4 5 3 5 4 1 1.5 8 4 5 3 5 4 4 1 5 4 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 4 2 7 4 1.3 2 18 3 3 4 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 5 3 1 1 5 Absolute weight Sales Point Target Value Scale Up Factor Importance to Customer Customer Competitive Assessment Primary Prioritized Cutomer Requirements Interrelationship between technical descriptors (Correlation Matrix) HOWs Vs. HOWs. Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors WHATs Vs. HOWs .
  25. 26. Technical Descriptors (HOWs) Material Selection Manufacturing Process Secondary Reasonable Cost Aerodynamic Look Nice Finish Corrosion resistant Light Weight Strength Durable ADDING PRIORITIZED CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF QUALITY +9 Strong Positive +3 Positive -9 Strong Negative - 3 Negative +9 Strong +3 Medium +1 Weak Steel Aluminum Titanium Die Casting Sand Casting Forging Powder metallurgy Welding Primary Performance Aesthetics Cutomer requirements (WHATs) Secondary Our Product A's Product B's Product Technical Our Product 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 Competitive A's Product 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 Assessment B's Product 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 8 4 1.3 1.5 16 4 5 3 5 4 1 1.5 8 4 5 3 5 4 4 1 5 4 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 4 2 7 4 1.3 2 18 3 3 4 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 5 3 1 1 5 Absolute weight Sales Point Target Value Scale Up Factor Importance to Customer Customer Competitive Assessment Primary Prioritized Cutomer Requirements Interrelationship between technical descriptors (Correlation Matrix) HOWs Vs. HOWs. Relationship between customer requirements and technical descriptors WHATs Vs. HOWs . Target Value 5 5 5 4 5 0 0 0 Absolute Weight 168 227 193 92 162 122 132 125 Relative Weight 251 401 303 167 213 203 165 171 Degree of Technical difficulty 1 6 9 4 7 3 6 9 Prioritized Cutomer Requirements

×