“analysis of market segment with quality function deployment” · pdf fileanalysis...

Analysis of Market Segment with Quality Function Deployment 59

I J M E • January-June 2015 • Volume 8 • Issue 1

“Analysis of Market segment with Quality Function Deployment”1Mohammad Israr and 2Anshul Gangele

1Balaji Engineering College, Junagadh (Gujarat) 362014, E-mail: [email protected] of Technology & Management, Gwalior (M.P.) 474001, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The professional disc jockey industry is a specialized market where isolating the customers needs is of greatconcern. Learning, and satisfying customer requirements is challenging to any industry but what makes this industrydifferent from the others is the actual customer identification process is unclear. Unlike the automotive industry, wherethe customer is well defined and products are marketed towards a specific client, the disc jockey industry has manydifferent types of customers. Some of the customers are known and some are unknown.

The breakdown of the customers by ranking per product is hard to calculate as well. There is an area of opportunity in thedisc jockey market to provide industrial engineering tools in the form of quality function deployment to help identifycustomer needs and wants and convert those needs and wants into feasible and profitable finished goods to be soldworldwide.

National, a professional disc jockey audio company in Cumberland, RI, has expressed their interest and need for theimproved method of product development. Specifically, National would like to reduce the number of engineering changesduring the product development process thus reducing costs and production lead time. National has also expressedinterest in developing relationships between disc jockey (DJ) product features and their customer requirements to aid inparadigm shift decisions.

Currently the DJ market includes older technology items such as turntables and vinyl and also includes innovativetechnology products such MP3 media, computer controllers, and hard drive integration. These market behaviors suggesta paradigm shift to include the technologies of today, as well as the interface of the past, which must be identified andevaluated. The QFD process has been selected for this evaluation due to the historical and theoretically potential QFDbenefits to the project. This selection of QFD must be evaluated and justified to create a new paradigm that satisfies the DJproducts market. The following literature review will show that QFD is state of the art. Following that, the methodologyused is shown, including a justification for QFD, and the detailed implementation

Keywords: Quality Function Deployment, Market Segment.

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960’s, Quality Function Deployment(QFD) has been implemented in various industriesworldwide providing a tool to aid in the research,development, and production of various productsand systems that they are developed in (Karlsson,1997). QFD often utilized matrices in the form ofcompetitive analysis charts as well as house ofquality diagrams. The combination of these toolsaid in new product development, and showcompanies where new hybrid products can bedeveloped to maximize profits (Bergquist andAbeysekera, 1996). QFD keeps the customer focusthrough all sections of the process.

QFD has typically been used in largercorporations and has been integrated across allproducts. Recently, QFD has been implemented insmaller firms with more specified markets (Chan

and Wu, 2002). The purpose of this research is toperform a case study in a smaller market to a newproduct in the development stage where there aremany constraints to the traditional model that arenot typically present in larger corporations.

This Paper is also intended to provide a clearmethodology of implementing QFD into the discjockey product market. Upon completion the resultsof the QFD implementation will be measured basedon comparing the output results to historical datafor similar projects.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review has been categorized intothree basic categories in regards to the primary useto this research. Much of this literature, however,has useful information in regards to all of thecategories.

60 Mohammad Israr and Anshul Gangele


Overview Literature

Salheigh and Monplaisir discuss ways themarketplace has shifted towards global operations.Their work goes into detail regarding how theInternet has been able to integrate the market fromglobal perspectives. It is suggested that designengineering should be based on methodologies thatcan analyze current practices to then estimate thecapabilities of performing certain operationsconcurrently with collaborative efforts (Salheighand Monplaisir, 2003). The framework suggestedconsists of six modules that provide a plan forcomputer-supported collaboration.

Gonzalez et al. discuss the concept ofincorporating intelligence on markets, consumers,and technologies in strategy environments arediscussed (Gonzalez et al., 2004). The paper linksmarketing and manufacturing strategies bydeveloping continuous improvements strategies.

The idea of putting marketing andmanufacturing together to provide the competitiveadvantage in the market is discussed. This paper isvery important to the proposed research because itprovides the solid groundwork for keeping theorganizations goals and the end customer in mind.The work provides a good start to showing how tobridge marketing and manufacturing in atechnology driven industry. Customer feedback isalso discussed. Tan and Shien discuss how thequality of a product or service is directly correlatedto customer satisfaction (Tan and Shien, 2000). QFDis implemented in their research specifically in theform of competitive analysis charts andmethodologies which can be implemented in theproposed research. There is also an example of howto use customer perception with the Kano model.The Kano categories include rating features as‘must- be’, ‘one-dimensional’ and ‘attractive’ whichis used to describe features in consideration forproducts in development. This model is illustratedfurther in regards to its implementation with thisspecific QFD study.

Bergquist and Abeysekera discuss how to useQFD to determine the importance of productcharacteristics (Bergquist and Abeysekera, 1996).The paper discusses target values for productcharacteristics as well as relationships. Scalingscores and weighting methodology for relationshipsare referenced which lead to the desired outcomes.Their case study is a shoe design ergonomics study

conforming to customer requirements as well asmeeting required safety standards.

Matzler and Hiterhuber discuss how to useKano’s model of customer satisfaction for use inproduct development projects to increase successrate (Matzler and Hiterhuber, 1998). The approachdescribed comes from a management backgroundas compared to an engineering background.

Concepts of competition, customer retention,and customer satisfaction are described. Easy tofollow steps are also presented to use the methodincluding: identifying the product requirements,constructing a Kano questionnaire, conductinginterviews, and evaluation. The paper gives a briefoverview of the QFD approach and providesbenefits to combining Kano’s method with the QFDapproach.

Griffin and Hauser discuss patterns ofcommunication among marketing, engineering,and manufacturing using the QFD process (Griffinand Huaser, 1992). At the time of printing, scientificresearch suggested that new product teams fordevelopment are more successful if thecommunication between different areas of thedevelopment process is increased. A comparisonof new-product strategies is presented in a figurewhich illustrates the placement of projects basedon their success rate verses the percent of companysales from new products. There is also a figureshowing OEM-to-Supplier communication changesas a result of the implementation of QFD. Accordingto Natter et al., incentive schemes are affecting firmsthat do not use QFD more than firms that use theQFD process (Natter et al., 2001). Incentive schemescan determine the weights for performancemeasures. In other words, as the QFD processproposes implemented features, it is expected thatthere are less changes as compared to trial and errortesting (Natter et al., 2001). Searching strategies,product evaluation methods, learningenvironments, and performance measures inrelationships to QFD are also discussed.

Housel and Kanevsky discuss the promise ofbusiness process reengineering (BPR) and how itneeds to relate to return on investment process(ROP). ROP is the process for which the return oninvestment (ROI) is calculated. The ideology ofreducing unnecessary operational costs is a criticalelement to providing competition in any market



(Housel and Kanevsky, 1995). Their paper providessections that cover topics in regard to BPR and ROP.A relationship to thermodynamics is illustratedwith the concept of entropy, allowing changes inthe environment can be controlled by numerouselementary changes. This paper providesinformation to QFD by helping to answer thequestion “Where and how much investment shouldbe made by a company’s processes results in asignificant increase in return on investment in theprocess final consumable product/service?”(Housel and Kanevsky, 1995)

Methods Literature

Reich and Levy discuss developing a singleintuitive method for using non-linear programmingto manage product development projects underactive and constantly changing constraints (Reichand Levy, 2004). Their model is an improvementon existing models that use QFD, while extendingthe capabilities of the house of quality even further.There is a brief description on good companyprofiles for candidates to use the method in a realproject. No case study is provided. The softwaredeveloped to use this methodology has been usedin computerized manufacturing industries.

Rajala and Savolainen discuss a new approachfor applying QFD methods with the addition of theIDEF0 business modeling (Rajala and Savolainen,1996). Five basic steps are presented which include:modeling the business process and transforming itinto a simulation model form; determining thecustomer’s preferences and requirements;performing statistical analysis to model thecustomer preference distributions; choosingvariables to be varied in simulation experiments;and comparing the results from the experimentswith the customer preferences. The paper alsodiscusses how to separate the voice of the customerinto categories based on the business process. Tu etal. show how to implement the house of quality usingMicrosoft Excel software combined with Lindo linearprogramming software (Y. L. Tu et al., 2003).

The roof of the house of quality is used in theoptimization of customer requirements andtechnical attributes to the products for decisionmaking purposes.

Rangaswamy and Lilien discuss varioussoftware tools used in product development

(Rangaswamy and Lilien, 1997). The software toolsreviewed are specifically used for productdevelopment decision making. Multiple softwarepackages are summarized with a useful list ofbenefits and limitations. The actual softwarepackages named in this paper may be outdated.However, the methods described for selectingappropriate software is useful information forproduct development software evaluation.

Govers’ discusses the value of the QFD processseparate from the value of QFD as a tool. (Govers,1996). The paper covers the importance of teambuilding and roles of team members. The house ofquality is explained and the process ofimplementation is compared with the Kano modelshowing how functions can satisfy customersrelative to what amount of investment goes into therespective functions. This directly relates to theability of functions to satisfy customers. There arealso remarks on implementation requirements ofthe company for successful QFD implementation.

Tang et al. describe how to take into accountfinancial factors and uncertainties in the productdesign process using fuzzy optimization andgenetic algorithms (Tang et al., 2002). This isprimarily used to develop resource allocation tomeet the goals of the organization. Fuzzyformulation for costs and budget constraints aremodeled to maximize the overall customersatisfaction. The difference between overallsatisfaction and enterprise satisfaction is discussedas well.

Cristiano et al. discuss the results of over 400companies using QFD for product development toshow the positive impact (Cristiano et al., 2001).Useful data show percentage of success rates forQFD as well as team size. The importance of thecross- functional team understanding theimportance of the relationship betweenindependent activities is stressed. They also showhow companies who had a stronger and broaderset of reasons to use QFD were more likely to reportreduced lead-time as a result of the QFD exercise.

One alternative to QFD found in literature isdeveloping taxonomies for design requirements ina corporate environment (Gershenson and Stauffer,1999). Taxonomies are used to classify large bodiesof information. They can provide order to massiveamounts of data and can be arrange in a variety of



ways as discussed in the paper. According to theabstract, they claim for it to be able to facilitate a“broader and clearer form of QFD…” (Gershensonand Stauffer, 1999). This theory seems very similarto IDEF0. It also seems to be a good tool to provideQFD meeting notes on subjective decisions in thematrix and why the decisions have been made forvalidation purposes.

Crow illustrates a step by step process for goingthrough the QFD method for his company whichuses the technique when consulting for clients(Crow, 2002). This work is listed online and has beennoted in various papers including a literaturereview by Chan and Wu (Chan and Wu, 2002) aslegitimate. There are many valuable explanationson how to implement the theoretical QFD processin real world exercises. The main points include:gathering customer needs; product planning;conceptual development; and developing thedeployment matrix. Specific areas of interest aresuggested in real world experience which isvaluable to any QFD case study (Crow, 2002).

Karlsson discusses using QFD to managesoftware requirements in regards to issues andexplanations for forming cross-functional teams, aswell as additional notes on every step of the QFDprocess using the house of quality (Karlsson, 1997).

An interesting point discussed is how thecomplete traditional framework is not alwaysapplicable to software development and integrationinto all companies. It is mentioned that evaluatingQFD can be used to pick the useful concepts andthen customize a framework for the specific needsof the organization.

Kaulio discusses seven different methods usedin the product development process of differentbusiness worldwide in the spirit of focusing oncustomers in the total quality managementapproach (Kaulio, 1998). The seven selectedmethods which are discussed include QFD, user-oriented product development, concept testing, betatesting, the consumer idealized design method, thelead user method, and participatory ergonomics.These seven methods are compared and contrasted.Many of them have been adopted by firms to usewith product development and most are related inat least one respect.

Reich and Levy published a paper improvingprevious models for QFD by incorporating realistic

cost functions and allowing continuous use of thesefunctions throughout the project (Reich and Levy,2004). The shortcomings of the roof of the house ofquality have also been reduced through weightingimportances based on the voice of the customer.There are many specific case studies compared aswell as illustrated methods to use theirimprovements. One specific area of importance tothis paper is that Reich and Levy addressengineering constraints which can have partialinvestments allowing the amount of investment toa specific engineering constraint to be variable inthe QFD process.

METHODOLOGY

Why QFD?

Current Methods for Product Development

In this research, a method for determining the voiceof the customer (VOC) is needed to provide the bestquality products to the market. Customer focus isone of the key components in a total qualitymanagement approach (Kaulio, 1998). There arevarious methods that firms use to develop products.These methods can be classified by specificcomponents included with the methodology. Someof the basic classification points include:specification phases; concept development phases;and prototyping phases (Kaulio, 1998).

There are many procedures used in practicewhich fit into multiple classifications. “The issueof selecting methods for customer involvement inproduct development is, however, not a matter ofselecting a specific method, but a matter ofdesigning a whole system of methods linkedtogether in an overall process that focuses designefforts on the customer’s future satisfaction.”(Kaulio, 1998)

Feasible solutions found in the literatureinclude: QFD; user-oriented product development;concept testing; beta testing; consumer idealizeddesign; the lead user method; participatoryergonomics; IDEF0 programming; and taxonomies.

QFD has been described as a customer-orientedapproach to product innovation (Govers, 1996).According to Govers, the roots of the method arebased on a slightly different concept of Total QualityControl (TQC), which was introduced byFeigenbaum. This separate version utilizes



“Company Wide Quality Control” (Govers, 1996).This method allows the voice of the customer to beimplemented throughout the entire process inrelationship to various aspects of the businessmodel including the entire product developmentprocess from idea conception throughmanufacturing.

Traditional QFD provides a house of qualitywhich relates customer requirements, and designrequirements as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 alsoshows how the matrix provides a competitiveanalysis which makes QFD a very useful tool whentrying to pick features that provide directcompetition to an existing competitor’s productwhile adding features that are shown as abreakthrough opportunity (ReVelle et al., 1998). Abreakthrough opportunity provides a competitiveadvantage to the firm relative to the customerrequirements.

There are many ways to calculate the values ofthe customer requirements and different heuristicsto select features depending on the specifics of theproblem, providing flexibility to the model. QFDcan also accommodate projects with largeparameter sets including hundreds of technicalattributes and hundreds of customer requirements(Angeli et al., 1998).

Figure 2, from the National StandardsAssociation, shows how different matrices areformed to compare customer requirements todesign requirement, design requirements to partrequirements, part requirements to processrequirements, and process requirements to the

output of the customer satisfaction. The bottom lineto this relationship is outputting customersatisfaction.

QFD offers a specification phase which directlyrelates the customer requirements with customersatisfaction through four or more basic phases. Forthis project at National Industries, only the designprocess and the details are needed. However, theprocess for manufacturing and production arehandled through an OEM manufacturer somodification will be needed to the QFD model toaccount for this. The concept development categoryof QFD as shown in Figure 2 is through the firstand second step. There is not a means for cyclingconcepts suggested back into the process for furtherevaluation and refinement.

National Industries typically receives aprototype for mass production approval. Howeverat this stage, the tooling for the product is completeand there is not the budget to provide engineeringchanges at this point. In this case, the prototype isused to only to verify the specifications, ascompared to a prototype that is used to reevaluatethe concept development, where new changes maybe made for a new prototype.

The following methods provide additional toolsthat have been used in product developmentprocesses.

The user-oriented product development processuses human factors and ergonomics to develop thedesign of the product (Kaulio, 1998). The primarycharacteristics of this process include providing ananalysis of the problem or opportunity suggestedby customers as a starting point to create a set ofuser requirements. Similar to the QFD approach,the user requirements are transformed intoquantifiable engineering requirements. At this pointin the process, prototypes are tested by users andmodified by designers.Figure 1: Basic QFD Relationship. (ReVelle et al., 1998)

Figure 2: QFD Progression. (Qimpro Standards Association)



This specification process in user-orientedproduct development typically requires thecombination of high volume sales with lowproduction costs. This method has been applied toareas such as designing work and military clothing,hand tools, public systems, and public transports(Kaulio, 1998). These examples either have verylarge research and development budgets, or the costof prototyping is relatively low. To manufacturedifferent prototypes of a hammer, for example, ismuch cheaper than to manufacture a computercontrolled device. However, public systems are veryexpensive. The difference being that public systemshave a larger budget for product development ascompared to a manufacturing a computercontrolled device or a DJ device that NationalIndustries designs. The life expectancy of publicsystems is measured in decades as compared to acomputer based product, such as DJ equipment,which may be obsolete by the time it comes tomarket.

Concept testing is similar to the user-orientedproduct development process in that customers areused in the concept stage. However, concept testinguses more of an integrated approach forprototyping and specification phases. In concepttesting, focus groups may be created to cometogether, and asked to react to stimulatingdrawings, models, and non functioning prototypes.The major component missing from this process isengineering and manufacturing constraints. Thismethod does not provide communications channelsbetween different functions of the firm. Concepttesting provides direct customer feedback to thearea of the company that is performing the process.With the DJ market being such a volatile one withhighly competitive firms fighting for market share,the engineering and design forces must worktogether concurrently.

Beta testing is a back end testing procedurefrequently used in software engineering (Kaulio,1998). Beta testing specification capabilities arecompletely in a back end approach wheredesigners provide the original specifications,engineers produce design specifications andtechnical requirements, and manufacturing willimplement the proposed product from the chain.At this point, customers evaluate the product andpropose changes after all of the design hasoccurred.

Beta testing is very useful for the electronicportion of DJ product development such thatsoftware written or audio preferences can be alteredby programming changes. In other words, betatesting is very useful for fine tuning a product,rather than designing the product. It is very similarto a guess and check method, which would increasethe time to market, unless the first product is goodenough to pass the checks.

Consumer idealized design can be described asa process for having customers involved in theactual design of new to market goods or services(Kaulio, 1998).

This process involves focus groups similar toconcept testing. In this case, the focus group sessionbegins with a blank sheet of paper and the membersof the focus group develop the product as comparedto a focus group evaluating the product. A designis formed, technical requirements are formed, andvalidation for the decisions is documented. Thespecification phase of the consumer idealizedprocess includes 100% of the focus group’s decisionsand does not take into account the engineering ortechnical requirements to make that happen. Forsimple products, such as hand tools, the technicalrequirements to make these focus grouprecommendations are not a critical factor in thedevelopment. However, for complex products, suchas computer software, like what National needs inthe DJ industry, focus groups might developproducts which are not feasible to produce underthe cost constraints. There is no prototyping phasewith this process.

Generally, focus groups will provide anexcellent voice of the customer (VOC) if thesampling for the focus group fairly represents thecustomer market. However, customers alwayswant a feature loaded product at a featureless pricepoint. This presents a contradiction in focus groupsdeveloping products. If the focus group does notweight the features that they are specifying, thenthe designers and engineers do not have enoughinformation to accurately rate these features whenfeatures need to be removed for costing reasons.There are methods to obtain cost-benefit trade-offsin new products, however, this can be difficult tovalidate for new technologies which are not easilyunderstandable by average users because theyhave not been previously introduced into themarket.



The lead user method is very similar to theconsumer idealized design method except thatusers are selected for a focus group based on theirspecific needs that are ahead of the producttechnology curve (Kaulio, 1998). The customers ina focus group for the lead user method are selectedbecause they are users who face the needs of themarket months or years before the majority ofcustomers in that market. This method has similarrelationships to the specification phases, conceptdevelopment phases, and prototyping phases as theconsumer idealized design method. The majordifference is the selection of users. One advantageof this method over the consumer idealized designmethod is that the information is a forecast into thefuture. The disadvantage is the risk involved. Manyproducts are designed with the intentions ofreaching the masses with only penetrating a smallsection of the market. The reason for this risk is thatthe select focus group members do not necessarilyrepresent what the entire customer base will wantor need int the future. There is a higher productrisk involved with the lead user method because ofthe uncertainty in the ability of the focus group toaccurately predict trends in the disc jockey market...

Participatory ergonomics uses customers in thedesign phase to actively work as designers (Kaulio,1998). This method is primarily used in workspacedesign and has not been reported as a method thathas been used with the design of mass marketproducts (Kaulio, 1998).

Rajala and Savolainen applied the IDEF0technique (Integration Definition language 0 formodeling function) to the QFD model. As shownin Figure 3, IDEF0 sets up a model of the businessprocess and transforms it into a simulation modelform (Rajala and Savolainen, 1996). Figure 4 showshow this model has been used in a specific businessexample with inputs, outputs, constraints, andresources expended (Rajala and Savolainen, 1996).

The specification phases with IDEF0 are very usefulfor setting up the relationships in an easy to usegraphical representation.

The concept development phase is unclear withIDEF0. Prototyping may occur at the conclusion ofthe IDEF0 process.

IMPLEMENTATION

Project Definition

As mentioned in the methodology, QFD is anoverall concept that translates customerrequirements into the appropriate technicalattributes which can then be designed andengineered (Chan and Wu, 2001). This method willbe used in the traditional sense to provide thetranslation. In addition, it will be customized toaccount for different customer segments andvariable costs and times to production due to OEMrelationships.

Objectives, their variables, and their subjectiveconstraints are provided in the project definition.The objective was set from upper management andconfirmed during the first QFD meeting with theteam.

Objectives

With the release of a competitor product thatprovides opportunity advantages to a currentexisting National product line, the project’sobjective is to provide a feature set for the newproduct.

The feature set must provide direct competitionto competitors by optimizing the features neededby the target customers, providing excitementFigure 3: IDEF0 Example (Rajala and Savolainen, 1996)

Figure 4: IDEF0 Example (Rajala and Savolainen, 1996)



features, and to meet a price point set by sales andmarketing management. This new product mustprovide National with the competitive advantage,within appropriate production costs to meet salesprice points.

The objective function is to maximize overallproduct quality by selecting the feature set subjectto the constraints.

Variables

Variables for the project include all of the possiblecustomers which the project will be marketedtowards, all of the feasible technical attributes, aswell as data defining, specifying, and relating thesevariables.

Constraints

Explicit constraints for this project include the totalproduction cycle time and the total cost of theproduct. The man hours available is a constraint,however it is not included in this QFD model.

National provided support for this QFDapproach from top level management down.Management supported this initial project as a pilotto introduce the concept of quality into their productdevelopment process. National has not set aconstraint on the time allocated to develop thefeature sets. However, for future projects atNational, historical data on QFD development andmanufacturing deadlines will add the additionalconstraint of the time allowed for research on thevariables to improve the accuracy of the data setfor variables.

Once the project is defined, the process can bedeveloped to meet the demands of the specificproject.

Process

The process to implement QFD at National to meetproject objectives includes:

1. Forming the cross functional QFD team.

2. Selecting the user interface to communicatewith the team including software selection.

3. Developing the house of quality.

4. Developing a model to output the qualitywith fixed variables.

5. Maximizing the quality by changingvariables within the constraints.

These steps in the process are further illustratedand start with forming the cross functional QFDteam.

FORMING THE CROSS FUNCTIONALTEAM

The initial activity to start the QFD process oncethe project definition is completed is to form a crossfunctional team which will gather peoplerepresenting different functions of the organization(Karlsson, 1996). For National, this includesrepresentation from sales, marketing, engineering,product development, and design. The QFD leaderis also included in this group to direct the team.

Including expertise from different functionalareas has been shown to contribute to the decisionmaking process in QFD projects (Cristiano et al.,2001). Various literature sources have stated thatthis is one of the most critical elements to successfulQFD projects.

The National QFD team consisted of sevenmembers from the engineering, marketing, sales,management, and product development divisionsof National:

• QFD Facilitator: (Project Manager).

• Upper Level Management. (Senior V.P. ofSales and Marketing).

• Product Development (ExperiencedProduct Developer).

• Sales (National Sales Manager).

• Marketing/Advertising (Senior V.P. of Salesand Marketing).

• Industrial Design (Industrial Designer;Industrial Design Manager).

• Engineering (Director of Engineering andProduct Development).

The team size has proven to be appropriateconsidering the size of National. In a studyperformed in 1986, 66% of Japanese QFD teamsreported to be ten people or less (Cristiano et al.,2001). This information validates that there is noreason to suspect that seven member team is notan appropriate size.



The QFD facilitator is responsible for the QFDprocess generation and the management anddirection of the team.

The Senior Vice President of Sales andMarketing has a dual role representing National’sMarketing/Advertising department as well asproviding the leadership and support for the QFDproject from upper level management. Strongpositive relationships between upper levelmanagement support and QFD success have beenconcluded in various surveys with QFD successrates (Cristiano et al., 2001).

Product development’s expertise to the crossfunctional team brings historical data on theNational historical products, information oncompetitive products, as well as expertise from theDJ market. National’s product developer is also amobile DJ with over 20 years experience which ishelpful for defining and describing variables in theQFD model as well as providing customer insightto the product.

The sales division is represented by National’snational sales manager with over 20 yearsexperience in selling products to dealers as well ascommunication channels between the finishedproducts and the customers. Sales is a vital role tothe QFD matrix development because manyfeatures have a technical nature that needs to bemarketable, such that the sales department cansuccessfully produce sales and procure the productsin a timely manner. National’s national salesmanager also travels to dealers and trade showswhich provide valuable expertise in QFD processdiscussions.

Two team members are from the industrialdesign department. One member is a Nationalindustrial designer. The other member is themanager of the industrial design department. Thedesigner is responsible for providing the form forthe product once the quality function deploymentprocess provides the feature set. The industrialdesign manager is responsible for providing generalexpertise in regards to the voice of the customerand how customer requirements relate to technicalattributes.

In planning for this project, National plans touse an OEM for much of the engineering work tobe completed. However, National does employ inhouse engineers for certain components. The

engineering function is represented by the directorof engineering and product development. Thismember’s expertise is in costing and feasibility ofthe technical attributes suggested and listed in theHOQ.

Once the team has been formed, the projectmanager is responsible for selecting an appropriateuser interface for the QFD development process andsearching and selecting possible software packagescapable to meet the demands of this project.

DEVELOPING THE HOUSE OF QUALITY

The What’s, How’s, and Relationships Between

The house of quality (HOQ) was developed duringthe first QFD team meeting. Once the team wasselected and confirmed, the team was formallyintroduced to the QFD process and was providedwith a schedule of the process with milestones andan itinerary for the first meeting. The itinerary forthe first meeting included:

1. Provide an introduction to QFD.

2. Confirm the project definition.

3. Rank the importance of the three customersto the project.

4. Define and rate each customer requirementagainst each of the three customers for theproduct.

5. Create a weighted voice of the customer forthe product.

6. Rank competitive products to the voice ofthe three customers.

7. Define the technical attributes (TAs).

8. Provide relationships between the technicalattributes and the weighted customerrequirements which in turn providesrankings and weightings of the TAs listedbased on the data entered.

All members of the team were present at thestart of the meeting. Only the product developer,the engineer, the industrial designer, and the QFDfacilitator participated in steps 7 and 8.

VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

In the specific market for the product used with theQFD process, there are three different customers



that National would like to market their productsto. Two of the customers have similar characteristicsand the third represents a small portion of themarket and has unique demands for the productwhich differ from the other two types of customers.To develop the list of customer requirements fromthe VOC, the product developer and the industrialdesign team listed all of the top requirements. Theindustrial designer worked on a psychoanalysisprofile of the three types of customers that wouldbe using the product prior to the initial team QFDmeeting. This analysis was used to clarify the VOCssuch that the team can best compare them with therelationships with the three different customers, therelationships between the competitive products,and the list of TAs.

Technical Attributes

To create a list of technical attributes, the productdeveloper consulted with other team membersbefore the first meeting to create an extensive listof all possible technical attributes which would beconsidered in this QFD project. Many of thetechnical attributes created were interrelated. Allof the relationships have been noted in commentsin meeting minutes. Some of the technical attributeswere found to be basic features referring Kano’smodel .These technical attributes are assumed toexist in the project, and were removed from the QFDselection model. The associated resources requiredto develop and manufacture these assumed basicfeatures have been deducted from the availableresource constant in the model. The goal of the QFDexercise is to determine which technical attributeswill be included and what resources (if applicable)should be spent investing into the correspondingTA to maximize the overall quality of the productwithin the constraints listed.

Conclusions

This paper presented a methodology, discussed theimplementation and deployment of themethodology, and calculated optimum resultsusing genetic algorithm software for the feature setof a new product currently being developed atNational Industries in the disc jockey market usinga modified version of the traditional QFD process.The QFD process has been modified by includingmultiple customers for the product with respectiveratings, providing an enhanced competitive

analysis which includes the ratings for the VOC’srelative importance to the product, theinterrelationship between TAs, and the method ofcommunication between the cross functional team.

As mentioned, the QFD process has beenidentified as a tool to aid in the productdevelopment. The QFD process has improved themethod of product development at National byreducing the lead time to a finalized feature set,reducing costs in engineering changes byimplementing quality into the product, anddeveloping the relationship between features andcustomer requirements to aid in a paradigm shiftdecisions.

REFERENCES[1] Bergquist, Karin and John Abeysekera. “Quality Function

Deployment (QFD) - A Means for Developing UsableProducts.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 18.4(1996), 269-275.

[2] Büyüközkan, Gülçin and Orhan Feyziolu. “A NewApproach based on Soft Computing to Accelerate theSelection of New Product Ideas .” Computers in Industry54.2 (2003), 151-167.

[3] Chan, Lai-Kow and Ming-Lu Wu. “Quality FunctionDeployment: A Literature Review.” European Journal ofOperational Research 143.3, (2002), 463-497.

[4] Cristiano, John J., et al. “Key Factors in the SuccessfulApplication of Quality Function Deployment (QFD).” IEEETransactions on Engineering Management 48.1 (2001), 81-95.

[5] Crow, K. “Performing QFD Step By Step.” DRMAssociates, Paol Verdes, CA. 2002.

[6] <http://www.npd-solutions.com/qfdsteps.html>.

[7] Gershenson, John K. and Larry A. Stauffer. “A Taxonomyfor Design Requirements from Corporate Customers.”Research in Engineering Design 11.2 (1999), 103-115.

[8] Griffin, Abbie and Hauser, John R. “Patterns ofCommunication among Marketing, Engineering, andManufacturing - A Comparison between Two NewProduct Teams.” Management Science 38.3 (1992), 360-373.

[9] Gonzalez, M., et al. “QFD Strategy House: An InnovativeTool for Linking Marketing and ManufacturingStrategies.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 22.3 (2004),335-348.

[10] Govers, C. P. M. “What and How about Quality FunctionDeployment (QFD).” International Journal of ProductionEconomics no. 46-47 (1996), 575-585.

[11] Housel, Tom and V.A Kanevsky. “Reengineering BusinessProcesses: A Complexity Theory Approach to ValueAdded.” Canadian Operational Research Society Journal 33.4(1995), 248-262.

[12] Karlsson, Joachim. “Managing Software RequirementsUsing Quality Function Deployment.” Software QualityJournal 6.4 (1997), 311-325.



[13] Kaulio, M.A. “Customer, Consumer and UserInvolvement in Product Development: A Framework anda Review of Selected Methods.” Total Quality Management9.1 (1998).

[14] Lowe, A., K. Ridgway, and H Atkinson. “QFD in NewProduction Technology Evaluation.” International Journalof Production Economics 67.2 (2000), 103.

[15] Matzler, Kurt and Hans H. Hinterhuber. “How to MakeProduct Development Projects More Successful byIntegrating Kano’s Model of Customer Satisfaction intoQuality Function Deployment.” Technovation 19.1 (1998),25-38.

[16] Moskowitz, Herbert and Kwang Jae Kim. “QFDOptimizer: A Novice Friendly Quality FunctionDeployment Decision Support System for OptimizingProduct Designs.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 32.3(1997), 641-655.

[17] Natter, Martin, et al. “The Effect of Incentive Schemes andOrganizational Arrangements on the New ProductDevelopment Process.” Management Science 47.8 (2001),1029.

[18] Rajala, Mikko, Savolainen, Tapani. “A Framework forCustomer Oriented Business Process Modelling.”Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 9.3 (1996), 127-135.

[19] Rangaswamy, Arvind and Gary L. Lilien. “Software Toolsfor New Product Development.” Journal of MarketingResearch 34 (1997), 177-184.

[20] Reich, Yoram and Eyal Levy. “Managing Product DesignQuality under Resource Constraints.” International Journalof Production Research 42.13 (2004), 2555- 2572.

[21] ReVelle, Jack B., John W. Moran, and Charles A. Cox. TheQFD Handbook. New York: John Wiley, 1995.

[22] Salhieh, S. and L. Monplaisir. “Collaboration PlanningFramework (CPF) to Support Distributed ProductDevelopment.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 14(2003), 581-597.

[23] Tan, K.C. and X. X. Shien. “Integrating Kano’s Model inthe Planning Matrix of Quality Function Deployment.”Total Quality Management 11.8 (2000), 1141-1151.

[24] Tang, Jiafu, et al. “A New Approach to Quality FunctionDeployment Planning with Financial Consideration.”Computers & Operations Research 29 (2002), 1447-1463.

[25] Tu, Y. L., et al. “Computer-Aided Customer Interface forRapid Product Development.” International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology 21.10-11 (2003), 743-753.

[26] Yang, B., N. D. Burns, and C. J. Backhouse. “Managementof Uncertainty Through Postponement.” InternationalJournal of Production Research 42.6 (2004), 1049-1064.

[27] Ziv-Av, Amir and Yoram Reich. “SOS - SubjectiveObjective System for Generating Optimal ProductConcepts.” International Conference on EngineeringDesign, ICED 03, August 19-21, 2003, Stockholm, Sweden.2003.

“analysis of market segment with quality function deployment” · pdf fileanalysis...

Documents