Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a quality tool that helps to translate the Voice of the Customer (VoC) into new products that truly satisfy their needs. In this paper, QFD will be reviewed in order to understand how it works, to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to discuss its practical applications. The first part of the paper will present an overview of QFD and explain the methodology. QFD will be defined and explained by means of an example and a number of benefits and implementation problems will be revealed. Finally, some practical applications will be presented. As will be shown, QFD has helped designers to solve problems in many different areas, from manufacturing to services, and even in education.
QFD Methodology
The concept of QFD was created in Japan in the late 1960s. According to Akao (1997) after World War II, Japanese companies used to copy and imitate product development; nevertheless, they decided to move their approach to one based on originality. QFD was introduced, in that environment, as a concept for new product development. It can be better understood from the definition presented below which summarises the purposes of the technique: QFD is a method for structured product planning and development that enables a development team to specify clearly the customers wants and needs, and then to evaluate each proposed product or service capability systematically in terms of its impact on meeting those needs(Cohen, 1995). The QFD method includes building one or more matrices known as quality tables. The first matrix is named the House of Quality (HoQ). It exhibits the customers needs (VoC) on the left hand side, and the technical response to meeting those needs along the top. Figure 1(a) shows each of the sections contained in the HoQ. Every section holds important data, specific to a part of the QFD analysis. The matrix is usually completed by a specially formed team, who follow the logical sequence suggested by the letters A to F, but the process is flexible and the order in which the HOQ is completed depends on the team.
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150
One major producer of remanufactured diesel engine components exploited QFD because one of its plants was receiving complaints from marketing concerning a single part package used for certain fuel systems products. At the end of the QFD process, the customers voice was successfully translated into satisfactory packages (Raper and Wiebe, 1998). Lu et al (1994) integrated the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Benchmarking into the House of Quality, and used them for marketing policy analysis. According to the authors, long-range market planning is essential in order to change corporate culture, and to meet or exceed customers needs while making a profit. They support that this can be achieved using their model, which is based on the QFD process. Owlia and Aspinwall (1998) constructed a QFD matrix from the framework of quality dimensions in higher education. The authors took into account issues such as: design of programmes of study, delivery and management of programmes of study, assessment of students, service support of programmes of study, guidance and support of students, admissions, recruitment, appraisal and development of staff. In this case, the customers were students, staff and employees. Once QFD was utilized, the measurement framework developed could be used as a basis for process improvement in an education setting. Crowe and Cheng (1996) used QFD in manufacturing strategic planning to link manufacturing strategy and corporate strategy. In addition, they discussed advantages and disadvantages when formulating manufacturing strategy through the QFD process and presented a case study at a powdered metals manufacturer to illustrate the usefulness of the methodology. Herzwurm et al (1997) used QFD to plan the perfect QFD software tool.
Conclusions
This paper has presented an overview of QFD. The practical applications mentioned illustrate that it can be utilised in different ways and can be adapted to solve a great number of design problems. The arguments that have been presented, also show that QFDs potential is huge, but as Bouchereau and Rowlands (2000) state: QFD is the unused tool. In fact, after reviewing some of the empirical studies carried out in different countries ((Lowe and Ridgway, 2000), (Cristiano et al, 2000), (Martins and Aspinwall, 2001), (Veness et al, 1996)), it is clear that QFD is being under-utilised. Moreover, one of these studies (Martins and Aspinwall, 2001) showed that some of the enterprises surveyed did not know or had never heard of the technique. QFD is a quality tool that identifies the significant items on which to focus time, product and service improvement efforts and other resources in order to achieve maximum impact on customer needs and expectations. There are strengths and weaknesses associated with its implementation; however many companies have overcome the problems and used it to design a variety of products. Generally the publications are associated with large multinational organisations, which have the necessary resources to apply this powerful tool.
References
Akao, Y., 1997, QFD: Past, present and future. In Transactions of the Third International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, October 1-2, Linkping, Sweden, vol. 1. Plenary Session (downloadable from the QFD Institutes website: http://www.qfdi.org) Amos, L., 1997, QFD in theory & practice, unpublished undergraduate research project. University of Birmingham, UK Barad, M. and Gien, D., 2001, Linking improvement models to manufacturing strategies-a methodology for SMEs and other enterprises, International Journal of Production Research, 39 (12), 2675-2695 Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H., 2000, Quality function deployment: the unused tool, Engineering Management Journal, 10(1), 45-52
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150
Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L., 2002a, Quality Function Deployment: A comprehensive review of its concepts and methods, Quality Engineering, 15(1), 23-35 Chan, L. K. and Wu, M. L., 2002b, Quality function deployment: A literature review, European Journal of Operational Research, 143(2002), 463-497 Cohen, L., 1995, Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You, (AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts) Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K. and White III, C.C., 2000, Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(4), 286-308 Crowe, T.J. and Cheng, C.C., 1996, Using quality function deployment in manufacturing strategic planning, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 16(4), 35-48 Fernandez, J.E., Chamberlin, J.L., Kramer, E.G., Broomall, J.H., Rori, H.A. and Begley, R.L., 1994, Making the Neon fun to drive. Proceedings of The sixth symposium on Quality Function Deployment. Novi, Michigan. June 13-14, 483-508 Govers, C.P.M., 1996, What and how about quality function deployment (QFD), International Journal of Production Economics, 46-47(1996), 575-585 Griffin, A. and Hauser, J., 1992, Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing A comparison between two new product teams, Management Science, 38(3), 360-373 Haapalainen, M., Kivist-R, J., Mattila, M., (1999/2000), Ergonomic design of non-powered hand tools: An application of quality function deployment (QFD), Occupational Ergonomics, 2(3), 179-189 Hales, R. and Staley, D., 1995, Mix target costing, QFD for successful new products, Marketing News, 29(1), 18 Hauser, J. and Clausing, D., 1988, The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 63-73 Herzwurm, G., Schockert , S. and Mellis, W., 1997, Customer oriented evaluation of QFD software tools, In: Transactions of the Third International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, October 1-2, Linkping, Sweden, vol. 1. Streams C. Lowe, A. and Ridgway, K., 2000, UK users guide to quality function deployment, Engineering Management Journal, 10(3), 147-155 Lu, M.H., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H. and Winokur, D., 1994, Integrating QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 9(1), 41-50 Martins, A. and Aspinwall, E.M., 2001, Quality function deployment: an empirical study in the UK, Total Quality Management, 12(5), 575-588 Mehta, P., 1994, Designed chip embeds user concerns, Electronic Engineering Times, 1/24/94, Issue 781, 42-43 Ngai, E.W.T. and Chow, D.Y.H., 1999, ICADS: Intelligent car audio design system for product planning, Expert Systems, 16(1), 19-32 Norman, C.R., 1999, Gas cooktop revolution, Appliance Manufacturer, February Issue, 55-56 Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M., 1998, Application of quality function deployment for the improvement of quality in an engineering department, European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 105-115 Raper, S.A. and Wiebe, H.A., 1998, Quality function deployment: A tool for packaging design, Packaging Technology & Engineering, 7(9), 14-18 Sower, V.E., Savoie, M.J. and Renick, S., 1999, An Introduction to Quality Management and Engineering, (Prentice Hall, United States) Veness, P.J., Chidolue, G. and Medhat, S.S., 1996, Concurrent engineering infrastructure: Tools, technologies and methods in British industry, Engineering Management Journal, 6(3), 141-147 Zairi, M. and Youssef, M. A., 1995, Quality function deployment A main pillar for successful total quality management and product development, Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 12(6), 9-23