Quality Function Deployment

Developed by Dr A.J. Lowe in collaboration with Prof. K. Ridgway of the

University of Sheffield, England

This document aims to promote the use of QFD techniques by providing a

source of appropriate information and advice to potential and existing users.

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a set of powerful product development

tools that were developed in Japan to transfer the concepts of quality control
from the manufacturing process into the new product development process.
The main features of QFD are a focus on meeting market needs by using
actual customer statements (referred to as the "Voice of the Customer"), its
effective application of mutlidisciplinary teamwork and the use of a
comprehensive matrix (called the "House of Quality") for documenting
information, perceptions and decisions. Some of the benefits of adopting QFD
have been documented as :

• Reduced time to market

• Reduction in design changes
• Decreased design and manufacturing costs
• Improved quality
• Increased customer satisfaction
Introduction to QFD

Yoji Akao is widely regarded as the father of QFD and his work led to its first
implementation at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Kobe Shipyard in 1972.
The interest in QFD in the West was stimulated by reports of the
achievements made by Toyota through its application between 1977 and
1984. These included a reduction in product development costs by 61%, a
decrease in the development cycle by one third and the virtual elimination of
rust related warranty problems (Ref 1).

Yoji Akao defined QFD as "a method for developing a design quality aimed at
satisfying the consumer and then translating the consumer's demands into
design targets and major quality assurance points to be used throughout the
production phase". (Ref 2)

The main features of QFD are its focus on meeting customer needs through
the use of their actual statements (termed the "Voice of the Customer"), its
facilitation of multidisciplinary team work and the use of a comprehensive
matrix for documenting information, perceptions and decisions. This matrix is
commonly referred to as the "House of Quality" and is often perceived to
represent QFD in its entirety.

In addition to the "House of Quality" matrix, QFD utilises "Seven

Management and Planning Tools"which are used in many of its procedures:

1. Affinity diagrams.
2. Relations diagrams.
3. Hierarchy trees.
4. Matrices and tables.
5. Process Decision Program Diagrams (PDPC)
6. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
7. Blueprinting

Affinity diagrams

This is a powerful method used by a team to organise and gain insight into a
set of qualitative information, such as voiced customer requirements.
Building an Affinity Diagram involves the recording of each statement onto
separate cards which are then sorted into groups with a perceived
association. A title card which summarises the data within each group is
selected from its members or is created where necessary. A hierarchy of
association can be achieved by then sorting these title cards into higher level
groups.
Hierarchy trees

A Hierarchy tree or Tree Diagram also illustrates the structure of

interrelationships between groups of statements, but is built from the top
down in an analytical manner. It is usually applied to an existing set of
structured information such as that produced by building an Affinity Diagram
and is used to account for flaws or incompleteness in the source data.
Working down from the top a team can amendments at each level and the
completed hierarchy can be drawn as shown below.
Matrices and tables

The matrix is a tool which lies at the heart of many QFD methods. By
comparing two lists of items using a rectangular grid of cells, it can be used
to document a team's perceptions of the interrelationships that exist, in a
manner which can be later interpreted by considering the entries in particular
cells, rows or columns. In a prioritisation matrix the relative importance of
items in a list and the strength of interrelationships are given numerical
weightings (shown as numbers or symbols). The overall priority of the items
of one list according to their relationships with another list, can then be
calculated as shown below.
Tables are also used in QFD to study the implications of gathered or
generated items against a specified list of categories. Examples include
production planning and analysing customer statements in the Voice of
Customer Table shown below.

Relations diagrams

Relations diagrams or Interrelationship Di-graphs can be used to discover

priorities, root causes of problems and unstated customer requirements.

Process Decision Program Diagrams (PDPC)

PDPC are used to study potential failures of new processes and services.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

AHP uses pairwise comparisons on hierarchically organised elements to

produce an accurate set of priorities.

Blueprinting

Blueprinting is a tool used to illustrate and analyse all the processes involved
in providing a service.

The House of Quality

The "House of Quality" matrix is the most recognised form of QFD (Ref 3). It
is utilised by a multidisciplinary team to translate a set of customer
requirements, drawing upon market research and benchmarking data, into
an appropriate number of prioritised engineering targets to be met by a new
product design. There are many slightly different forms of this matrix and
this ability to be adapted to the requirements of a particular problem or
group of users forms one of its major strengths. The general format of the
"House of Quality" is made up of six major components which are completed
in the course of a QFD project:

1. Customer requirements (HOWs) - a structured list of requirements

derived from customer statements.
2. Technical requirements (WHATs) - a structured set of relevant and
measurable product characteristics.
3. Planning matrix - illustrates customer perceptions observed in
market surveys. Includes relative importance of customer requirements,
company and competitor performance in meeting these requirements.
4. Interrelationship matrix - illustrates the QFD team's perceptions of
interrelationships between technical and customer requirements. An
appropriate scale is applied, illustrated using symbols or figures. Filling this
portion of the matrix involves discussions and consensus building within the
team and can be time consuming. Concentrating on key relationships and
minimising the numbers of requirements are useful techniques to reduce the
demands on resources.
5. Technical correlation (Roof) matrix - used to identify where
technical requirements support or impede each other in the product design.
Can highlight innovation opportunities.
6. Technical priorities, benchmarks and targets - used to record the
priorities assigned to technical requirements by the matrix, measures of
technical performance achieved by competitive products and the degree of
difficulty involved in developing each requirement. The final output of the
matrix is a set of target values for each technical requirement to be met by
the new design, which are linked back to the demands of the customer.
Models for Applying QFD Tools

The "House of Quality" can be used as a stand alone tool to generate

answers to a particular development problem. Alternatively it can be applied
within a more complex system in which a series of tools are used. The
"Clausing Four-Phase Model" is the most widely known and utilised of these
approaches (Ref 3). It translates customer requirements through several
stages into production equipment settings; using three coupled QFD matrices
and a table for planning production requirements (as shown below).
The less known and more comprehensive "Matrix of Matrices" model provides
developers with thirty matrix tools and tables (Ref 4) which consider
development steps not included in the "Four-Phase" approach (see below).
This represents the full QFD tool kit and practitioners should select and adapt
from this set as appropriate rather than attempt to implement it in its
entirety.

Such is the flexibility of the matrix tools utilised by QFD, its methods have
now been applied in many fields other than product development. One of the
main areas is in strategy formulation and implementation.

As with other Japanese management techniques some problems have been

encountered when applying QFD within the western business environment.
These are mentioned on the practitioner’s tips page and are also addressed
from a US perspective by Bob Hales.
The Implications of Arrow's Impossibility
Theorem on QFD
The Impossibility Theorem

Hazelrigg (Ref 12) has argued that design approaches such as QFD, that
seek to optimize the value of a design to its customers can lead to highly
erroneous results. He bases this argument on the impossibility theorem first
presented by Kenneth Arrow (Ref 13).

Kenneth Arrow considered the problem of constructing a utility function to

express the preferences of a group and showed that apart from in some very
special cases, utilities cannot be used. To demonstrate his theorem the
concepts of optimisation and utility must be understood.

Optimisation

Optimisation is performed only with reference to some specific measure of

value. In the example below the optimisation of "y" can be achieved by the
appropriate selection of "x".

y = f (x) (Value function for "y")

If the value function "f (x)" cannot be expressed, the optimisation cannot be
accomplished. The purpose of optimisation methodology is to find the set of
values of "x" that obtain the maximum value of "y", even when it is
necessary to search across an infinity of possible values of "x".

Utility

Utility is an economic value of preference and has the unit of utiles. For
example an individual's preference for three alternatives A, B and C; where A
is preferred to B and B is preferred to C, can be expressed as :

A>B>C

In this case each option can be assigned a number of utiles, as a measure of

the utility of each preference. The above could then be expressed as a utility
function as shown :

uA >uB > uC

The impossibility theorem considers the preferences of a group of three

rational individuals which are shown in the table below :

Individual Preferences A vs. B B vs. C A vs. C

I A>B>C, A>C A B A
II B>C>A, B>A B B C
III C>A>B, C>B A C C
Group preferences A>B B>C C>A

While each individual has a rational set of preferences it is obvious that

combining these to form a group utility function presents a problem.
Optimisation for the group using this data is impossible. Hazelrigg (Ref 12)
argues that this situation is not a rare case but is in fact the norm and as the
preferences of individuals within a group are defined in greater detail, the
higher the chance of encountering this type of problem.

The Impossibility Theorem

Hazelrigg (Ref 12) illustrates the potential consequences of the impossibility

theorem with a simple example that shows how combined preference data
can lead to the design of a product that satisfies none of the customers :

A simple product possesses three attributes: colour, size and shape. Each of
these can be one of two options; colour can be Red or Green, size can be
Large or Small, shape can be Bumpy or Flat. There are three rational
customers whose preferences for each of the attribute options are described
in the table below. In this case values of "Attribute Utility" are used (where
1.0 is the maximum utility and 0.0 represents the lowest utility where the
customer will not want the product at any price), these are multiplied
together in order to measure the overall utility a customer has for a
particular product configuration. (e.g. customer I has a utility of 1.0 × 0.9 ×
1.0 = 0.9 for a Red - Small - Flat product).

An optimisation approach based upon such preference findings would result

in a design that was Red - Large - Bumpy; as on average for the group Red
is preferred to Green (customers I and II preferring Red, while only customer
III prefers Green), Large is preferred to Small and Bumpy is preferred to
Flat. But this combination has a utility of 0.0 for all three customers (e.g. for
customer I the overall utility for Red - Large - Bumpy = 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.0 =
0.0) and so is the worst possible design. Based on these examples Hazelrigg
(Ref 12) argues that the use of averaged group preference data is
inappropriate in the optimisation of product design.

Consequences for QFD Practitioners

The above example is not entirely representative of the manner in which

customer requirement data is defined and combined in QFD. Despite this the
issues that the theorem raises still need to be considered, as any form of
averaging of individual responses will not necessarily optimally represent
group requirements.

In the example a strategy for the manufacturer's success is to supply a range

of products in each colour, size and shape combination to satisfy the three
customer types simultaneously. This case though is simplistic and in genuine
engineering design situations the number of attributes, customers and sets of
preferences are very much greater. The occurences of such irrationalities in
complex grouped preference data would be considerably less obvious.

Considering the many documented examples of QFD application, this

problem does not appear to be occuring on the magnitude that would be
predicted by Hazelrigg's (Ref 12) arguement. It could therefore be concluded
that in real, complex products these problems only manifest themselves to a
small extent, lowering the optimality of the overall design, but not rendering
it entirely inappropriate as may be anticipated. Alternatively the focus of QFD
designers upon specific market segments may minimise the occurence of
incompatible preference groups. Accurate segmentation of the market
through the use of tools such as the Voice of the Customer Table could be
used to minimise the consequences of these problems.

Developing New Product Concepts from Core

Competencies
This case study was undertaken within a medium-sized supplier to the
construction industry. The aim of this project was to apply QFD tools to
generate a range of new product concepts that were appropriate to the
company's skills and technology base. To ensure the suitability of these
concepts the first part of the project focused upon identifying the company's
current core competencies (Ref 14) and its market sectors, in a programme
of internal interviews. These were entered into a "creativity matrix" which
was used to focus a team brainstorming exercise. The resulting concepts
were developed to a limited extent before being evaluated using a House of
Quality type matrix.

During the interview stage the types of customers served by the

company were identified :
• Architects - design the building or structure (Architect requirements
include meeting their client's needs and expressing their building concept
with minimal technical limitations

• Structural Engineers - engineer the design of the building (Engineer's

requirements include ease of design, specification and calculations to achieve
the technical demands made by the architect.)

• Contractors - build the structure and purchase the materials from the
company (Contractor requirements include; lowest cost to maximize
margins, meeting project schedules, safety on site, ease of storage, handling
and assembly.)

• Building Users - (users requirements include portraying the right

image/atmosphere, ease of maintenance, inspection, access, minimal
running costs etc...)

• Public - live and work around the building (The public's requirements
include the structure's impact upon the local environment and the image
presented of the city/region/country.)

Also the interviews gathered a list of statements on company capabilities (as

defined by Ref 15) which were compiled in response to questions regarding
the competitive advantages of the organisation. The first exercise of a study
group of three key personnel from the company, was to sort these
capabilities and so highlight the areas of its current competency in an affinity
diagram (shown below).
Four core competencies that form the root of the company's competitive
advantage were identified :

• Product Guarantee - a unique in the industry guarantee of product

performance and a reputation for having zero in-service failures.

• Steel Expertise - internal skills in the application of high strength steels in

addition to a partnership with a major steel manufacturer.

• Market Presence - a strong brand name, a good reputation in the

construction industry and many contacts among architects and engineering
consultancies.

• Customer Service - technical advice, site services and languages for foreign
customers.

The second task of the study group was to apply the "creativity matrix" (a
basic two-dimensional matrix) in a brainstorming exercise to generate new
product concepts. This tool was utilised to focus the discussion's of the group
on the interrelationships between the four competencies and the company's
five major market segments. Each matrix cell was used to record the degree
to which the competence was important in meeting the needs of the market
segment, highlighting weaknesses in the current product range and
stimulating creative discussions on the potential for new products. The
completed creativity matrix is shown below.

The main observation drawn from this matrix was the weakness in the
provision of customer service in many of the market segments. Additionally
the strong market presence was not developed across all the markets. As the
scope for further improvement in product performance through the
application of more advanced steels, was limited; it was emphasised that
developing material properties such as corrosion resistance could be an
opportunity for maintaining technical superiority.
The discussions stimulated by the matrix led to eight new product concept
themes. The process of developing these concepts (which involved extensive
discussions with internal and external expertise) resulted in five being
submitted to a final evaluation stage. The last task for the study group was
to apply a simplified House of Quality matrix to the evaluation of the
remaining concepts against the business objectives of the organisation (as
shown below).

Case Study Conclusions

The application of Affinity Diagrams proved to be a powerful method for

identifying the core competencies of an organisation from a qualitative
internal survey. The compatibility of these techniques with the concepts of
capabilities (Ref 15) and competencies were identified as being particularly
valuable in this context. The formation of a multifunctional team and
allocating the time of the selected key personnel for their involvement in this
study, proved difficult within this resource restricted organisation. In this
case using a team of three for two relatively short meetings, meant that
these demands were minimised and the tasks were successfully completed.
The use of a small team did incur drawbacks in the limited range of
perceptions available in the discussions and meant that priorities were not
always assigned from a holistic perspective. Also important was the input of
a strong chairperson in these meetings to avoid the team's tendency to
become embroiled in lengthy discussions regarding each and every matrix
cell. The experience gained as a result of this study has been incorporated in
the practical advice provided for QFD users.
Strategy Formulation within an SME

The objective of this case study was to develop a tool which could challenge
strategic beliefs and stimulate innovative strategic thinking within a
traditional manufacturing SME, based upon understanding the requirements
and perceptions of its customers. An adapted form of the "House of Quality"
matrix was devised for this application (illustrated below).

This case study was carried out in a supplier of the UK coal mining industry.
The company was small with less than thirty employees and utilised low
technology processes to produce a standard product range. The project was
initiated with an internal audit of the company carried out using a series of
interviews with its key personnel. These interviews focused upon the
business objectives of the company, elements of its current strategy for
achieving these objectives and its main cultural characteristics. As the
objectives and strategy of the company were not explicitly formalised, the
personnel responded to these questions with a variety of responses. In many
cases the questions had to be re-phrased more directly (e.g. how does your
company succeed in winning orders?) to gain insights into its strategic
elements. The statements were grouped in the affinity diagrams illustrated
below :
The second stage of the project involved gathering data from the company's
customers. Following an interview with one customer a questionnaire was
devised that focused eight key requirements and avoided commercially
sensitive questions asking directly about the performance of competitive
companies. Upon the completion of the external and internal surveys, two
matrix building meetings were carried out involving the Managing Director, a
company sales representative and the Teaching Company Associate
operating in the firm. The first of these meetings focused on the feedback of
the information gathered in the two surveys, and the interpretation of this
data through building the affinity diagrams shown above. In the second
meeting the strategy formulation matrix illustrated below was constructed.
The discussions surrounding the allocation of weightings in this matrix
generated a list of conclusions regarding the strategy taken by the company
at that time.
Conclusions drawn from the completed matrix tool :

• Overall the company's strategy appeared suited to the needs of its

customers. This was due to the active role the company management and
sales representative play in communicating with customers and providing
services to meet their needs.
• The company's performance as perceived by its customers highlighted that
it had no distinctive advantage over its competitors.
• The strategic elements of aggressively undercutting competitor's prices and
minimising overheads were perceived to have a negative influence on the
company's performance in meeting the quality and the flexibility
requirements of customers.
• There is an absence of strategic elements that relate to meeting the quality
and safety requirements of its customers.
• Despite the company's expressed focus on meeting customers' exact needs
in terms of products and deliveries, the flexibility performance of the
company was the lowest rated relative to its competitors.
• Strong customer relations were expressed as a key component of the
company's competitive strategy, but these relations were rated the lowest in
importance by customers.
• The Descriptors Correlations matrix highlighted a synergy between the
pursuit of customer relations and the flexible pursuit of the opportunities that
arose through these relations. It also indicated a negative influence of the
focus on minimal overheads upon the flexibility element of its strategy.
• The Requirements Correlations matrix indicated that the majority of
customer requirements were positively related. Where negative relationships
were identified, these indicated the compromises necessary in the company's
manufacturing system in order to meet these conflicting requirements.

Recommendations made to company management included :

• Maintain the emphasis on an aggressive pricing policy.

• Review emphasis on customer relations. Freed managerial time should be
devoted to company development.
• Institute low cost systems and procedures to develop company flexibility
(e.g. set-up reduction...)
• Initiate a pro-active approach to the market, as opposed to imitating the
moves of competitors. Aim to develop an innovative service appropriate to
the company's capabilities (e.g. a guaranteed two day delivery time).
• Implement low cost techniques to pursue a strategy with greater focus on
quality and safety issues. (SPC, increased responsibility and autonomy,
quality circles and removal of piecework pay incentives).

Although the case study was not completed as initially envisaged the
company benefited from the issues that were raised and a number of lessons
were learned which influenced the success of later QFD case studies. These
lessons are included in practical advice.

Evaluating Innovative Processing Technologies

The largest barrier to the implementation of many innovative materials

processing technologies is in meeting financial hurdles. The perceived risks
involved due to the required high expenditures and the difficulty in predicting
future cash flows commonly result in a pessimistic, wait-and-see approach
amongst potential manufacturing users. This policy incurs the risk that
competitors with greater foresight could steal technological leadership and
gain a significant competitive advantage which will be costly and time
consuming to recover.

For thixoforming, a form of semi-solid alloy processing, (Ref 16) this policy
has hindered the adoption of the technology in the UK. While manufacturers
in Italy, the U.S., Switzerland and Germany have successfully
commercialised the technology; manufacturing such products as automotive
fuel rails, suspension and steering components; UK manufacturers are still
debating the financial implications of implementing the process.

The Thixoforming Research Group based at the University of Sheffield

identified this obstacle and initiated a project to develop a cost benefit
appraisal computer package (Thixocost) for use by potential UK users of the
technology, to facilitate their accurate evaluation of the full financial
implications of implementing the process. It was recognised during the
development of this package that comprehensively quantifying all the
"intangible" benefits and drawbacks associated with the process, necessitates
the commitment of significant time and resources by any manager wishing to
undertake this evaluation. What was desirable was a tool to perform a
relatively rapid check on a proposed product's suitability for thixoforming
before this laborious cost data gathering process was initiated.

As a result an element of the software development became the application

of a QFD "prioritisation" type matrix to the evaluation of a potential product's
characteristics. This was used to relate a generic set of product descriptors
against the defining characteristics of the technology.

Advantages and Drawbacks of Thixoforming

The processing of metal alloys heated into a semi-solid state has several
advantages over conventional forming processes :

• It is an energy efficient process which is easily automated and controlled to

achieve consistency.
• Production rates are similar to pressure die casting or better due to more
rapid solidification.
• Smooth filling of the die with no air entrapment can be achieved, plus low
shrinkage porosity gives parts of high integrity.
• Lower processing temperatures reduce the thermal shock of dies,
promoting die life and allowing the processing of high melting point alloys
(such as tool steels and stellites) that are difficult to form by other means.
• Fine, uniform microstructures give enhanced component properties.
• Optimised component design can be used to improve yield from raw
materials and give component weight savings.
• Reduced solidification shrinkage allows more complex parts to be produced
to higher tolerances reducing additional processing operations of many
components.

The extent to which these benefits can be achieved is dependent upon the
design of the component and its dies, the optimisation of processing
conditions, the degree of the technology's integration into the existing
production process and the demands of an organisation's business
environment. There are also a number of drawbacks which limit the current
commercial viability of thixoforming :

• The raw materials on which the process depends are more expensive than
standard alloys and have only a small number of suppliers.
• Considerable research effort and expenditure is required to develop and
implement a viable manufacturing process, due to the currently limited
available process knowledge.
• Die development costs are higher than for conventional forming
technologies where recognised design practices can be applied.
• The personnel required to develop and operate thixoforming equipment
within an organisation require a higher level of training than equivalent
traditional operators and will be more expensive to employ.

These characteristic advantages and drawbacks were grouped into a set of

nine process descriptors by the members of the Thixoforming Research
Group, to be utilised in the technology evaluation tool. Based upon this set a
list of relevant product characteristics were identified and similarly grouped
to give eight product descriptors. These two lists were entered into the
evaluation tool as shown below.

Evaluating Matrix Relationships

As a generic tool was desired, each product characteristic was allocated three
settings (e.g. Critical / Important / Unimportant and High / Small / No etc..).
For each of these settings, values had to be entered into the cells of the
appropriate matrix row. First each of the various product characteristic
settings were defined as shown in the table below :

Product
Setting 1 Setting 2 Setting 3
Characteristic
Important : The
Critical : Minimising Unimportant : The
weight of the
the weight of the weight of the
Weight component is
component is a component is not
important but not
critical issue important
critical
Critical : The Important : The Unimportant : The
strength of the strength of the strength of the
Strength
component is a component is component is not
critical issue important but not an important issue
 critical
Complex : The
Medium : The Simple : The
geometry of the
geometry of a geometry of the
Geometry component is highly
component is of component is
complex. e.g. fuel
medium complexity basic. e.g. a chisel
rail
Critical : The
Important : Material Unimportant :
meeting of
property and Meeting
demanding material
dimensional dimensional and
Tolerances property and
tolerances are material property
dimensional
important but not tolerances is not
tolerances is a
critical important
critical issue
No : The market
High : The market Medium : The
will allow no
will allow a premium market will allow a
Price premium to be
price to be charged small premium price
Premium charged for a
for a thixoformed to be charged for a
thixoformed
product thixoformed product
product
Long : The lead time
Short : The lead
between receiving Medium : The lead
time between
an order and time between
receiving an order
despatching a receiving an order
Lead Time and despatching a
product is not and despatching a
product is critical
important and is product is between 3
and is less than 1
greater than 3 months and 1 month
month
months
High : A customised
Medium : A medium Low : A single
product is produced
sized range of standard product
Flexibility in small batches,
standard products is is produced in
unique to each
produced large batches
customer
High : In the current Medium : There are
process there are 1 or 2 machining /
No : There are no
more than 3 finishing /
existing process
machining / finishing reinforcing
Finishing steps which could
/ reinforcing operations in the
Operations be removed
operations which current process
through
could be removed which could be
thixoforming
through removed through
thixoforming thixoforming

Based upon these understood definitions, members of the Thixoforming

Research Group identified the technical issues relating to each matrix row
and used these to specify a set of weightings values. The resulting tool was
incorporated into the software written in Visual Basic 4.0, in a manner which
automated a user's interface with the technology evaluation tool.

Setting Technology Viability Scores

The completed tool was initially applied to the characteristics of a range of

commercially produced thixoformed products, to establish the range of
scores anticipated for these types of product. Next the characteristics of
several products recognised as unsuitable for thixoforming where entered
into the tool, to ensure the viability scores were significantly differentiated
from those verified as commercially feasible. The outcome of these tests
were used to set the matrix interpretation scores at appropriate levels
(shown in the table below), and these scores were incorporated into the
software to provide a user with an immediate recommendation on any
entered set of product characteristics.

Product
Evaluation Software Interpretation
Score
The product under consideration is suitable for the application
Greater than
of thixoforming technology and a detailed cost benefit analysis
100
should now be undertaken.
The score allocated to this product by the Multi-Attribute Matrix
Analysis shows it to be a borderline case. You may wish to
Between 100 repeat this evaluation paying close attention to the
and 80 characteristic settings and importance weightings chosen
before deciding whether to pursue a further cost benefit
analysis.
The product under consideration is presently unsuited to the
Less than 80
application of thixoforming.

Conclusions

The final version of the thixoforming evaluation matrix (shown below) is

available with the ThixoCost cost benefit appraisal software and its
effectiveness has been verified by its use by several current and potential
users of thixoforming in both the U.S. and the UK. The application of this
slightly adapted Prioritisation Matrix has successfully encapsulated the
expertise of the Thixoforming Research Group, in a tool which can be rapidly
utilised by any manager considering the implementation of thixoforming.
It should be recognised that this technology evaluation tool does not
substitute for a comprehensive economic analysis. The level of subjectivity
necessary in allocating generic characteristic settings, importance weightings
and interrelationship scores, means specific accuracy cannot be achieved in
each case. Instead the value of this tool is in the focusing of a subsequent
economic analysis (on the process issues highlighted by the highest total
column scores in the matrix), or by removing the need for such an analysis
altogether. This approach could as effectively be applied to the analysis of
other innovative technology applications and the author would be particularly
interested to hear of or become involved in any such activities.

Tips for QFD Practitioners

The following advice is based upon the experienced gained in QFD case
studies carried out by Research Group at the University of Sheffield and also
draws on the work of Bob Hales (Ref 7) who has suggested adaptations to
QFD techniques to make it more compatible with U.S. business culture.

This advice is important in overcoming three types of drawback commonly

encountered in QFD applications which are detailed in the table below.

Type of Problem Implications

Misinterpretation
Time and resource
Misunderstanding the correct QFD
techniques e.g. mixing technical
measures with customer
requirements, use of unsorted
data and interpreting the "Four-
Phase Model" as serial product
development.
QFD can demand significant initial
 constraints investment in training, project
facilitation and market research.
Its use of a team of key functional
representatives makes high
demands on stretched personnel
resources. Building large, complex
charts can make a QFD project
very time consuming. In some
cases personnel have been
unwilling to repeat the use of QFD
due to the high demands of the
process.
Culture clash QFD is based upon Japanese
management practices, and so the
characteristics of Western
management can limit the
effectiveness of its techniques.
Symptoms of this conflict include
poor internal communications
particularly between functions,
problems building consensus in the
QFD team and low team or
management commitment to the
process.

The widespread application of QFD in the U.S. and the achievements of these
projects illustrate that the techniques are a valuable resource for Western
organisations. The potential benefits for UK users are significant, but they
need to adopt a flexible approach to both adapting and applying QFD tools.
The key to successful QFD implementation in the UK is to account for the
characteristics of our organisations and attempt to minimise the obstacles to
initial applications.

The Table below offers a list of practical advice for embarking upon a
programme of QFD application :

Limit demands on The use of a small QFD team reduces the

company threat to business cultures where formal
resources teamwork is unknown and will facilitate
discussions and achieving consensus. Efforts
should also be made to limit the number and
length of meetings. Alternatively an individual
can build QFD matrices using information
gathered in separate interviews. In this case
care must be taken in ensuring similar
definitions are understood by all participants,
and in interpreting and combining the data in
 the matrix.
Selection of team The choice of QFD team members is
members fundamental to a project's success. The
selection should include the most positive
personnel with the closest links with
customers. The correct choice will facilitate
open discussions, the resolution of conflicts and
encourage team commitment to the project.
Recognition of The involvement of senior management in the
senior formulation of a QFD project is important in
management gaining their commitment to the process and in
providing incentives for personnel participation.
Intuitive checks The results at each stage of a QFD project
should be compared with the intuitive views of
the team members. Where a divergence is
noted analysis can be directed at identifying
the factors responsible. The appropriate
changes can then be made to the matrices or
the perceptions of the team.
A flexible Care must be taken to adapt the approach
approach used to apply the QFD project to the
circumstances of the organisation. e.g. realistic
objectives chosen, format of team and
meetings, type and complexity of tools used.
Limit the For an initial QFD implementation functional or
functional or hierarchical barriers within the team should be
hierarchical limited to minimise disruptive conflicts. As
conflicts in the experience is gained and the techniques are
QFD team accepted then more sensitive barriers can be
challenged.
Conflict avoidance The selection of team members can reduce the
negative aspects of conflict in discussions.
Another approach is for the team to list all the
issues relating to a contentious matrix
relationship and assign weightings to each of
these before producing an overall weighting.
This divides a difficult discussion into logical
steps and helps to separate the individuals
from the issues being considered.
Use small Limiting the size of matrices to eight by eight
matrices key requirements helps avoid complexity,
focuses the team on the most important issues
and reduces the pressure on resources.
Use sensitive Be aware of the commercial sensitivity of the
 market surveys information demanded in a standard QFD
project. For instance customers may not be
willing to report on the performance of
competitive products and will have a low
opinion of a company demanding such
information.
Document issues Record the issues raised during discussions on
raised each matrix interrelationship so at a later date
the weighting can be justified drawing upon the
original reasoning.
Identify key When completing the interrelationship matrix,
relationships initially highlight the key relationships which
have the greatest impact on customer
satisfaction. Then focus discussions on
establishing the issues relevant to these, rather
than a time consuming consideration of every
matrix cell.
Recognition of Appropriate incentives must be used to
participants encourage participation. The team should be
credited with the achievements of the project
on individual and group levels.

The main lesson for would-be QFD Practitioners is to take a realistic approach
and develop their own unique QFD system which is appropriate to the
characteristics of their own organisation and cultural background, rather than
attempt to rigorously apply QFD as described in text books.

For more details please refer to the forthcoming article in the Engineering
Management Journal.

The Voice of the Customer Table

The Voice of the Customer Table (VOCT) is a component of the
"Comprehensive QFD" (Ref 6) system (itself a subset of the Matrix of
Matrices) and its use is a valuable preliminary exercise before building a
"House of Quality" matrix. It has two parts.

The purpose of the VOCT Part 1 is to :

1. Identify customer usage of the product or service.

2. Predict possible usage of the product or service.
3. Assist in market studies through usage analysis.

The VOCT Part 1 is completed for each customer statement, for which a
customer I.D., a customer demographic (sex, age, location etc...) and
product use information are recorded. The product use questions are
categorised into Who, What, When, Where, Why and How (e.g. : Who uses
it? Who will use it?; What is it used for? What could be the use?...) which
when analysed in conjunction with the demographic information serve to
highlight different market segments into which customers may be divided.
The two columns under each "Use" category differentiate entries that are
gathered directly from customers from those that are generated internally
within the company.

The VOCT Part 2 identifies demands that are spoken and unspoken based
upon the Voice of the Customer and usage information. These are
transformed into useful reworded statements for use in the QFD process
(e.g. a customer requirement entry in a "House of Quality" matrix). For each
statement the table requires :

1. Demanded Quality (Customer Requirements) items are developed in

terms of the organisation.
2. Measurable Quality Characteristics (Technical Requirements) that
ensure Demanded Quality items will be met, are identified.
3. The Functions that are necessary for the product to be acceptable to
the customer are identified.
4. The Reliability of the product in satisfying its intended Function for a
specified time period is considered.
5. Comments can be added to raise other important factors

The outputs of the VOCT can then be entered into a “House of Quality"
matrix to begin the product planning process.
The application of the VOCT for identifying segments in a customer group is
particularly important in avoiding the problems highlighted by the
Impossibility Theorem.

QFD in Strategic Decision-Making

The flexibility of the matrix tools utilised by QFD has enabled many
applications to issues other than product development (these are often
referred to as non-conventional QFD applications). These applications have
included performance evaluation, supplier certification, health care to name a
few examples.

In 1988 Sullivan was first to describe the use of QFD in strategy formulation
and implementation in the West (the figure below illustrates his policy
deployment matrix). This facet of QFD application has since developed into a
significant field with now more than twenty different applications and many
beneficiaries documented.

This page currently offers a brief review of the majority of these applications
(see tables below), and hopes in the future to describe the important
developments in this field.

The table below documents authors who have described QFD strategic
applications utilising a single matrix:
Authors Description of application
Maddux, Used QFD to facilitate strategic planning decisions at the
Amos & Production Engineering Division of the U.S. Army Missile
Wyskida Command.
(1991)
Philips,
Describe a QFD procedure to formulate annual policy and
Sander &
demonstrate their approach by comparing it to policy
Govers
formulation at Philips EBEI-IC in Taiwan.
(1994)
Detail the use of QFD by a consulting organisation for strategic
Hummel planning and describe the application of a five-step approach
(1996) within the University of Vermont to build a single HOQ type
matrix.
Describe the use of a single QFD matrix applied to business
Ferrell &
planning within a small U.S. appraisal firm to translate
Ferrell Jr.
customer requirements into targets for relevant controllable
(1994)
business parameters.
Describe the application of QFD to strategic product planning
in which a matrix is used to set strategic goals, prioritise
Cohen (1995) product family members, highlight products that fail to meet
market needs and those needs which currently are not
satisfied.
Detail three case studies of strategic applications of QFD,
Guinta &
identifying key new customers, highlighting the most
Praizler
important requests for quotation and the design of an
(1993)
employee training programme.
Highlights the problems of incompatible tactics in the
Prasad
application of Just-in-Time techniques and advocates the use
(1995)
of a JIT quality matrix developed from the HOQ.
Lu, Madu, Describe a method to integrate the techniques of the
Kuei & Analytical Hierarchy Process (see Saaty, 1990 for a description
Winokur of AHP), QFD and benchmarking in a single matrix tool to
(1994) analyse strategic marketing policy.

Multiple matrix strategic QFD applications:

Authors Description of application
Describe McDonnell Douglas Technologies Inc. use of a three-
Atkins &
phase QFD matrix approach within an "Integrated Strategic
Crisafi (1995)
Planning Process".
Explore the application of a four-phase QFD procedure to
strategic marketing planning. Gathered customer
Lu & Kuei
requirements are used in a series of matrices to generate
(1995)
long term corporate goals, marketing-related objectives,
marketing strategies and finally marketing tactics.
Describes the application of QFD matrices to business
planning using a four-phase approach, which converts
Day (1991)
company vision into individual responsibilities and action
plans.
 Describe the use of QFD in developing a strategic planning
Chen & process for the research activities of an academic department
Bullington at Mississippi State University. They utilised a four-phase
(1993) approach and used the needs of appropriate funding agencies
to drive the process.
Lowe & Applied a two-phase approach based upon QFD techniques for
Ridgway the identification and interpretation of an organisation's core
(1998) competencies.
Describes a strategic planning approach that involves nine
Barnard
steps to develop a series of five appropriate HOQ type
(1992)
matrices.
Lyman, Describe the application of six QFD matrices as a decision-
Buesinger & making tool for focusing product development efforts within
Keating Chevron Chemical Co.'s Specialty Polymers Strategic Business
(1994) Unit.
Hales (1995) Describes two QFD based approaches to strategic decision-
& (1997) making and project selection used by a consulting agency.

Strategic QFD References (in order of appearance)

• Sullivan, L. P. (1988), "Policy management through quality function

deployment", Quality Progress, Vol. 21, Part 6, pp. 18-20.
• Maddux, G. A., R. W. Amos and A. R. Wyskida (1991),
"Organisations can apply quality function deployment as strategic planning
tool", Industrial Engineering, September, pp. 33-37.
• Philips, M., P. Sander and C. Govers (1994), "Policy formulation by
use of QFD techniques: a case study", International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 11, Issue 5, pp. 461-50.
• Hummel, K. (1996), "Abstracting the QFD: Applying the power of
QFD to strategic planning", Transactions from the Eighth Symposium on
Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, pp. 93-108.
• Ferrell, S. F. and W. G. Ferrell Jr. (1994), "Using quality function
deployment in business planning at a small appraisal firm", The Appraisal
Journal, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 382-390.
• Cohen, L. (1995), Quality function deployment: how to make QFD
work for you, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts, USA.
• Guinta, L. R. and N. C. Praizler (1993), The QFD book: the team
approach to solving problems and satisfying customers through quality
function deployment, Amacom, New York.
• Prasad, B. (1995), "JIT quality matrices for strategic planning and
implementation", International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 116-142.
• Lu, M. H., C. N. Madu, C. Kuei and D. Winokur (1994),
"Integrating QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing", Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 41-50.
• Atkins, A. R. and L. M. Crisafi (1995), "Monopolize your strategy
with QFD", Transactions from the Seventh International Symposium on
Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, pp. 227-236.
• Lu, M. H. and C. Kuei (1995), "Strategic marketing planning: a
quality function deployment approach", International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 85.
• Day, R. G. (1991), "Using the QFD concept in non-product related
applications", Transactions from the Third International Symposium on
Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, pp. 231-241.
• Chen, C. and S. F. Bullington (1993), "Development of a strategic
research plan for an academic department through the use of quality function
deployment", Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25, Nos. 1-4, pp.
49-52.
• Lowe A. J. and K. Ridgway (1998), "Using Quality Function
Deployment within Manufacturing SMEs", Proceedings of the 1st International
SMESME Conference, 20-22nd April, The University of Sheffield, pp. 1-8.
• Barnard, B. (1992), "Using quality function deployment to align
business strategies and business processes with customer needs",
Transactions from the Fourth International Symposium on Quality Function
Deployment, Novi, Michigan, pp. 514-525.
• Lyman, D., R. F. Buesinger and J. P. Keating (1994), "QFD in
strategic planning", Quality Digest, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 45-52.
• Hales, R. F. (1995), "Quality function deployment as a decision
making tool", Proceedings of the 38th APICA International Conference and
Exhibition, Orlando, Oct 22nd-27th, pp. 489-492.
• Hales, R. F. (1997), "Strategic selection of projects", APICS - The
Performance Advantage, Dec, 7/12, pp. 44-47.

QFD References
1. Sullivan, L.P., 1986, "Quality Function Deployment", Quality
Progress, June, pp 39-50.
2. Akao, Y., Ed. 1990, "Quality Function Deployment: Integrating
Customer Requirements into Product Design", Translated by Glenn Mazur.
Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
3. Hauser, J.R. & Clausing, D., 1988, "The House of Quality", Harvard
Business Review, May-June, pp 63-73.
4. King, B., 1989, "Better Designs in Half the Time", Third Edition,
GOAL/QPC, Methuen, Massachusetts.
5. Cohen, L., 1995, "Quality Function Deployment: how to make QFD
work for you", Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts.
6. Nakui, S., 1991, "Comprehensive QFD System", Transactions from
the Third International Symposium on QFD, Novi, Michigan, pp 137-152.
7. Hales, R.F., 1995, "Adapting Quality Function Deployment to the U.S.
culture", IIE Solutions, Oct. (27/10), pp 15.
8. Scanlan, J.P., Winfield, A. & Smith G., 1994, "Modelling the Design
Process within the Aerospace Industry", Factory 200 - Advaned Factory
Automation, 3-5 October, Conference Publication No. 398, IEE, pp 645-650.
9. Smith, J.A. & Angeli, I.I., 1995, "The use of Quality Function
Deployment to Help Adopt a Total Quality Strategy", Total Quality
Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, March, pp 35-44.
10. Poolton, J. & Barclay, I., 1996, "Concurrent Engineering
Assessment: a Proposed framework", Journal of Engineering Manufacture,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 210, No. B4, pp
321-328.
11. Veness, P.J., Chidolue, G. & Medhat, S.S., 1996, "Concurrent
engineering infrastructure; tools, technologies and methods in British
industry", Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 141-147.
12. Hazelrigg, G.A., 1996, "The implications of Arrow's impossibility
theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design", Journal of Mechanical
Design, Vol. 118, June, pp 161-164.
13. Arrow, K.J., 1963, "Social choice and individual values", 2nd Ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
14. Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G., 1990, "The core competence of the
corporation", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, May-June, pp 73-91.
15. Gallon, M.R., Stillman, H.M. & Coates, D., 1995, "Putting core
competency thinking into practice", Research and Technology Management,
Vol. 38, Part 3, May-June, pp 20-28.
16. Kirkwood, D.H., 1994, "Semisolid metal processing", International
Materials Reviews, 39(5), pp 173-189.
17. Zairi, M. & Youssef, M.A., 1995, "Quality function deployment - a
main pillar for successful total quality management and product
development", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.
12, No. 6, pp 9-23.
18. Sullivan, L.P., 1988, "Policy management through quality function
deployment", Quality Progress, Vol. 21, Part 6, pp 18-20.

UK Based QFD Research

Modelling the Design Process within the Aerospace Industry - a record of the
development of QFD as a management tool to model the dynamics of the
design process. This model is to be applied to the structural design of an
aircraft wing. (Ref 8)

The Use of Quality Function Deployment to Help Adopt a Total Quality

Strategy - a House of Quality matrix is utilised to compare the requirements
of quality assurance standard ISO 9000 with the philosophies of five leading
quality gurus (Crosby, Deming, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa and Juran).
Companies can utilise this tool to develop a suitable strategy for applying
total quality by weighting the importance of each ISO 9000 requirement. (Ref
9)
Application of QFD in the Automotive Industry - a project to apply a QFD
methodology to the design of a new generation electric latch system within
an automotive component and systems supplier, has been undertaken by the
Department of Quality and Process Improvement at Cranfield University.

Concurrent Engineering Assessment - a study of new product development

procedures used in UK firms suggested that QFD is most appropriate when a
product is complex from both a manufacturing and a product end user's point
of view. (Ref 10)

Concurrent Engineering Infrastructure - a study of the tools, technologies

and methods used to achieve concurrent engineering in British industry,
highlighted a low level of adoption of QFD in the UK despite its potential and
a high level of awareness. The authors conclude that this is due to the
perceived complexity of QFD methodology and confusion over its application
and benefits. (Ref 11)

The Implications of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem - the use of "averaged"

group preferences by techniques such as QFD is shown to lead to potentially
highly erroneous results by the application of Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility
Theorem. (Ref 12)

Seven QFD Project Case Studies Including UK Organisations - a paper that

describes the results of a questionnaire based survey of seven QFD projects
in U.S. and UK organisations. The paper concludes with benefits achieved
and common implementation problems encountered. (Ref 17)

UK Applications of QFD

The following organisations have been recorded as practitioners of QFD in the

UK:

Rover
ICI
Black & Decker Ltd
Philips PT.PMR (Telecom)
Sonatest PLC
Midland Pump Manufacturing Company
Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems
Integrated Design Control Systems
Carnival Design and Manufacture
Metalastik Dunlop
Merlin Gerin Transformers
MBC Advanced Sintering

This site hopes to link to more details of commercial QFD activities in the
near future.
 International QFD Research

QFD in Environmental Strategy Management - Marcio Tavares of Global

Transporte Oceanico S.A. (based in Brazil) has investigated the use of QFD in
the development of an organisation's environmental management system.
He can be contacted (in English) at minelli@domain.com.br.

A Guide To QFD Resources

QFD Institute

The QFD Institute. Home page of Quality Function Deployment Institute. The
Official Source for QFD dedicated to the advancement of Quality Function
Deployment. The institute organises forums and seminars, holds an annual
symposium to publicise the latest QFD applications and administers the Akao
Prize.

International Council for QFD

The International Council for QFD (ICQFD) aims to promote a united

international effort in the development of QFD techniques. The council
organises International Council for QFD (ICQFD) and promotes QFD research.

Software Engineering Research Network

The University of Calgary - Software Engineering Research Network provide a

report describing QFD and its application to software design. Three exercises
designed to introduce students to the techniques of QFD are also provided.

Glenn Mazur

Glen Mazur is one of the leading figures promoting QFD in the U.S. His home
page describes several application case studies as well as the services he can
provide.

GOAL/QPC

GOAL/QPC - Helping organizations and communities to grow and prosper

since 1978 are one of the leading suppliers of quality related products in the
U.S. and offer a range of QFD books and articles.

Bob Hales - ProAction Development Inc.

Provides has written nine articles including a description of the adaptation of

QFD for the U.S. business culture (Ref 7) on a site which promotes the
activities of his U.S. consultancy organisation.
Becker Associates

Becker Associates: QFD, Strategic Planning, Teamwork & Organization

Development a consultancy based in Colorado provide useful introduction s
to QFD, the "House of Quality" matrix and other related techniques such as
TRIZ and Hoshin Kanri.

IPM - Innovation Process Management

IPMis an independent company based in Dorset that specialises in innovation

management, and offers training and workshops in QFD.

More QFD Related Links

Ian Ferguson Associates

A leading UK company which offers training, consultancy and software in QFD

product and process development.

Ian Ferguson Associates

32 Woodbourne
Augustus Road
Birmingham
B15 3PH
England
Tel. +44 (0) 121 684 0002 Email:- ian@ianfergusonassoc.com

Books and Articles

The most well known and widely read article on QFD is probably "The House
of Quality" by Hauser and Clausing (Ref 3). This remains an excellent
introduction to the benefits of QFD and describes the building of a "House of
Quality" matrix for a car door.

One of the best practical guides to QFD application is "Quality Function

Deployment: how to make QFD work for you" by Lou Cohen (Ref 5) which is
also available from UK bookstores.

Total Quality Software provide a list of books relevant to QFD practitoners on

their software promoting website.

QFD Software Tools

Several software packages are available to QFD practitioners that facilitate

the construction of matrices and other QFD techniques. Examples include :

"QFD Designer" Software for Windows

Integrated Quality Dynamics Inc. - Company Profile, Research, News,
Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations supply
"QFD Scope".

Total Quality Software supply "QFD2000" as well as other TQM related

products.

ASI also supply "QFD2000".

This page only reflects the views and awareness of the author and is not
meant to be a comprehensive review of all the QFD resources available.

QFD Research at the University of Sheffield

The Manufacturing Research Group at the University of Sheffield has been
involved in QFD based research since 1994. The focus of this research has
been on developing non-conventional applications of QFD tools suited to
meeting the needs of UK manufacturing organisations. These applications
have sought to transfer the benefits of using QFD in the product development
process into other areas of business activity where they are appropriate.

The benefits of using QFD tools which are relevant to many UK businesses
include :

• Improved communications (particularly between functions and

hierarchy levels)
• Emphasis on involving and understanding the customer.
• Systematic analysis of complex business problems.
• Generation of innovative insights and opportunities.

Three QFD methods have been developed and applied in case studies :

1. Strategy formulation within an SME

2. Developing new product concepts from core competencies
3. Evaluating innovative processing technologies

Other areas of ongoing QFD research include:

• Evaluating the implications of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (Ref 12)

for QFD practitioners. This theorem highlights that the use of
"averaged" group preferences by techniques such as QFD can lead to
highly erroneous results.

• A review of QFD use in strategic decision-making applications and a

proposed matrix of strategic QFD tools.
• Using QFD to facilitate the development of sustainable manufacturing
and design.