Qfd house of quality

HOQ

1. QUALITY TOOLS &
TECHNIQUES–II
By: -
Hakeem–Ur–Rehman
MS–Total Quality Management
IRCA(UK) Lead Auditor QMS
MSc(Information & Operations Management)
IQTM–PU
1
TQT
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT:
HOUSE OF QUALITY

2. QFD: AN INTRODUCTION
QFDwasdevelopedinJapaninthelate1960sbyProfessors
ShigeruMizunoandYojiAkao.
ThepurposeofProfessorsMizunoandAkaowastodevelop
aqualityassurancemethodthatwoulddesigncustomer
satisfactionintoaproductbeforeitwasmanufacturered.
Priorqualitycontrolmethodswereprimarilyaimedatfixing
aproblemduringoraftermanufacturing.
“QualityFunctionDeployment(QFD)isamethodologyfor
buildingthe"VoiceoftheCustomer"intoproductand
servicedesign.Itisateamtoolwhichcapturescustomer
requirementsandtranslatesthoseneedsintocharacteristics
aboutaproductorservice”

3. QFD: DEFINITION
YojiAkao’sdefinitionofQFDis:
“QFDisamethodfordevelopingadesign
qualityaimedatsatisfyingtheconsumer
andthentranslatingtheconsumer’s
demandsintodesigntargetsandmajor
QualityAssurance(QA)pointstobeused
throughouttheproductionphase.”

4. PHASES OF THE QFD
NOTES:
“DesignAttributes”arealsocalled“FunctionalRequirements”
“ComponentAttributes”arealsocalled“PartCharacteristics”
“ProcessOperations”arealsocalled“ManufacturingProcesses”and
The“QualityControlPlan”refersto“KeyProcessVariables.
HOWS

5. QFD:HOUSE OF QUALITY
Customer
Requirements
(Whats)
Relationship
Matrix
(Whatsvs. Hows”)
Customer
Market
Evaluation
(Whatsvs. Whys)
Degree of Technical Difficulty
Technical Specifications
(Hows)
Correlation Matrix
(Howsvs. Hows)
How muchs
Whys
Target Goals
Technical Competitive Evaluations
Overall Importance Ratings
Customer
Importance
Rating

7. STEPS TO BUILD HOUSE OF QUALITY
1.IdentifytheCustomerRequirements(WHATs)
2.IdentifytheTechnicalRequirements(HOWs)
3.DevelopaRelationshipMatrixBetweenWHATs&HOWs
4.DevelopanInterrelationship(Correlation)MatrixBetweenHOWs
5.CompetitiveAssessments
CustomerCompetitiveAssessments
TechnicalCompetitiveAssessments
6.DevelopPrioritizedCustomerRequirements
ImportancetoCustomer
TargetValue
Scale–UpFactor
SalePoint
AbsoluteWeight
7.DevelopPrioritizedTechnicalDescriptors
DegreeofDifficulty
TargetValue
AbsoluteWeight
RelativeWeight

8. HOUSE OF QUALITY: EXAMPLE
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR MOUNTAIN BIKES

9. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
1.IdentifytheCustomerRequirements(WHATs)
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES

10. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
2.IdentifytheTechnicalRequirements(HOWs)
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES

11. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
3.DevelopaRelationshipMatrixBetweenWHATs&HOWs
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES
Strong
Medium
Weak
+9
+3
+1
Relationship between
Customer
Requirements and
Technical Descriptors
WHATs vs. HOWs

12. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
4.DevelopanInterrelationship(Correlation)MatrixBetweenHOWs
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES
x= Design Trade-offs

13. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
5.a)CompetitiveAssessments(CustomerCompetitiveAssessments):
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES

14. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
5.b)CompetitiveAssessments(TechnicalCompetitiveAssessments):
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES

15. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
6.DevelopPrioritizedCustomer
Requirements
Importance to
Customer
TargetValue
Scale–UpFactor
SalePoint
AbsoluteWeight
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES
Absolute Weight = (Importance to
Customer X Scale-Up Factor X Sales
Point)

16. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
7. Develop Prioritized
TechnicalDescriptors
DegreeofDifficulty
TargetValue
AbsoluteWeight
RelativeWeight
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR
MOUNTAIN BIKES
Absolute Weight = (9 X 8 + 1 X 5 + 9 X
5 + 9 X 2 + 9 X 7 + 3 X 5 + 3 X 3 = 227)
Relative Weight = (3 X 16 + 9 X 8 + 9
X 5 + 3 X 2 + 0 X 18 + 3 X 5 + 9 X 3=
213)

17. HOUSE OF QUALITY: AN EXAMPLE
HANDLEBAR STEMS FOR MOUNTAIN BIKES

18. QUESTIONS