A

1.
2.
Managing quality / edited by B.G. Dale and J.J. Plunkett
Imprint New York : Philip Allan, 1990
ISBN: 0860035573 (pbk.) Pages: 66-88
69
MANAGING QUALITY 68
and promoted; it recruits and trains its successors to have the same
abilities.
These statements are not made to denigrate Western practice, but to
indicate that none of them really addresses the essential first priority of
specifically satisfying customer needs.
This position needs to be changed with businesses driven by the needs of
markets and customers. It is necessary to create product designs which
satisfy these needs and to be sure that when these are translated into
component designs, manufacturing processes and assembly operations,
that the improved effectiveness will ensure higher profitability. The
differences between Japanese and traditional Western practices are
illustrated in Figure 6.1 (Sullivan 1987b). This illustrates the benefits to be
derived from a high degree of effort at the beginning of a project,
as compared to the traditional Western practice of concentration in
manufacture, with large problem-solving resources being subsequently
needed because of insufficient, and often inadequate, consideration at the
design and planning stages.
Resources and time made available through problem avoidance can be
use'd to achieve economy in indirect costs, to bring forward a new product
ahead of competition or to delay commencement in order to have mt>re up-
to-date information (market/technical/competitiveness), while still meeting
a competitive launch date against competitors who are using traditional
methods.
%
Japan
-
:ll
~
:l
g
Q)
a:
USA
Product Design Manufacture I Problem
development and assembly solving
Time ~
Source: Sullivan (1987b).
Figure 6.1 Quality Effort by Activity
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
al
/"
/ '\.
/\
~ / "
a.
/
\
Xl
\
/
g>
I us Company
IV \
/
ti
<:;
\
::J /
\
~
/
a.
C)
/ \
c: /
\
iii
.,
c: \
"g>
\ .,
a
"
'-
~ ./
E
90% Total Japanese
::J
changes complete
Z
.... '" ..... '" ",.c:
1"
(')
IE '7
Job 1
00 .... 5 +5
~ E
"'E E
Design and planning cycle
Source: Sullivan (1987a).
Figure 6.2 Change Comparison
Another illustration of the effects of the different approaches is shown at
Figure 6.2 (Sullivan 1987a). This illustrates the number of engineering!
product changes over the design and planning cycle of a motor vehicle
under Japanese and traditional Western practices. Figure 6.3 (ASI 1987a),
the quality lever, shows the benefits of placing the main thrust of effort in
the early stages of product innovation. While the numbers given are only
for illustration they nevertheless are a realistic indication of relative benefit.
The Methodology
QFD methodology provides a logical means of looking at the interrelation-
ship between critical characteristics. By their clear display in pictorial form
a reasoned judgement can be made in design so that the confounding
interactions are minimised.(:lt_ makes problem prevention a reality and
removes the inevitability of problem creation from the design, planning
and manufacturing processes. It moves and concentrates action and
resources upstream and by so doing minimises the opportunity for
problems to develop) By establishing at first hand from the customer
70 MANAGING OUALITY
OUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
71
High
Production
I - - - - ~ visibility I
reward
Source: ASI (1987a).
Figure 6.3 The Quality Lever
precisely what is required the best means of achieving it can be established.
A Western company might argue that in concept this is what is practised
now by its design engineers and planners. However, the differences
between the QFD and traditional approaches are threefold. ~ y , there
is the way tha('under QFD customer information is obtained and presented
as a series orcharts cascading from concept to manufacturing detail.
Because of its shape the chart is known as the 'house of quality} SI{s;Qlldly,
every person downstream is regarded as a customer; the last operation is
thus performed in a manner that satisfies the eventual end-user. Every-
thing upstream has been done so that the next downstream activity can be
undertaken correctly. Thirdly, because the QFD procedure is undertaken
by a multidisciplinary team, the traditionally strong functional demarcation
boundaries, supported by equally strong and protective vertical com-
munication lines, are breached and consensus can be obtained.
The house of quality shown in Figure 6.4 (AS I 1987a) may at first sight
seem complex and daunting but, when used as a process, the overall time
taken to bring about a 'better' design is shorter than by traditional
methods. The approach also uses less resources and is therefore less costly.
r Relallonshlps "\
o Slrong
o Med,um
,-, \., ~ Small
//
"-
t Max ~ Moo o Target
HHtHHt t t
Corret
o Strong
O
X
X Strong
DesIgn reQUIrements
How (3)
i
Customer reqUirements
:
~
Importance 1 2 3 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121314151617 18 19 20 E
Q)
45 E
..
..
2
..
Q)
..
5
'" Q)
: ~
;;
Relationship a.
What (1)
matrix (4)
" E

4
8
11
Importance (2)
15
12
Technical diffIculty 45113113342151133433
6. A Cat
o Beat
How much (5) o eear
Competitive assessment (9)
Technical
SaMes repairs 1000 Cars 56 5 '4 10 17
I
Service COSf' Car '6 81 28 43 2. 56 2.
Reg: Hmge strength
Reg" Coor cruSh
"
'.
(10)
Fleg" lodl strength
Doer on 8SHmb 0 41
Rabbet control 41 41
PlastIC outet' panel t;.
'"
Importance (11)
Source: AS] (1987a).
Note: Numbers on figure refer to steps in subsequent text.
Figure 6.4
--
72
73
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
MANAGING QUALITY
(3) Translate these wants into corresponding hows. Express them in
Constructing the House of Quality
terms which can be quantified or qualified and arrange them in
primary, secondary and tertiary order.
Using an electric toaster as an example the procedure used for the
construction of the house of quality chart by the multidisciplinary team is
Material Mechanical
as follows:

(1) Establish full identification of customer wants. List all the wants,
::l
taking care to include basic wants which are often taken for
CI)
rJJ c.
granted. Ensure that customer dislikes are identified as well as
Qi Qi
c
CI)
en
E c
<U
Qi
t: rJJ C
Q)
those items which if they could be included in the item, would
<U
C. C CI) .Q
C.
<U c. C
rJJ CI)
c. c
CI)
cause excitement and pleasure. Summarise these customer wants I I
o

""
"

t!
I
E
'E +=
into a small number of major (primary) wants, supported by a .0; >
Q)
I
Co .Q

ti I
I
I
I I
c.
Cl
number of secondary and, if necessary, tertiary wants. By using Jg
0
c 0
c
t; "
c Q; E
""
.(ij <..> Q)
Q) '. > 0
carefully chosen words the full pattern of customer wants is
0 CI) .t:: "
a:: Cl 0 a:: '" :::E U) -J f- U
obtained in subjective terms.
Sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2:-
<U
E
Secondary Tertiary
Item 3 - how
Looks attractive

Will not burn toast Body
(4) Establish whether a relationship exists between every want and
every how. If a relationship exists, categorise it as strong, medium
Easy to operate CI) Colour Ends
"
c or weak.
Toasts evenly [!! Controls
<U
CI)
Outside
Adjustable c. Cleans
c.
easily
< Crumbs
Accommodates thick/thin bread
Shape Proportions
Colour to suit kitchen
III Toasting
CI) Not expensive

1il
<U= ti
III
Controls
Opening
ti 0
Easily cleaned etc [!! Cl
8'CI) Bread removal c ''OJ <..>
CI) '" E
c Q;
'iii
8 'E
Qi '.
Q; ""
0
Q) 0 .t::
l---
a:: Cl 0 a:: :::E U) f- U
Item I-what
Seq uence -=-I_ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1411
(2) The customer's wants are ranked in importance by the customer.
IBody 5 @ @ @ @ 6.
Relationship:
IEnds 5 @ @ @ @
Import-
@ Strong
Tertiary
Controls 4 @ @ @
0
ance
Outside 2
o Medium
Body 5 Crumbs 3
f::" Weak
our Ends 5 I Proportions 5
r&.1'R\
Controls 4
r


Outside 2
fins
Customer importance
Iy
Crumbs 3
rating scale 1-+5
Proportions 5
Toasting 5
bls Opening 2
Item 4 - relationship
Item 2 - importance
----
75
"- 74
MANAGING QUALITY
(5) The measurement units chosen for each how enable target values
to be established.
r-----
=::::::c=
(f)
ClJ J
t
e

Co

<lI <lI <lI Q)
Q) Q) Q)
en Q;
<Ii
>- >- >- ::l I I
<Ii c
Ol <lI
.0 .0
'"
?< ?< ?< (9 ...J ...J


1
Item 5 - how much
(6) The target figure can be increased or decreased as improvement is
made, using the direction of the arrow to indicate that improve-
ment is by raising or lowering the target value. This is important,
particularly when considering the interrelation between the hows.
[i It I
Item 6 - up or down
(7) This part of the chart is known as the correlation matrix. These
relationships are again categorised, but this time as either positive
or negative and to note if there is a strong relationship.
@ Strong positive
o Positive
#: Strong negative
X Negative
Item 7 - correlation matrix
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
(8) The customer wants of the design are compared with those of the
competitors and the findings are ranked. This will establish
whether the design is better or worse, with a ranking of features.
Preparation of this information will be assisted if specific customer
complaints or warranty claims are known. The dotted line traces
out the position of own product in relation to the competitor's
product and indicates where there is a competitive advantage or
disadvantage _
Customer 1 2 Rating: Poor
complaint
I:. 3 OK
column fa
2
10
X I:. 5 Good
I:.
to
25
10
-
X I:.
Code: 0 Own product
4
I:. to X
X Competitor A
X

I:. Competitor B
Item 8 - competitive assessment of wants
(9) Compare each how against a technical competitive benchmark. In
the example shown there is a correlation between these two
competitive ratings. What is seen as better in the customer want
rating should correlate with technically better. If this is not so, then
it is necessary to check both assessments. The ranking of technical
difficulty 1-5 is an assessment of the relative technical difficulty of
improving the target value (item 5).
-T'"' r-
n

lRelative
-Scale
difficulty
technical 1 2 2 5 3 1 1
1:5
1
Q
J
Code:
Rating: /
2 I:;. X I:;. X
lQ \

o Own product 1 Poor

..-
3 X X
XlQ -0
-fO
I:;.
30K
X Competitor A
4 X X I:;. I:;.
5 Good .........
I:. Competitor B 5LQ
I:;.
Technical competitive benchmark evaluation
Item 9 - competitive technical assessment
--- ----
76
77
MANAGING QUALITY QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
(10) Regulatory or company control items are included at the bottom of
the chart.
Relationship:
BS 3999 Pt 9

@

BS 4167 Pt 3 @ @ @ Strong
0';'
-c
.!!!O
:::I <>
Cost
0 0 o Medium
0>-0
lii Design for assembly f:::. f:::. f:::. Weak
Item 10 - regulatory items
(11) By assigning figures to the whatlhow relationship in item 4 an
overall assessment can be made of the relative importance of each
customer want. Ranking these assessments will indicate which
items are of most importance in the opinion of the customer
and which must consequently be given careful attention by
consideration at the next stage.
The calculation is as follows. For each column, multiply the
customer rating for each want where there is a relationship entry,
by the figure assigned for the entry, using the code strong 9,
medium 3, weak 1. The total for each column 'gives the absolute
value; the relative value is the ranking of absolute values.
Item I I - importance
An illustrative chart is shown in Figure 6.5 which relates to the design of a
car door. It does not include all the customer wants. Figure 6.5 can be
regarded as phase 1 product planning covering design requirements. The
three remaining phases are part deployment, process planning and
production planning and methods. Similar charts are constructed for each
of these phases (see Figures 6.6 and 6.7).
The decision whether to construct all four charts or to be selective
depends on whether the volume or principle of the product warrants the
time and resources. The influencing factors in this decision could include
such items as product life, design or problem complexity, the need to
reduce cost, selecting the competitive position, etc. The objective is to
concentrate on those items which in the opinion of the customers are seen
as strong customer wants. The relative value indicates the ranked order of
importance. These hows are most likely to be either new, important or
difficult-to-achieve items and become the priorities for action.

- """'"
o WEOU

c.
t ...A){
'MIN OT"""ET ,IWltIWIWIW tl I
o mooNG
OPEIIATlNG EI"OIm ........,.. FACT'ORI 0


OESIGN
000f0 LOCK 10 I 'MXI LOCI<I I R x
o 1A'It:H II
... a:
.. ...
a: ...
o ...
l :
, 2 3 4 5
1 1 EASY Q.OSI or.s 1 A' :c:.
:912EASYCLOSEIIS o:sr lOr II
.1.3 EASY TO OPEN 2 0 ----
:J " OOESH'T J(D( SACK 2 C
,. srAYS Of'N .. CHI<. QI

2,' EASY CI\oOHK
2.2 0I'tAHK EASY HOLD ,
a: 2' EASY TOOI"E""''"' I
_ ?""_
ll.1
8 ,3,' '" OCNOII EASE
II : :ll..
S ,3.2 ICE'Y INSERT EASY 10
X 3.3 I<E't EASY I", I

'1 : : bYfj
: 0:.
: ; II I I I I II I ! i I III II-! IIr
21
: jjC
TiCMNICAI.. OIFFCULTV '''1' I' 131' I' 13131.121, lSI' I, 13131.'31.
.w A CAlf
08 CAA'

.0 C CAA,
VALUES
TANlET
IIrnR
TECMNCAi.
- - "I - --r- --- --
COMPETTTNE
- -ri- --
-:- - 0 d?
8EHCHMAAK
2 _. Q - -- . - - . -- - . -- .
WOASC
, .--1------ -- ____ A .f..__
SERVICE FllEPAIRS/1Q)O CARS,. 1'1 u I 11
SR\I1CE COST, IIC.AR I.., .11 21 I 21 51
_! I=EG HINGE STRENGTH
t: AEG DOOR CRUSH
REG I.OCK STRE"IGTH

o g OCOFI OFF ASSM C
:I iii ""'8SE'T CONTROL (I <0
- ts OUTER P'ANEL .w
TEChNICAL AeSOUJ'lC. 0101 .lva7 lID lID IICI.. 110 11311 h.hl
IMPORTANCE REL.ATM 01212171'1.1111.710171212111,12121 I.ho
Source: ASI (1987a).
Figure 6.5 Design of Car Door Using QFD Chart
-- - --
-..J
Design
00
Product planning
requirements
.l!l
C
(1)(1)

EE
0(1)
Ui
::>::1 Part
urr Part deployment
characteristics

C(I)
E
U .2>E
mGl

0::1 Manufacturing
rr
operations


1ii
1:: "t:
alGI
a.1i
Production
a
.r: requirements
0
0>
en
Process planning
20
o+:: U

::IGI
co.
alO
::J!:
Production planning
Source: AS! (1987a).
Figure 6.6 Part Deployment
Phase Phase Phase Phase
2 3 4
Product Part Process Production
planning deployment planning planning

Design Part Key process Production
requirements characteristics operations requirements
0 (/)
(/)(/)
... E
m
(l)C
Gl m cGI
t'e 00
E- .2>E 0 ..
oC
f-----' mGl <u2
"-<u
_<u

r--------
ID.: a.al

0::> GI
rr a
GlOo
U
.r:
::,::0

0
New New New
;:- ;:- ;:- Prototype build
-
"'0

and production
Q>-:.,. <:5'
">,.
<::>"' Q>-:.,. <::>"'
start up
::::U/ =:U
::::U
Source: AS! (1987a).
Figure 6.7 Quality Function Deployment-Process Planning: Deploying the
'Voice of the Customer'
81
MANAGING QUALITY
80
Benefits of QFD
The benefits of QFD, some of which will be detailed in the text, can be
summarised as follows:
Improved quality
Improved company performance
Lower cost in design and manufacture
Improved product reliability
Reduced decision/planning time
Improved productivity of technical and other staff
Reduced warranty claims
Improved marketing opportunities
Improved decision making
A more customer-oriented workforce
Opportunity for improved profitability
The strength of QFD lies in the involvement of a team of people, each
with specific individual knowledge and experience, being brought together
to work from data. They establish a consensus opinion
on how the _end-user's requirements and priorities can best be presented.
Job no. 1
Last new launch
I
prior to QFD
I x M"


/ / x-x Without QFD
(/)
,I With QFD
c
'0;
Mini van 1 II
0..
/ QFD Commences first
8
E
x--"'x_x_x--x I x new launch
t5
e
::l
Mini van 3 I x
Cl..

y' ___.__. I Mini van 4 x ___ x
. "k
QFD Learning period I ---0-_.____
second new launch QFD Operational
third new launch

3 2 3 4 5 6
5 4 2
Months before job no. 1
Months following job no. 1
._--- Prior model .1. New model ----
Source: ASI (1987a).
Figure 6.8 Customer Complaints Before and After QFD
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
By forming multidisciplinary teams functional barriers and the all-too-
familiar lines of demarcation are broken down. The procedure does not
include high technology nor does it require lengthy periods of training or
the acquisition of special skiJIs. It requires instead the careful attention to
detail at every stage as the procedure is worked through. Its apparent
complexity and detail is indicative of the amount of relevant data
overlooked or ignored by the traditional methods of design, development,
process planning and manufacture.
The process requires disciplined thinking and discussion to an orderly
format. It is the application of the procedure that leads to the pictorial and
easily understood presentation. In this way it is a permanent and complete
record of all the relevant information currently available. It provides a
solid starting point for any future work to be undertaken. There should be
no knowledge-loss or the need to regenerate that which has been lost or
forgotten. It also serves as an information base available for any new
member of the team.
Figure 6.8 (ASI 1987a) is an illustration of customer complaints before
and while using QFD on an automobile body. Four consecutive model
bodies (1 to 4) are used in the example. The first shows how, when the
design was frozen, complaints were still coming in, but were not
incorporated into the design, so that at the launch of model 2 a higher level
of complaints needed to be accommodated. There was still a rise in
complaints prior to the launch of model 3, but it was significantly less than
for model 2. At the commencement of model 4 there was a significant
reduction in the number of complaints and the total was significantly
reduced-a clear indication of the benefit of QFD.
A significant benefit to be obtained from the application of QFD is
shown in Figure 6.9 (ASI 1987a). This illustrates pre-production and start-
up costs over a seven-year period for a Toyota vehicle. It also covers the
period when Toyota were introducing QFD. The figure shows that costs
were high and preproduction (primarily training) costs were relatively low
in the traditional factory start up. A 61 per cent reduction of a major
manufacturing cost was achieved by increasing operator training during the
pre-production period. The normal pattern of high start-up costs and
modifications required is also seen in Figure 6.2. The curves show the
experience of two first-class Japanese and American companies. The down
turn in the US company reflects the normal design freeze introduced prior
to production start up; but after start up new problems which required
changes were discovered, hence the upwards kick in the number of changes
to be processed.
In the case of the Japanese company there were far fewer changes;
however, what is more important is where they occur. Over 90 per cent
occurred well over 12 months before production was scheduled to
commence, enabling production to be undertaken with greater confidence,
82
MANAGING QUALITY
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
83
Pre-production costs
Start-up costs (loss)
operator training
January 1977
/
Start-up costs 100 Index No.
Qctober 1979
80
November 1982
~ - - -
62
April 1984
~ L . . . - - . . . - _
39
Source: ASI (1987a).
Figure 6.9 Pre-production and Start-up Costs for Four New Mini Vans
far less anxiety and more cheaply. The bump prior to launch, for the
Japanese company, reflects the attention to detail and the minor changes
made just before start up, to be certain that manufacturing methods were
correct.
Experience indicates that when QFD is used to thoroughly plan the
product and the process, the overall time from concept to commencement
of production can be reduced by one-half to one-third. It can also be
argued that a similar reduction in manpower resources is possible and that
this resource is freed for other work.
The QFD process is most useful when it is used to deal with more
complex situations, as evidenced by the solution to the serious problem
confronting Toyota with car body rust, a common problem with Japanese
cars in the 1960s and 1970s. Toyota had made many attempts at
improvement, but the real breakthrough had eluded them. The seriousness
of the problem was such that the warranty charges exceeded the company
profit by a factor of four.
Body rust was a very complex problem, with many contributing factors.
The QFD process was used to identify and target the more important
factors resulting in the elimination of rust problems arising during the
warranty period.
Basic and Excitement Features
The use of QFD should not be restricted to problem solving. Its main use is
to improve customer satisfaction through enhanced quality. Reference was
made earlier to basic and excitement features. Basic features are expected:
they are essential, but are often taken for granted. For example, car
engines now perform satisfactorily and usually start readily on a cold or
damp morning. Easy starting is one of many basic features which are now
taken for granted, many previous dissatisfactions and irritations having
been eliminated. Similarly, if a specified performance level, e.g. miles per
gallon, is exceeded, there is acceptance that the product has performed
better than planned or expected. This higher performance level then
becomes the norm. While this gives satisfaction there would be dissatisfaction
if the product underperformed or even if it returned to the specified
performance.
Today's market reaches out for, and even demands, additional features.
These can best be classed as those which cause excitement. They may be
trivia, but if they give the customer real satisfaction and pleasure, then the
customer's perception is one of better value for money.
These excitement features can give the product an edge over its
competitors. However, they first have to be identified and incorporated
into the product in such a way that the cost does not take the product out of
that market sector. The strength of the QFD process is to identify these
excitement features. In many cases it can be a comparatively low cost
excitement feature that causes the customer to select product A in
preference to product B.
Because the QFD procedure quantifies the competitive position and the
opportunities available, the team is guided towards a solution which will
85 MANAGING QUALITY 84
have greatest potential for customer satisfaction. There will also be the
certainty that the proposal will have been correctly engineered with
dissatisfactions designed out. Engineers', designers' and planners' general
experience and training often does not enable them to evolve a product,
process or method that generates customer excitement at the first launch
and the competitive edge that goes with it. QFD is a means of helping to
develop a wider customer perspective in a directly operational manner.
The quality of decision making is improved.
Planning and Organising QFD Projects
As with the introduction of any new technique or procedure it is essential
to start in the right way: the selection of the first project and team is vital.
The team needs to be very clear about the objectives, goals/targets, etc.
Equally, if not more important, it needs to consider the limitations that
need to be placed on the project; the time, cost, area to be considered, the
requirements of safety, weight, material and performance for a particular
market sector. With these clearly documented the team is less likely to
stray and can focus on the areas of high priority and customer satisfaction.
There is a learning period for the team and the need to obtain more
detailed information across a broad base. Small projects can be undertaken
relatively quickly, but major projects will probably require 50-60 hours of
meetings to take the project through the whole process as well as individual
work by each team member. This time needs to be accommodated in the
project and company manpower plans. The QFD process can be stopped
after any of the four stages, but the full benefit is achieved by going
through the whole process.
The team will normally comprise 6-8 persons of near similar status, with
the opportunity to coopt specialists if required. The team members would
be recruited for their expertise and open-mindedness rather than status.
They would be chosen from product planning, research, design and
development, marketing, product engineering, manufacturing, purchasing,
service/installation, quality, tooling and production engineering. The
operating method of the team needs to be established at the beginning.
The team will benefit by having a leader/facilitator or coordinator as well as
a person to record decisions and actions to be taken. A regular meeting
time and location should be encouraged.
The purpose of the meetings is to report, update, plan and organise
future action; most of the work will be accomplished by the individual team
members away from the formal meetings. The task is to arrive at
consensus, or the majority view that all will support. This inevitably
requires effective communication, not _only of what is said, but in
QUALITY FUNCfIQN DEPLOYMENT
explaining. Good understanding is essential to arrive at consensus from the
many opinions and viewpoints expressed, some of which may be
conflicting. When consensus is not possible there needs to be agreement to
support the majority view. Training is, therefore, necessary not only in
QFD and the questioning techniques themselves, but also in the techniques
of team leadership and working.
Managing the QFD Process
Team support
Most benefit is obtained from QFD when it is used on major projects,
normally taking many months from concept design to manufacture. While
it can be applied to concept design alone, most benefit is obtained when the
whole process is covered through to the work of individual production
operators. By this means there can be certainty that the voice of the
customer and quality are being built into the final product offered for sale
to the eventual end-user.
Progress through the four phases needs to be monitored by the team
leader in order to measure progress and to be sure that the objectives and
what was agreed at the team meetings is implemented by the respective
functions.
QFD is a detailed rather than a complex process; while it takes time to
work through the whole process, this is much less time consuming than the
indecision and changes of mind which occur so frequently under the
traditional process. Nevertheless, time spent at meetings is accountable real
time and needs to be planned and supported. Management's commitment
throughout is therefore vital.
The best ways of showing this commitment are, firstly, to give high
priority to team members' attendance at meetings and, secondly, to ensure
that the persons with the most experience and understanding join the team
(this is not to prejudge the outcome). It is also important to seek evidence
of progress and to show interest in the new ideas emerging.
QFD is not problem solving. The team is not looking for difficulties to
resolve but for opportunities that can be developed effectively to totally
satisfy the customer. Ideally, the chief executive can demonstrate visible
interest by attending team meetings, providing guidance and help on those
occasions when the team requires guidance on matters of policy and
showing interest informally outside meetings.
87
86 MANAGING QUALITY
Charting
The charts used in QFD procedures contain a wealth of information and it
is not possible to discuss all the aspects in this chapter. The main
considerations to be kept in mind when charting information can be
summarised as follows:
Evidence Indication to check
Blank rows of wants The customer want is either not
satisfied or is not a true want
Blank columns of hows The customer want is not being
satisfied. It may be an unnecessary
want, otherwise it has to be satisfied
Rows and columns with weak An indication of weak customer
relationships opinions or just a vague
interest-check
Unmeasurable hows Measurement needs t9 be intro-
duced in order to be sure that a
change means real improvement
Too many relationships Strive for 50 per cent no relationship,
in order to prioritise
The competitive benchmarks Look for opportunities where there
is a high customer requirement but
low competitive attainment
Negative correlations between Attempt to eliminate or attempt to
the hows compromise
Conflicting competitive assess- High customer requirements must
ment correlate with a corresponding high
specification
General advice
1. Like any other technique QFD should not be used on everything. It
should be used for the really important or complex situations having
a high priority.
2. Be sure the team works as a team and that it has the right participants
with the right attitudes.
3. Ensure that management gives support with encouragement, and
that commitment is demonstrated.
4. The individual charts are important only as long as they enable
progress to be made and action taken. They are not ends in
themselves; many compromises will be necessary from the analysis of
the data.
OUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
5. Be certain to let new ideas surface and come to the front; new
marketi ng opportunities will only come through new, solid and
better ideas being made to work successfully. Remember, in quality
terms the old-fashioned mangle never broke down; but it could not
be programmed to come on at night. The electronic machine must be
equally reliable and its design must anticipate potential hazards that
could arise with the absence of the operator.
6. Keep meetings short and commensurate with the problem; by this
means progress is seen to be made.
7. Keep the team integrated and part of the management processes of
the company.
Has QFD Been Undertaken Correctly?
A number of questions should be asked
1. Has the true voice of the customer been obtained or are there any
biases or omissions?
2. Were design and manufacturing standards established by reference
only to traditional in-house standards and are consequently limited?
3. Do we compare favourably with the best known and potential
competition in our chosen marketplace worldwide?
4. Has the team identified the best opportunities and acted to gain the
most competitive position?
5. What additional information would be useful and how can it be
obtained?
6. What is the best action to take to be sure that the decisions made will
be correctly implemented?
7. Are any compromises necessary which if not made could present
difficulties?
8. Is any further help needed or planned?
Summary
QFD is best thought of as a systematic approach to identifying and
recording areas for priority action; to indicating where the use of other
procedures and techniques, e.g. the Taguchi Method of experimental
design (ASI 1987b), will achieve most benefit in relation to the customer's
perceived needs. It requires disciplined effort both personally and
organisationally.
Many of the entries on the charts will appear obvious, but unless they are
written down they can easily be overlooked. It is the total result that is
MANAGING QUALITY
88
important, not the individual items which traditionally have often excluded
the obvious. QFD is designed to prevent these inadequacies, although it is
not itself a method-improvement technique. If there are too many difficult
areas then it is likely that the QFD process is not being undertaken
correctly.
The charts are not an end in themselves: they are a means to the end
of anticipating and satisfying the perceived needs of the customer.
Remembering that the customer may not know or take for granted many
basic requirements; these must not be overlooked. Ways and ~ e a n s must
be found to prise out of customers their real needs, in anticipation of them
being required when the product arrives at the marketplace some time
later, in company with the competitor's product.
Although the process of QFD is not foolproof, it goes a long way
towards being so. It can be used in a wide variety of situations, ranging
from developing forward strategies to investigating a single situation. Its
strength lies in the development of team working, using the charts in a
disciplined manner to identify all the opportunities and potential in order
to assist the company achieve market leadership with enhanced profitability.
References
ASI (1987a) Quality Function Deployment, Executive Briefing, American Supplier
Institute.
ASI (1987b) An Introduction to Quality Engineering, American Supplier Institute.
Sullivan, L.P. (1987a) 'Quality function deployment', Quality Progress, May,
pp.39-50.
Sullivan, L.P. (1987b) 'The seven stages in company wide quality control', Quality
Progress, June, pp. 77-83.