CASE STUDY 1481

Quality function deployment and its application to

automotive door design
K Miller*, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter
Ford Motor Company, Dunton Technical Centre, Basildon, UK

The manuscript was received on 12 December 2003 and was accepted after revision for publication on 4 August 2005.

DOI: 10.1243/095440705X35053

Abstract: In order to be competitive, automotive design is now focusing on optimizing

perceived qualities in terms of sound and operational efforts. Phases 1 and 2 of the four-phase
quality function deployment (QFD) process have been applied to family segment vehicle side
doors. The objective was to optimize customer comfort when opening and closing the door.
This paper documents the QFD and discusses the reasoning used, assumptions made, and
conclusions drawn. A customer clinic was used to capture the voice of the customer. A ranking
method, morphological chart, and controlled convergence matrix are used to organize data.
The door design obtained incorporates simple observations and electrical technology that
could significantly reduce the effort required in opening and closing the vehicle door.

Keywords: quality function deployment, ranking, automotive door, morphological chart,

controlled convergence matrix, sound quality

1 INTRODUCTION provide a means of ensuring that the product meets

Quality function deployment (QFD), first introduced
by Yoji Akao in 1966, is a planning tool for translating
the customer’s wants, needs, and desires into appro-
priate features [1]. It incorporates the voice of the
customer into all phases of the product development
cycle. QFD uses house of quality matrix diagrams, as
shown in Fig. 1, to deploy the voice of the customer
through four phases: engineering, design, process,
and production.
The first of four house of quality diagrams describes
the relationship between customer requirements
(what) and technical performance measures (how).
For each customer requirement, one or more tech-
nical performance measures must be defined. The
relationships between these are correlated in the
central matrix. Blank rows indicate that the ‘how’
is not sufficient to describe the ‘what’, and blank
columns indicate that the ‘how’ is redundant. Targets
* Corresponding author: Ford Motor Company, Dunton Technical
Centre, Laindon, Basildon, Essex SS15 6EE, UK. email: kmill105@
ford.com
the customers’ requirements. An important element
of the house of quality, proposed product targets,
will not be discussed in this paper, as they are the
confidential property of the Ford Motor Company.
QFD helps to ensure that products and processes
are designed correctly first time. It directs the appli-
cation of quality improvement tools and techniques
to satisfy customer needs and expectations. Its
capability of showing a great deal of information on
one page makes the QFD a useful technique, but the
charts tend to grow and often become unreadable
as a result of the vast array of information [2]. It is
also possible to become embroiled in drawing over-
detailed diagrams and to lose perspective of other
necessary tasks [1]. Carrying out a QFD is time and
resource intensive and requires commitment from
senior management [3]. The four-phase method is
best suited to existing/evolutionary products [3].
The QFD was initiated to enhance customer satis-
faction with side door opening and closing efforts
and sound quality. The QFD process examines side
doors. It only concerns the opening and closing cycle
and the sound associated with that cycle. No other
door attributes are considered.

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

D22503 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1482 K Miller, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter
Fig. 1 House of quality matrix diagram
2 CUSTOMER CLINIC
Four comparator vehicles were used in the customer
clinic: the Audi A3, the Ford Focus, the Peugeot 307,
and the Toyota Corolla. A customer sample of family-
sized vehicle drivers was selected to be representa-
tive of the total car market in age and gender. The
same process, facilitated by trained engineers, was
conducted in Germany and the United Kingdom. A
questionnaire was used to capture demographic
information. Customers were then asked to rate the
opening and closing activity and sound of the four
vehicles on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The
facilitator recorded comments and touch points.
Cognitive mapping is a method for arranging and
summarizing thoughts [4]. Customers were invited
visually to describe the relationships between the
tested doors and the ideal door, using cards. Their
maps were used as a basis for discussion verbally to
explore the gap between the vehicles tested and the
ideal vehicle door.
A trend analysis was carried out. The combined
(Germany and United Kingdom) box plots for a
selection of vehicle doors are shown in Fig. 2. An
explanation of the abbreviations used can be found
in Table 1. The graphs show the variation in customer
ratings: the figures denote the mean customer rating
given; the boxes represent the middle half of the data;
the lines represent the upper and lower quartiles of
the data; and the asterisks mark outliers.
Table 1 Explanation of the abbreviations used in the customer benchmarking graph
Letters F/R C/O
Description Front/rear Closing/opening
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
Figure 2 shows that Audi A3 vehicles are rated
approximately one place lower for the opening than
for the closing activity. The opening of the rear doors
from the outside is given a higher mean rating than
that of the front doors. The Ford Focus opening and
closing activities are consistently rated between 3
and 4, with the mean predominantly lying between
3.5 and 4. The Peugeot 307 rear doors are rated
slightly better for closing than for opening. This
difference is more pronounced in the front doors.
Opening the front doors from the outside is rated
better than opening from the inside. The opening
and closing activities of the Toyota Corolla rear doors
elicit a more varied but notably lower response when
compared with the front doors.
Differentiation of closing sounds with the window
up and the window down is apparent for all vehicles.
Both the Toyota Corolla and the Peugeot 307 front
doors have higher mean ratings for the opening
sounds than their rear doors. Closing sounds heard
from the outside are better for the front doors than
for the rear doors on the Ford Focus. There are no
distinct patterns for sound as there are for activity.
The cognitive mapping process and observations
made resulted in a number of findings.
1. Most customers prefer pull straps to pull cups for
the interior handle (see Fig. 3).
2. Most customers use their forearm on the door
trim to open the door from the inside – styling
features in this area lead to discomfort.
3. Most customers prefer strap handles to paddle
handles for the exterior release handle (see Fig. 3).
The customer clinic process was carried out in a
robust manner. The results provide a valuable input
to the QFD and a useful insight into customer
behaviour and preferences. Sound ratings made
during the clinic may be influenced by the activity
performed. Audio recordings, shown in Fig. 4, were
made and could be used for an unbiased customer
study.
Closing sounds were recorded in an anechoic
chamber and plotted for comparative analysis. Time
is shown in seconds along the x axis, frequency is
shown in hertz along the y axis, and the shading
describes loudness in decibels dB(A). Simplistically,
the graphs can be read in three ways.
1. The light area represents noise that generally
starts to annoy the customer.
I/O WD/WU
Inside/outside Window down/window up
D22503 © IMechE 2005
 Quality function deployment and automotive door design 1483

Fig. 2 Customer vehicle rating

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

D22503 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1484 K Miller, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter

Fig. 3 (a) Interior pull strap, (b) Interior pull cup, (c) Exterior pull handle, (d) Exterior paddle
handle

Fig. 4 Sound graphs for (a) Audi A3, (b) Ford Focus, (c) Peugeot 307, and (d) Toyota Corolla

2. The three peaks show the latch hitting the striker,
overtravelling and hitting the back plate of the
striker, then readjusting and hitting the inboard
surface of the striker. Ideally, these peaks should
be so close to one another as to be indistinguish-
able to the human ear.
3. The amount of deep level noise, the area of grey
below 1 kHz towards the bottom of each plot,
should not be so long that the customer interprets
it as rattle, but it should provide a reassuring ‘thud’.
A visual analysis of the sound indicates that the Audi
door closing noise would please the customers. It is
relatively quiet, the peaks are close, and the deep
level sound has a short duration. Following the same
principles, the Ford Focus graph is the next most
pleasing to the customer, then the Toyota Corolla
(which has louder high-frequency sound), then the
Peugeot 307 (which also has louder high-frequency
sound plus greater distinction between the three
peaks of the latch).

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D22503 © IMechE 2005
 Quality function deployment and automotive door design
A check mechanism, sometimes integrated with
the hinge, holds the door at set open positions. Most
vehicle doors have two check positions: one that
holds the door at approximately 70°, and the other
at approximately 30°. Many customers disliked the
third check position on the Audi A3. Opening and
closing become more critical in a confined space
such as a car park. A task analysis type study could
be envisaged where participants are asked to evaluate
door mirror adjustment of a vehicle in a confined
space. By transferring the focus onto the door mirror,
the opening and closing will be natural. This could
also provide a pretext for videoing the activity.
Another factor not considered in this study is the
personal effects carried by subjects on entering or
exiting the vehicle. These may affect the way the door
is operated and should be considered in its design.
3 QFD PHASE 1 – ENGINEERING
Phase 1 establishes the requirements of the customer
and translates them into engineering language as
technical performance measures. A sample section
of the house of quality diagram is shown in Table 2.
The customer requirements of phase 1 were taken
verbatim from customers, filtered from the customer
clinic. The requirements were grouped under general
headings for clarity. A small team generated the tech-
nical performance measures. They are based upon
existing Ford Motor Company specifications which
are believed to meet the customer requirements. The
same team populated the relationship matrix by con-
sidering each customer requirement against each
technical performance measure in turn. As the corre-
lation was determined by consensus of opinion, the
results are dependent on the team composition. The
house of quality was built in a spreadsheet, which is
universally available and is easily manipulated. The
symbols of the relationship matrix were entered as
values (1=weak, 3=medium, and 9=strong) to give
quadratic separation.
3.1 Correlation matrix
The correlation matrix forms the roof of the house
of quality and identifies correlations between the
technical performance measures. Within this area
it is also indicated if the direction of improve-
ment is larger or smaller, or if nominal is best. As
the direction of improvement for so many of the
measures is towards the nominal, it is not value
adding to indicate whether the correlation is positive
or negative. Instead, all the correlations have simply
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
D22503 © IMechE 2005
1485
been marked strong or weak. Completing the matrix
draws attention to areas where a trade-off decision
may be required. The correlation matrix is not
shown, but a summary is given below.
Ford Motor Company studies conclude that a
major contributor to sound quality is the latch and its
alignment to the striker. Squeak and rattle and sound
deadening are considered in opening and closing
sound quality. The contour of the check arm and
hinge friction drives the smoothness of door radial
movement. Of the measures listed, the door hinge
geometry, friction, check efforts, latch operation,
handle position, and polar moment of inertia con-
tribute to the force required to close (and open) the
door. Air extraction and the sealing system, although
major contributors, have not been included in the
QFD. The hinges, check arm, and striker alignment
introduce variance and therefore impact consistent
force. Many of the ergonomic measures are inter-
related.
3.2 Importance rating
The paired comparisons technique is the most robust
method for rating entities [5]. It asks respondents
to compare just two entities at a time from a pool
of entities. The minimum number of judgements
required is equal to
n(n−1)/2 (1)
where n is the number of entities. A total of 44
entities would require in excess of 946 judgements.
This is too many to handle without programmed
software. It is commonly accepted that nine entities
is the upper limit [5].
A ranking method was used where the respondent
was asked to rank only the best and worst entities.
The customer requirements indicated as most
important were allocated a value of +1, and those
indicated as the least important a value of −1. The
remainder were allocated a value of 0. The values for
each entity were summed for all respondents and
ordered highest to lowest. The equation
[Highest−( lowest−1)]/5 (2)
was used to generate value intervals. The entities
were rated 1 to 5 according to the interval in which
their values fell.
The original 44 customer requirements were con-
densed to 21 to make a more manageable study, but
not to the extent of losing meaning. Respondents
of a similar demographic to the marketplace were
asked to complete a questionnaire and indicate the
seven most important and seven least important
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
 1486

Table 2 Section of phase 1 house of quality

Direction of improvement Technical performance measures

3 3 3 # 3 3 # 3 # # # # # # # # # #
Hinge operation Check operation Handle operation

Design Exterior Interior

Exterior with handle handle
Exterior Interior handle obvious move- arc pivot Clearance
Hinge Hinge Check Check Latch release release position grip (int/ ment at from Size Shape between
Import- Hinge free Hinge geo- position Check arm operation handle handle relative ext/grab various Handle elbow of of handle
Customer requirements ance noise play friction metry noise efforts contour (force) operation operation to hinge handles) angles position to hand handle handle and body

Sound No grinding noises 5 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1

Silent operation 1 1 3 3 3 3 9 9 3 9 9 1 1 1 1 3
Good deep sound/low frequency

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

(solid) 3 1 1 3 3 1 9 9 3
Secure latched sound 4 3 3 3 1 9 9
Consistent sound 1 9 1 9 9 3 9 9 3 9
Effort Light/low opening/closing efforts 2 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 9
Consistent opening/closing efforts 3 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 9
Ergonomics Easy handle operation 3 9 9 1 9 9 3 9 3 9 9
Know when unlatched through
handle feel 2 9 9 9 1 9 9 3 9 9 9 9
Easy to grip handles 3 1 3 3 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Operation Door stays open 5 1 1 3 9 9
First stop must open door enough 3 1 1 9 9 1
Multiple door stop positions 2 3 3 3 3 9 9 3 3
Self closing assistance 1 9 3 9 1 3 9
Self opening assistance 1 9 3 9 1 3 9 1
Smooth movement to stop 2 9 3 9 1 9 9
Open door reachable from inside 4 1 9 9 9 9 9 3 1
Door hitting other cars in car parks
K Miller, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

prevention 4 3 3 9 1 9 9 1 9
Dependable Strong feeling door 4 1 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 3
Closes first time every time 5 1 3 9 1 9 9 9 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1
Safe Safe shape and no snags 3 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 1 3
Targets
Total score 74 176 216 314 81 412 468 219 261 258 81 201 186 176 209 156 143 150
Pareto 30 17 10 4 28 2 1 9 5 6 28 13 15 17 12 19 22 20
Rescale to 1–5 1 3 4 5 1 5 5 4 5 5 1 4 3 3 4 3 2 2

D22503 © IMechE 2005

 Quality function deployment and automotive door design
requirements. A brief introduction was given, and
queries were answered during the process. In all, 40
questionnaires were completed. The entities were
ranked and entered into the QFD (see Table 2).
The robustness of the technique could be improved
by presenting the entities in a random order for
each respondent. Details on gender, age, and vehicle
driven were taken to ensure that the demographic
studied was comparable with the total car market.
3.3 Consumer competitive assessment
A customer competitive assessment is a useful
element often appended to the standard phase 1
house of quality. It is a benchmarking exercise from
the customer perspective. During the customer
clinic, the subjects were asked to rate various experi-
ences on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the best. The mean
for each experience was calculated for each vehicle
model. The resulting graph is shown in Fig. 5. An
explanation of the abbreviations used can be found
in Table 1.
The closing activity experience rating is similar for
all four vehicles, with the Ford Focus performing
consistently better for closing from the inside across
front and rear doors. However, the mean rating drops
for both front and rear doors of the Ford Focus and
Toyota Corolla being closed from the outside with
windows up.
The Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla mean ratings
for opening are approximately 1 point higher than
those for the Audi A3 and Peugeot 307. The Ford
Fig. 5 Customer benchmarking
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
D22503 © IMechE 2005
1487
Focus is more consistent across front and rear doors
for opening from the inside and opening from the
outside, giving it the overall advantage.
The Audi A3 has the highest mean rating for all
closing sounds. The Peugeot 307 and Toyota Corolla
have similar mean ratings and are rated lowest of
the four vehicles for all opening and closing sounds.
The Audi A3 and Ford Focus perform equally well for
opening sounds from the inside and outside.
3.4 Technical competitive assessment
The technical competitive assessment is a bench-
marking exercise from the engineering perspective.
Measurements of the Audi A3, Ford Focus, Peugeot
307, and Toyota Corolla were made prior to the
customer clinic. The data collected was compared
with the appropriate Ford Motor Company system
specification. Opening and closing efforts were rated
1 to 5 according to the number of results that fell
outside the specification requirement. Three vehicles
represented each model, all having four side doors.
Therefore, all 12 side doors not meeting the require-
ment would give the vehicle model the lowest rating.
The breakdown of the ratings is shown in Table 3.
Experts assessed and rated the ergonomic and sound
attributes of the side doors. These ratings are shown
in Fig. 6.
All dynamic closing efforts measured fell below
the lower limit of the specified requirement. When
inspecting the ratings regarding ergonomics, it
appears that comfort in use of both the interior and
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1488 K Miller, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter

Table 3 Explanation of the technical competitive ratings

Number of side doors not meeting specification 0 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12
Rating 5 4 3 2 1

Fig. 6 Technical benchmarking

exterior release handles has the greatest correlation
with the respective opening ratings of all the ergo-
nomic measures. The closing sound assessment
matches the mean ratings of the customers.
The mean measurements for vehicle front and rear
doors are shown in Figs 7 and 8 respectively. The
outside handle effort of the Peugeot 307 for both
front and rear doors is significantly higher than that
of the other vehicles. The Peugeot 307 has a low
customer rating for opening from the outside, but it
is not the lowest. The Audi A3 is the only vehicle to
have a third check position on the front doors and
has the highest efforts into checks of all the vehicles.
The Audi A3 is mean rated low for opening and

Fig. 7 Mean front door measurements

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D22503 © IMechE 2005
 Quality function deployment and automotive door design
Fig. 8 Mean rear door measurements
lowest, particularly on front doors, for opening from
the outside. It should be noted that the vehicles were
not tested in a car park situation where restricted
space may elicit higher ratings for multiple check
positions. Forces measured for dynamic closing of
the rear door from the outside with the window up
correspond to the order in which the mean ratings
lie for the same activity.
3.5 Technical importance rating
The technical importance ratings are a relative
comparison of the importance of each technical per-
formance measure to the quality of the final product.
They are calculated by multiplying the values in the
relationship matrix by the corresponding customer
importance rating and summing for each perform-
ance measure. Although the values themselves have
no meaning, their relative value is significant. They
are therefore ranked and split into five equal inter-
vals, each of which is allocated a rating from 1 to 5.
4 QFD PHASE 2 – DESIGN
The most important technical performance measures
of phase 1 are deployed to phase 2 and are linked to
design characteristics. The largest task in phase 2 is
to identify the optimum design. A sample of the
house of quality is shown in Table 4.
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
D22503 © IMechE 2005
1489
4.1 Concept generation
A morphological chart was used to generate con-
cepts. For each element of product function there
may be a number of possible solutions. The chart
enables these solutions to be expressed and provides
a structure for considering alternative combinations
[6].
Functions were chosen that impact the sound,
comfort, and force required to open and close
the door. For each function a list of means that
would fulfil that function was created. Methods used
included consulting experts, competitive bench-
marking, reading technology papers, and brain-
storming.
The morphological chart shown in Fig. 9 was
drawn up, containing all the possible subsolutions
representing the solution space for the product. The
chart is a resource for reviewing alternative methods
for achieving the same functionality. Nine concepts
were generated, drawn, and presented to an equal
level for concept selection.
4.2 Concept selection
The Pugh selection process, also known as a con-
trolled convergence matrix, was used to evaluate the
concepts. A simple matrix is used to compare con-
cepts against a datum using predefined criteria. A
benefit of the process is that it is non-numeric [6].
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
 1490

Table 4 Sample of phase 2 house of quality

Significant design characteristics

Com- Drum
Open pression Density Solenoid and Hinge Hinge
Signals to area of load of air rotor and Sound cable Interior Interior Interior axis axis
Sached powered powered deflection bleed Area of pawl deadening glass grab grab grab inboard/ forward/
Import door C of G glass air glass air of body holes on cushioned latch material regulator handle handle handle outboard rear
Technical performance measures ance stiffness location extraction extraction seal body seal plain trim sound volume system diameter angle clearance angle angle

Hinge Hinge friction 3

operation Hinge geometry 3 9 9
Check Check efforts 5 3 3
operation Check arm contour 5
Check positions 5
Latch
operation Latch force 4 1 1 3 3
Handle Exterior handle operation 5

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

operation Interior handle operation 4 1 9 9 9
Interior release handle operation 5 1
Design with obvious grip 4 1 9 9 9
Exterior handle movement at various angles 4 9
Handle position 3 9 1
Interior handle arc pivot from elbow to hand 4
Size of handle 3 9 3 9
Shape of handle 4 9 9 9
Clearance between handle and body 4 3
Obvious design position 5 9
Shape of handle depression 3 1 9
Operating Door polar moment of inertia 4 9
efforts Consistent force (general) 4 3 9 3 3 3 3
Force to open door from outside 5 9 9 9
Force to open door from inside 5 9 9 9
Force to close door from outside 3 1 9 9 9 3 9 9
Force to close door from inside 4 1 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 9 9
K Miller, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter

Operating Closing sound from outside 3 3 3 3 9 9

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

sound Closing sound from inside 3 3 3 3 9 9
Squeak and rattle prevention 5 3 9
Risks Recyclable content 5 9
Legal requirements 5 3
Durability 5 1 9
Reliability 5 9
Weight 5 9 9
Security 5 9
Significant design characteristic values
Total score 85 250 105 122 93 33 136 58 99 90 147 132 174 219 219
Pareto 24 2 19 18 22 26 13 25 21 23 11 15 6 3 3
Rescale to 1–5 1 5 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 5 5

D22503 © IMechE 2005

 Quality function deployment and automotive door design
Fig. 9 Morphological chart
When generating the list of criteria, the internal
as well as the external customers were con-
sidered. From an exhaustive list of generic (internal)
customer requirements, key criteria were chosen.
Cost is notable in its absence as it was considered
that it could be engineered out. Also, as it has been
the focus of attention in recent times, it was refresh-
ing for the team not to consider it. External customer
criteria were taken from phase 1 of the QFD.
The current Ford Focus model front door was used
as the datum. Rather than comparing the prepared
concepts, the team made a decision by consensus to
compare each element of the morphological chart.
This made the process longer but led to the creation
of a valuable reference chart. Each element was com-
pared in turn with the datum for each of the criteria.
For elements that were better, a ‘+’ was entered in
the matrix, for those that were worse, a ‘−’ was
entered, and, for those similar to or the same as the
datum, an ‘S’ was entered. For each element, the
total ‘S’, ‘+’, and ‘−’ scores are summed.
At this point, if total concepts have been com-
pared, the best concept will be improved with
features from the lesser concepts so that the best
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
D22503 © IMechE 2005
1491
combination is achieved. Instead, elements that
achieve the same functionality can be compared.
The boxes marked ‘F’ on the morphological chart in
Fig. 9 denote technologies used on the current Ford
Focus, against which the numbered technologies are
compared. The numbers correlate with those on the
convergence matrix in Table 5.
The majority of elements were covered in two team
sessions, with the remaining functions/elements
being compared in smaller, more informal groups.
All decisions were formed by consensus.
4.3 Final concept
Making these comparisons does not allow the
elemental interactions to be considered. To ensure
compatibility, the combination of ‘best’ elements
was compared against the total datum. The com-
bination is shown in Fig. 10. Warranty data suggests
that powered mechanisms are generally less reliable/
durable than their equivalent manual mechanisms.
Not all the elements are consistent with current
trends. Sliding doors are becoming more prevalent
in design shows, especially on larger sports utility
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1492 K Miller, C Brand, N Heathcote, and B Rutter

Table 5 Convergence matrix

Concepts (see matrix)

Criteria 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Sound quality S S − S − − − S S S S S − + S + S S S + − S S − S + + S − S S S
Dynamic effort + S S − − − − − S + + + − + − + + + − + − − + + S + + + − S − −
Static effort S S S S S S S − S S S S S S S S + S S S S − S S S
Smooth operation + S S S − S S − S + + + S S − + S + S + − − + − S + + + − S S S
Ingress/egress + S + S + + + S S S S S S S S + + S S S − S + S S S − + S S S S
Exterior ergonomics S S S S S − S S S S S S − S − − S S S + + S S S S S
Interior ergonomics S S S S − − S S S S S S S + − + S + S S S + + S S S S S
Variance control − − − S S S S − − + S + S − − + − S S + S S + − S + + + − S S S
NVH reduction − − − + S − S + + + − S S S S + − S + S S S + − S + + + S S − −
Weight reduction − − + − − − + − + S S − − − + + − S + − S + S − S − − S − S − −
Reliability Focus as S S − S − S S − − − S S S − − + − S S S S S + − S − − + − S S S
Proven design datum S S S S S S S S S S S S S − + S − S S S S S S S S − − S S S S S
Durability S − − S − S S + + S − S S S − + − S S + − S + − S − − + − − − −
Fit and finish − S S + S − S S − S − − − + − + − S + + + + + − S + + + S S S S
Styling + + + + − S S S − S − − − + − + − S + + + + + − − + + + − − − −
Legal requirements S S S S S S − S S − S S S − S − − S S − − S S S S S S S S S S S
Adaptability S + S + S S S − − S − S − − + + − S S S S − S − S S S S − − − −
Reusability S + S + − − − − − S − − S + + + − − − S S − S − S S S S S − − −
Recyclability S S S S S S S S S S S S S − S − − S S − S + S S S − − S S + + +
Water ingress − − − + + − S + − S − − S + + + − + S + + S S − S + + S S S − −
Modularization S + S + + − S S S S − S S S S S − S S S S S S − S S S S S − − −
Security − S − S + S + S S S − − S S S S S S − + S + S S S + + S − + + +
Sum of S 22 12 13 12 13 9 11 15 11 12 16 11 13 15 7 8 3 4 15 12 8 10 10 13 7 21 6 5 13 11 15 11 11
Sum of + 0 4 4 3 7 4 1 3 3 3 4 2 3 0 7 5 15 2 4 4 9 3 5 9 2 0 11 11 9 0 2 2 2
Sum of − 0 6 5 7 2 9 10 4 8 7 2 9 6 6 7 8 2 14 1 4 3 7 5 0 13 1 5 6 0 11 5 9 9

Fig. 10 Ideal door by combination of best elements

and multipurpose vehicles. The Peugeot Sesame con-
cept car uses the centre rail of the sliding door as
a styling cue around the exterior of the vehicle.
Concept vehicles exhibit exterior door handle open-
ing devices activated by passive, remote, or otherwise
keyless entry fob. These rarely make it to production
vehicles owing to cost/technology trade-offs.
4.4 Technical performance measure deployment
In the first instance, technical performance measures
with ratings of 3 or more were deployed to phase 2.
Criteria indicated as risk areas in the convergence
matrix were also added. Meeting recyclable content
and legal requirements are risks of using electrically
operated systems. These are important as they
are controlled by legislation. Durability, reliability,
security, and weight are also indicated to be risks and
so are added to the technical performance measures.
4.5 Significant design characteristics
The characteristics of the optimized design signifi-
cant to opening and closing efforts were entered into
the phase 2 house of quality. Lessons learnt during
the customer clinic concerning sound quality and
ergonomics were also entered to reflect the technical
performance measures.

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D22503 © IMechE 2005
 Quality function deployment and automotive door design
4.6 Relationship matrix
The phase 2 relationship matrix was populated in a
similar manner to phase 1. Each technical perform-
ance measure was considered in turn. Significant
design characteristics considered to have a strong
relationship with the technical performance measure
were allocated a 9, those with a medium relationship
a 3, and those with a weak relationship a 1.
4.7 Design importance rating
The design importance ratings, like the technical
importance ratings of phase 1, are a relative com-
parison of the importance of each design character-
istic to the quality of the final product. They are
calculated in a similar way.
5 CONCLUSION
Phases 1 and 2 of the four-phase QFD process have
been applied to the mid-size family segment vehicle
side door. The objective was to optimize customer
comfort when opening and closing the door and
improve sound quality. The door design selected
incorporates electrical technology that could signi-
ficantly reduce the effort required in opening and
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016
D22503 © IMechE 2005
1493
closing the vehicle door. Robust execution of the
other design characteristics could also achieve this.
When embodying the side door design into the
vehicle, trade-offs must be made. The correlation
matrix used in phase 1 and the controlled conver-
gence matrix used in phase 2 can support these
decisions, ensuring that the customer voice is heard
during this process.
REFERENCES
1 Akao, Y. Quality function deployment: integrating
customer requirements into product design (Translated
by G. Mazur), 1990 (Productivity Press).
2 Quality function deployment practitioner manual,
1992 (American Standards Institute).
3 Colquhoun, G. J., Baines, R. W., and Crossley, R. A
state of the art review of IDEF0, J. Computer
Integrated Mfg, 1993, 6(4), 252–256.
4 Carley, K. and Palmquist, M. Extracting, representing
and analysing mental models, Social Forces, 70(3),
601–636.
5 Wilson, R. W. and Corlett, E. N. (Eds) Evaluation of
human work: a practical ergonomics methodology,
1995 (Taylor and Francis).
6 Pugh, S. Total design: integrated methods for success-
ful product engineering, 1991 (Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey).
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering