Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

and Prioritization

4 3 0 0 W i l s o n B o u l e v a r d , Su i t e 3 5 0
Ar l i n g t o n , Vi r g i n i a 2 2 2 0 3
703-399-2100
www.decisionlens.com

International Quality
Function Deployment’s
(QFD) Akao Prize®
Award
S e p t e mb e r , 2 007
www.decisionlens.com
When designing a new product or enhancing an existing
product line, designers and engineers are regularly con-
fronted with a series of high impact decisions regarding
alternative design concepts, prioritizing often competing
customer requirements, establishing performance targets,
and adopting processes to systematically deliver qual-
ity products to the end users. These systems engineering
decisions often require value tradeoffs among product
characteristics that in the end must meet the real needs
of the customers.
A common problem in performing these decisions is that they involve cus-
tomer requirements which are usually vague and non-technical, and mul-
tiple technical experts who are working with extremely complex and often
breakthrough technologies. The ability to capture, interpret, and translate
customer needs into actionable goals has become a key competency for even
the smallest product development organization but there are a number of
process issues that must be addressed:
• Analytical tools require significant expertise
• Increased cost of evaluations
• Undefined requirements increases time to market
• Relationships among competing and/or conflicting features must
be quantified
• No standard processes exist to facilitate decision making
Solution Overview
As markets have become more sophisticated and moved from product
focused development to solving market problems, the competitive advantage
moves from those who can apply “economy of scale” in the production of
products to those who can deliver “economy of scope” to meet current and
future customer needs.
This paper describes an analytical approach for using Quality Function
Deployment and Decision Lens software to capture customer requirements,
translate them into definitive design and product specifications and effec-
tively prioritize them by leveraging the collective wisdom of Subject Matter
Experts (SME) within the working group. This approach combines the QFD
framework needed to structure the product planning and design process;
and the power of Decision Lens decision making platform to enable working
groups to effectively capture and collaboratively prioritize customer attri-
butes, focus research and engineering efforts on addressing high priority
challenges, and uncover the underlying performance and value drivers among
the myriad of factors involved in the product development and delivery.
Decision Lens Proprietary Information, Copyright 2010 Page 2
Decomposing the Problem The first step is to get the key individuals (customers,
operators, subject matter experts) together to elicit cus-
Yoji Akao defines QFD as a method for developing design
tomer attributes (requirements and perceptions) which
quality aimed specifically at delivering value by convert-
are then gathered, analyzed and categorized and detailed
ing customer requirements (“voice of the customer“) into
in the QFD “House of Quality” (HOQ) framework shown
functional and technical specifications to be met by the
in Figure 1.
new system or product design.

Design
Requirements

Customer Customer
Interrelationships
Requirements Perceptions

Engineering Target Values

Figure 1: QFD – House of Quality (HOQ) Framework

The House of Quality acts as a comprehensive matrix
for documenting customer communications in terms
of their spoken and interpreted requirements and the
accompanying market and customer perceptions from
benchmarking or survey data. Each attribute is then
mapped to appropriate technical specifications and
performance targets. The interrelationships section pro-
vides a means for traceability among the customer attri-
butes to identify where overlaps and dependencies exist
among the technical requirements.
Note: Several HOQ frameworks can be devised to address
different aspects or perspectives within the planning &
design scope (e.g. customer wants vs. market segments,
customer wants vs. critical operations factors, critical
success factors vs. alternative strategies).
Once the customer attributes have been detailed and
organized, the next step is to begin to prioritize the attri-
butes in the context of larger system or product objec-
tives. Using Decision Lens software to enter the high
level criteria, the team might create a list such as this:

Figure 2: Criteria Framework

www.decisionlens.com Decision Lens Proprietary Information, Copyright 2010 Page 3

While it is possible to collect preliminary criteria infor-
mation asynchronously, it is essential that criteria be
finalized in a same time setting. Because of the technical
complexities involved with today’s products and tech-
nologies, face to face collaboration is preferred to take
full advantage of the Customer / SME group dynamic.
Distributed collaboration is beneficial when developing
recommendations, data collection, and other types of off
line analysis. The top level criteria that
will be used in Decision Lens are a product of both top
down strategic focus and the bottom up organization of
customer attribute categories.
Since categories can drill down several levels, very
complex models can be built. By using the HOQ to docu-
ment the customer needs and relating them to objective
engineering characteristics, effective and informed
tradeoffs can now be made to differentiate customer
needs and uncover underlying performance drivers.
Prioritization of Customer Attributes
Deriving the top level criteria weights is accomplished
by comparing the evaluation criteria to one another
in a pairwise fashion, measuring proportionality by
using a Ratio Ruler. The middle point on this ruler
Figure 3: Pairwise Comparison to Establish Criteria Weights
www.decisionlens.com Decision Lens Proprietary Information, Copyright 2010 Page 4
indicates that the two factors being compared are
equally important or preferable. This pairwise approach
allows evaluators to compare tangibles to intangibles on
a reliable scale.
To identify and define the relationships between market
problems and operational objectives, we engage decision
makers to use their knowledge, experience, and intuition
and apply their judgment in comparing the elements of
the decision with respect to a goal or stated purpose.
These comparisons or tradeoffs form the basis of exami-
nation for determining the relative importance of the
system design objectives. The sharing of perceptions
and observations of the assembled expert panel will be
recorded in the form of priorities as well as a qualitative
recording of areas of consensus and disagreement. This
is not necessarily a consensus driven process, however;
it is intended to be an information sharing application
to self-educate and determine what is most important
within the decision before we look more closely at the
strengths and weaknesses of the alternative options.
Documentation of the reasoning supporting the selection
process will be used to justify the decision recommenda-
tions to others.
This real-time criteria comparison process is very pow-
erful because people are asked to justify why they think
Criterion A is strongly more important than Criterion B.
This helps all participants understand the problem
better because they now have new information or have
clarified their stakeholder positions. For instance, the
Figure 4: Resulting Criteria Priorities
Measuring Performance
Just as we can distinguish and measure physical quanti-
ties such as meters and seconds, we are able to do the
same with our perception of qualities when applying
measurement to customer needs. People have the capac-
ity to experience a wide range of thoughts and discrimi-
nations which permit us to develop relationships among
the elements of a problem and to determine which ele-
ments have the greatest impact.
www.decisionlens.com Decision Lens Proprietary Information, Copyright 2010 Page 5
engineer will better understand what the criterion means
to the business user and how the user applies their value
trade-off in comparison process. This establishes better-
quality and direct communication between the user and
the engineer because both people have explicitly stated
their position related to specific factors or attributes.
The process we are implementing is unique in that it can
accommodate both quantitative and qualitative inputs
and merge them into a single overall measure to deter-
mine which customer needs are the most valued across
the product objectives and design criteria. By develop-
ing and applying performance scales to the long list of
customer needs / with respect to a weighted criterion,
we can systematically differentiate among alternatives
needs within the decision problem.
 Figure 5: Qualitative Performance Measure for “Integration with
Existing Systems and Business Line”

Because we save so much cycle time in other areas of
the assessment process, we have the time to devote to
discussion, clarification, and consensus where needed.
When evaluators come to consensus using our method,
they are equipped with the tools (clear definitions,
factor weights, and measures of performance) to
effectively roll-up individual evaluations and view
group consensus data.
Summary Performance Evaluation
and Sensitivity Analysis
The process of synthesis or the rolling up of results is
carried out automatically by Decision Lens software.
When we break a large, complex design problem into
small, manageable pieces and evaluate each piece on a
meaningful scale, we are able to develop overall results
that accurately represent the final scores of the customer
needs / product attributes within each top level criteria
and overall across the entire evaluation framework.
Outputs can be analyzed through various customer
segments and via different perspectives (e.g. internal,
external, financial…)

Figure 6: Performance Summary Output

www.decisionlens.com Decision Lens Proprietary Information, Copyright 2010 Page 6

Having a solid assessment approach is very important,
but the ability to explain it to the community of interest
is critical. Sensitivity Analysis permits the product team
to anticipate questions and challenges, to see how sensi-
Figure 7: Dynamic Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis of the preliminary customer attri-
bute prioritization will pinpoint where more careful data
collection and further investigation is needed. It will
focus evaluation team efforts in areas where time should
be spent, i.e., on issues to which the evaluation is highly
sensitive. Conversely, it will also identify factors to
which the evaluation is relatively insensitive and there-
fore do not require additional resources. Sensitivity
Analysis is particularly effective at helping to explain
and communicate customer priorities to cross functional
groups that may be further removed from the planning
and design decisions yet, can greatly influence the
quality of the final product.
www.decisionlens.com Decision Lens Proprietary Information, Copyright 2010 Page 7
tive the customer attributes are to changing priorities at
various levels. What Ifs can be simulated on screen to
examine if the selection is sensitive to changes in a given
area using Dynamic Sensitivity analysis.
Conclusion
This analytical approach which combines aspects of
QFD and implemented through Decision Lens software
proposes a straightforward method for translating the
customer needs from vague non-technical statements to
defined product attributes; measured and evaluated to
provide an objective balance between designer and cus-
tomer. The outputs of the evaluation provide focus and
differentiation among customer segments so the same
product or service is to be shared among different users.
This process encourages active participation by all cus-
tomer segments and working group members, without
the risk of one group asserting too much influence and
therefore putting at risk the satisfaction of other cus-
tomer groups. Each group’s contribution is measured,
transparent, and deliberately understood. Using Decision
Lens software as a platform for effective collaboration
and communication creates a synergetic interaction
among all stakeholders.