QFD: A tool of Product

Design and Development

DR. PRAVIN KUMAR
 Customers’ perspectives of
Product Design

 The average consumer today has a multitude of options available to

select from for similar products and services.
 Consumers typically want “the most bang for their buck”.
 Organizations must determine what is driving the consumer’s
perception of value or quality in a product or service.
 They must define which characteristics of the products such as reliability,
styling or performance form the customer’s perception of quality
and value.
 Many successful organizations gather and integrate the Voice of the
Customer (VOC) into the design and manufacture of their products.
 Quality Function Deployment
(QFD)

 QFD is a process and set of tools used to effectively define customer

requirements and convert them into detailed engineering
specifications and plans to produce the products that fulfil those
requirements.
 QFD was first developed in Japan by Yoji Akao in the late 1960s while working
for Mitsubishi’s shipyard.
 It was later adopted by other companies including Toyota and its supply
chain.
 In the early 1980s, QFD was introduced in the United States mainly by the big
three automotive companies (General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) .
 Quality Function Deployment
(QFD)

 QFD methodology effectively communicates customer needs to

multiple business operations throughout the organization
including design, quality, manufacturing, production, marketing and
sales.
 This effective communication of the Voice of the Customer
allows the entire organization to work together and produce
products with high levels of customer perceived value.
 Features of QFD

 Customer Focused: The Product Definition Phase begins with collection of VOC
and translating the customer wants and needs into product specifications.
 VOC Competitor Analysis: The QFD “House of Quality” tool allows for direct
comparison of how your design or product stacks up to the competition in
meeting the VOC.
 Shorter Development Time and Lower Cost: QFD reduces the likelihood of
late design changes by focusing on product features and improvements based
on customer requirements.
 Structure and Documentation: QFD provides a structured method and tools
for recording decisions made and lessons learned during the product
development process.
Level 1 QFD
 Level 1 QFD- Whats

 “Whats”: This is
usually the first
section to be
completed. This
column is where
the VOC, or the
wants and
needs, of the
customer are
listed.
 Level 1 QFD- Importance Factor

 Importance Factor:
The team should rate
each of the functions
based on their level of
importance to the
customer.
 In many cases, a scale
of 1 to 5 is used with 5
representing the highest
level of importance.
Level 1 QFD- Hows

 “Hows” or
Ceiling:
Contains the
design
features and
technical
requirements
the product
will need to
align with the
VOC.
 Level 1 QFD- Body or Main Room

 Body or Main Room:

Within the main body or
room of the house of
quality the “Hows” are
ranked according to their
correlation or
effectiveness of fulfilling
each of the “Whats”.
 The ranking system used
is a set of symbols
indicating either a strong,
moderate or a weak
 Level 1 QFD- Roof

 Roof: This matrix is used to

indicate how the design
requirements interact with
each other.
 The interrelationships are
ratings that range from a
strong positive interaction
(++) to a strong negative
interaction (–) with a blank
box indicating no
interrelationship.
 Level 1 QFD- Competitor
Comparison
 Competitor Comparison:
This section visualizes a
comparison of the competitor’s
product in regards to fulfilling
the “Whats”.
 In many cases, a scale of 1 to 5
is used for the ranking, with 5
representing the highest level
of customer satisfaction.
 This section should be
completed using direct
feedback from customer
surveys or other means of data
collection.
 Level 1 QFD- Relative Importance

 Relative Importance: This

section contains the results of
calculating the total of the sums
of each column when multiplied
by the importance factor.
 The numerical values are
represented as discrete numbers
or percentages of the total.
 The data is useful for ranking
each of the “Hows” and
determining where to allocate the
most resources.
Level 1 QFD- Foundation

 Lower Level /
Foundation:
This section
lists more
specific target
values for
technical
specifications
relating to the
“Hows” used to
satisfy VOC.
QFD: Quality
Development of
Ceiling Fan
QFD
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 There are 7 Customer Attributes (CAs)

    C1 C2 W1 W2 W W

More air delivery (CA1) (.7, . (.5, .6, . (.5, .6, . (.3, .4, .5) (.63, .72, . (.62, .72, .
8,.9) 7) 7) 81) 82)
High speed (CA2) (.6, .7, . (.6, .7, . (.5, .6, . (.3, .4, .5) (.6, .7, .8,) (.6, .7, .8,)
Customer Attributes

8,) 8,) 7)
Low power consumption (CA3) (.5, .6, . (.3, .4, . (.6, .7, . (.2, .3, .4) (.45, .54, . (.44, .54, .
7) 5) 8,) 63) 64)
Light weight (CA4) (.3, .4, . (.5, .6, . (.4, .5, . (.4, .5, .6) (.4, .5, .6) (.4, .5, .6)
5) 7) 6)
Low noise level (CA5) (.3, .4, . (.5, .6, . (.4, .5, . (.4, .5, .6) (.4, .5, .6) (.4, .5, .6)
5) 7) 6)
Less heat generation (CA6) (.3, .4, . (.2, .3, . (.5, .6, . (.2, .3, .4) (.26, .36, . (.26, .36, .
5) 4) 7) 45) 46)
  Medium size (CA7) (.1, .2, . (.3, .4, . (.3, .4, . (.5, .6, .7) (.22, .32, . (.22, .
Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 where, i = number of perceptions =

1, 2; 1 is used for customer and 2 is  2~ ~ 
  CiWi 
used for company; Wi = weight of ~ '  i 1 
perceptions; C1 = Weight of W  ~ 
  Wi 
Customer Attributes perceived by  
customer; C2 = weight of Customer  
Attributes perceive by company; W1
= weight of customer perceptions in
TFN; W2 = weight of company
perceptions in TFN; W = corrected
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study
 There are 8 Engineering Characteristics (ECs)
    ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS
    Air delivery Total power Stamping Blade Blade length Rotor design Rotation Temperature
rate in consumption material incidence in inch (EC5) quality in speed in rise in
m3/sec. (EC1) in Watt. quality in angle in terms of % r.p.s. (EC7) degree
(EC2) % of silica degree (EC4) of power centigrade
(EC3) loss (EC6) (EC8)

CA1 (5,5.5,6.5,7) (60,60,62,65 (3,4,4.5,4, (5,6,7,10) (22,24,28,28 (0,0,2,10) (4,6.5,7,7) (80,80,100,1

) 5) ) 20)
CA2 (5,6,6.5,7) (60,62,65,65 (3,4,4.5,4, (5,5,7,10) (22,22,26,28 (0,0,2,10) (4,6.5,7,7) (80,80,100,1
) 5) ) 20)
CA3 (5,5,6,7) (60,60,62,65 (3,4,4.5,4, (5,5,7,10) (22,22,24,28 (0,0,2,10) (6,6,6.5,7) (80,80,100,1
) 5) ) 20)
Customer Attributes

CA4 (5,5,7,7) (60,60,65,65 (3,3,4.5,4, (5,5,6,10) (22,22,26,28 (0,0,10,10) (6,6,6.5,7) (80,80,120,1

) 5) ) 20)
CA5 (5,5,6.5,7) (60,60,65,65 (3,4,4.5,4, (5,5,6,10) (22,22,26,28 (0,0,10,10) (6,6,6.5,7) (80,80,120,1
) 5) ) 20)
CA6 (5,5,5,7) (60,60,62,65 (3,4,4.5,4, (5,5,5,10) (22,22,28,28 (0,0,2,10) (6,6,6.5,7) (80,80,100,1
) 5) ) 20)
CA7 (5,5,6,7) (60,60,62,65 (3,3,4.5,4, (5,5,10,10) (22,24,26,28 (0,0,10,10) (6,6,7,7) (80,80,120,1
) 5) ) 20)
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 The Correlation between Engineering Characteristics and

Constraints
    Engineering Characteristics
  EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8
Cost
(60,65,70,7 (3,3,4.5,4. (22,22,26,2 (0,5,7,7 (6,6,6.5, (80,80,120,120
constrai (5,5,6.5,7) (5,5,10,10)
0) 5) 8) ) 7) )
nt
Constraints

Technica
l (60,62,65,7 (3,3,4.5,4. (22,22,26,2 (0,5,5,5 (80,80,120,120
(5,5,6.5,7) (5,5,10,10) (4,6,7,7)
constrai 0) 5) 8) ) )
nt
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 WEIGHT OF CONSTRAINTS AND ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS

WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRAINS

Customer satisfaction (.7, .8, .9)

Cost constraint (.5, .6, .7)
Technical constraint (.6, .7, .8)
EC1, EC4, EC5, EC8 w.r.t cost constraint (.2, .3, .4)

EC2, EC3, EC6, EC7 w.r.t cost constraint (.6, .7, .8)

EC1, EC4, EC5, EC8 w.r.t Tech. constraint (.4, .5, .6)

EC2, EC3, EC6, EC7 w.r.t Tech. constraint (.7, .6, .9)

 ) of that EC

Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 Total Customer Satisfaction per Engineering Characteristics Engineering Fuzzy representation

Since corrected weights of CAs characteristics of total customer

may not be an accurate  n ~

satisfaction

  i ( x). Wi 
Triangular Fuzzy Number ~  
EC1 (0.955, 0.950, 0.947)

TC S j   i  1  (1.00,1.00,1.00)
(TFN), so it is modified to the n ~
EC2
  Wi  EC3 (1.00,1.00,1.00)
nearest accurate Triangular 
 i 1  EC4 (0.982,0.980,0.978)

Fuzzy number. To calculate the EC5 (0.894,0.901,0.905)

total customer satisfaction for jth 1.2 0.955

0.95
EC6 (1.00,1.00,1.00)

EC, the membership function 1

0.879 0.947 EC7 (1.00,1.00,1.00)
satisfaction (TCS)

0.879
Total customer

µ(x) for different value of x = 0.8 0.875 EC­8 (1.00,1.00,1.00)

0.6
[xa, xb] for that EC is calculated 0.4
for all the CAs and NFWA 0.2
0.204
0.137
0.136
method is applied to find the 0
5 6 7
fuzzy Total customer Air delivery rate (cubic meter/sec.)

satisfaction. Figure 2: Fuzzy representation of TCS for Air delivery rate

 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 Cost and Technical constraints Satisfaction Per Engineering

Characteristics
Separate weights for all the ECs are used, for  n ~ 
   j ( x ). W j
different constraints like cost constraints and ~  j 1 
technical constraints. Using different value of TCOS   
 n ~
x = [xa, xb] for all the ECs, the membership  Wj 
 
function µ(x) for a constraint is calculated  j  1 
which shows satisfaction of the constraint
with respect to the EC. The total cost  n ~ 
satisfaction and total technical satisfaction are    j ( x). W j 
~  j 1 
calculated by NFWA method. Here weights TT S   
n ~
of the ECs with respect to those constraints   Wj 
are used to find the total constraint  
 j  1 
satisfaction.
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 Overall Goal Satisfaction per Engineering Characteristics and

Optimum Target
 3 ~ 
  C kj ( x ).W k 
~  
OGS j   k 1 ~ 
  Wk 
 
 
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 Prioritization of Engineering Characteristics

The max. µ(x) and min. µ(x) are found

for each EC and the difference between difference of  ( x ) for j th EC
Relative Importance of jth EC =
them is calculated for each EC. The max imum difference of  ( x )
value of difference shows the importance
of the EC and if the difference is largest
that means it is most important EC. On
the basis of these difference, relative
importance of all ECs are calculated as
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study

 Overall Goal Satisfaction m ~ ~

 OGS j .W j 1 EC6
~ j 1 Engineerin Overall Relative
OGS  EC1
m ~ 0.8 g goal Importan
EC2
 Wj Characteris satisfacti ce

Relative importance of ECs

j 1 0.6 EC7
Overall goal satisfaction is new fuzzy tics on
0.4 EC4 EC1 0.639 0.927

weighed average of total customer 0.2 EC8 EC2 0.520 0.754

  OG~ ( x). xdx EC5

EC3 0.167 0.242
satisfaction, total cost satisfaction and 
x  S 0 EC­4 0.288 0.417
~
  OGS ( x ). dx 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
EC5 0.53 0.076
total technical satisfaction. The Range of overall goal satisfaction EC6 0.689 1.00

Figure 3: Overall goal satisfaction vs. relative importance of ECs

weightage of these constraints are EC7 0.433 0.628

EC8 0.286 0.415

already decided by the experts to Total OverallGoalSatisfaction 

determine the overall goal.  (.651,.676,.680)(.7,.8,.9)  (.712,.715,.716)(.5,.6,.7)  (.825,.830,.835)(.6,.7,.8)

(1.8, 2.4, 2.1)
= (0.725, 0.738, 0.742)
 Fuzzy approach of QFD: Case study
 𝑚
 Total Customer Satisfaction per Customer Attributes ∏ 𝑇𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1
    ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS

m   EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8  

TCSi =  CSij CA1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500

Customer Attributes
j1 CA2 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

CA3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500

CA4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500

CA5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

CA6 0.500 1.000 1.000 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.400

CA7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THANKS