Você está na página 1de 5

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp.

1-5, ISBN: 0704424150


D.J. Delgado & E.M. Aspinwall Quality Research Group School of Engineering Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT
This paper presents a comprehensive investigation into Quality Function Deployment (QFD) as a design tool. It is divided into three main sections. The first part comprises a detailed description of the QFD methodology together with an example to clarify each step in the process. The main benefits and implementation problems then follow and the paper culminates in a discussion of the applications of QFD in a variety of different sectors.

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a quality tool that helps to translate the Voice of the Customer (VoC) into new products that truly satisfy their needs. In this paper, QFD will be reviewed in order to understand how it works, to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to discuss its practical applications. The first part of the paper will present an overview of QFD and explain the methodology. QFD will be defined and explained by means of an example and a number of benefits and implementation problems will be revealed. Finally, some practical applications will be presented. As will be shown, QFD has helped designers to solve problems in many different areas, from manufacturing to services, and even in education.

QFD Methodology
The concept of QFD was created in Japan in the late 1960s. According to Akao (1997) after World War II, Japanese companies used to copy and imitate product development; nevertheless, they decided to move their approach to one based on originality. QFD was introduced, in that environment, as a concept for new product development. It can be better understood from the definition presented below which summarises the purposes of the technique: QFD is a method for structured product planning and development that enables a development team to specify clearly the customers wants and needs, and then to evaluate each proposed product or service capability systematically in terms of its impact on meeting those needs(Cohen, 1995). The QFD method includes building one or more matrices known as quality tables. The first matrix is named the House of Quality (HoQ). It exhibits the customers needs (VoC) on the left hand side, and the technical response to meeting those needs along the top. Figure 1(a) shows each of the sections contained in the HoQ. Every section holds important data, specific to a part of the QFD analysis. The matrix is usually completed by a specially formed team, who follow the logical sequence suggested by the letters A to F, but the process is flexible and the order in which the HOQ is completed depends on the team.

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150

Figure 1. The House of Quality

Section A has a list of customer needs; Section B contains market data, strategic goal setting for the new product and computations for prioritising the customer needs; Section C includes information to translate the customer needs into the organisations technical language; Section D contains the relationship between each customer need and each technical response; Section E (the roof) assesses the interrelationships between elements of the technical response; Section F contains the prioritisation of the technical responses, information on the competitors and technical targets. Moving on from the HoQ, QFD comprises the building of other matrices that help to make detailed decisions throughout the product development process, however in practice they are rarely used (Cohen, 1995). The main reason for this is that the integration of people required to build the subsequent matrices, will use 80 % of a companys employees (Amos, 1997). In order to better understand the structure of the HoQ, a brief example is presented. It concerns the improvement of a pizza (Sower et al, 1999); its HoQ is shown in Figure 1(b). As can be seen, the customers want value, taste and the pizzas delivered hot. The current product is superior to competitor X on two of the three customer requirements, but ranks equal to or below competitor Y on all three requirements. The purpose of this product redesign project is to make the current product superior to both competitors on all three counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the design requirements of meat and cheese and the customer requirement of value. That means that the more meat and cheese on the pizza, the higher the value to the customer. The roof shows that there is a strong negative correlation between meat and cheese and price, which means that there is a trade-off to be considered. A way to provide a meaty, cheesy pizza at a low price must be found. The bottom of the HoQ shows the target values that the design team has determined must be met to meet the technical responses. These are the specifications for the pizza that will put the current product ahead of its two competitors.

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150

QFD Benefits and Implementation Problems

On the one hand, Hales and Staley (1995) argue that using QFD can result in the development of better products at a price that the customer is willing to pay; moreover, based on its application in different companies, the following advantages and benefits have been reported: Customer satisfaction (Fernandez et al, 1994), reduction in product lead times (Hauser and Clausing, 1988), improved communications through teamwork (Griffin and Hauser, 1992) and better designs (Mehta, 1994). In addition Bicknell and Bicknell (In Chan and Wu (2002a)) reported that tangible benefits that are common when QFD is properly used are: a 30-50% reduction in engineering changes, 30-50% shorter design cycles, 20-60% lower start up costs, and 20-50% fewer warranty claims. On the other hand, an empirical study conducted by Martins and Aspinwall (2001) within the United Kingdom (UK), identified many QFD implementation problems among the companies surveyed. The results showed that there was a problem in western companies associated with working in teams. Problems in maintaining a commitment to the methodology and an unsuitable organisational culture were also highlighted. Other aspects, such as time consuming, costly, and most important, complexity of the methodology, which are commonly mentioned in the literature, were deemed to be only secondary. Govers (1996) declared that most of the problems that companies have to untangle, in order to implement QFD, are related to organisational circumstances like project definition and project management as well as team selection and team building. A critical factor concerning project definition is the Voice of the Customer while with respect to project management and team selection, it is essential to have the support of top management and the integration of a team with receptive open-minded members who are willing to challenge established practice. The need for a good facilitator, who knows the method very well and has the social skills to build and to manage a team, was also mentioned.

QFD Practical Applications

QFDs popularity is becoming worldwide, in fact according to Chan and Wu (2002b) there are reported applications and studies in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, Scotland, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, the UK and the United States (US). There may be more countries, but sometimes companies are very loath to publish their results because of the confidentiality associated with them and because the results can be of strategic value to the company (Govers, 1996). After reviewing the literature, several practical applications were found. Zairi and Youssef (1995) carried out an empirical analysis of seven case studies to determine QFD implementation problems. Among the companies studied, QFD was exercised to develop products such as wires, adhesives, colour scanners, beauty products, textiles, car components and printed circuit boards. Barad and Gien (2001) conducted an empirical study based on sampling Small Manufacturing Enterprises (SMEs). They found that QFD had been applied to develop metal and plastic products. In addition, QFD facilitated the development of pruning shears (Haapalainen et al, 1999/2000), improving their ergonomic design. QFD was also employed to develop domestic burners and according to the designer it has paid off. The design was a sealed burner for easy cleaning, with high efficiency, low emissions and safety features not available before (Norman, 1999). Additionally, QFD helped to develop an intelligent car audio system, which satisfied the following customers needs: sensitivity, fidelity and selectivity. Potential users and managers evaluated the audio system and most were positive about it. Suggestions for improvements to the prototype included incorporating Chinese characters into the user interface (Ngai and Chow, 1999).

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150

One major producer of remanufactured diesel engine components exploited QFD because one of its plants was receiving complaints from marketing concerning a single part package used for certain fuel systems products. At the end of the QFD process, the customers voice was successfully translated into satisfactory packages (Raper and Wiebe, 1998). Lu et al (1994) integrated the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Benchmarking into the House of Quality, and used them for marketing policy analysis. According to the authors, long-range market planning is essential in order to change corporate culture, and to meet or exceed customers needs while making a profit. They support that this can be achieved using their model, which is based on the QFD process. Owlia and Aspinwall (1998) constructed a QFD matrix from the framework of quality dimensions in higher education. The authors took into account issues such as: design of programmes of study, delivery and management of programmes of study, assessment of students, service support of programmes of study, guidance and support of students, admissions, recruitment, appraisal and development of staff. In this case, the customers were students, staff and employees. Once QFD was utilized, the measurement framework developed could be used as a basis for process improvement in an education setting. Crowe and Cheng (1996) used QFD in manufacturing strategic planning to link manufacturing strategy and corporate strategy. In addition, they discussed advantages and disadvantages when formulating manufacturing strategy through the QFD process and presented a case study at a powdered metals manufacturer to illustrate the usefulness of the methodology. Herzwurm et al (1997) used QFD to plan the perfect QFD software tool.

This paper has presented an overview of QFD. The practical applications mentioned illustrate that it can be utilised in different ways and can be adapted to solve a great number of design problems. The arguments that have been presented, also show that QFDs potential is huge, but as Bouchereau and Rowlands (2000) state: QFD is the unused tool. In fact, after reviewing some of the empirical studies carried out in different countries ((Lowe and Ridgway, 2000), (Cristiano et al, 2000), (Martins and Aspinwall, 2001), (Veness et al, 1996)), it is clear that QFD is being under-utilised. Moreover, one of these studies (Martins and Aspinwall, 2001) showed that some of the enterprises surveyed did not know or had never heard of the technique. QFD is a quality tool that identifies the significant items on which to focus time, product and service improvement efforts and other resources in order to achieve maximum impact on customer needs and expectations. There are strengths and weaknesses associated with its implementation; however many companies have overcome the problems and used it to design a variety of products. Generally the publications are associated with large multinational organisations, which have the necessary resources to apply this powerful tool.

Akao, Y., 1997, QFD: Past, present and future. In Transactions of the Third International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, October 1-2, Linkping, Sweden, vol. 1. Plenary Session (downloadable from the QFD Institutes website: http://www.qfdi.org) Amos, L., 1997, QFD in theory & practice, unpublished undergraduate research project. University of Birmingham, UK Barad, M. and Gien, D., 2001, Linking improvement models to manufacturing strategies-a methodology for SMEs and other enterprises, International Journal of Production Research, 39 (12), 2675-2695 Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H., 2000, Quality function deployment: the unused tool, Engineering Management Journal, 10(1), 45-52

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham, 7 May 03, pp. 1-5, ISBN: 0704424150

Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L., 2002a, Quality Function Deployment: A comprehensive review of its concepts and methods, Quality Engineering, 15(1), 23-35 Chan, L. K. and Wu, M. L., 2002b, Quality function deployment: A literature review, European Journal of Operational Research, 143(2002), 463-497 Cohen, L., 1995, Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You, (AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts) Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K. and White III, C.C., 2000, Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(4), 286-308 Crowe, T.J. and Cheng, C.C., 1996, Using quality function deployment in manufacturing strategic planning, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 16(4), 35-48 Fernandez, J.E., Chamberlin, J.L., Kramer, E.G., Broomall, J.H., Rori, H.A. and Begley, R.L., 1994, Making the Neon fun to drive. Proceedings of The sixth symposium on Quality Function Deployment. Novi, Michigan. June 13-14, 483-508 Govers, C.P.M., 1996, What and how about quality function deployment (QFD), International Journal of Production Economics, 46-47(1996), 575-585 Griffin, A. and Hauser, J., 1992, Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing A comparison between two new product teams, Management Science, 38(3), 360-373 Haapalainen, M., Kivist-R, J., Mattila, M., (1999/2000), Ergonomic design of non-powered hand tools: An application of quality function deployment (QFD), Occupational Ergonomics, 2(3), 179-189 Hales, R. and Staley, D., 1995, Mix target costing, QFD for successful new products, Marketing News, 29(1), 18 Hauser, J. and Clausing, D., 1988, The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 63-73 Herzwurm, G., Schockert , S. and Mellis, W., 1997, Customer oriented evaluation of QFD software tools, In: Transactions of the Third International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, October 1-2, Linkping, Sweden, vol. 1. Streams C. Lowe, A. and Ridgway, K., 2000, UK users guide to quality function deployment, Engineering Management Journal, 10(3), 147-155 Lu, M.H., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H. and Winokur, D., 1994, Integrating QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 9(1), 41-50 Martins, A. and Aspinwall, E.M., 2001, Quality function deployment: an empirical study in the UK, Total Quality Management, 12(5), 575-588 Mehta, P., 1994, Designed chip embeds user concerns, Electronic Engineering Times, 1/24/94, Issue 781, 42-43 Ngai, E.W.T. and Chow, D.Y.H., 1999, ICADS: Intelligent car audio design system for product planning, Expert Systems, 16(1), 19-32 Norman, C.R., 1999, Gas cooktop revolution, Appliance Manufacturer, February Issue, 55-56 Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M., 1998, Application of quality function deployment for the improvement of quality in an engineering department, European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 105-115 Raper, S.A. and Wiebe, H.A., 1998, Quality function deployment: A tool for packaging design, Packaging Technology & Engineering, 7(9), 14-18 Sower, V.E., Savoie, M.J. and Renick, S., 1999, An Introduction to Quality Management and Engineering, (Prentice Hall, United States) Veness, P.J., Chidolue, G. and Medhat, S.S., 1996, Concurrent engineering infrastructure: Tools, technologies and methods in British industry, Engineering Management Journal, 6(3), 141-147 Zairi, M. and Youssef, M. A., 1995, Quality function deployment A main pillar for successful total quality management and product development, Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 12(6), 9-23