Transcript Quality Function Deployment and Benchmarking

Quality Function Deployment
•QFD
•Benchmarking
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Increasing
cost and
competition
Growing
complexity of
problems
Increasingly
dynamic
environment
Expanding
quantity and
variety of
relevant
information
Changing
customer
expectations
New dynamic
markets
Statutory
requirements
Changes in
availability of
resources
Increasingly
Keen competition
Ecological
influences
Develop
Manufacture
Service
Value Chain
Economic
influences
Short product
life cycles
Innovative
technologies
Entrepreneural Environment [Eversheim 97]
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Bridging Innovation Management [Eversheim 97]
Deployment
of resources, Promoter
Market,
Customers
Commu
nicate
QFD
Solve
communication
problems
Technology
Management
“abstract,
difficult to
implement
CA
BM
Quality
Management
MDS QFD
AQC
VE TC
BM
Commu
nicate
“Concrete,
Detailed”
Technology
Key VE: Value Engineering, MDS: Multidimensional Scaling,
CA: Conjoint Analysis, AQC: Attractive Quality criterion,
BM: Benchmarking, TC: Technology Calender,
QFD: Quality Function Deployment
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Examples of
Failed Product Innovations
Frequently occurring external causes [Eversheim 97]
• Insufficient market preparation (e.g.
dishwasher of 90 cm height)
• Customer requirements not met (e.g.
German eco-car)
• Not technically perfected (e.g. first CVTs)
• Too late on the market (e.g. video 2000)
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Examples of
Failed Product Innovations
Frequently occurring internal causes [Eversheim 97]
Plenty of ideas but too little acceptance
• Lack of promoter
• Communication disfunctional
• Processing of subjects is unsystematic
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
A successful Innovation:
Shower Head with Anti-lime System
(Friedrich Grohe AG, Germany) [Eversheim 97]
Problem:
 Stagnation of own series of
products
 Main competitor brings out
new product feature (antilime deposit system)
Solution: Flexible beam
former/nozzles
 Lime deposits are more
brittle than silicone nozzles
 Lime loosens through
deformation of the beam
former
Action Required:
 Better approach to solution
than competitor
 Take the lead over
competitor by introducing
additional product features
 Rapid reaction essential
Success Factors:




Accurate, continuous market analysis
Methodical approach to product
planning
Technical implementation in close
cooperation with technology
suppliers (multi-component plastic
injection molding)
Uses plausible to customer
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Linking problems and solutions [Eversheim 97]
“abstract,
difficult to
implement
Market,
Customers
Quality
Management
Identify market a
nd customer requirements
Develop
technical solution
QFD
Technology
Management
Deployment
of resources, Promoter
Problems
BM
“Concrete,
Detailed”
Technology
Solutions
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Benchmarking
The next six slides consist of notes from
Tony Bendell, Louis Boutler, and Paul
Goodstadt, Benchmarking for Competitive
Advantage, Pitman Publishing, London,
1998 (HD62.15.B46)
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
• 1950s: The Japanese visited many thousands of
American and European firms to absorb ideas
regarding technology and business practices.
Between 1952 and 1984, there were more than
42,000 contractual imports of knowledge. By
1960s, the Japanese were catching up.
• In 1979, Xerox in the USA and Rank Xerox in
Europe found themselves depressingly behind
Fuji Xerox in Japan. They benchmarked their
practices with those of Fuji Xerox and
regained leadership. Today, Xerox is believed
to be the major expert in benchmarking.
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
• As the world becomes smaller, front-edge
companies are realizing that they must match
or exceed the best practices from competitors
anywhere in the world in order to survive.
• If we set our improvement targets without
reference to those outside, our targets may not
be taxing enough and we will fall behind.
• During BM, it is not enough to compare output
measures. We also need to understand ‘why’
through personal discovery.
• Public sector benchmarking is a new and
underutilized concept.
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Standard Process Classification System
of the US-based
International Benchmarking Clearinghouse
1. Understand markets and
customers
2. Develop vision and
strategy
3. Design products and
services
4. Produce and deliver
5. Develop and manage
human resources
6. Manage information
7. Market and sell
7. Market and sell
8. Invoice and service
customers
9. Execute environmental
management program
10. Manage financial and
physical resources
11. Manage external
relationships
12. Manage improvement
and change
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
The Xerox Benchmarking Process
1. Identify benchmarking
subject
2. Identify comparative
companies
3. Determine data
collection method and
collect data
4. Determine current
competitive gap
5. Project future
performance
6. Communicate findings
and gain acceptance
7. Establish functional
goals
8. Develop action plans
9. Implement and monitor
progress
10. Recalibrate benchmark
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Critical Success Factors used by
Xerox while Conducting BM
•
•
•
•
Customer satisfaction
Employee satisfaction
Return on assets
Market share
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
In the BM Exercises Conducted by Xerox
Areas that have
been benchmarked
Manufacturing operations ----------
Manufacturing safety ---------------Factory floor layout
Research and product development
Distribution --------------------------Billing and Collection --------------Quality Management ---------------Quality improvement ---------------Supplier development ---------------
Bechmarking
partners
Saturn (a division of GM)
Fuji-Xerox
DuPont
Cummins Engine
Hewlett-Packard
L.L. Bean Inc.
American Express
Toyota
Florida Power and Light
Honda Manufacturing
of America
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Quality Function Deployment
Building the House of Quality [Jackson 88]
• Developed in Japan in the 1970s. First
applied at the Kobe Shipyard of Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries Ltd.
• In the early 1980s, Dr. Don Clausing
introduced QFD to Xerox.
• The American Supplier Institute and
GOAL/QPC led the movement in the US.
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
QFD is a structured method that
• uses the 7 M&P tools to identify and
prioritize customer requirements,
• translates customer requirements into
engineering requirements
• systematically deploys the engineering
requirements throughout the company at
each stage of product development and
improvement.
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Establishing Customer Requirements:
Needs, Wants and Exciters
• Yesterday’s exciters are today’s wants. Today’s
wants are tomorrow’s needs.
• Stratify customers into groups using a tree
diagram, affinity diagram, Pareto diagram, or
other method.
• Establish requirements each customer group
through customer surveys, market research,
analysis of service data, reviewing contractual
requirements, or reviewing regulatory
requirements.
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
The 7 Manufacturing
& Planning tools are
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Affinity Diagram
Interrelationship Graph
Tree Diagram
Matrix Diagram
Process Diagram Program Chart
Arrow Diagram
Matrix Data Analysis
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
What-How Matrix Relationship
HOW
WHAT
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
[Jackson 96]
Level 1 Matrix Deployment
Objective
(How)
Goal
(What)
Make Profit
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
[Jackson 96]
Level 2 Matrix Deployment (and so on)
Objective
(How)
Goal
(What)
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
[Jackson 96]
Design
Requirements
Deployment of Customer Requirements
to Product Characteristics
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Engineering
design
Product
Characteristics
Design
Requirements
Customer
Requirements
Engineering
Design
Product
Characteristics
Manufacturing/
Purchasing
Operations
Production/
Quality
Controls
Product
Characteristics
Engineering
Design
Manufacturing/
Purchasing
Operations
Deployment of Product Characteristics
to Production/Quality Controls
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Building the House of Quality
1. Establishing Customer Requirements
2. Determining Design Requirements
3. Developing the Relationship Matrix
4. Developing the Interaction Matrix
5. Establishing Priorities for the Design
Requirements
6. Completing the House of Quality
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Step 1 Establishing Customer Requirements
[Jackson 96]
Strong
Design Requirements
Medium
Weak
Customer Requirements
Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility
CR-2 Ease of Operation
CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance
Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time
Cr-5 Highly Reliable
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Step 2: Determining Design Requirements
[Jackson 96]
Strong
CR-2 Ease of Operation
CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance
Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time
Cr-5 Highly Reliable
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Module-level
Replacement
Self-Calibration
Computer
Controlled
Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility
Mean Time to
Repair = 0.5 hrs
Customer Requirements
Built-in
Self-Test
Weak
Accuracy
= 0.0001 in
Medium
Mean Time Between
Failures = 5000 hrs
Design Requirements
Step 3: Developing the Relationship Matrix
[Jackson 96]
Strong
CR-2 Ease of Operation
CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance
Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time
Cr-5 Highly Reliable
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Module-level
Replacement
Self-Calibration
Computer
Controlled
Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility
Mean Time to
Repair = 0.5 hrs
Customer Requirements
Built-in
Self-Test
Weak
Accuracy
= 0.0001 in
Medium
Mean Time Between
Failures = 5000 hrs
Design Requirements
Step4 Developing the Interaction Matrix
[Jackson 96]
CR-2 Ease of Operation
CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance
Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time
Cr-5 Highly Reliable
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
Module-level
Replacement
Self-Calibration
Computer
Controlled
Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility
Mean Time to
Repair = 0.5 hrs
Customer Requirements
Built-in
Self-Test
Weak
Accuracy
= 0.0001 in
Medium
Mean Time Between
Failures = 5000 hrs
Strong
Module-level
Replacement
Self-Calibration
Mean Time to
Repair = 0.5 hrs
Customer Requirements
Computer
Controlled
Weak = 1
Built-in
Self-Test
Mean Time Between
Failures = 5000 hrs
Strong = 9
Medium =3
Accuracy
= 0.0001 in
Benchmarking
Score based on the degree
to which customer
requirements are met
1
2
3
4
5
Cr-1 High Degree of Compatibility
A B
C
O
CR-2 Ease of Operation
O
C
B
A
B
C
O
A
A
B
C
O
1
CR-3 Capable of Close Tolerance
Cr-4 Minimal Operating Time
A B
Cr-5 Highly Reliable
Risk
Absolute
12
Relative 108
Key Elements X
5
Technical Benchmarking
B
4
Our Company: O
O
Weights
Competitor A
Competitor B
Competitor C
3
2
1
C
A
9
27
15
15
14
14
2
6
X
O
B
A
C
8
24
3
3
X
O
B
A
C
B
A
O
C
C
B
A
O
QFD, Management of Technological
Innovation, KV Patri
O
A
B
C
C
B
A
O
O
C