iSixSigma

How to establish first phase QFD?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General How to establish first phase QFD?

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #52008

    huang yanwei
    Participant

    I have question about establish first phase QFD.
    First we collect customer requirements,then we give design requirements,The question is when give design requirements, do you need to consider customer requirements?Maybe we can use our experience to give design requirments and then focus on Matrix relationship between customer requirements and design reqiurements.
    If we consider every customer requirements and give related design requirements,then maybe strong relationship may be exist in diagonal.
    So how to do?
    Many thanks!

    0
    #182251

    Remi
    Participant

    Hai huang yanwei,
    the idea of QFD is to start at the high level and go down to lower levels. So Customer is First. They ‘give’ you a list of requirements/expactations/needs/wishes. Then you TRANSLATE this into design requirements. The customer requirements are often in their ‘language’ and you have to translate that in your ‘language’ (i.e. design parameters). How ‘good’ you are at this depends on your expertise. Often with new products this is done in several loops because of learning track.
    Check in the matrix that each row is connected to at least one column (otherwise you do not cover that Customer Req) and each column to at least one row (otherwise nobody requires it). The emptier the matrix is the less conflict of interest you have and the less you have to use compromises.
    Example:
    A metal plate will be used in a cupboard. Customer Requirments: 1>Strong; 2> no sharp ends; 3>doesn’t bend too much (buckle); 4> looks nice
    The team translates this in design parameters (their choice) with which they expect to cover the customer expectations (Check with customer if they agree).
    Example of translation (design parameters): 1a> Material type; 1b> Thickness of plate;  2a> sharpness at edges; 2b> # of burrs; 3a> -3b> same as 1a> -1b>; 3c> extra supports; 3d> size of plate; 4a> Finishing; 4b> Visual Evaluation Score.
    Hope this helps

    0
    #182252

    Anonymous
    Guest

    While I agree with much of the previous poster commented, I feel I should warn you about the dangers of only designing what external customers want. I know of a company that did this and only sold one product – even after spending close to £1,000.000 on development and a single-flow line.
    When I asked my Japanese colleague what he thought of this he told me our company only expected 1/ 5 of new products to be successful.
    Based on my later experience, my advice to you would be to make sure your external customers and your marketing department know about current technology trends; otherwise, you may well find a new product coming out at the same time you launch and blowing your product out of the water :-)
    Good luck!

    0
    #182264

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    Remi – you’re right on.  Too many folks think that you only “listen” to what the customer tells you.  VOC (voice of customer) is a process of listening, observing, and UNDERSTANDING the customer needs.  From that understanding, you identify the overall set of customer needs which populate the left side of the HOQ1.  The top side is where you begin to translate those needs into measurable characteristics.  These need to relate to the customer need but be non-design specific (this is incredibly difficult for engineers to do).  It is QFD HOQ2 where these measures are translated into actual design specifications based on the design concept chosen.
    Andy – your comments would seem to go more to strategic product and technology planning that is typically done as part of a portfolio management process.  Needs to be done, just not specifically QFD.

    0
    #182269

    PB
    Participant

    Keep in mind that if you are modifying / improving current product you may already have some design parameters in place and VOC may affect manufacturing process as opposed to never having made that product and you are working with a brand new slate and brand new manufacturing process.Scoring the QFD will be vital and be sure to have many internal participants (all areas represented) to ensure the design parameters are fully understood and translated into product specs.PBPS – Andy U. – long time. How have you been?

    0
    #182274

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’m fine thank you. Are you still into Taguchi Methods?
    Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #182275

    Anonymous
    Guest

    MBBBinWI,
    Not really .. the example I gave occured at a joint venture between Dupont and Fujifilm. The USA contingency took your position and USA managers stated they would only use customer input to design a scanner, much to the concern of one of the best international fine- mechanical design teams I’ve ever encountered: People who dedicated themselves not only to their technology, but also to competitive intelligence. Once we unshackled them from the managment ‘textbook contingency’  they went on to design the Pulsar Scanner and Sumo – the world most reliable and fastest image setter.
    But that is how it goes these days – don’t waste time studying science, technology, physics, engineering, mathematics, of chemistry, take a degree in marketing, sales, training, social science, or even better become a qualified customer!
    This just leaves me with one question – why do I waste my time on this forum?

    0
    #182277

    Tuguchi
    Member

    Are you talking about me?

    0
    #182278

    Tuguchi
    Member

    Crap!
    Have you ever head the law of ignorant customer!
    Reason for the Law:
    *Customers have other important priorities
    *Rarely are they experts in your products/services
    *They may not really understand their own customers” requirements!
    *What they think they know could  well be wrong
    Based on that I suggest to revise the principles of QFD!
    Just my opinion ,it may be wrong

    0
    #182280

    Anonymous
    Guest

    No, I’m jsut fed-up with all the toff, spiv, spittle-licking limp-wristed arty-crafty social scientists who visit this site pretending to know anything about Quality.

    0
    #182290

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    I am always amazed that some people think QFD’s are THE answer to product design. 
    Apple is well known to have created a product that was undescribed  by potential customers?  I believe many of you have heard of it…an iPod. 
     

    0
    #182302

    PB
    Participant

    Andy U,Yes I am still doing the Taguchi methods and I am fine as well.Regarding QFD, when a totally new concept is thought of for introduction into a market place (iPOD for example), I wonder how these concepts can be carried in to a QFD approach? I could see a lot of ‘focus groups’ to provide feedback but eventually you (the company) would decide the product specifications as well as the technology that you would need and available in the market place for the product outcome. I would see this to be a market creating product rather than market driven product change and so a different avenue has to be taken.PB

    0
    #182306

    Anonymous
    Guest

    PB,
    The best approach I’ve seen is where the company appoints a Chief Design Engineer, whether for a new product concept or a product re-design – my advice would be the same advice.
    I would not recommend using the term ‘marketing led’ as would tend to imply the marketing department leads, and to my mind this would be a grave mistake.
    It’s a bit like the old days where a QA Manager told operators if the product is good or bad, rather than finding out for themselves.
    Likewise, one can’t have a situation where marketing people go on jollies and come back to tell design engineers what the VOC wants. Far better for designers to go to the job shop and find out for themselves.
    Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #182319

    PB
    Participant

    Hi Andy U.,Thanks for the response. The original poster needs to be given some feedback based on what you have said and I need your take on that (my response in capitol below):
    I have question about establish first phase QFD.First we collect customer requirements,then we give design requirements – THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.The question is when give design requirements, do you need to consider customer requirements? CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND THIS COULD BE DONE BY THE CHIEF DESIGN ENGINEER OR THE QFD TEAM.Maybe we can use our experience to give design requirments and then focus on Matrix relationship between customer requirements and design reqiurements. THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE TRUE IN A PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE GROUNDS-UP. IN CASE YOU ALREADY HAVE A PRODUCT, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER CREATING A DESIGN REQUIREMENT AND THEN SEEK INPUT FROM CUSTOMERS TO CREATE CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS TO AFFIRM THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.If we consider every customer requirements and give related design requirements,then maybe strong relationship may be exist in diagonal. IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BEST CHOICE FOR PRODUCT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO PRODUCT SPECS., YOU DO NOT NEED TO LOOK FOR ALL RELATIONSHIPS TO BE STRONG. FOCUS ON RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE CRITICAL TOWARDS PRODUCT PERFORMANCE AND THEN PRODUCT APPEAL.
    PB

    0
    #182326

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    Andy:  What you describe is that the technologists UNDERSTOOD their customer needs.  Which is exactly what I stated in my original post.  One company that I worked for did a very good job of this by requiring the engineering community to spend 1/2 day a week actually using the product as the customers would.  This gave the engineers a keen understanding of the issues that the customers faced and reduced a lot of the superficial issues that would have been illuminated through much of the all too superficial VOC that is done today.
    When I went to work for a competitor, they scoffed at having engineers operate the product.  Engineers were to sit at their desks and release design documentation.  They went from the leader in their product line to second and are still declining.
    QFD is NOT VOC.  It is a tool for translating customer needs into measurable characteristics, measurable characteristics into design values, design values into manufacturing methods, and for those who go all the way, manufacturing methods into maintenance practices to ensure the products produced are stable and consistent.
    Nor are customer interviews VOC.  They are one of many tools used to elicit input that is used to develop the customer needs. 
    By the way, I’m in a company today that used the approach that you espouse of totally internally developing the product requirements.  Needless to say, they didn’t sell a single one.
    There is no cookie cutter approach to product development.  You must use many tools and often have to triangulate to find the best set of requirements, as it is often difficult to find a market segment of sufficient size to focus a product on it alone (at least for the industrial type products with which I have been involved).
    If you think that this is a waste of your time, then don’t post.

    0
    #182354

    Remi
    Participant

    Hai PB,
    not only ipod but also mobile phones (target curstomer=Mgr; biggest customer (after introduction)= teenage girl) and CDrom.
    So just as you described a company can use a team of ‘smart guys’ to come up with ideas of new products that are on some aspect Better than current products (and optional by new technology possibilities). This gives a list of Idea’s and then this is sent to a marketing Brainstorm team to evaluate possibilities for customer. So the Designer + Marketeer invent a potential Customer and decide what would be the customer needs.The risk ofcourse is that there is in reality no consumer that plays that customer role. This happens sometimes with small companys build around a designer with “a perfect idea for a product”.
    The QFD can be used as a tool here too. You only have to redefine (rename) the first house and add a risk indicator per feature (=functionality) of the product.
    Remi

    0
Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.