Mechanical System Design

Module 8: Quality Function Deployment

K N Pandey
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Motilal Nehru national Institute of Technology Allahabad
Prayagraj - 211004
Topics
• Quality
• Quality Function Deployment
 Quality and QFD
 Quality is viewed as an essential means of competing in today’s
rapidly changing global market.

 Quality Function Deployment is a

 customer driven quality management and product development

system

 for achieving higher customer satisfaction.

 WHAT IS QUALITY?
(1) works as it should
(2) lasts a long time, and
(3) is easy to maintain.

The primary operating characteristics of a product are:

 Function:
 Features:
 Those characteristics that supplement a product’s basic
functions.
– It is used to customize or personalize a product to customer’s
taste.
 Reliability:
The probability of a product failing or malfunctioning
within a specified time period.
 Durability:
A measure of the amount of use one gets from a product
before it breaks down and replacement is preferable to
continued repair.
 Serviceability (Repairability):
Ease and time to repair after breakdown.
 Conformance:
The degree to which a product’s design and operating
characteristics meet both customer expectations and
established standards.
 Aesthetics and Ergonomics:
How a product looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells.
An important technical issue that affects aesthetics is
ergonomics, how well the design fits the human user.
 Perceived quality:
Basically the quality of similar products previously
produced by the manufacturer that influences reputation.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

• What are the qualities the customer desires?

• What functions must the product serve, and
what functions must we use to provide the
product or service?
• Based on our available resources, how can we
best provide what our customer wants?
The typical stages of design include
Conceptual design

Define problem Gather Concept Evaluation

Problem statement information Generation of concept
Benchmarking Patent Brainstorming Pugh concept
QFD, Product Trade Functional - selection,
design specification, literature decomposition Decision
Project planning matrix etc

Configuration
Product design Parametric Detail Design
Architecture Prelim. Selection design
Arrangement of Material & DFM, Design for Detailed drawing
physical manufacture quality, Final and specification
elements to carry Modeling/sizing Dimen.
out function of parts

Embodiment Design
Requirements can broadly be classified into

 Customer requirements and

 Company requirements.
 Fundamental customer and company requirements
Customer requirements Company requirements
Functional performance Marketing
Motions/kinematics Customer/consumer
Forces/torques Competition
Energy conversion/usage control Strategy
Operating environment Time to market
Air temperature, humidity, pressure Pricing
Contaminants Advertising
Shock, vibration Sales demand/targets
Safety Manufacturing
Economic Production quantity
Geometric limitations Processes, materials
Maintenance New factory equipment
Repair Warehousing and distribution
 Fundamental customer and company requirements
Customer requirements Company requirements
Functional performance Marketing
Operating environment Manufacturing
Safety Production quantity
Economic Processes, materials
Geometric limitations New factory equipment
Maintenance Warehousing and distribution
Repair
Retirement Financial
Reliability Product development investment
Robustness Return on investment
Pollution Other
Regulations,
Human factors standards,
Appearance codes
Patents/intellectual property
 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS
 Engineering characteristics are the measures that can
– quantify how well a product performs each requirement.
 For example, what does a motorcycle customer mean when he says
that he wants to go fast?
– We might consider quantifying the “go fast” requirement by
selecting
 top speed measured in Km per hour, or
 maximum acceleration measured in m/sec2, or
 both
 "voice of the customer"
The voice of the customer is captured in a variety of ways:
 direct discussion or interviews,
 surveys, focus groups,
 customer specifications,
 observation,
 warranty data,
 field reports,
 Quality function deployment (QFD) is “a system to assure that
customer needs drive the product design and production process” .

 Typically, a QFD system can be broken down into four inter-linked

phases to fully deploy the customer needs phase by phase .

The Basic Building Block Is The House Of Quality

 In QFD, each phase’s important
 outputs (HOWs), generated from the phase’s inputs (WHATs),
 are converted into the next phase as its inputs (new WHATs).
 So each phase can be described by a matrix of
 “WHATs” and
 “HOWs”,
which is easy and convenient to deal with in practice.
The four QFD phases include:

 Phase I to translate customer needs into product design

attributes which we will call technical measures;

 Phase II to translate important technical measures into parts

characteristics;

 Phase III to translate important parts characteristics into process

operations; and

 Phase IV to translate key process operations into day to day

production requirements
 The first phase of QFD
 Usually called house of quality (HOQ),
 is of fundamental and strategic importance in the QFD system,
since

it is in this phase that the customer needs for the product are
identified and

then, incorporating the producing company’s competitive

priorities, converted into appropriate technical measures to
fulfill the needs
Set Target value
The following is a description of what is found in each of
the “rooms” of this house.
1. Customer requirements (Whats)

2. Relative importance rating of WHATs

3. Customer Competitive analysis

4. Final importance rating of WHATs

5. Generate Engineering characteristics (HOWs)

6. Determine The correlation matrix between ECs and ECs

7. Determine relationship matrix between CRs and ECs

8. Determine initial technical ratings of HOWs

9. Perform technical competitive analysis

10. Obtain final technical ratings of HOWs
11. Setting target values

Customer requirements are gathered by the team by

(a) Gathering information from customer such as
interview with customers, customer surveys, customer
complaints

(b) Constructing a survey instrument

 Example: A design team selected the familiar case that
protects a compact disc in storage as a product needing
improvement.
 As a first step the team brainstormed to develop ideas for
possible improvements to the CD case.
 The following ideas were generated in response to the
question : What functions or attributes of a CD case need
improvement?
1. Case more resistant to cracking
2. Easier to open
3. Add color
4. Better waterproofing
5. Make it lighter
6. More scratch-resistant
7. Easier extraction of CD from the circular fastener
8. Streamlined look
9. Case should fit the hand better
[Link] to take out leaflet describing the CD
[Link] recyclable plastic
[Link] interlocking cases so they stack on top of each
other without slipping
[Link] locking case
[Link] that doesn’t come apart
These requirements (the questions) are grouped into
common areas by using an identified diagram such
as:
Stronger Aesthetics Opening and Environment other
extracting
1 3 2 4 12
6 5 7 11

14 8 10

9 13
Set Target value
 Step 1. Identify customers and collect their needs
(WHATs):
• The producing company should know who are the customers for the
product concerned.
• There are generally three types of customers,
• internal customers such as shareholders, managers and
employees,
• intermediate customers such as wholesale people and retailers,
and
• ultimate customers such as recipients of service, purchasers,
institutional purchasers.
• Usually the main focus is on the ultimate customers
• who could be identified through previous information and
marketing research.
 Suppose that, through appropriate ways,
 K customers have been selected and
 M customer needs have been identified based on the opinions of these
K customers.
 The M customer needs are denoted as
 W1,…,WM.
 These needs could be classified into some meaningful categories
according to practical situation.
 Step 2. Determine the relative importance ratings of customer
needs :
 Customer needs (WHATs) usually are of different degrees of
importance and
 it is a common practice for the company to focus more on the
important WHATs.
 The relative importance of the WHATs is usually expressed as a set
of ratings that can be determined by letting the customers reveal
their perceptions on the relative importance of the WHATs and
then averaging their perceptions
 Scale:
Very low low moderate importance high very high

1 3 5 7 9

Very weak weak moderate importance strong very strong

1 3 5 7 9

 Suppose that for customer need Wm, customer k supplies a relative importance
rating gmk to it according to scale 9, where gmk is one of the nine crisp relative
importance rating for Wm is numbers or Fuzzy numbers. Then the resulting
average is given by:

K
gm (gm1  gm2  gmK) / K  gmk / K, m1,2,M
k1
 Very low low moderate importance high very high

1 3 5 7 9

What’s Customer 1 Customer 2 Customer 3 Customer 4 Customer 5

W1 High (7) Very high High Moderate Very high
W2 Moderate (5) Very high Moderate High Moderate
W3 Very high (9) Moderate Very high Moderate Low
W4 High (7) low Moderate Very high Low
W5 Low (3) Very high Low Moderate High
W6 Very high (9) high High Moderate Very high
W7 Moderate (5) low Very high High Moderate
W8 High (7) Moderate Moderate High High
W9 Low (3) Moderate Very low Low Moderate
W10 Very high (9) low moderate Very low low
Relative importance ratings of the 10 WHATs based on
the five customers perceptions

Whats Cus 1 Cus 2 Cus 3 Cus 4 Cus 5 (gm)

W1 7 9 7 5 9 7.4
W2 5 9 5 7 5 6.2
W3 9 5 9 5 3 6.2
W4 7 3 5 9 3 5.4
W5 3 1 3 5 7 4.0
W6 9 7 7 5 9 7.4
W7 5 3 9 7 5 5.8
W8 7 5 5 7 7 6.2
W9 3 5 1 3 5 3.4
W10 1 3 5 1 3 2.6
 Step 5
Technical Measures (HOWs):
H1 H2 …. HM
Step 1 Step 2 Step 6 Step 3 Step 4
Customer Relative Relationship between Customer Competitive Analysis Final
Needs Importance WHATs and HOWs (R) ( X) Importance
(WHATs): Ratings (g): W1 H2 H2 HM C1 C2 … CL (e) (a) (u) Ratings (f):
W1 g1 W2 r11 r12 … r1L W1 X11 X12 … X1L e1 a1 u1 f1
W2 g2 W3 r21 r22 … r2L W2 X21 X22 … X2L e2 a2 u2 f1
…. ….
… …. …. … …. ….
WM gM WM rM1 rM2 … rML WM XM1 XM2 … XML eM aM uM fM
where
C1 = The Producing Company
Cl = Company l (l = 2 … L)
e = Customer Competitive Priority Rating
(Sales point or entropy method)
a = Customer Performance Goal
u = Customer Improvement Ratio = a / xml
f=uxgxe
t = (f1 x r1) (f2 x r2) … (fM x rM)
z = Technical Competitive Priority Rating
(Sales Point or Entropy Method)
b = Technical Priority Goal
v = Technical Improvement Ratio
s=vxtxz
 Example.1
 Here, we use design of a removable mountain bicycle
splashguard and as an example to illustrate how to rate
customer requirements in a competitive environment.
 The removable mountain bicycle splashguard has seven
customer requirements and they can be divided into three
categories:
 functional performance,
 spatial constraints, and
 appearance.
 The customer requirement structure is shown
Customer requirement structure
 Step 3. Identify competitors and conduct customer
competitive analysis:
 Competitors who produce the similar products
should be identified by the company under study.
 Knowing the
– company's strengths and
– constraints
– in all aspects of a product and in comparison with its main
competitors
– is essential for a company if it wishes to improve its
competitiveness in the relevant markets.
 Denote the company in question by C1.
 Suppose that L−1 competitors are identified, denoted as C2,…,CL.
 Then the K customers are requested to provide their perceptions
on the relative performance of these L companies’ products of the
similar type in terms of the M customer needs.
 Suppose that customer k supplies
 a rating xmlk
 on company CL’s performance in terms of Wm using scale (9),
 where xmlk is one of the nine crisp numbers.
 Company Cl
What’s Cus - 1 2 3 4 … Ck
W1 X1l1 X1l2 X1l3 X1l4 …. X1lk X1l
W2 X2l1 X2l2 X2l3 X2l4 …. X2lk X2l
W3 X3l1 X3l2 X3l3 X3l4 …. X3lk X3l

Wm Xml1 Xml2 Xml3 Xml4 …. Xmlk Xml

 Then the performance rating of company Cl on customer need Wm is given as

K
xml  (xml1  xml2  xmlK) / K  xml k / K, m1,2,M,l 1,2,L
k1

 Thus, the companies’ performance ratings on the customer needs can be

denoted by an M×L matrix, called customer comparison matrix:
 What’s Com - 1 2 3 4 … CL e
W1 X11 X12 X13 X14 …. X1L e1
W2 X11 X12 X13 X14 …. X1L e2
W3 X11 X12 X13 X14 …. X1L e3
. . . . . … . ..
. . . . . … . ..
Wm Xm1 Xm2 Xm3 Xm4 …. XmL em

Based on this X information, customer competitive priority ratings on the

WHATs for the producing company C1 can be obtained, usually using the
quite subjective sales point concept or more objective entropy
method as

e =(e1,e2,…,em) where em is company C1's priority rating on customer need

Wm
 Step 5
Technical Measures (HOWs):
H1 H2 …. HM
Step 1 Step 2 Step 6 Step 3 Step 4
Customer Relative Relationship between Customer Competitive Analysis Final
Needs Importance WHATs and HOWs (R) ( X) Importance
(WHATs): Ratings (g): W1 H2 H2 HM C1 C2 … CL (e) (a) (u) Ratings (f):
W1 g1 W2 r11 r12 … r1L W1 X11 X12 … X1L e1 a1 u1 f1
W2 g2 W3 r21 r22 … r2L W2 X21 X22 … X2L e2 a2 u2 f1
…. ….
… …. …. … …. ….
WM gM WM rM1 rM2 … rML WM XM1 XM2 … XML eM aM uM fM
where
C1 = The Producing Company
Cl = Company l (l = 2 … L)
e = Customer Competitive Priority Rating
(Sales point or entropy method)
a = Customer Performance Goal
u = Customer Improvement Ratio = a / xml
f=uxgxe
t = (f1 x r1) (f2 x r2) … (fM x rM)
z = Technical Competitive Priority Rating
(Sales Point or Entropy Method)
b = Technical Priority Goal
v = Technical Improvement Ratio
s=vxtxz
For the m th row of the customer comparison matrix X
corresponding to the customer need Wm, xm1,xm2,…,xmL,
• let xm =∑xml be the total score with respect to Wm.

What’s Com - 1 2 3 4 … CL X Normalized

Rating
W1 X11 X12 X13 X14 …. X1l X1
W2 X11 X12 X13 X14 …. X1l X2
W3 X11 X12 X13 X14 …. X1l X3
. . . . . … . ..
. . . . . … . ..
Wm Xm1 Xm2 Xm3 Xm4 …. Xml xm =∑xml pml =xml /xm

• Then, the normalized ratings pml =xml /xm for l =1,2,…,L can be viewed
as the “probability distribution” of Wm on the L companies with entropy
as given on next slide
 Normalized Rating
Company 1 2 3 4 … L

What’s pm1 pm2 pm3 pm4 … pml X

W1 p11=x11 /x1 p12 P13 P14 …. P1l X1
W2 p21=x21 /x2 P22 P23 P24 …. P2l X2
W3 p31 =x31 /x3 P32 p33 p34 …. p3l X3
. ..
. ..
Wm pm1 =xm1 /xm Pm2 pm3 pm4 …. pml xm =∑xml

• Then, the normalized ratings pml =xml /xm for l =1,2,…,L can be viewed as
the “probability distribution” of Wm on the L companies with entropy as

1 L 1
E (Wm )   
ln( L) i 1
p ml ln( p ml )  
ln( L)
 ( xml / xm ) ln( xml / xm )
 Normalized Rating
Company 1 2 3 4 … L

What’s pm1 pm2 pm3 pm4 … pml X

W1 p11=x11 /x1 p12 P13 P14 …. P1l X1
W2 p21=x21 /x2 P22 P23 P24 …. P2l X2
W3 p31 =x31 /x3 P32 p33 p34 …. p3l X3
. ..
. ..
Wm pm1 =xm1 /xm Pm2 pm3 pm4 …. pml xm =∑xml

1 L 1
E (Wm )   
ln( L) i 1
p ml ln( p ml )  
ln( L)
 ( xml / xm ) ln( xml / xm )

E (Wm )
em  M m  1,2, , M
 E (W
i 1
m )

A larger em indicating higher competitive priority for the corresponding Wm.

 If company C1 performs much better than many other companies in
terms of a customer need Wm, then further improvement may not be
urgently needed and thus a lower priority could be assigned to Wm.
 At the other extreme, if C1 performs much worse than many other
companies on Wm, then it may be difficult for C1 to build a competitive
advantage within a short period of time. In both cases, Wm could be
assigned a lower priority rating.
 However, if most companies perform quite similarly on Wm, not too much
improvement effort from C1 may result in a better performance of its
product and give C1 a unique competitive advantage. Thus a higher
priority could be assigned to Wm.
 In particular, if all companies’ performances on Wm are the same, it
implies a great market opportunity since any improvement would create
a significant competitive advantage. So the highest priority could be
assigned to Wm.
 Customer competitive analysis

Wm Customer 1 Customer 2 Customer 3 Customer 4 Customer 5

X1=[xmn1] X2=[xmn2] X3=[xmn3] X4=[xmn4] X5=[xmn5]
10x4 10x4 10x4 10x4 10x4
C 1 C2 C3 C 4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 1 C 2 C 3 C4
W1 5 7 5 3 7 3 7 7 9 5 7 5 5 5 7 5 7 3 3 7
W2 3 3 5 5 5 7 3 5 3 5 3 7 7 5 5 3 5 5 7 5

W3 7 5 3 7 9 5 5 7 7 7 5 5 5 3 5 3 7 5 7 5

W4 3 5 7 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 3 7 7 5 5 3 5 3 5 5

W5 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 5 3 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 3

W6 7 5 3 5 9 7 7 7 5 3 5 3 7 7 3 7 7 3 5 5

W7 9 7 9 5 7 9 7 7 5 3 3 5 7 7 7 3 9 7 7 9
W8 3 3 7 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 1 5 7 5 7 5 7 5
W9 5 3 5 7 7 7 7 5 7 3 5 3 5 5 7 7 3 3 3 5
W10 7 7 3 5 9 7 5 5 7 5 7 3 5 7 5 5 7 9 7 7
Wm Customer Competitive Performance Improvement
competitive matrix, Priority rating Goal ratios
X=[xml]10x4
C1 C2 C3 C4 em am Um= am/xm1
W1 6.6 4.6 5.8 5.4 0.1000 7 1.0606
W2 4.6 5.0 4.6 5.0 0.1006 5 1.0870

W3 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.4 0.0999 8 1.1429

W4 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.0 0.1004 5 1.1905

W5 2.6 3.4 2.6 2.2 0.0997 4 1.5385

W6 7.0 5.0 4.6 5.4 0.0997 8 1.1429

W7 7.4 6.6 6.6 5.8 0.1004 9 1.2162

W8 3.8 4.2 6.2 4.2 0.0992 5 1.3158
W9 5.4 4.2 5.4 5.4 0.1003 6 1.1111
W10 7.0 7.0 5.4 5.0 0.0998 8 1.1429
 Entropy method for customer competitive analysis
based on matrix X
 Total score of W1: x1=x11+x12+x13+x14= 6.6+4.6+5.8+5.4=22.4
 Obtain the “probability distribution” of W1:
p11=x11/x1=6.6/22.4=0.2946
p12=x12/x1=4.6/22.4=0.2054

Similarly, p13=0.2589, p14=0.2411

Then entropy of W1 is:
 1 4
E( W1 )   
ln(L) i 1
p1l ln(p1l ) =-[0.2946 ln(0.2946)+0.2946 ln (0.2054)
+ 0.2589 ln(0.2589) + 0.2411 ln(0.2411)] /
(ln 4) = 0.9940

{E(W1), E(w2),……,E(W10)}=
(0.9940, 0.9994,0.9925, 0.9973, 0.9909,0.9905, 0.9973,
0.9859, 0.9961, 0.9919)

e1  E( W1 ) 10

 E( W
m 1
m )

=0.9940/(0.9940+0.9994)+……+0.9919)=0.9904/9.9357
= 0.1000
 Performance Goal and Improvement Ratio

 According to company C1's current performance on the WHATs in

relation to its competitors’ performance, performance goals on the
WHATs can be set for the company.

 These goals should be set competitively and realistically by the

company, which is a highly strategical activity involving many
considerations from relevant management.
 Assume that for customer need Wm, a proper performance
goal am has been set according to scale (9). Thus the
company has a goal performance vector in terms of the
customer needs, denoted as a =(a1,a2,…,aM).
 In most cases, each goal performance level should not be
lower than current performance level, implying the need or
desire for further improvement.
 From this we can also set the company's improvement ratio
for Wm as um=am/xm1.
 It is obvious that the higher the improvement ratio, the
more the company should work on the WHAT, and thus the
more important the WHAT for the company.
Wm Customer Competitive Performance Improvement
competitive matrix, Priority rating Goal ratios
X=[xml]10x4
C1 C2 C3 C4 em am Um= am/xm1
W1 6.6 4.6 5.8 5.4 0.1000 7 1.0606
W2 4.6 5.0 4.6 5.0 0.1006 5 1.0870

W3 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.4 0.0999 8 1.1429

W4 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.0 0.1004 5 1.1905

W5 2.6 3.4 2.6 2.2 0.0997 4 1.5385

W6 7.0 5.0 4.6 5.4 0.0997 8 1.1429

W7 7.4 6.6 6.6 5.8 0.1004 9 1.2162

W8 3.8 4.2 6.2 4.2 0.0992 5 1.3158
W9 5.4 4.2 5.4 5.4 0.1003 6 1.1111
W10 7.0 7.0 5.4 5.0 0.0998 8 1.1429
 Step 5
Technical Measures (HOWs):
H1 H2 …. HM
Step 1 Step 2 Step 6 Step 3 Step 4
Customer Relative Relationship between Customer Competitive Analysis Final
Needs Importance WHATs and HOWs (R) ( X) Importance
(WHATs): Ratings (g): W1 H2 H2 HM C1 C2 … CL (e) (a) (u) Ratings (f):
W1 g1 W2 r11 r12 … r1L W1 X11 X12 … X1L e1 a1 u1 f1
W2 g2 W3 r21 r22 … r2L W2 X21 X22 … X2L e2 a2 u2 f1
…. ….
… …. …. … …. ….
WM gM WM rM1 rM2 … rML WM XM1 XM2 … XML eM aM uM fM
where
C1 = The Producing Company
Cl = Company l (l = 2 … L)
e = Customer Competitive Priority Rating
(Sales point or entropy method)
a = Customer Performance Goal
u = Customer Improvement Ratio = a / xml
f=uxgxe
t = (f1 x r1) (f2 x r2) … (fM x rM)
z = Technical Competitive Priority Rating
(Sales Point or Entropy Method)
b = Technical Priority Goal
v = Technical Improvement Ratio
s=vxtxz
Step 4. Determine the final importance ratings of customer
needs:

 customer need Wm's final importance rating for the

company is determined jointly by its relative importance
gm, competitive priority em and improvement ratio um as

fm =um × gm × em, where m =1,2,…,M.

WHAT’s with high such final ratings indicate both importance and
potential business benefits to the company
Wm Relative Competitive Improvement Final importance
Importance Priority rating ratios ratings
rating
gm em um= am/xm1 fm=um x gm x em

W1 7.4 0.1000 1.0606 0.7852

W2 6.2 0.1006 1.0870 0.6779

W3 6.2 0.0999 1.1429 0.7078

W4 5.4 0.1004 1.1905 0.6453

W5 4.0 0.0997 1.5385 0.6137

W6 7.4 0.0997 1.1429 0.8431

W7 5.8 0.1004 1.2162 0.7081

W8 6.2 0.0992 1.3158 0.8095
W9 3.4 0.1003 1.1111 0.3787
W10 2.6 0.0998 1.1429 0.2966
 Step 5. Generate technical measures
(HOWs):
 After customers reveal their needs for the product, the
company's technicians or product development team
should develop a set of HOWs to capture the customer
needs in measurable and operable technical terms
 Generated from current product standards
 OR through cause–effect analysis
 Illustrated Example
 Here we present a fried Chinese vegetable example to illustrate the concepts and
computations in our proposed HOQ model in details.
 A Chinese restaurant, called restaurant C1, wishes to make an improvement on
a fried Chinese vegetable it cooks and sells everyday in response to the
competition of other Chinese restaurants in the same district.
 HOQ technique can help C1 make the appropriate decision resulting in better
improvement.
 The basic idea is
 (i) to understand what are customer needs for a fried Chinese vegetable (such as “not
greasy” and “fresh”) and then to identify the important ones through customer surveys, and

 (ii) to associate the customer needs with appropriate technical measures or solutions (such as
“amount of edible oil used” and “duration of vegetable storage”) and then to find the
important ones through technical analyses.
 Nine technical measures (HOWs)
Ten customer needs (WHATs) for a fried Chinese vegetable were identified

 Here, for illustration purpose, five of the restaurant’s customers are selected to
help conduct the HOQ analysis (i.e., K = 5).
 By one or more focus groups, these five customers identify ten needs (WHATs)
for the fried Chinese vegetable (i.e., M = 10).
Relative importance ratings of the 10 WHATs based on the
five customers perceptions
Whats Cus 1 Cus 2 Cus 3 Cus 4 Cus 5 (gm)
W1 7 9 7 5 9 7.4
W2 5 9 5 7 5 6.2
W3 9 5 9 5 3 6.2
W4 7 3 5 9 3 5.4
W5 3 1 3 5 7 4.0
W6 9 7 7 5 9 7.4
W7 5 3 9 7 5 5.8
W8 7 5 5 7 7 6.2
W9 3 5 1 3 5 3.4
W10 1 3 5 1 3 2.6
Applying the entropy method

Applying the entropy method

 E (W )
E (W1 ) 0.9940
E (W2 ) 0.9994
E (W3 ) 0.9925
E (W4 ) 0.9973
E (W5 ) 0.9909
E (W6 ) 0.9905
E (W7 ) 0.9973
E (W8 ) 0.9959
E (W9 ) 0.9961
E (W10 ) 0.9919

= 9.9458
 E (W )
E (W1 ) 0.9940
E (W2 ) 0.9994
E (W3 ) 0.9925
E (W4 ) 0.9973
E (W5 ) 0.9909
E (W6 ) 0.9905
E (W7 ) 0.9973
E (W8 ) 0.9959
E (W9 ) 0.9961
E (W10 ) 0.9919

= 9.9458
 Assume that N technical measures have been developed,
denoted as H1,H2,…,HN.
 Their measurement units and improving directions should
also be determined
 Nine technical measures (HOWs) for the 10 customer needs (WHATs)

Nine technical measures (HOWs) for the 10 customer needs (WHATs)

Step 6. Determine the relationships between HOWs and
WHATs
 The relationship between a HOW and a WHAT is usually
determined by analyzing to what extent the HOW could
technically relate to and influence the WHAT.
 Once a HOW is defined we usually begin establishing to
what extents it relates to the WHATs
 Let the relationship value between technical measure
Hn and customer need Wm be determined as rmn
according to scale:

Very weak Weak moderate relation strong very high

1 3 5 7 9

Then we can form the following relationship matrix

between the HOWs and the WHATs:
 H1 H2 ………….. HN

W1 r11 r12  r1N 

W2  
R= .
r21 r22 r2 N 
. .....
.  
WM rM1 rM 2 rMN 
For the illustrated problem W1 = Appetizing
H1 = Amount of soy sauce used
H2 = Amount of salt used
H3 = Amount of pepper used
H4 = Amount of vegetable used
H5 = Amount of edible oil used
H6 = Duration of vegetable storage
H7 = Duration between finished and
served
H8 = Duration of cooking
H9 = Duration of high temperature
used in cooking

W2 = Not salty
W3 = Not greasy
W4 = Moderately spicy
W5 = Hot
W6 = Fresh
For the illustrated problem H1 = Amount of soy sauce used
H2 = Amount of salt used
H3 = Amount of pepper used
H4 = Amount of vegetable used
H5 = Amount of edible oil used
H6 = Duration of vegetable storage
H7 = Duration between finished and
served
H8 = Duration of cooking
H9 = Duration of high temperature
used in cooking

W7 = Sweet Smell
W8 = Not overcooked
W9 = Jade taste
W10 = Tasteful arrangement
 Step 7. Determine initial technical ratings of
HOWs
 Initial technical ratings of HOWs are decided by two
factors,
final importance ratings of WHATs ( f ) and
– the relationships between the HOWs and the WHATs (r).
 These ratings indicate the basic importance of the HOWs
developed in relation to the WHATs
• For technical measure Hn, its initial technical rating is computed as the
following simple weighted average over its relationships with the WHATs:
N
t n  f1r1n  f 2 r2 n    f M rMn   f m rm n , n  1,2, , N
n 1
 • For technical measure Hn, its
initial technical rating is
computed as the following simple
weighted average over its
relationships with the WHATs:

N
t n  f1r1n  f 2 r2 n    f M rMn   f m rm n , n  1,2,  , N
n 1
 Step 8: Perform technical competitive analysis:

 This step can be done through marketing.

 Obtain technical parameters and know-hows of the
competitors’ products.
 Some may even be kept confidential,
 The producing company should make every effort to acquire
this information.
 In case of extreme difficulty in obtaining the technical
parameters of the competitors’ products on some HOWs,
– careful technical assessments should be made to give reliable scores (in
a suitable scale such as (9)) representing the
 technical performance of the competitors’ products on the said HOWs.
• Let the technical parameter or performance score of company Cl's product
on technical measure Hn be determined as ynl.
Then we can form the technical comparison matrix of the companies’
products on the HOWs:

C1 C2 ……Cl …… CL

H1  y11 y12  y1L 

H2  
Y= .
 y21 y22  y2 L 
Hn ..... 
.
 
HN  y N 1 y N 2  y NL 
 From this Y information technical competitive priority ratings on the
HOWs can be obtained for the producing company using the entropy
method
 We will denote these ratings as a vector, z =(z1,z2,… zn ,,...,zN), where zn
represents the company's technical competitive priority with respect to
Hn.
 Based on the matrix Y, company C1 could also set performance goals on
the HOWs.
 Suppose that the company sets a goal performance level bn for its
product on Hn,
 then we have a technical performance goal vector, b =(b1,b2,…bn ,…..,bN).

 Compared to these goals we can define

improvement ratios vn's for the current
performance of company's product on the
HOWs as :

or in a uniform way
vn=max{yn1,bn}/min{yn1,bn}
 Step 9. Obtain final technical ratings of the HOWs:

 Those HOWs with

higher initial technical ratings (tn's),
higher technical competitive priorities (zn's) and
higher improvement ratios (vn's)

indicate working focuses and market opportunities for the

producing company
 Final technical rating is a useful measure to reflect this point.
 For any Hn, it may be computed by integrating all these factors using a
formula given below for computing the final importance ratings for
the HOWs:

sn= vn× tn× zn, n =1,2,…,N.

tn zn vn

sn= vn× tn× zn, n =1,2,…,N.

 The correlation matrix or roof of the House of Quality
 The correlation matrix, Room 3, records possible interactions between ECs for future trade-
off decisions.

• The Correlation matrix shows the degree of

dependence among the engineering
characteristics in the roof of the HOQ.
• It is best to recognize these correlated
relationships early so that appropriate
trade-offs can be made during embodiment
design.
• The correlation matrix in Fig. shows that
there are four strong positive correlations
(indicated by “++”) among EC pairs.
 Interpreting Results of HOQ
 The design team has collected a great deal of information about the design and processed it
into the completed House of Quality.
 The creation of the HOQ required consideration of the connections between what the
customers expect of the product, CRs, and the parameters that are set by the design team.
 The set of parameters make up the solution-neutral specifications for the product.
 Some of the parameters of the design of the product are already defined .
 They may be defined as the result of a decision by the approving authority that initiated the
design process, they may be defined by the physics applied to the product while it is in use,
or they may be defined by regulations set up by a standards organization or other regulatory
bodies.
 The design variables that are already defined as constraints or that have already been given
values do not need to appear in the HOQ.
 Interpreting Results of HOQ
 The highest-ranking ECs from the HOQ are either constraints or design variables whose
values can be used as decision-making criteria for evaluating candidate designs.
 If a high-ranking EC has only a few possible candidate values then it may be appropriate to
treat that EC as a constraint.
 There are certain design parameters that can only take a few discrete values.
 If so, the design team should review the possible values of the EC, determine which is best
at meeting correlated EC targets of the design, and then use only the selected value of the
EC in generating conceptual designs.
 If a high-ranking EC is a design variable that can take many values, like weight, or power
output, it is good to use that EC as a metric by which you compare conceptual designs.
 Thus, your highest-ranking ECs may become your design selection criteria.
 The results from the HOQ act as a guide to assist the team in determining the selection
criterion for evaluating designs.
 Interpreting Results of HOQ
 The lowest-ranking ECs of the HOQ are not as critical to the success of the design.
 These ECs allow freedom during the design process because their values can be set
according to priorities of the designer or approving authority.
 Values for the low ranking ECs can be determined by whatever means is most conducive to
achieving a good design outcome.
 They can be set in such a way as to reduce cost or to preserve some other objective of the
design team.
 As long as low-ranking ECs are independent of the Critical to Quality (CTQ) ECs, they can be
set expeditiously and not require a great deal of design
 team effort. Once EC values are set, they are documented in the PDS.
 Ten customer needs (WHATs) for a fried
Chinese vegetable

Good taste Good smell Good appearance

W1 : appetizing W5 : hot W8 : not

overcooled
W2 : not salty W6 : fresh W9 : Jade colour

W3 : not greasy W7 : sweet smell W10 : tasteful

arrangement
W4 : moderately
spicy
Relative importance ratings of the 10 WHATs
based on the five customers perceptions

Whats Cus 1 Cus 2 Cus 3 Cus 4 Cus 5 Crisp

(gm)
W1 7 [6,8] 9 7 5 9 7.4
W2 5 [4,6] 9 5 7 5 6.2
W3 9 [8,10] 5 9 5 3 6.2
W4 7 [6,8] 3 5 9 3 5.4
W5 3 [2,4] 1 3 5 7 4.0
W6 9 [8,10] 7 7 5 9 7.4
W7 5 [4,6] 3 9 7 5 5.8
W8 7 [6,8] 5 5 7 7 6.2
W9 3 [2,4] 5 1 3 5 3.4
W10 1 [0,2] 3 5 1 3 2.6
 Very low low moderate importance high very high

1 3 5 7 9

Whats Customer 1 Customer 2 Customer 3 Customer 4 Customer 5

W1 High (7) Very high High Moderate Very high
W2 Moderate (5) Very high Moderate High Moderate
W3 Very high (9) Moderate Very high Moderate Low
W4 High (7) low Moderate Very high Low
W5 Low (3) Very high Low Moderate High
W6 Very high (9) high High Moderate Very high
W7 Moderate (5) low Very high High Moderate
W8 High (7) Moderate Moderate High High
W9 Low (3) Moderate Very low Low Moderate
W10 Very high (9) low moderate Very low low
Benefits of QFD

• Shorter development cycles

• Trade-offs are made in design, strategically, rather than in the
market, tactically.
• Lower costs, increased productivity
• Documentation orientation
• Team involvement and commitment at the design stage