Qfd For New Product Development

Quality function deployment: total quality management for new product design Archie Lockamy III

QFD: TQM for new product design 73

School of Business and Industry, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA and

Anil Khurana School of Business Administration, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Total quality management Total quality management (TQM) can be defined as the application of quality principles for the integration of all functions and processes within the organization[1]. The primary focus of TQM is on customer satisfaction. To ensure long-term satisfaction, organizations must continually improve their functions and processes based on market requirements. The basic principles of TQM were expressed by Feigenbaum in a 1956 Harvard Business Review article entitled “Total quality control”[2]. In the article, Feigenbaum states “The underlying principle of this total quality view – and its basic difference from all other concepts – is that, to provide genuine effectiveness, control must start with the design of the product and end only when the product has been placed in the hands of a customer who remains satisfied”. Therefore, TQM must begin at product conception and continue throughout its entire life cycle. Mechanisms are required which allow organizations to integrate TQM into all of their activities. Benefits of quality The benefits of quality to an organization are: ● customer satisfaction resulting in customer loyalty and repeat business; ● lower production costs and higher productivity; ● improved cash flow and return on investment; ● the ability to charge higher prices; ● higher stock prices; and ● reduced service calls[1]. The authors would like to thank Chrysler Motors Corporation for supporting this research effort. Special thanks are given to Robert J. Dika, Glenn W. Czupinski, Chris W. Kuroswski and Alan C. Carlson.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, 1995, pp. 73-84, © MCB University Press, 0265-671X

IJQRM 12,6

74

These benefits lead directly to increased market share and improved profitability. Quality function deployment Quality function deployment (QFD) originated in Mitsubishi’s Kobe shipyard in 1972, possibly as an outcome of Deming’s teachings[3, p. 79]. The original Japanese name was hin shitsu ki no ten kai. The translation is given below: ● hin shitsu means quality or features/attributes; ● ki no means function or mechanization; ● ten kai means deployment, diffusion, or development/evolution. The Japanese view QFD as a philosophy which ensures high product quality in the design stage[4]. The aim is to satisfy the customer by ensuring quality at each stage of the product development process. QFD helps companies identify real customer requirements, and translates these requirements into product features, engineering specifications, and finally, production details. The product can then be manufactured to satisfy the customer. QFD is an integrative process which links together customer needs, product and parts design requirements, process planning, and manufacturing specifications during product development. Various tools and mechanisms are used to operationalize the QFD concept. For example, design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) is used as a part of the QFD process. QFD can also help identify consistent performance measures for the different stages in the product design-process design-manufacturing-customer chain. Elements of QFD QFD consists of two components which are deployed into the design process: quality and function. The “quality deployment” component brings the customer’s voice into the design process. It ensures design and production quality by identifying design targets, and product and part specifications, that are consistent with customer requirements. The “function deployment” component links different organizational functions and units into the design-tomanufacturing transition via the formation of design teams. Functional specialists are brought together to reduce mis-communication between design stages and functions. Since a team problem-solving approach is appropriate for complex issues[5], QFD is a suitable method for designing complex products. This ensures “system consistency”, as suggested by Clark and Fujimoto[6]. The QFD process To understand the QFD process, it is necessary to examine how QFD fits into key elements of the overall product development cycle: timing, performance evaluation, and resource commitment. The product development cycle can be divided into four phases that are associated with key events and managerial review stages. The four phases of the product development cycle are presented in Figure 1.

1 Product planning

2

3

4

Product design

Manufacturing process engineering

Production

QFD: TQM for new product design

QFD Product planning

75 QFD Part deployment QFD Process planning QFD Production planning

Global product definition

Prototype evaluation

Pilot Start of evaluation production

Source: Adapted from the QFD manuals of the American Supplier Institute and of Chrysler

Phase One, product concept planning, starts with consumer and market research and leads to a product plan: ideas, sketches, concept models, and marketing plans. Product design, the second phase, takes the product concepts and develops product and component specifications. Prototypes are built and tested. In Phase Three, manufacturing processes and production tools are designed based on the product and component specifications. Pilot runs for production processes and tooling are made to ascertain product manufacturability levels and production standards. Once problems in pilot runs have been resolved, the product enters production (Phase Four), after which it reaches the customer. At this point, customer feedback serves as inputs for the next generation of products. QFD benefits The benefits of QFD are: ● better customer satisfaction resulting from improved quality of design; ● shorter lead times due to fewer and earlier engineering changes; ● better linkages between various design and manufacturing stages; ● a reduction in the number of product components; and ● an improved work atmosphere through the horizontal integration of functions[7]. Also, QFD provides a structure for benchmarking competitors’ designs. Japanese auto makers attribute tangible benefits such as low product cost, high quality, and short development lead times, to QFD[8,9]. Engineering changes

Figure 1. The product development cycle and QFD – key events (these phases are common to all three US auto manufacturers)

IJQRM 12,6

76

are fewer and take place earlier, resulting in reduced product lead times[8,10]. Thus, QFD enhances both the design process, and the underlying organization. A summary of these QFD benefits is listed below: (1) Design benefits: ● fewer and early design changes; ● less time in development; ● fewer start-up problems; ● lower start-up cost; ● fewer field problems; ● more satisfied customers; ● identifies comparative strengths and weaknesses of products with respect to competition. (2) Organizational benefits: ● encourages teamwork and participation; ● encourages documentation of marketing, design, engineering, and manufacturing product knowledge in a consistent and objective manner. QFD and TQM TQM focuses on the continuous improvement of input-output effectiveness across the entire scope of the organization[11]. TQM has two perspectives: internal and external. The internal perspective requires top management commitment[12,13] and organizational readiness for adopting total quality concepts[14,15]. Additionally, TQM requires organizational policies consistent with the total quality philosophy[12,16]. The external perspective requires a customer focus[14,16,17]. TQM facilitates customer satisfaction by focusing on three core business areas: (1) management information systems; (2) marketing and product engineering; and (3) manufacturing. Management information systems provide data on quality costs and customer satisfaction. Marketing and product engineering use the TQM philosophy to help design and deliver a quality product to the customer[15]. TQM in manufacturing aims to achieve a defect-free production system. This is achieved by problemsolving in cross-functional teams, and the reduction of waste through continuous improvement activities. QFD can be viewed as an application of the TQM philosophy to new product development, just as just-in-time (JIT) can be viewed as an application of TQM to manufacturing operations. King[18] describes QFD as one of 14 concepts that are part of a TQM vision. Using QFD ensures that nothing falls through the

“cracks” with regard to the needs of the customer[9]. In addition, QFD captures the voice of all customers in the product design process: end-users, regulators, dealers/retailers, downstream users in the organization, suppliers, etc. Research methodology Since the central focus of this research was to study how QFD integrates TQM into new product design activities, a qualitative research methodology was adopted. The authors conducted a detailed case study of the QFD process applied to two different vehicle programmes within Chrysler Motors Corporation. The Chrysler study included ten semi-structured interviews with programme managers, design and manufacturing engineers, QFD team leaders, QFD specialists and facilitators, and DFMA specialists. Each of these interviews lasted for one to three hours. In addition, the researchers had extensive discussions with the QFD Planning Group at Chrysler. Of great benefit to the research effort was the close interaction the researchers had with active QFD teams. Chrysler engineers motivated the researchers to “live” the QFD process in order to get a better feel for the working philosophy. They participated in the weekly meetings of one of the QFD Phase One teams. In addition, they attended meetings of a QFD Phase Three team composed of programme management, design, advanced engineering, logistics, and plant management representatives. Another source of QFD information regarding Chrysler was company data. Documents pertaining to product policy, supplier meetings, and marketing feedback were reviewed. Chrysler also shared company manuals, QFD charts, and information on past QFD teams. The researchers also benefited from attending Chrysler-sponsored QFD training sessions. QFD at Chrysler Motors Corporation QFD was formally launched at Chrysler during September 1986. However, the first QFD application began in June 1986. Initially, only a few of the crossfunctional teams embraced the QFD philosophy. Later, some of the product managers recognized the potential of QFD and implemented it for their vehicle programmes. After the reorganization of Chrysler’s product design function into design platforms several years ago, QFD received more support from senior managers. The American Supplier Institute (ASI) provided QFD training for Chrysler during the first few years. Recently, this role has been taken over by Chrysler’s Quality Planning Group. During the formative years of QFD at Chrysler, the company also sought the help of well-known Japanese quality, design, and QFD experts such as Akashi Fukuhara (assistant director, Central Japan Quality Control Association). Adopting QFD The first-time implementation of QFD procedures within a Chrysler vehicle programme is viewed as a four-stage process, illustrated in Table I. The four stages are:

QFD: TQM for new product design 77

IJQRM 12,6

78

Table I. Stages in adopting QFD

QFD implementation stage Awareness

Demonstrate successful case studies

Company-wide training and education

Adoption of business philosophy

“Education” of top management Explain QFD benefits Quote industry anecdotes

Select QFD projects Train team members Select strong leader Ensure information availability

QFD successes Teach QFD philosophy Include teamwork Train in QFD

Compare with existing process

Develop complete case application Demonstrate success

Support tools

Manage change Link to strategy Establish consistent performance systems Business planning concept Evaluate on cost, quality, investment, timing

Technology adoption stages Identification

Transfer

Amplification

Acceptance

(1) spreading awareness; (2) developing successful case studies and examples to motivate subsequent teams; (3) company-wide training and education on QFD techniques and philosophy; and (4) adopting QFD as a business philosophy. Although our research confirmed the use of a four-stage process by Chrysler for QFD adoption, our interviews with design engineers in one vehicle platform revealed that QFD was not fully accepted as the preferred design methodology. Since QFD was not considered an integral part of the overall design process by this vehicle platform, the QFD process was perceived as requiring additional time and effort. Such opinions led to organizational and perceptual barriers regarding the successful implementation of QFD. The QFD process At Chrysler, the QFD process began at concept generation. At the business planning stage, the concept generation is implemented by initially starting with a programme management level team that sets overall guidelines, and allocates responsibility to different design groups for different systems. These design groups then set up QFD teams which start by looking at the system-level needs. Once these requirements are established, the team breaks up into smaller groups that focus on different components. At the same time, progress is also being made on the “horizontal” phases of the QFD process. However, the system-level QFD team still maintains overall responsibility.

QFD software In order to keep track of the QFD teams’ activities, their responsibilities, and their progress, some QFD teams at Chrysler used a commercially available QFD software package. The software has the capability of constructing and analysing the “house of quality” and other QFD matrices. The use of such software was not widespread in the product groups we visited. Often, it was the responsibility of the QFD facilitators/co-ordinators to maintain QFD charts and other information. Making design trade-offs What happens when customer requirements lead to conflicting design requirements? Although such conflicts may occur during any of the four QFD phases, they are most likely detected in the product planning stage. Engineers at later design stages must be made aware of such conflicts – managing information transfer and communication is the key to resolving such conflicts. Two kinds of solutions to such trade-offs normally occur. The first uses the approach suggested by the Pugh concept selection method. In this approach, alternatives are generated, and the best alternatives are chosen based on the previously set cost, quality, weight, investment constraints and objectives. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is used to challenge the best design alternatives to expose their weaknesses and to find potential problems. However, the best alternatives may still not be very attractive. The second approach may be useful in such cases. Taguchi design of experiments can be used to “optimize” the design by isolating controllable variables. By determining the effect of these variables on the design requirements, it is possible to determine optimum levels for controllable parameters. By understanding the behaviour of certain design outcomes as a function of these controllable parameters, mathematical optimization (such as linear/non-linear programming) can be used to determine optimal parameter settings and design outcomes. Chrysler employed both approaches in making design trade-offs. Since QFD brings together a multi-functional team, and helps challenge traditional design objectives and targets, the researchers expected an increase in design innovations resulting from the need to make design trade-offs. A few examples did exist. For example, the new cruise-control device on the LH midsize cars is an improved version resulting from conflicting design objectives. However, discussions with several QFD design teams revealed that such innovations have not yet become common. Getting data for QFD Due to various resource constraints, Chrysler management was sometimes unable to authorize first-hand customer research. In such cases, teams were encouraged to document what they knew concerning customer requirements based on their experience. Thus, the teams would only research product areas where they did not know the customers’ requirements, or felt that there was a risk of misinterpreting customers’ needs. Often, team members simulated customers by actually evaluating competing vehicles, and reviewing customer ratings.

QFD: TQM for new product design 79

IJQRM 12,6

80

Strategic role of QFD Our research revealed strategic benefits for Chrysler in the launch of their LH platform for mid-size cars (e.g. the 1993 Dodge Vision). The total product design cycle took approximately 36 months, versus historical cycles ranging from 62 to 54 months. LH prototypes were ready 95 weeks before the scheduled start of production, compared to the traditional 60 weeks. The programme required only 740 people, compared to historical involvement levels of 1,600 people. Also, by focusing on customer requirements instead of only cost, Chrysler made innovative design changes that are gaining acceptance in the marketplace[19]. Performance evaluation systems for QFD Our interviews with Chrysler managers revealed that records relating to QFD and project performance were rarely kept. One reason for this void was the lack of an established evaluation system suited to QFD. Another reason was the evaluation of design engineers was not always consistent with QFD objectives. A senior programme executive mentioned that establishing merit and reward systems consistent with QFD and other team-based programmes has been a challenge. Creating a performance measurement system that is consistent with organizational and programme objectives is clearly difficult. However, the success of any programme depends on measuring performance and using it to provide constructive feedback. Conclusions In this section, preliminary conclusions are provided concerning the use of QFD to facilitate TQM in an organization’s new product development activities. Conclusion one: the TQM philosophy is a prerequisite for QFD adoption by new product development groups To integrate TQM into the new product development process effectively, a TQM mindset must first be adopted by the new product development group. The TQM mindset ensures that everyone views the customer as the most important business consideration, and views QFD as a tool for continuous quality improvement. Our interviews with design engineers in one of Chrysler’s vehicle platforms revealed that QFD was not viewed as an integral part of the overall design process. Their perception was that it required additional time and effort. Such opinions lead to organizational and perceptual barriers in the success of QFD. These opinions would not arise if QFD was viewed as a part of an accepted TQM philosophy. Conclusion two: the organizational unit implementing QFD must adopt multi-functional teams consistent with the TQM philosophy There are two reasons why multi-functional QFD teams are essential. First, a team provides the necessary “mass” for generating new ideas. Second, the collective experience of the multi-functional team helps resolve complex design and business issues. Having various functional representatives on a team leads

to faster decisions. Chrysler effectively used design teams to manage its overall new vehicle programmes along with each phase of the QFD process. Conclusion three: the successful adoption of QFD for integrating TQM into product design requires facilitators to guide teams through the QFD process The responsibilities of QFD facilitators include: ● teaching team members the QFD philosophy and techniques; ● ensuring proper use of QFD tools to prevent the team from getting bogged down by the complexity of the techniques (e.g. house of quality, design of experiments, DFMA); ● helping teams with data sources; and ● ensuring that relevant functions are represented on the teams. Our interviews with design and manufacturing engineers, and product planners revealed the need for a co-ordinator closely associated with the component part or sub-assembly as the QFD process moves along. Such a person would ensure: ● Continuity of the design concept for the assembly/system, subsystem, and component level. ● Consistent goals and performance measures at the different QFD phases. ● Timely progress of the system/subsystem design. ● Involvement of other teams and programmes at different phases – e.g. DFMA teams, statistical process control (SPC) planners, quality circles. Conclusion four: QFD customer information is essential for integrating TQM’s customer focus into new product development activities Getting QFD customer information as an input into new product development is critical to the TQM philosophy. Secondary data (from private reports or warranty data) must serve only to confirm customer information, not substitute for it. Secondary data sources can only give information on points of customer dissatisfaction in the past, not on what customers want in future products[20]. An innovative and efficient way of getting customer input may be to use market research and market segmentation studies as starting points for identifying customer needs. Detailed follow up customer studies can then be undertaken for critical issues. Toyota uses this approach in Japan. Since Toyota owns its own distribution channels in Japan, it loans staff members from the appropriate distribution channel to product development teams. These channel staff members, through their customer focus, know a lot about customer needs and attitudes. They influence not only demand forecasts, but also the characteristics of the next generation of Toyota automobiles[21]. Due to various resource constraints, Chrysler management encourages teams to document what they know based on their experience, and only research where necessary. However, many companies identify changes in customer

QFD: TQM for new product design 81

IJQRM 12,6

82

needs only after it is too late. Thus, using engineering experience alone as an input to QFD may be risky, if not fatal, in the development of new products. Generating customer inputs, however, is not enough. QFD also requires a supporting information system. The information is needed to: ● Track the progress of the QFD project. ● Provide a link between the different phases of the QFD process. ● Record the performance impact of QFD by tracking the following: engineering change orders (ECOs), productivity of engineers, number of drawings made, reduction of product costs as designed, improvement of design quality, etc. A comparison of non-QFD and QFD projects can be made to bring out the product and systemic advantages stemming from the use of QFD. This information system ought to be linked to the QFD software being used so that all the information is integrated, and is accessible to all engineers and managers. Mizuno[22, pp. 81-2] provides further guidelines on how to manage a quality information system. He suggests that the information management group should keep in mind who the customers of such information are, and how they might use it. Also, it is the responsibility of this group to devise ways to disseminate this information. QFD requires data and information about customer needs. In instances where the firm does not have a good customer database, creating a separate information system for QFD implementation may be necessary. Customer research based on first-hand customer interviews, market analysis, consumer psychology, etc. is essential to improving product designs. Conclusion five: QFD-based performance measures are required reflecting a TQM approach to new product design activities Implementing QFD also means that design and manufacturing engineers cannot be evaluated on the basis of existing measures of individual performance. Since performance is team-related, traditional approaches to rewarding merit and giving promotions must be changed. The performance measurement system must motivate people to become team players[3]. For teams, consistency within the performance evaluation and reward systems is essential. We mentioned earlier that records relating to QFD and project performance were rarely kept at Chrysler. One reason given was that engineers and managers found it difficult to identify the appropriate performance measures clearly, and the stage(s) of the design process where such measures should be tracked. The product design process is complex and requires months of effort. It would be difficult, and also too late, to measure the end result of the product design process after the product actually reaches the customers. QFD-based performance measures can be utilized from two perspectives. First, they can be used to control/monitor the performance of engineers, manufacturing planners, and other participants in the design process. However,

QFD is part of the broader TQM and continuous improvement philosophy; both the TQM philosophy, as well as Deming[3,23] believe that measures of human performance should not be used as control devices. However, measurement systems can be used as motivators to stress teamwork rather than individual and functional performance[24]. QFD performance metrics can then be used as process measures to help the QFD team redefine future priorities and design tasks. They can also help determine where and how the QFD process can be improved. Lastly, tangible measures of success can help build management confidence and support for the design team’s efforts. These measures can then replace case studies as demonstrations of success. In short, if QFD is a roadmap for design, the QFD measures serve as pathfinders and milestones. Summary QFD provides a mechanism for integrating the TQM philosophy into the new product development process. A thorough understanding of TQM is a prerequisite to the successful use of QFD. Additionally, a multi-functional, teambased approach utilizing QFD facilitators is required to lead design teams through the QFD process. The use of first-hand customer information is essential for integrating the true “voice of the customer” into the design of new products. QFD-based performance measures must be adopted to provide a means for motivation, performance feedback and rewards for QFD teams. The effective use of QFD for integrating TQM into new products results in strategic market advantages due to improved customer satisfaction. References 1. Ross, J.E., Total Quality Management, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, 1993. 2. Feigenbaum, A.V., “Total quality control”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34 No. 6, 1956. 3. Sherkenbach, W.W., The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity: Roadmaps and Roadblocks, CEE Press Books, Washington, DC, 1988. 4. Akao, Y. (Ed.), QFD: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, Norwalk, CT, 1990. 5. Van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L. and Koenig, R. Jr, “Determinants of coordination modes within organizations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 41, April 1976, pp. 322-38. 6. Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T., Product Development Performance – Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1991. 7. Sullivan, L.P., “Quality function deployment”, Quality Progress, Vol. 34 No. 6, June 1986, pp. 39-50. 8. Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D., “The house of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 5, May-June 1988, pp. 63-73. 9. Ealey, L., “QFD – bad name for a great system”, Automotive Industries, Vol. 167 No. 21, July 1987. 10. McElroy, J., “The house of quality – for whom are we building cars?”, Chilton’s Automotive Industries, June 1987, pp. 68-70. 11. Feigenbaum, A.V., “Quality and productivity”, Quality Progress, Vol. 10 No. 11, November 1977, pp. 18-21.

QFD: TQM for new product design 83

IJQRM 12,6

84

12. Garvin, D., “Quality on the line”, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1983, pp. 65-75. 13. Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA, 1986. 14. Garvin, D., “What does product quality really mean?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, Fall 1984, pp. 25-41. 15. Lele, M.M. and Karmarkar, U.S., “Good product support is smart marketing”, Harvard Business Review, November-December 1983, pp. 124-32. 16. Reddy, J., “Incorporating quality in competitive strategies”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1980, pp. 53-60. 17. Crosby, P.B., Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1980. 18. King, R., Better Designs in Half the Time, GOAL/QPC, Methuen, Cambridge, MA, 1989. 19. “Long road ahead: American auto makers need major overhaul to match the Japanese”, The Wall Street Journal, 17 January 1992, p. 1. 20. Garvin, D., “How the Baldrige Award really works”, Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember 1991, pp. 80-95. 21. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D. and Sammons Carpenter, D., The Machine that Changed the World, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY, 1990. 22. Mizuno, S., Company-wide Total Qual ity Control, Quality Resources and Asian Productivity Organization, White Plains, NY, 1988. 23. Walton, M., The Deming Management Method, Putnam Publishing, New York, NY, 1986. 24. Heany, D.F. and Vinson, W.D., “A fresh look at new product development”, Journal of Business Strategy, Fall 1984, pp. 22-31.