Presented by: Amit Kumar

Asim Bala

26/02/2016 2

Introduction

Quality Function Deployment, QFD, is a quality technique which evaluates the ideas of key stakeholders to produce a product which better addresses the customers needs.

Customer requirements are gathered into a visual document which is evaluated and remodeled during construction so the important requirements stand out as the end result.

26/02/2016 3

Contd..

QFD is an ideal opportunity to move away from “we know best what the customer wants” to a new culture of “let’s hear the voice of the customer”

It is about planning and problem prevention, not problem solving (Eureka, 1988).

QFD provides a systematic approach to identify which requirements are a priority for whom, when to implement them, and why .(House of Quality)

26/02/2016 4

How QFD Works

Conceive

Design

Process Production

Requirements

Technical

Specifications

High Level Desig

n

Methods

Tools

QFD Planning Process

Procedures

26/02/2016 5

Phases of QFD

Product Planning including the ‘House of Quality’ (Requirements Engineering Life Cycle)

Product Design (Design Life Cycle) Process Planning (Implementation Life Cycle) Process Control (Testing Life Cycle)

26/02/2016 6

House of Quality

Phase 1 is where most of the information is gathered.

Getting good data is critical. Any mistakes in requirements here will be magnified later.

Is a set of matrices which contains the requirements (What’s) and the detailed information to achieve those requirements (How’s, How Much’s).

Stakeholder groups fill in the matrices based on their priorities and goals.

26/02/2016 7

House of Quality

Customer Requirements

1. (Whats)

6. Relationship Matrix(Whats vs. Hows”)

3&4. Customer Market Evaluation(Whats vs.

Whys)Degree of Technical

Difficulty

5. Technical Responses(Hows)

7. Technical Correlation (Hows vs. Hows)

Technical Matrix

How muchs

Planning MatrixWhys

Target GoalsTechnical Competitive

Evaluations

10. Overall Importance Ratings

2. Customer

Importance

Rating

26/02/2016 8

Project delivery process in public works program

Capital project planning

26/02/2016 9Model of project planning process

Typical process flow in project planning phase

26/02/2016 10

26/02/2016 11Process flow of QFD modeling of case-study

26/02/2016 12

VOC

Customer Requirement

s (Whats)

Customer types

Internal Customers

Share holders,

employees,

Intermediate

customersGovt,

Consultant

Ultimate customers

Users, Recipient of service

Main Concer

n

Company should know who are customer

26/02/2016 13

Data collection methods Individual interviews

Emailed survey

Use existing information

26/02/2016 14

TERI-Water Resources Division Date:__/__/2011 NGRBA Social Impact Assessment Interviewer:__________________ Site: Kanpur District-I Project: New Sewer Lines

Interviewee:________________________ Location: Residebtial____Public Place_______ For PP: Park______Office____Market__School____Store______Religious place____ Classification: Resident______Shop Keeper___Street Vendor_____Office worker____School_______Pedistrian___Religious figure_____Other •Do you have sewer linkages? How does having/not having sewer access affect you? •Are you aware that this project will be constructed? •What do you think will be the consequences of the construction this project on the following:

1.Traffic blockages? 2.Parking? 3.Aesthetic value of neighbourhood 4.Health 5.Access to river water source 6.Noise? 7.Pollution? Dust, air quality, leakages

26/02/2016 15

‘‘What’’ sectionScope• Provide sewage treatment facilities for the additional flows• Provide sewage treatment facilities for the new effluent standard

Budget• Order of capital cost ,$650 million• Annual operating and maintenance costs ,$25 million

Delivery Schedule• Project completes before end of 2004

Land• Best to locate within premise of existing STW-A• Minimize or no additional land required

Safety and Technical• Design for population forecast in 2011 plus 30% reserve capacity

Regulatory and Environmental• Control and minimize environmental nuisances

26/02/2016 16

Prioritizing each WHATS

Rate each WHATs

Completed by customerEg. 1(least important) to 5(utmost important) rating

2. Customer Importance Rating

Affinity diagram

User survey(Mean score)

AHP

Method

26/02/2016 17

AHP Procedure– – Build the priority

Very similar to hierarchical value structure Goal on top (Fundamental Objective) Decompose into sub-goals(Means objectives) Further decomposition as necessary Identify criteria(attributes)to measure achievement of goals (attributes

and objectives) Alternatives added to bottom

Different from decision tree Alternatives show up in decision nodes Alternatives affected by uncertain events Alternatives connected to all criteria

26/02/2016 18

Criteria Exp. Fin. Stab.

Rep. Org. Sk.

Experience 1 1/2 1/4 1/7

Financial Stability 2 1 1/2 1/5

Reputation 4 2 1 1/3

Organisational Skills 7 5 3 1

Σ 14.000 8.500 4.750 1.676. Exp. Fin.

Stab.Rep. Org. Sk. Priority

VectorExperience 0.071 0.059 0.053 0.085 0.067Financial Stability

0.143 0.118 0.105 0.119 0.121

Reputation 0.286 0.235 0.211 0.199 0.233Organisational Skills

0.500 0.588 0.632 0.597 0.579

          Σ = 1.000

26/02/2016 19

‘‘What’’ sectionImportance

rate RemarksScope• Provide sewage treatment facilities for

the additional flows• Provide sewage treatment facilities for

the new effluent standard

5 Basic objective of utmost importance 

5

Budget• Order of capital cost ,$650 million• Annual operating and maintenance

costs ,$25 million

4Rough estimate only, subject to refinement

3 Old data of operation cost may be exceeded due to stringent requirements

Delivery Schedule• Project completes before end of 2004 3

Tolerable if project is partially operative by end of 2004

Land• Best to locate within premise of existing

STW-A• Minimize or no additional land required

3Subject to technical viability 

3

Safety and Technical• Design for population forecast in 2011

plus 30% reserve capacity 4Reserve capacity of slightly less than 30% is still tolerable

Regulatory and Environmental• Control and minimize environmental

nuisances

2 Less important because project involves less nuisance in nature, especially if sited within the existing sewage treatment facility

26/02/2016 20

Identify competitor’s To Sustain in market

This kind of information can be obtained by asking the customers to rate the relative performance of the company and its competitors on each WHAT and then to aggregate the customers’ ratings. Useful ways of conducting this kind of comparison analysis are also via mailed surveys and individual interviews.

3&4. Customer Market EvaluationWhats vs. Whys

Method

Planning

Matrix

26/02/2016 21

Current satisfaction performance: How well does the team’s current most similar product or service offering meet customers’ need? (from market research)

Competitive satisfaction performance: How well does the competition’s current most similar product or service offering meet customers’ need? (from market research)

Company goal: How well does the team want to meet customers’ needs for the product or service being planned? (team’s determination)

Sales point: To what extent could meeting-a-need-well used as a sales point? (team’s determination)

26/02/2016 22

Histogram

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5

Freq

uenc

y

26/02/2016 23

I = Where, I=Improvement ratio

G= Goals set by companyCP= Current performance level of company

W = G x CPWhere, W = Weight

26/02/2016 24

NW = Where, NW = Normalised (Relative) weight

Ʃ=Sum of Weights of Whats

26/02/2016 25

26/02/2016 26

Voice of the Engineers or Designers (“hows”). Interpretations of "whats" in terms of technical specifications or design requirements (designers’ language)actionable (quantifiable or measurable)

5. Technical Response

s(Hows)

Method

Tree DiagramCause and

Effect diagram

26/02/2016 27

Cause-and-Effect Diagram : Paint Peeling

House Paint Peeling

EFFECT

Material Work Method

Equipment Environment

26/02/2016 28

Tree Diagram

To find out root cause of customer problems for developing technical response

26/02/2016 29

26/02/2016 30

‘‘How’’ section ~engineering solution!Movement of target

valueScope1. Provide new units for additional flows2. Modify existing facilities for additional flows3. Modify existing facilities for new effluent standard

No improvementin performance

Budget and Cost1. New facilities would cost about $130 million2. Upgrade existing facilities would cost about$210 million3.Modification for new effluent standard costabout $120 million4.Environmental mitigation cost about $5 million5. 5.Allow $45 million ~10% of total cost! as project contingencies6. Recurrent and operating cost estimate as $18 million

Less costthe better

Schedule1. Complete study ~PPFS! by late 19982. Complete project by mid-2004

Earlier the better

Land1. To site project within existing STW2. Use adjacent landfill site if additional land required

No improvementin performance

Safety and Technical1. Design for population5282,8002. Add 30% reserved capacity More the better

Less the better3. New bacteria removal requirement4. New ammonia removal requirement

Regulatory and environmental1. Environmental mitigation measures

More stringent the better

26/02/2016 31

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. point scale is normally adoptedEg. 9-very strong, 6-moderate, 3-weak, blank- no relationshipWhich things do we have to do satisfy client’s requirements?

6. Relationship MatrixWhats vs.

Hows”

M e th

od

26/02/2016 32Te

chni

cal

resp

onse

26/02/2016 33

26/02/2016 34

Interaction between technical responsesDevelopment team assessmentFour point scale: strong positive, positive, negative, strong negativeTrade off between relations(specially –ve)Strong positive relations are studied to avoid duplication

7. Technical Correlation

(Hows vs. Hows)

AHP

Method

26/02/2016 35

26/02/2016 36

26/02/2016 37

The computed rank ordering of the technical responses, based on the rank ordering of customer wants and needs from the relationships in Section D.

Comparative information on the competition’s technical performance

Technical performance targets

Technical MatrixHow

muchsMethod

MatrixData

Analysis

26/02/2016 38

Technical importance (i) = importance rate (i) x Correlation (i)

Relative importance (i)= 5 is maximum importance rateORRelative importance (i)=

26/02/2016 39

26/02/2016 40

26/02/2016 41

26/02/2016 42

HOQ: level2

26/02/2016 43

26/02/2016 44

26/02/2016 45

References Use of Quality Function Deployment in Civil Engineering

Capital Project PlanningSyed M. Ahmed, M.ASCE1; Li Pui Sang2; and Zˇ eljko M. Torbica, M.ASCE3

Strategic use of quality function deployment (QFD) in theconstruction industryIrem Dikmen , M. Talat Birgonul, Semiha Kiziltas

ChanWu_QualityFunctionDeployment

Hauser_et_al QFD

An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction industry usinganalytical network processEmre Cakmak a, Pinar Irlayici Cakmak b*

26/02/2016 46