qfd, management of technological innovation, kv patri quality function deployment qfd benchmarking
Post on 21-Dec-2015
241 views
TRANSCRIPT
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Quality Function Deployment
•QFD
•Benchmarking
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
New dynamicmarkets
Changingcustomer
expectations
DevelopManufacture
Service
Value Chain
Statutoryrequirements
IncreasinglyKeen competition
Ecologicalinfluences
Changes inavailability of
resources
Short productlife cycles
Economicinfluences
Innovativetechnologies
Increasingcost andcompetition
Growingcomplexity ofproblems
Increasinglydynamicenvironment
Expandingquantity andvariety ofrelevantinformation
Entrepreneural Environment [Eversheim 97]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Qua
lity
Man
agem
ent
MDS QFD CAAQC BM
Tec
hnol
ogy
Man
agem
entSolvecommunication
problems
VE TC
QFD BM
Market,Customers
Technology
“abstract,difficult toimplement
“Concrete, Detailed”
Deploymentof resources, Promoter
Communicate
Communicate
Key VE: Value Engineering, MDS: Multidimensional Scaling,CA: Conjoint Analysis, AQC: Attractive Quality criterion,
BM: Benchmarking, TC: Technology Calender,QFD: Quality Function Deployment
Bridging Innovation Management [Eversheim 97]
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 (anti-lime deposit system)
Solution: Flexible beamformer/nozzles Lime deposits are more
brittle than silicone nozzles Lime loosens through
deformation of the beamformer
Action Required: Better approach to solution
than competitor Take the lead over
competitor by introducingadditional product features
Rapid reaction essential
Success Factors: Accurate, continuous market analysis Methodical approach to product
planning Technical implementation in close
cooperation with technologysuppliers (multi-component plasticinjection molding)
Uses plausible to customer
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Qua
lity
Man
agem
ent
Identify market and customer requirements
Tec
hnol
ogy
Man
agem
ent
Develop technical solution
QFD BM
Market,Customers
Technology
“abstract,difficult toimplement
“Concrete, Detailed”
Deploymentof resources, Promoter
Linking problems and solutions [Eversheim 97]
Problems 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 Clearinghouse1. 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 Process1. 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
Bechmarking partners
Manufacturing operations ----------
Manufacturing safety ----------------Factory floor layoutResearch and product developmentDistribution ---------------------------Billing and Collection ---------------Quality Management ----------------Quality improvement ----------------Supplier development ---------------
Saturn (a division of GM)Fuji-XeroxDuPontCummins EngineHewlett-PackardL.L. Bean Inc.American ExpressToyotaFlorida Power and LightHonda Manufacturing of America
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Quality Function DeploymentBuilding 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
What-How Matrix Relationship [Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Goal(What)
Objective(How)
Level 1 Matrix Deployment
Sell
Prod
uct
Make Profit
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Goal(What)
Objective(How)
Level 2 Matrix Deployment (and so on)
Sell Product
Adv
ertis
eRec
eive
Ord
ers
Man
ufac
ture
Pro
duct
s
Ship
Goo
ds
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Cus
tom
erR
equi
rem
ents
DesignRequirements
Des
ign
Req
uire
men
ts
EngineeringDesign
Eng
inee
ring
desi
gn
ProductCharacteristics
Deployment of Customer Requirementsto Product Characteristics
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Eng
inee
ring
Des
ign
ProductCharacteristics
Pro
duct
Cha
ract
eris
tics
Manufacturing/PurchasingOperations
Man
ufac
turi
ng/
Pur
chas
ing
Ope
rati
ons
Production/QualityControls
Deployment of Product Characteristicsto 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
Design Requirements
Consumer Priority
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
Strong
Medium
Weak
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Step 2: Determining Design Requirements
Design RequirementsConsumer Priority
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
Strong
Medium
Weak
Mea
n T
ime
Bet
wee
nF
ailu
res
= 5
000
hrs
Acc
urac
y=
0.0
001
in
Bui
lt-i
nSe
lf-T
est
Self
-Cal
ibra
tion
Com
pute
rC
ontr
olle
d
Mea
n T
ime
to R
epai
r =
0.5
hrs
Mod
ule-
leve
lR
epla
cem
ent
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Step 3: Developing the Relationship Matrix
Design RequirementsConsumer Priority
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
Strong
Medium
Weak
Mea
n T
ime
Bet
wee
nF
ailu
res
= 5
000
hrs
Acc
urac
y=
0.0
001
in
Bui
lt-i
nSe
lf-T
est
Self
-Cal
ibra
tion
Com
pute
rC
ontr
olle
d
Mea
n T
ime
to R
epai
r =
0.5
hrs
Mod
ule-
leve
lR
epla
cem
ent
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Consumer Priority
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
Strong
Medium
Weak
Mea
n T
ime
Bet
wee
nF
ailu
res
= 5
000
hrs
Acc
urac
y=
0.0
001
in
Bui
lt-i
nSe
lf-T
est
Self
-Cal
ibra
tion
Com
pute
rC
ontr
olle
d
Mea
n T
ime
to R
epai
r =
0.5
hrs
Mod
ule-
leve
lR
epla
cem
ent
Step4 Developing the Interaction Matrix
[Jackson 96]
QFD, Management of Technological Innovation, KV Patri
Consumer Priority
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
Strong = 9Medium =3
Weak = 1
Mea
n T
ime
Bet
wee
nF
ailu
res
= 5
000
hrs
Acc
urac
y=
0.0
001
in
Bui
lt-i
nSe
lf-T
est
Self
-Cal
ibra
tion
Com
pute
rC
ontr
olle
d
Mea
n T
ime
to R
epai
r =
0.5
hrs
Mod
ule-
leve
lR
epla
cem
ent
1 2 3
1
4 5
BenchmarkingScore based on the degree
to which customer requirements are met
Technical BenchmarkingOur Company: O
Competitor ACompetitor BCompetitor C
5 BOCA
4
3
2
1
OBAC
BAOC
CBAO
OABC
CBAO
OBAC
Key Elements
Risk
WeightsAbsolute
Relative 108
12 9 15 14 2 8 327 15 14 6 24 3
X X X
A B C O
O C B A
B C O A
A B C O
A B O C