qfd for new product development

QFD: TQM fornew product

design

73

Quality function deployment:total quality management for

new product designArchie Lockamy III

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

School of Business Administration, Boston University, Boston,Massachusetts, USA

Total quality managementTotal quality management (TQM) can be defined as the application of qualityprinciples for the integration of all functions and processes within theorganization[1]. The primary focus of TQM is on customer satisfaction. Toensure long-term satisfaction, organizations must continually improve theirfunctions and processes based on market requirements.

The basic principles of TQM were expressed by Feigenbaum in a 1956Harvard Business Review article entitled “Total quality control”[2]. In thearticle, Feigenbaum states “The underlying principle of this total quality view –and its basic difference from all other concepts – is that, to provide genuineeffectiveness, control must start with the design of the product and end onlywhen the product has been placed in the hands of a customer who remainssatisfied”. Therefore, TQM must begin at product conception and continuethroughout its entire life cycle. Mechanisms are required which alloworganizations to integrate TQM into all of their activities.

Benefits of qualityThe 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].

International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management,

Vol. 12 No. 6, 1995, pp. 73-84,© MCB University Press,

0265-671X

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.

IJQRM12,6

74

These benefits lead directly to increased market share and improvedprofitability.

Quality function deploymentQuality function deployment (QFD) originated in Mitsubishi’s Kobe shipyard in1972, possibly as an outcome of Deming’s teachings[3, p. 79]. The originalJapanese 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 inthe design stage[4]. The aim is to satisfy the customer by ensuring quality ateach stage of the product development process.

QFD helps companies identify real customer requirements, and translatesthese requirements into product features, engineering specifications, andfinally, production details. The product can then be manufactured to satisfy thecustomer. QFD is an integrative process which links together customer needs,product and parts design requirements, process planning, and manufacturingspecifications during product development. Various tools and mechanisms areused to operationalize the QFD concept. For example, design for manufacturingand assembly (DFMA) is used as a part of the QFD process. QFD can also helpidentify consistent performance measures for the different stages in the productdesign-process design-manufacturing-customer chain.

Elements of QFDQFD consists of two components which are deployed into the design process:quality and function. The “quality deployment” component brings thecustomer’s voice into the design process. It ensures design and productionquality by identifying design targets, and product and part specifications, thatare consistent with customer requirements. The “function deployment”component links different organizational functions and units into the design-to-manufacturing transition via the formation of design teams. Functionalspecialists are brought together to reduce mis-communication between designstages and functions. Since a team problem-solving approach is appropriate forcomplex issues[5], QFD is a suitable method for designing complex products.This ensures “system consistency”, as suggested by Clark and Fujimoto[6].

The QFD processTo understand the QFD process, it is necessary to examine how QFD fits intokey elements of the overall product development cycle: timing, performanceevaluation, and resource commitment. The product development cycle can bedivided into four phases that are associated with key events and managerialreview stages. The four phases of the product development cycle are presentedin Figure 1.


design

75

Phase One, product concept planning, starts with consumer and market researchand leads to a product plan: ideas, sketches, concept models, and marketing plans.Product design, the second phase, takes the product concepts and developsproduct and component specifications. Prototypes are built and tested. In PhaseThree, manufacturing processes and production tools are designed based on theproduct and component specifications. Pilot runs for production processes andtooling are made to ascertain product manufacturability levels and productionstandards. Once problems in pilot runs have been resolved, the product entersproduction (Phase Four), after which it reaches the customer. At this point,customer feedback serves as inputs for the next generation of products.

QFD benefitsThe 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, highquality, and short development lead times, to QFD[8,9]. Engineering changes

Product planning Product design Manufacturingprocess engineering Production

QFDProduct planning

1 2 3 4

QFDPart deployment

QFDProcess planning

QFDProduction planning

Global productdefinition

Prototypeevaluation

Pilotevaluation

Start ofproduction

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

Figure 1.The product

development cycle andQFD – key events(these phases are

common to all three USauto manufacturers)

IJQRM12,6

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 objectivemanner.

QFD and TQMTQM focuses on the continuous improvement of input-output effectiveness acrossthe entire scope of the organization[11]. TQM has two perspectives: internal andexternal. 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 totalquality philosophy[12,16]. The external perspective requires a customerfocus[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 customersatisfaction. Marketing and product engineering use the TQM philosophy to helpdesign and deliver a quality product to the customer[15]. TQM in manufacturingaims to achieve a defect-free production system. This is achieved by problem-solving in cross-functional teams, and the reduction of waste through continuousimprovement activities.

QFD can be viewed as an application of the TQM philosophy to new productdevelopment, just as just-in-time (JIT) can be viewed as an application of TQM tomanufacturing operations. King[18] describes QFD as one of 14 concepts thatare part of a TQM vision. Using QFD ensures that nothing falls through the


design

77

“cracks” with regard to the needs of the customer[9]. In addition, QFD capturesthe voice of all customers in the product design process: end-users, regulators,dealers/retailers, downstream users in the organization, suppliers, etc.

Research methodologySince the central focus of this research was to study how QFD integrates TQMinto new product design activities, a qualitative research methodology wasadopted. The authors conducted a detailed case study of the QFD process appliedto two different vehicle programmes within Chrysler Motors Corporation.

The Chrysler study included ten semi-structured interviews with programmemanagers, design and manufacturing engineers, QFD team leaders, QFDspecialists and facilitators, and DFMA specialists. Each of these interviews lastedfor one to three hours. In addition, the researchers had extensive discussions withthe QFD Planning Group at Chrysler. Of great benefit to the research effort wasthe close interaction the researchers had with active QFD teams. Chryslerengineers motivated the researchers to “live” the QFD process in order to get abetter feel for the working philosophy. They participated in the weekly meetingsof one of the QFD Phase One teams. In addition, they attended meetings of a QFDPhase Three team composed of programme management, design, advancedengineering, logistics, and plant management representatives.

Another source of QFD information regarding Chrysler was company data.Documents pertaining to product policy, supplier meetings, and marketingfeedback were reviewed. Chrysler also shared company manuals, QFD charts, andinformation on past QFD teams. The researchers also benefited from attendingChrysler-sponsored QFD training sessions.

QFD at Chrysler Motors CorporationQFD was formally launched at Chrysler during September 1986. However, thefirst QFD application began in June 1986. Initially, only a few of the cross-functional teams embraced the QFD philosophy. Later, some of the productmanagers recognized the potential of QFD and implemented it for their vehicleprogrammes. After the reorganization of Chrysler’s product design function intodesign platforms several years ago, QFD received more support from seniormanagers.

The American Supplier Institute (ASI) provided QFD training for Chryslerduring the first few years. Recently, this role has been taken over by Chrysler’sQuality Planning Group. During the formative years of QFD at Chrysler, thecompany also sought the help of well-known Japanese quality, design, and QFDexperts such as Akashi Fukuhara (assistant director, Central Japan QualityControl Association).

Adopting QFDThe first-time implementation of QFD procedures within a Chrysler vehicleprogramme is viewed as a four-stage process, illustrated in Table I. The fourstages are:

IJQRM12,6

78

(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 forQFD adoption, our interviews with design engineers in one vehicle platformrevealed that QFD was not fully accepted as the preferred design methodology.Since QFD was not considered an integral part of the overall design process bythis vehicle platform, the QFD process was perceived as requiring additionaltime and effort. Such opinions led to organizational and perceptual barriersregarding the successful implementation of QFD.

The QFD processAt Chrysler, the QFD process began at concept generation. At the businessplanning stage, the concept generation is implemented by initially starting witha programme management level team that sets overall guidelines, and allocatesresponsibility to different design groups for different systems. These designgroups then set up QFD teams which start by looking at the system-level needs.Once these requirements are established, the team breaks up into smallergroups that focus on different components. At the same time, progress is alsobeing made on the “horizontal” phases of the QFD process. However, thesystem-level QFD team still maintains overall responsibility.

Table I.Stages in adoptingQFD

QFD implementation stage

Awareness Demonstrate Company-wide Adoption of businesssuccessful training and philosophycase studies education

“Education” of top Select QFD projects QFD successes Manage changemanagement Train team members Teach QFD Link to strategy

Explain QFD benefits Select strong leader philosophy Establish consistentQuote industry Ensure information Include teamwork performance systems

anecdotes availability Train in QFD Business planning concept

Compare with Develop complete Support tools Evaluate on cost,existing process case application quality, investment,

Demonstrate success timing

Technology adoption stages

Identification Transfer Amplification Acceptance


design

79

QFD softwareIn order to keep track of the QFD teams’ activities, their responsibilities, andtheir progress, some QFD teams at Chrysler used a commercially available QFDsoftware package. The software has the capability of constructing andanalysing the “house of quality” and other QFD matrices. The use of suchsoftware was not widespread in the product groups we visited. Often, it was theresponsibility of the QFD facilitators/co-ordinators to maintain QFD charts andother information.

Making design trade-offsWhat happens when customer requirements lead to conflicting designrequirements? Although such conflicts may occur during any of the four QFDphases, they are most likely detected in the product planning stage. Engineersat later design stages must be made aware of such conflicts – managinginformation transfer and communication is the key to resolving such conflicts.

Two kinds of solutions to such trade-offs normally occur. The first uses theapproach suggested by the Pugh concept selection method. In this approach,alternatives are generated, and the best alternatives are chosen based on thepreviously set cost, quality, weight, investment constraints and objectives.Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is used to challenge the best designalternatives to expose their weaknesses and to find potential problems.However, the best alternatives may still not be very attractive. The secondapproach may be useful in such cases. Taguchi design of experiments can beused to “optimize” the design by isolating controllable variables. Bydetermining the effect of these variables on the design requirements, it ispossible to determine optimum levels for controllable parameters. Byunderstanding the behaviour of certain design outcomes as a function of thesecontrollable parameters, mathematical optimization (such as linear/non-linearprogramming) can be used to determine optimal parameter settings and designoutcomes. Chrysler employed both approaches in making design trade-offs.

Since QFD brings together a multi-functional team, and helps challengetraditional design objectives and targets, the researchers expected an increasein design innovations resulting from the need to make design trade-offs. A fewexamples did exist. For example, the new cruise-control device on the LH mid-size cars is an improved version resulting from conflicting design objectives.However, discussions with several QFD design teams revealed that suchinnovations have not yet become common.

Getting data for QFDDue to various resource constraints, Chrysler management was sometimes unableto authorize first-hand customer research. In such cases, teams were encouragedto document what they knew concerning customer requirements based on theirexperience. Thus, the teams would only research product areas where they did notknow the customers’ requirements, or felt that there was a risk of misinterpretingcustomers’ needs. Often, team members simulated customers by actuallyevaluating competing vehicles, and reviewing customer ratings.

IJQRM12,6

80

Strategic role of QFDOur research revealed strategic benefits for Chrysler in the launch of their LHplatform for mid-size cars (e.g. the 1993 Dodge Vision). The total product designcycle took approximately 36 months, versus historical cycles ranging from 62 to54 months. LH prototypes were ready 95 weeks before the scheduled start ofproduction, compared to the traditional 60 weeks. The programme requiredonly 740 people, compared to historical involvement levels of 1,600 people. Also,by focusing on customer requirements instead of only cost, Chrysler madeinnovative design changes that are gaining acceptance in the marketplace[19].

Performance evaluation systems for QFDOur interviews with Chrysler managers revealed that records relating to QFDand project performance were rarely kept. One reason for this void was the lackof an established evaluation system suited to QFD. Another reason was theevaluation of design engineers was not always consistent with QFD objectives.A senior programme executive mentioned that establishing merit and rewardsystems consistent with QFD and other team-based programmes has been achallenge. Creating a performance measurement system that is consistent withorganizational and programme objectives is clearly difficult. However, thesuccess of any programme depends on measuring performance and using it toprovide constructive feedback.

ConclusionsIn this section, preliminary conclusions are provided concerning the use of QFDto facilitate TQM in an organization’s new product development activities.

Conclusion one: the TQM philosophy is a prerequisite for QFD adoption bynew product development groupsTo integrate TQM into the new product development process effectively, a TQMmindset must first be adopted by the new product development group. TheTQM mindset ensures that everyone views the customer as the most importantbusiness consideration, and views QFD as a tool for continuous qualityimprovement. Our interviews with design engineers in one of Chrysler’s vehicleplatforms revealed that QFD was not viewed as an integral part of the overalldesign process. Their perception was that it required additional time and effort.Such opinions lead to organizational and perceptual barriers in the success ofQFD. These opinions would not arise if QFD was viewed as a part of anaccepted TQM philosophy.

Conclusion two: the organizational unit implementing QFD must adopt multi-functional teams consistent with the TQM philosophyThere are two reasons why multi-functional QFD teams are essential. First, ateam provides the necessary “mass” for generating new ideas. Second, thecollective experience of the multi-functional team helps resolve complex designand business issues. Having various functional representatives on a team leads


design

81

to faster decisions. Chrysler effectively used design teams to manage its overallnew vehicle programmes along with each phase of the QFD process.

Conclusion three: the successful adoption of QFD for integrating TQM intoproduct design requires facilitators to guide teams through the QFD processThe 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 productplanners revealed the need for a co-ordinator closely associated with thecomponent part or sub-assembly as the QFD process moves along. Such aperson 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’scustomer focus into new product development activitiesGetting QFD customer information as an input into new product developmentis critical to the TQM philosophy. Secondary data (from private reports orwarranty data) must serve only to confirm customer information, not substitutefor it. Secondary data sources can only give information on points of customerdissatisfaction 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 marketresearch and market segmentation studies as starting points for identifyingcustomer needs. Detailed follow up customer studies can then be undertaken forcritical issues. Toyota uses this approach in Japan. Since Toyota owns its owndistribution channels in Japan, it loans staff members from the appropriatedistribution channel to product development teams. These channel staffmembers, through their customer focus, know a lot about customer needs andattitudes. They influence not only demand forecasts, but also the characteristicsof the next generation of Toyota automobiles[21].

Due to various resource constraints, Chrysler management encourages teamsto document what they know based on their experience, and only researchwhere necessary. However, many companies identify changes in customer

IJQRM12,6

82

needs only after it is too late. Thus, using engineering experience alone as aninput to QFD may be risky, if not fatal, in the development of new products.

Generating customer inputs, however, is not enough. QFD also requires asupporting 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 ofdrawings made, reduction of product costs as designed, improvement ofdesign quality, etc. A comparison of non-QFD and QFD projects can bemade to bring out the product and systemic advantages stemming fromthe use of QFD.

This information system ought to be linked to the QFD software being used sothat all the information is integrated, and is accessible to all engineers andmanagers. Mizuno[22, pp. 81-2] provides further guidelines on how to manage aquality information system. He suggests that the information managementgroup should keep in mind who the customers of such information are, and howthey might use it. Also, it is the responsibility of this group to devise ways todisseminate this information.

QFD requires data and information about customer needs. In instances wherethe firm does not have a good customer database, creating a separateinformation system for QFD implementation may be necessary. Customerresearch based on first-hand customer interviews, market analysis, consumerpsychology, etc. is essential to improving product designs.

Conclusion five: QFD-based performance measures are required reflecting aTQM approach to new product design activitiesImplementing QFD also means that design and manufacturing engineers cannotbe evaluated on the basis of existing measures of individual performance. Sinceperformance is team-related, traditional approaches to rewarding merit andgiving promotions must be changed. The performance measurement systemmust motivate people to become team players[3]. For teams, consistency withinthe performance evaluation and reward systems is essential.

We mentioned earlier that records relating to QFD and project performancewere rarely kept at Chrysler. One reason given was that engineers andmanagers found it difficult to identify the appropriate performance measuresclearly, and the stage(s) of the design process where such measures should betracked. 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 productdesign 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,


design

83

QFD is part of the broader TQM and continuous improvement philosophy; boththe TQM philosophy, as well as Deming[3,23] believe that measures of humanperformance should not be used as control devices. However, measurementsystems can be used as motivators to stress teamwork rather than individualand functional performance[24]. QFD performance metrics can then be used asprocess measures to help the QFD team redefine future priorities and designtasks. They can also help determine where and how the QFD process can beimproved. Lastly, tangible measures of success can help build managementconfidence and support for the design team’s efforts. These measures can thenreplace case studies as demonstrations of success. In short, if QFD is a roadmapfor design, the QFD measures serve as pathfinders and milestones.

SummaryQFD provides a mechanism for integrating the TQM philosophy into the newproduct development process. A thorough understanding of TQM is aprerequisite to the successful use of QFD. Additionally, a multi-functional, team-based approach utilizing QFD facilitators is required to lead design teamsthrough the QFD process. The use of first-hand customer information isessential for integrating the true “voice of the customer” into the design of newproducts. QFD-based performance measures must be adopted to provide ameans for motivation, performance feedback and rewards for QFD teams. Theeffective use of QFD for integrating TQM into new products results in strategicmarket advantages due to improved customer satisfaction.

References1. 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. 61No. 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 AutomotiveIndustries, June 1987, pp. 68-70.

11. Feigenbaum, A.V., “Quality and productivity”, Quality Progress, Vol. 10 No. 11, November1977, pp. 18-21.

IJQRM12,6

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. 26No. 1, Fall 1984, pp. 25-41.

15. Lele, M.M. and Karmarkar, U.S., “Good product support is smart marketing”, HarvardBusiness 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, November-

December 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.