Emphasizing on ‘Voice of customer’ is the key of QFD rather than “we know best what the customer wants”. QFD as a strategic tool to increase client satisfaction with a step-by-step implementation of the methodology to a Sewage treatment works and depicts its limitation in construction industry.
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 2
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 3
4. How QFD Works
4
Conce
ive
Desig
n
Process Productio
n
Requirem
ents
Technical
Specificat
ions
High
Level
Design
Metho
ds
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 5
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 6
7. House of Quality
7
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 Matrix
Whys
Target Goals
Technical Competitive
Evaluations
10. Overall Importance Ratings
2. Customer
Importance
Rating
26/02/2016
12. VOC
Customer
Requirements
(Whats)
Customer types
Internal
Customers
Share
holders,
employees,
Intermediate
customers
Govt,
Consultant
Ultimate
customers
Users,
Recipient of
service
Main
Concern
Company should
know who are
customer26/02/2016 12
13. Data collection methods
Individual interviews
Emailed survey
Use existing information
26/02/2016 13
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, leakages26/02/2016 14
15. ‘‘What’’ section
Scope
• 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 15
16. Prioritizing each WHATS
Rate each WHATs
Completed by customer
Eg. 1(least important) to 5(utmost
important) rating
2. Customer Importance
Rating
Affinity
diagram
User survey
(Mean score)
AHP
M
e
t
h
o
d
26/02/2016 16
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 17
19. ‘‘What’’ section
Importance
rate Remarks
Scope
• 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
4
Rough 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
3
Subject to technical viability
3
Safety and Technical
• Design for population forecast in 2011 plus 30%
reserve capacity 4
Reserve 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 19
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
Evaluation
Whats vs. Whys
M
e
t
h
o
d
Plannin
g
Matrix
26/02/2016 20
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 21
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
Responses
(Hows)
M
e
t
h
o
d
Tree
Diagram
Cause
and
Effect
diagram
26/02/2016 26
27. Cause-and-Effect Diagram : Paint Peeling
House Paint
Peeling
EFFECT
Material Work Method
Equipment Environment
26/02/2016 27
28. Tree Diagram
To find out root cause of customer problems for developing technical
response
26/02/2016 28
30. ‘‘How’’ section ~engineering solution! Movement of target value
Scope
1. Provide new units for additional flows
2. Modify existing facilities for additional flows
3. Modify existing facilities for new effluent standard
No improvement
in performance
Budget and Cost
1. New facilities would cost about $130 million
2. Upgrade existing facilities would cost about
$210 million
3.Modification for new effluent standard costabout $120 million
4.Environmental mitigation cost about $5 million5.
5.Allow $45 million ~10% of total cost! as project contingencies
6. Recurrent and operating cost estimate as $18 million
Less cost
the better
Schedule
1. Complete study ~PPFS! by late 1998
2. Complete project by mid-2004
Earlier the better
Land
1. To site project within existing STW
2. Use adjacent landfill site if additional land required
No improvement
in performance
Safety and Technical
1. Design for population5282,800
2. Add 30% reserved capacity
More the better
Less the better3. New bacteria removal requirement
4. New ammonia removal requirement
Regulatory and environmental
1. Environmental mitigation measures More stringent the better
26/02/2016 30
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 adopted
Eg. 9-very strong, 6-moderate, 3-weak,
blank- no relationship
Which things do we have to do satisfy
client’s requirements?
6.
Relationship
Matrix
Whats vs.
Hows”
26/02/2016 31
34. Interaction between technical
responses
Development team assessment
Four point scale: strong positive,
positive, negative, strong negative
Trade off between relations(specially
–ve)
Strong positive relations are studied
to avoid duplication
7. Technical
Correlation
(Hows vs. Hows)
AHP
M
e
t
h
o
d
26/02/2016 34
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
Matrix
How muchs
M
e
t
h
o
d
Matrix
Data
Analysis
26/02/2016 37
38. Technical importance (i) = ∑ importance rate (i) x Correlation (i)
Relative importance (i)=
Technical importance (i) x 5
𝑴𝒂𝒙[Technical importance (i)]
5 is maximum importance rate
OR
Relative importance (i)=
Technical importance (i)
∑Technical importance (i)
26/02/2016 38
45. References
Use of Quality Function Deployment in Civil Engineering
Capital Project Planning
Syed M. Ahmed, M.ASCE1; Li Pui Sang2; and Zˇ eljko M. Torbica, M.ASCE3
Strategic use of quality function deployment (QFD) in the
construction industry
Irem Dikmen , M. Talat Birgonul, Semiha Kiziltas
ChanWu_QualityFunctionDeployment
Hauser_et_al QFD
An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction industry using
analytical network process
Emre Cakmak a, Pinar Irlayici Cakmak b*
26/02/2016 45
