Page 253 - Design for Six Sigma a Roadmap for Product Development

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) 223

Many of the coupling situations that occur are the result of a conflict
between design intent and the laws of physics. Two DFSS tools, TRIZ
and axiomatic design, are aimed at handling such conflicting require-
ments by providing principles and tools for resolution. In many cases,
the laws of physics win mainly because of the ignorance of design
teams. In several transactional DFSS projects, coupling situations
may have to be resolved by high-level management because depart-
mental and sectional functional lines are being crossed.

7.4.7 Targets or (HOW MUCH)
For every HOW shown on the relationship matrix, a HOW MUCH
should be determined. The goal here is to quantify the customers’ needs
and expectations and create a target for the design team. The HOW
MUCHs also create a basis for assessing success. For this reason,
HOWs should be measurable. It is necessary to review the HOWs and
develop a means of quantification. Target orientation to provide visual
indication of target type is usually optional. In addition, the tolerance
around targets needs to be identified according to the company market-
ing strategy and contrasting it with that of best-in-class competitors.
This tolerance will be cascaded down using the axiomatic design method.

7.4.8 Competitive assessments
or benchmarking
Competitive assessments are used to compare the competition’s design
with the team design. There are two types of competitive assessments:
■ Customer competitive assessment. This is found to the right of the
relationships matrix in the planning matrix. Voice-of-customer (VOC)
activities (e.g., surveys) are used to rate the WHATs of the various
designs in a particular segment of market.
■ Technical competitive assessment. This is located at the bottom of
the relationships matrix. It rates HOWs for the same competitor
against HOWs from a technical perspective.
Both assessments should be aligned, and a conflict between them indi-
cates a failure to understand the VOC by the team. In a case like this,
the team needs to revisit the HOWs array and check their understand-
ing and contrast that understanding with VOC data. Further research
may be needed. The team may then add new HOWs that reflect the
customer perceptions. Any unexpected items that violate conventional
wisdom should be noted for future reference. Situations like this can
be resolved only by having the DFSS team involved in the QFD, not
only marketing people, comparing competitive designs. In this way, the
team who is responsible for designing for customer attributes will
interpret exactly what those wants are.