Page 189 - The Six Sigma Project Planner

To keep things simple, we show the strategy linkage for only three departments:
engineering, manufacturing, and marketing; each department can prepare its own QFD
matrix. Notice that the four differentiator metric columns in Figure 29 appear as rows in
the matrix in Figure 31. The rows are the QFD “whats.” The software automatically
brings over the criteria performance target, criteria scores, and relative criteria scores for
each row. If you’re using another method, you’ll need to do this manually. This
information is used to evaluate the strategy support plans for the three departments.
The support plans for the three departments are shown as columns, the QFD “hows,” or
how these three departments plan to implement the strategies. The relationship
between the whats and hows is determined as described above for Figure 29. For each
column, the value of the each relationship is multiplied by the row Criteria Score and
the results of those calculations are summed and shown in the Score row near the
bottom of the chart. This information will be used to select and prioritize Six Sigma
projects in the next phase of the QFD.
Figure 31 also has a “roof,” which shows correlations among the whats. This is useful in
identifying related Six Sigma projects, either within the same department or in different
departments. For example, there is a strong relationship between the two engineering
activities: “faster prototype development” and “improve concept-to-design cycle time.”
Perhaps faster prototype development should be a subproject under the broader
heading of “improve concept-to-design cycle time.” This also suggests that a project
described as “improve concept-to-design cycle time” may be too large in scope. The
marketing strategy of “improve ability to respond to changing customer needs” is
correlated with three projects in engineering and manufacturing. When a strategy
support plan involves many cross-functional projects, it may indicate the existence of a
core process. This suggests a need for high-level sponsorship or the designation of a
process owner to coordinate projects.

Deploying Operations Plans to Projects
Figure 32 is a QFD matrix that links the department plans to Six Sigma projects. (In
reality this may require additional flow-down steps, but the number of steps should be
kept as small as possible.) The rows are the department plans. The software also carried
over the numeric relative score from the bottom row of the previous matrix, which is a
measure of the relative impact of the department plan on the overall differentiator
strategy. The far right column, labeled “Goal Score,” is the sum of the relationships for
the row. For this example, only the top five department plans are deployed to Six Sigma
projects. By summing the numeric relative scores, we can determine that these five
plans account for 86% of the impact. In reality, you will also capture only the biggest
hitters, although there’s nothing magic about the number five.
There are three Black Belts shown and eight projects. Each project is shown as a column
in the matrix. The relationship between the project and each departmental plan is
shown in the matrix. The bottom row shows the “Project Impact Score,” which is the
sum of the relationships for the project’s column times the row’s numeric relative score.

172