- No category
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Presentation
advertisement
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Kvalitet- och driftsäkerhetsteknik, LMT991 Hendry Raharjo ”Disclaimer” These slides are not self-explanatory. The questions in the slides will be discussed and answered during the lecture Objectives 1. To know some general principles used in QFD (doing the right things instead of doing the things right, quality in the upstream/design process) 2. To know some ways to understand the customer (e.g. no optimal solution for a group, no one-size-fits-all solution) 3. To understand customer needs and some considerations when delivering them 4. To know some basics of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) (system thinking, knowledge creation, VOC management) 5. To be able to perform a simple house of quality (HoQ) analysis 6. To know some research problems in QFD INPUT Supplier OUTPUT PROCESS Input Process Output Where is the QFD in product creation and/or development phase? PDCA DMAIC Customer Customer satisfaction Fitness for use Zero defect Conformance to specs Innovation? ABC for Quality in Design ”Quality” here implies creating a product or service that satisfies or exceeds the need of the customer; stated simply, that makes the customer feels great. How? Three steps (Jordan, 2002): A. Understand your customer B. Understand what your customer needs C. Deliver what they need Jordan, P.W. (2002), How to make brilliant stuff that people love…and make big money out of it, John Wiley &Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England. A. Understand your customer • Who is your customer? • Which market segment? • Demographic • Socio-economic • Innovativeness • Emphatic approach (putting yourself in their shoes) through observation or creating representative persona for the target group Arrow's impossibility theorem Can we find optimal (e.g. fast-food) design for a group of customers? Taste (Spicy or Not spicy) Package (Transparent or Half-transparent) Picture size (Big or Small Customer A Spicy Transparent Small Customer B Spicy Half-transparent Big Customer C Not spicy Transparent Big Group preference Spicy Transparent Big (2 spicy vs 1 not) (2 transp.vs 1 half-transp.) (2 big vs 1 small) Which is your target market? gadget lovers revolutionary pragmatist conservative skeptics Lead-user Approach Tech-push or need-pull (VOC)? Target market Early majority, late majority, laggards…? Uncertainty type Structural, Parametric, Marginal? Innovation Level Radical, Incremental, Industrial? For chasm model, see Rogers (2003) or Moore (2002) B. Understand what your customer needs Satisfaction Technical functions Affective products Satisfaction - Kansei, Sustainability, Social, Moral, Interaction… ? Usability Usability Attractive Attractive Performance One-dimensional Percent defective Necessary 1990 Design for Six Sigma Performance One-dimensional Technical functions Six Sigma Necessary 2000 2010 B. Understand what your customer needs • Difference between needs and wants? • Understand pleasure in products (Jordan, 2002) • • • • Physio-pleasure Socio-pleasure Psycho-pleasure Ideo-pleasure • Understand products that ‘move the heart and touch the soul’ (Dahlgaard et al. 2008) “Eliciting user needs is not as straightforward as measuring what is measurable. Users often say one thing, do another and often feel something else...” (McDonagh et al., 2009) Physio-pleasure • Understand pleasures via human five sensory channels, namely, visual, acoustical, tactual, olfactorial, and gustatorial. If a certain product attribute can cause more or wider affective channels, the better it is. • Examples: New-car smell freshener, Opsvik’ chair, Alessi’s kettle, Apple’s touch-screen commands. Socio-pleasure • Understand pleasure via enjoyment from relationship with others (friends, colleagues, like-minded people, and society) • Examples: email versus sms, De Beers’ diamond, Novopen. • Relationship between product and social identity (e.g. product and couple’s relationship) Psycho-pleasure • It comes from mental and emotional reaction, related to cognitive demand. The products should be easy and fun to use. • Examples: mouse versus line commands, baby pram maneuverability, Heineken’ greeting “hiss”, cognitive dissonance (e.g. why are people far more likely to look at the ads for their new car after they have bought it than before they make a purchase?), Color effect (why is most ATM blue?) Ideo-pleasure • It is about tastes, values, and aspirations. It is also related to philosophical and religious values. It affirms the owner self-image. • Examples: being cool (“cool-hunter”), elegant and artistic furniture, being environmental friendly Please consider the environment before printing this slide C. Deliver what they need and/or want Properties of products/ services 1. Functionality (What product does and how well it does) 2. Color (e.g. Black=classy, White=pure/death, Red=powerful, exicting) 3. Form (e.g. heavy=higher quality, big=macho) 4. Product graphics (e.g. BMW precision logo) 5. Materials (e.g. platinum=high socio-economic) 6. Sound (e.g. car door closing sound, Windows’ default sound) 7. Interaction design (e.g. usability) 8. Packaging (e.g. use eye-catching color) 9. Product’s story (e.g. De Beers’ diamond) 10. Marketing and distribution channels (e.g. Olympic sponsorship) 11. Price point 12. … QFD as an alternative for making your customer feels great 1. Understand your customer How? Arrow’s principle, Diffusion curve 2. Understand what your customer needs How? VOC management method, pleasure’s theory (Jordan, 2002) 3. Deliver what they want How? Through mapping the product/service properties to the customer needs using House of Quality What is QFD? According to Akao (1990), as one of the main founders, QFD can be defined as: “a method for developing a design quality aimed at satisfying the customer and then translating the customer’s demand into design targets and major quality assurance points to be used throughout the production phases” QFD as a system approach CEO Customer needs Satisfied customers Design Development Production Sales Will the customer voice be heard unequivocally among the silos? QFD and Knowledge Creation QFD helps create improved tacit knowledge by systematically translate them into explicit knowledge (existing)Tacit Explicit improved(Tacit) QFD Strengths: • better communication of cross-functional teamwork • lower project and product cost • better product design • increased customer satisfaction QFD Weaknesses: • more effective for developing incremental products as opposed to really new products • QFD does not shorten time-to-market • rather burdensome due to the incredibly big matrices Still, QFD provides a more systematic & effective approach to create higher customer satisfaction by bringing a product or service that the customer wants/needs… A QFD Team Sponsor Production Project leader Market Team members Purchasing Facilitator Development Secretary The Voice of Customer (VOC) Management Principles: • What do “they really need” VS “you think they need”? • Why they are doing is more important than what they are doing. • What they want to do is more important than how it is done. Practices: (Griffin and Hauser, 1993; Fisher and Schutta, 2003) 1. Collection and Identification Tools: be a customer, live with customer and observe, one-on-one interview, videotape, survey, focus groups, complaints analysis, critical incident technique, lead user method. 2. Structuring/ Clustering Tools: Hierarchy, Affinity Diagram, VOC Table, Tree Diagram, etc 3. Prioritization Tools: Frequency of mention, Kano Model, Analytic Hierarchy Process, etc. What is a customer need? A customer need is a description, in the words of the customer, of a benefit and/or job that he, she or they would like to have fulfilled by the product. Challenges in uncovering customer needs • Too many companies take a narrow view of customer input. They ask customers surface level questions about what they want and don’t want without really understanding what problems customers face and why. • Too general questions produce less meaningful information on customer needs. • Some customer are completely inarticulate, poor reporters of their own needs or even behavior. • Provider’s tendency to project their own rationalizations and beliefs onto customer Challenges in uncovering customer needs NEVER ask: What do you want? If you ask ”what do you want?” you will get… • ”I want a longer battery life” • ”I want bigger records that would hold more songs” • ”I’d like a picture or video phone” • ”a 10-minute snooze alarm” … You will get: • Solution instead of ”what they want to achieve” (outcomes) • ”must-have” attributes (If you do something right, no one remembers, if you do something wrong, no one…) • Missing features that other manufacturers already offer • ”me-too” (only what they have experienced) Which questions to ask? DOs What makes this job — or parts of it — challenging, inconvenient or frustrating? What makes this job timeconsuming? What causes this job to go off track? What aspects of this job are wasteful? Ulwick and Bettencourt (2008) DON’Ts How would you improve this product? What features would you like to see added to it? The VOC: Structuring Affinity Diagram (a practical grouping technique) An example of a university external customer: the employer of graduates What do the employers expect from the university graduates? Above average GPA, good personality, good team work skill, honesty, able to communicate well, computer/ programming skill, initiative, … Which one is better? why? Above average GPA Computer/programming skill Initiative Good team work skill Honesty Able to communicate well Good personality *)Source: Raharjo et al. (2007) Primary Interpersonal Leadership Academic Skill Skill Qualification Non-academic Academic Qualification Qualification Primary Secondary Secondary Above average GPA Important issues: Computer/programming skill • How to group? Initiative • How many groups? Good team work skill Responsible Able to communicate well Good personality • What is the impact of the grouping? The VOC: Prioritization Kano’s Model Important issues: • How to reveal unspoken/ latent needs? • How things change over time? • How to prioritize? Sources: CQM (1993), Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) “What delighted the customer yesterday is asked today, and will be expected tomorrow” The QFD Process Production Requirements Key Process Operations Parts Deployment Key Process Operations Parts Characteristics House of Quality Parts Characteristics Engineering Characteristics Customer attributes Engineering Characteristics Process Planning Production Planning The QFD Process (extended) Important: • Customer-driven • Enhanced Interfunctional communication Source: Cristiano et al. (2000) House of Quality Basics Correlation Matrix Hows/ Quality Characteristic Whats/ Demanded Quality Relationship Matrix Technical Matrix • Which one comes first? • Which one is the input/ the output? Planning Matrix/ Customer Competitive Assessment 1. What? 8 HOW 2. How? CORRELATION 3. Relationship 2 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS 4. Voice of the Customer (Weights) WHAT 5 RELATIONSHIP MATRIX MARKET 3 WEIGHT 4 CUSTOMER ATTRIBUTES 1 5. Competitive Assessment 6. Engineering Competitive Assessment 6 COMPARISON 7 HOW MUCH 7. Target values 8. Correlation Matrix Direction of Improvement Percent Importance Overall Importance Important Very Important Extremely Importance Improvement Factor Target/Planned Rating Competitor A's Product Sales Point Importance Rating Slightly Important Our Product Relationship Matrix ● Strong 9 Moderate ○ 3 Weak 1 ∆ Not at all important Percent Tech.Importance Our Product Importance Rating Technical Importance Technical Benchmarking House of Quality QC Competitor B's product Planning Matrix Direction of Improvement DQ An example of QFD matrices Correlation Matrix Synergy Compromise ↑ × ↓ Maximize Target Minimize 1 2 3 4 5 Competitor A's Competitor B's Design Targets Source: Modified version from www.qfdcapture.com How to fill in the HoQ? Direction of Improvement 3 4 2 Relationship Matrix ● Strong 9 Moderate ○ 3 Weak 1 ∆ Importance Rating Extremely Importance 4 Percent Importance 3 Very Important 4 Important 4 Overall Importance 3 Sales Point 3 Improvement Factor 3 Target/Planned Rating Competitor B's product 4 Slightly Important Our Product 3 Not at all important Percent Tech.Importance Competitor A's Product 5 4 3 4 Our Product Planning Matrix Importance Rating QC Fills us up Is nutritious Tastes good Environmentally friendly Technical Importance Technical Benchmarking House of Quality Direction of Improvement DQ An example of QFD matrices Correlation Matrix Synergy Compromise ↑ × ↓ Maximize Target Minimize 1 2 3 4 5 Competitor A's Competitor B's Design Targets Source: Modified version from www.qfdcapture.com How to fill in the HoQ? Direction of Improvement 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 4 4 4 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.4 11.7 0.42 1.2 6.4 0.23 1.0 3.0 0.11 1.3 6.9 0.25 Very Important Extremely Importance Importance Rating Important Relationship Matrix ● Strong 9 Moderate ○ 3 Weak 1 ∆ Percent Importance Sales Point 3 Overall Importance Improvement Factor 4 Slightly Important Our Product 3 Not at all important Percent Tech.Importance Target/Planned Rating Percent Carbohydrate 5 4 3 4 Planning Matrix Competitor B's product ↓ Competitor A's Product × Percent of non biodegradable materials Our Product ↑ Weight of Portion Importance Rating QC Fills us up Is nutritious Tastes good Environmentally friendly Technical Importance Technical Benchmarking House of Quality Direction of Improvement DQ An example of QFD matrices Correlation Matrix Synergy Compromise ↑ × ↓ Maximize Target Minimize 1 2 3 4 5 Competitor A's Competitor B's Design Targets Source: Modified version from www.qfdcapture.com How to fill in the HoQ? Direction of Improvement Sales Point 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 4 4 4 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.4 11.7 0.42 1.2 6.4 0.23 1.0 3.0 0.11 1.3 6.9 0.25 Very Important Extremely Importance Our Product Importance Rating Important Percent Tech.Importance 0.44 0.25 0.30 Relationship Matrix ● Strong 9 Moderate ○ 3 Weak 1 ∆ Slightly Important 4.68 2.69 3.24 Not at all important ○ ○ ● Percent Importance Improvement Factor ○ ∆ ● ∆ Overall Importance Target/Planned Rating ∆ Competitor B's product ● ○ Planning Matrix Competitor A's Product ↓ Percent of non biodegradable materials Our Product × Percent Carbohydrate 5 4 3 4 ↑ Weight of Portion Importance Rating QC Fills us up Is nutritious Tastes good Environmentally friendly Technical Importance Technical Benchmarking House of Quality Direction of Improvement DQ An example of QFD matrices Correlation Matrix Synergy Compromise ↑ × ↓ Maximize Target Minimize 1 2 3 4 5 Competitor A's Competitor B's Design Targets Source: Modified version from www.qfdcapture.com How to fill in the HoQ? Direction of Improvement Sales Point 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 4 4 4 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.4 11.7 0.42 1.2 6.4 0.23 1.0 3.0 0.11 1.3 6.9 0.25 33% 25% Competitor A's 11oz 40% 20% Competitor B's 9oz 35% 30% Design Targets 11oz 38% 20% Source: Modified version from www.qfdcapture.com Extremely Importance 10oz Very Important Our Product Importance Rating Important Percent Tech.Importance 0.44 0.25 0.30 Relationship Matrix ● Strong 9 Moderate ○ 3 Weak 1 ∆ Slightly Important 4.68 2.69 3.24 Not at all important ○ ○ ● Percent Importance Improvement Factor ○ ∆ ● ∆ Overall Importance Target/Planned Rating ∆ Competitor B's product ● ○ Planning Matrix Competitor A's Product ↓ Percent of non biodegradable materials Our Product × Percent Carbohydrate 5 4 3 4 ↑ Weight of Portion Importance Rating QC Fills us up Is nutritious Tastes good Environmentally friendly Technical Importance Technical Benchmarking House of Quality Direction of Improvement DQ An example of QFD matrices Correlation Matrix Synergy Compromise ↑ × ↓ Maximize Target Minimize 1 2 3 4 5 How to fill in the HoQ? ● Percent Carbohydrate 0.25 ∆ ● Percent of non biodegradable materials 0.30 ○ ∆ 10oz 11oz 9oz 11oz ↑ 33% 40% 35% 38% × 25% 20% 30% 20% ↓ ○ ● Design Targets Type A 0.44 0.22 0.07 0.27 <30 sec at 110F Percent Tech.Importance 33% 5.14 2.59 0.76 3.19 11oz total Technical Importance Competitor B's product ∆ Competitor A's Product Direction of Improvement 0.44 Design Targets Weight of Portion Planning Matrix × Our Product ↑ Type of plastic for packaging QC ↑ Weight of Ingredients (by ingredient) Nutritional Contribution of Ingredients (by ingredient) Solubility of Ingredients (by ingredient) DQ × Importance Rating Part Deployment Direction of Improvement Second QFD matrix How does this relate to the first HoQ? “external or Internal” VOC? Percent Tech.Importance Design Targets Ingredient Measurement Tolerances Design Targets Direction of Improvement 0.44 ○ ● 11oz total × 0.22 ● ○ 33% ↑ 0.07 ● <30 sec at 110F ↑ 0.27 Type A 3.90 4.63 0.46 0.54 +/-10% Weight of Ingredients (by ingredient) Nutritional Contribution of Ingredients (by ingredient) Solubility of Ingredients (by ingredient) Type of plastic for packaging Technical Importance Ingredient Mixing Time QC ↓ 10 min/lot DQ ↓ Importance Rating Process Planning Direction of Improvement × Third QFD matrix 0.46 ● ● ○ 10 min/lot ↓ +/-10% 4.12 4.88 1.63 1.37 2x/lot 0.34 0.41 0.14 0.11 every 15min Design Targets ○ +/- 2% Percent Tech.Importance 0.54 +/- 2% Ingredient Measurement Tolerances Technical Importance ↓ Direction of Improvement Accuracy of Mixing Timer Ingredient Mixing Time ↓ Design Targets Importance Rating Production Planning QC DQ ↑ Accuracy of Metering Device Frequency of QC checks on Metering Frequency of QC checks on Mixing ↑ Direction of Improvement ↓ Fourth QFD matrix Scale category 1. Nominal (e.g. your house number) 2. Ordinal (e.g. rank in a class) 3. Interval (e.g. Celcius temperature) 4. Ratio (e.g. weight, Kelvin temp) Scales Problem: Importance Rating Ref: Burke et al. (2002) Not at all important Slightly Important Important Very Important Extremely Importance How the Importance Rating of VOC (DQ) is obtained? 1 2 3 4 5 What scale is this (Stevens, 1946)? Is it ordinal or interval? Assuming ordinal scale, so what? IR QC1 QC2 2 4 7 11 9 1 9 3 0 3 0 3 Abs Score Rank 54 2 68 1 IR QC1 QC2 DQ1 2 9 1 DQ1 DQ2 3 9 3 DQ2 DQ3 DQ4 4 0 3 5 0 3 DQ3 DQ4 45 1 38 2 Abs Score Rank Scales Problem: Importance Rating Assuming Interval scale, so what? IR QC1 QC2 DQ1 2 9 3 DQ1 DQ2 3 1 3 DQ2 DQ3 DQ4 4 9 1 5 0 9 DQ3 DQ4 57 2 64 1 Abs Score Rank IR QC1 QC2 6 7 8 9 9 3 1 3 9 1 0 9 133 1 128 2 Abs Score Rank • What about ratio scale? What is the benefit of having ratio scale? • How to obtain IR in ratio scale? Possible solution: Constant-sum scale, anchored scale *) Better solution: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (see Raharjo et al., 2008) *) See Fisher and Schutta (2003) Scales Problem: Relationship Matrix Ref: Shin and Kim (2000) • Which scale is better for Rij? “1-3-9”, “1-3-5”, or else… • Is this ratio scale? "1-3-9" DQ1 DQ2 DQ3 DQ4 AS RS Rank "1-3-5" QC1 QC2 ● ○ ∆ ○ ● 16 DQ2 ● DQ3 DQ4 18 0.47 0.53 2 DQ1 1 AS RS Rank QC1 QC2 ● ○ ∆ ○ ● 12 ● Which one is better? 10 0.55 0.45 1 2 What are the consequences to assume Rij scale as ratio? Dynamic QFD End Start QFD CUSTOMER CUSTOMER Time Lag Collect VOC Design Process Production Other phases ... ... The problem: • The market change during product creation process ... ... ... Product Purchase • The “past” VOC, which is collected before product creation process starts, is no longer relevant The questions: • • • • What are the ‘market’ changes? How to characterize or model the changes? How to take into account the changes when using the QFD? How to obtain the Future VOC, so that when the product is ready it can satisfy or even exceed the customer expectation? QFD without House of Quality The proposed network model HoQ part Arc VOC 1, 2 Rij 3, 5 Roof 4 DQ Competitive Analysis 15 QC Competitive Analysis 17 DQ target setting 14 QC target setting 16 Other arcs (beyond HoQ) Arc 12, 13 Arc 6-11 : Competitor general information : NPD risk Reference: Raharjo, H., Brombacher, A.C., Xie, M. (2008), Dealing with Subjectivity in Early Product Design Phase: A Systematic Approach to Exploit QFD Potentials, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 253-278. Test your knowledge Description QFD provides designed-in quality QFD is an automatic decision making tool QFD starts with the customer QFD ends with the customer QFD focuses on zero-defect products The House of Quality is not QFD QFD is not House of Quality QFD always uses four HoQs QFD aims to reveal unspoken customer needs QFD is mathematically unsound Ref: http://www.qfdi.org/what_is_qfd/faqs_about_qfd.htm True False Test your knowledge Q: If 1=Effective, 2=Efficient, 3=Kaizen, 4=Focus on early design stage, then which one is the most appropriate focus of QFD: A. 1, 2, 3 B. 1, 2, 4 C. 1, 4 D. 2, 3 E. All (1 to 4) “Do the right thing right the first time, repeatedly” Test your knowledge Which of the following is NOT the primary objectives of using the QFD: A. Doing the things right B. Understanding what matters most to the customer C. Doing the right things D. Translating the voice of the customer Objectives To know some general principles used in QFD (doing the right things instead of doing the things right, quality in the upstream/design process) To know some ways to understand the customer (e.g. no optimal solution for a group, no one-size-fits-all solution) To understand customer needs and some considerations when delivering them To know some basics of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) (system thinking, knowledge creation, VOC management) To be able to perform a simple house of quality (HoQ) analysis To know some research problems in QFD References used in this presentation: Akao, Y. (1990), Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. Antony, J., Banuelas, R. (2002), Design for Six Sigma, IEE Manufacturing Engineer, 81(1), 24-26. Brombacher, A.C., Sander, P.C., Sonnemans, P.J.M., Rouvroye, J.L. (2005), Managing Product Reliability in Business Processes ‘under pressure’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 88, 137-146. Burke, E., Kloeber Jr., J.M., Deckro, R.F. (2002), Using and Abusing QFD Scores, Quality Engineering, 15(1), 9-21. Chan, L.K., Wu, M.L. (2002), Quality Function Deployment: A Comprehensive Review on Its Concepts and Methods, Quality Engineering, 15(1), 23-35. Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K., White III, C.C. (2000), Customer-Driven Product Development Through Quality Function Deployment in the U.S. and Japan, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 286-308. Dahlgaard, J.J., Schutte, S., Ayas, E., Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2008), Kansei/affective engineering design: A methodology for profound affection and attractive quality creation, The TQM Journal, 20(4), 299-311. Griffin, A., Hauser, J.R. (1993), The Voice of the Customer, Marketing Science, 12 (1), 1–27. Griffin, A., & Somermeyer, S. (2007). The PDMA toolbook 3 for new product development: Wiley Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Gustafsson, A., Elg, M. (1997), An integrative framework for product development and satisfaction measurement, In Proceedings of the Third Annual International QFD Symposium, Vol. 1 (Eds, Gustafsson, A., Bergman, B. and Ekdahl, F.) IKP/Quality Technology and Management, Linköping. Lee, C. (2001), Trend Spotting- Why You Can Safely Ignore Six Sigma, Fortune, 143(2), 140. McDonagh, D., Denton, H., Chapman, J. (2009), Design and emotion, Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 433 -435 Moore, G. (1991, 2002), Crossing the Chasm, HarperBusiness, New York. Ramberg, J.S. (2000), Six Sigma: Fad or Fundamental?, Quality Digest, May 2000. Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, Free Press, New York. Shin, J.S., Kim, K.J. (2000), Effect and Choice of the Weighting Scale in QFD, Quality Engineering, 12:3, 347 -356. Stevens, S.S (Jun 7, 1946), On the Theory of Scales of Measurement, Science, 103(2684), 677-680. Ulwick, A. (2002). Turn customer input into innovation, Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 91-98. More QFD references by the author: Raharjo, H. (2013), On Normalizing the Relationship Matrix in Quality Function Deployment, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(6), 647-661. Raharjo, H., Xie, M., Brombacher, A.C. (2011), A systematic methodology to deal with the dynamics of customer needs in Quality Function Deployment, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3653-3662. Raharjo, H., Brombacher, A.C., Goh, T.N., Bergman, B. (2010), Integrating Kano’s Model and Its Dynamics into QFD for Multiple Product Design, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 26(4), 351-363 Raharjo, H., Brombacher, A.C., Xie, M. (2008), Dealing with Subjectivity in Early Product Design Phase: A Systematic Approach to Exploit QFD Potentials, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 253-278. Raharjo, H., Xie, M., Goh, T.N., Brombacher, A.C. (2007), A Methodology to Improve Higher Education Quality using the Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18:10, 1097 – 1115 Raharjo, H., Xie, M., Brombacher, A.C. (2006), Prioritizing Quality Characteristics in Dynamic Quality Function Deployment, International Journal of Production Research, 44(23), 5005-5018.
0
advertisement
Download
advertisement
Add this document to collection(s)
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersAdd this document to saved
You can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users