Impacting Design Quality through
Key Parameter Development &
Management
Using KPD&M during Technology & Product
Development Processes to Prevent Design Problems
Key parameters control financial
consequences… through Y & s
Physical Law… Y= f(X)
DY= f[DX + D(X*N)] + error
XY
Xs
XY&s
Cp = (USL-LSL )/6s
Cpkl = (Y-LSL)/3s
s
XNoise
Cpku = (USL-Y)/3s
Y
T
$L(Y) = k[s2 + (Y-T)2]
…Financial Consequences
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
2
What does the word “Key” mean?
Something that is…
 New
 Totally new to you & all your competitors, no one has fulfilled the
requirement(s) or controlled the parameter(s) before – no
experience!
 Unique
 The requirement(s) or parameter(s) have been fulfilled or
controlled by others but not by you!
 Difficult
 The requirement(s) or parameter(s) are extreme & their fulfillment
or control is very high in risk
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
3
Things that are NOT “Key”…
Something that is…
 Easy
 Common
 Old
These are functions, part specifications & mfg.
functions that we place under normal Q.C. metrics
- Little or no SPC investment (low need to detect & prevent)
- Cp & Cpk checked periodically
- Use Six Sigma to react to problems in this area
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
4
Refining the term - Key
 A function, part or material characteristic can be
designated as Key = Under Watch!
 Functions occur in the product or process as it is transforming
mass & / or energy… it is what the product or process does.
• Inherent in the design of the product or mfg. process
 Characteristics are static dimensions, shape factors, surface
finishes or bulk material properties
 Key doesn’t just mean it is important!
 It means there is high risk because…
• unproven – we lack facts, little or no data - we don’t know!
• unstable & must be “watched”!
• dependent on different Design or Supplier’s capabilities
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
5
Key Parameters are like slippery bars of
soap! – risk of “getting out of hand”!
Risk!
Cannot afford to call
everything that is
merely important a
Key Parameter
$$$
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
6
The road to being designated Key…
1. Vary an X & measure the effect on Y…. DY/DX
2. Do so repeatedly & measure the variation around DY caused
by each DXi = random error = e
3. Define the ratio between the Signal (DY/DXi) & the Noise e
… this is called the F Ratio = Strength of each DXi on DY
when compared to random noise in the replicated data
4. Establish if each Xi’s effect on Y is statistically significant…
calculate the p value
5. Establish the Capability Index for Ys & Xs… calculate the Cp
& Cpk values for Y & X under nominal (Cp) & stressful
(Cpk) conditions!
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
7
Stability, F Ratio, p Value, Robustness,
Tunability & Capability tell the Story!
 If Xs & Ys are:
 statistically significant…. Low p values (< 0.05)
 have high F Ratios (>> 4) from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
 possess unstable behavior (SPC trend & control issues)
 have low Cp under nominal conditions… then they are extremely
risky & are designated as Keys!
 These are our highest priority Keys to work on.
 If these same Xs & Ys
 possess high sensitivity to stressful noises after Robust Design
 difficult to tune onto the desired target after Robust Design
 have low Cpk under stressful conditions… then they are still very
risky & are designated as Keys!
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
8
Key >>> NUD!
Guilty until proven Innocent!
 Key parameters are under suspicion – we don’t
trust them!
 measured & watched for drift in mean
 measured & watched for changes in s
X&R
Charts
 A parameter or characteristic can come off our list
of Keys…. Re-designated as ECO!
 Proven stability over time (SPC Charting)
 Ease of control under nominal & stressful conditions
(Robust & Tunable performance)
 Sustained capability (Cp/Cpk) as cost is reduced
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
9
What is Key Parameter Development &
Management?
A proactive
process for:
 Identifying
 Connecting
 Tracking
 Refining
Documenting a hierarchy
of:
Key requirements & the
integrated set of measured
functions, specifications &
set points
- down through a product
architecture and its production
& support processes.
 Preventing
problems
Intro to KPD&MM, Copyright 2010 PDSS Inc.
10
A bit of history….
 From Dogma & Faith…
 Dogma = Cheaper & Faster – We must Hurry!!!
 Faith = We
X You will make it!
 To Doubt & Experimentation…
 Doubt = We have risk & uncertainty – we need facts!
 Experimentation = We can & will take the time to learn!
Learning generates facts which reduce
uncertainty & lower risk…
…but not by rushing & cutting corners.
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
11
Some personal history…
 Dogma & Faith results circa. 1972-1994 compared to Doubt
& Experimentation results from 1995-1999 at Kodak…
 A focused effort was implemented in Kodak’s digital printing
business unit on the DigiMaster Project:
 Our 1st ever Commercial Systems Engineering Org., Center of
Excellence & SE Process
 Comprehensive integration of Key Parameter Development & Mgt.
approach into Phase-Gate PDP
• Clear definition of “Key” Customer needs
• Heavy emphasis on Reliability Development using Robust Design
• Detailed “Design for X” focus on produceability & serviceability
 Strong Project Manager, rigorous PM methods & dedicated,
accountable PDT (functional Centers of Excellence supported it)
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
12
The DigiMaster 9100 digital printing system
Over 10,000 parts
< 30 major subsystems (chemo-opto-mechatronics)
Req’d 6s image quality across 15 measurable attributes
Req’d 150K MIBSC within 95% Confidence Limits
Historic example of Prod. Dev. Team performance before
the use of SE & KP enabled work flow…
MTBF
Pre-SE, KPD,
DFSS, etc.
System
integration
too early…
Targets
Independent
SS Changes
to improve
System
Performance
Change
over to
supplier
mtl.s &
parts
Late
integration of
tweeked SSs
& purchased
accessories
50-60% of
Target
Gate 2
14
Gate 4
Gate 3
Time
Gate 5
Development Teams can improve results with SE, Key
Parameter Development & select DFSS tools…
SE/KPD/DFSS Actual
Pre-SE,
KPD,
DFSS, etc.
+2s UCL
Target
>95% of
Target
MTBF
-2s LCL
50-60% of
Target
Gate 2
15
Gate 4
Gate 3
Time
Gate 5
Duane plot from an actual project
16
What made the difference?
Macro-effects

Created a formal systems engineering
organization
•

- clear SE roles, with SE tools, tasks & deliverables tied
to Gate Requirements measured with performance
score cards – not checklists
Enhanced the SE team to actively use
specific KP tasks with DFSS tools to complete
the tasks,
•
directly assisting sub-teams – producing the right SE
Gate deliverables
Micro-effects


Key Parameter Mgt.: clear definition of Key
reqts. flow down & rigorous measurement of
capability flow-up (Cp & Cpk trace-ability)
System Integration, system sensitivity
analysis & reliability testing only AFTER
subsystem & subassy. robustness
optimization was completed
•
Complete story is in
Ch. 7:
Systems Architecting, Engineering
& Integration using DFSS & Key
Parameter Development
reliability development vs. assessment
17
What does System Development look like as a flow
of work over time?
The Super-set of System Engineering Macro- Functions:
Architecting
Internal &
External
Needs
System
Functions
System
Reqts.
Engineering
System
Modeling
System
Architecture
Subsystem
Interface
Development
&
Robustness
Optimization
Integration
Assessment &
Validation
System
Performance
System KPM
Balancing
Database
System
Transfer to
System
Integration
Internal & Production,
& Stress
Service &
External
Testing
Tech.
Validation
Support
Flow of System Architecting, Engineering, Integration &
Assessment Tasks
18
Process Map of Major System Architecting,
Engineering, Integration & Assessment Tasks
19
Define System
Reqts
Define System
Functions
Define System
Architecture
Partition
System into
Subsystems
Create & build
KPM Database
Generate
System FMEA
Lead System
Integration
Meetings
Develop System
Noise Map
Balance
Interface
Sensitivities –
create latitude
Define System
Integration
DOEs &Test
Plans
Integrate
System Test
Rigs & Data
Acq. System
Conduct
System
Integration
Stress Tests
Balance System
Performance
Conduct
Reliability
Assessments
Validate System
Performance
Transfer KPM
Database to
Mfg. & Support
Key Parameter Enabled Systems & Design Engineering:
Key Parameter Dev. process & enabling DFSS tools
Design
Concept
Optimize
Verify
Key Parameter Management Process
Requirements Development Process
Full KPD&M details:
Ch.s 8-13 of DFSS text
Concept Design Process
Sequential Design of Experiments Process
Reliability Definition, Modeling, Development & Assessment Process
Design for “X” Process
- Manufacturing, Assembly & Cost; Service Maint. & Support
- Environment, Health, Safety, Legal & Regulatory
20
Allocated Reqt.s Flow-down & Measured Capability Roll-up
VOC
Needs
Product
Reqts.
Subsystem
Reqts.
Verification &
Preventive / Contingent
Action
Process
Subassembly
Reqts.
Component
Reqts.
Flow down of
the reqts to be
fulfilled through
the measurement
of KFRs & KPs
21
Mfg. Process
Reqts.
Customer
Satisfaction
Product CFR
Cp & Cpk
Subsystem
CFR Cp & Cpk
Subassembly
CFR Cp & Cpk
Component
Spec. Cp & Cpk
Mfg. Process
Cp & Cpk
Roll-up of Cp &
Cpk through the
measurement of
KFRs & KPs
Requirements Development Process
…Flow-down of NUD / Kano requirements to be fulfilled
VOC
Needs
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
0. 0
C arry ing me cha nis m
35 mm film
0. 0
0. 0
Fl ash pow er
V iew find er A rea
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
L abe l cla rity
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
F lash re -cha rge tim e
F lash fo rce
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
Bo dy con tou ring
0. 0
Similar to 35
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
0. 0
U MC
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
E xte rnal dim en sion s
Sn ap load res is tan c e
D ens ity
C olor Satu ratio n
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
Lo w G rain
Co ntra s t
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Product
Reqts.
Enabling Tools. Methods
& Best Practices:
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
0. 0
General Features
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
V
V
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
W
W
V
W
V
V
S
W
S
S
V
W
W
W
W
W
S
Ea s y to us e
W
W
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
V
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
S
V
W
V
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
S
V
W
V
V
V
W
Clear Pictures
16.0
Low Graininess
11.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
5.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
4.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
12.0
Low purchase price
15.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
9.0
Has to take a
minimum of 27
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
7.0
-Customer
Interviewing
How Much
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Weighted Importance
0. 0
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Organizational Difficulty
Relative Importance
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
0. 0
C arry ing me cha nis m
35 mm fi lm
0. 0
0. 0
Fl ash pow er
V iew find er A rea
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
L abe l cla rity
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
E xte rnal dim en sion s
F lash re -cha rge tim e
F lash fo rce
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
Bo dy con tou ring
0. 0
Similar to 35
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
U MC
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
0. 0
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
Sn ap load res is tan c e
D ens ity
C olor Satu ratio n
Co ntra s t
Lo w G rain
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
V
V
W
S
S
S
W
S
S
V
V
S
V
V
W
V
W
W
V
W
V
V
S
W
S
S
V
W
W
W
W
W
S
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
Ea s y to us e
S
V
W
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
S
V
W
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
Subsystem
Reqts.
0. 0
General Features
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
V
W
Clear Pictures
16.0
Low Graininess
11.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
5.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
4.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
12.0
Low purchase price
15.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
9.0
Has to take a
minimum of 27
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
7.0
-KJ Analysis
How Much
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Weighted Importance
0. 0
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Organizational Difficulty
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
Customer
Assessment
Relative Importance
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
35 mm film
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Fl ash pow er
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
C arry ing me cha nis m
L abe l cla rity
V iew find er A rea
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
F lash re -cha rge tim e
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
U MC
E xte rnal dim en sion s
Bo dy con tou ring
0. 0
Similar to 35
0. 0
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
F lash fo rce
Sn ap load res is tan c e
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
0. 0
0. 0
C olor Satu ratio n
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
Lo w G rain
Co ntra s t
0. 0
Ease of Use
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
D ens ity
OTU Camera Example
0. 0
General Features
Image Quality
-NUD Screening &
Kano Analysis
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
V
W
S
V
S
W
S
S
V
W
W
W
W
W
S
V
W
5.0
4.0
12.0
15.0
2.0
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
9.0
Has to take a
minimum of 27
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
7.0
How Much
Organizational Difficulty
Weighted Importance
0. 0
V
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
Want to take
pictures in any light
0. 0
V
W
11.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
Low purchase price
0. 0
W
W
16.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
0. 0
V
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
0. 0
S
Ea s y to us e
S
S
W
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
W
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
V
0. 0
S
S
V
W
V
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
V
W
V
V
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Subassembly
Reqts.
V
S
S
Relative Importance
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
-QFD
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
C arry ing me cha nis m
35 mm fi lm
Fl ash pow er
L abe l cla rity
Similar to 35
V iew find er A rea
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
F lash re -cha rge tim e
E xte rnal dim en sion s
Bo dy con tou ring
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
U MC
F lash fo rce
Sn ap load res is tan c e
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
C olor Satu ratio n
D ens ity
Co ntra s t
Lo w G rain
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
General Features
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
V
V
W
S
V
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
9.0
Has to take a
minimum of 27
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
7.0
How Much
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
Weighted Importance
0. 0
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Organizational Difficulty
0. 0
S
15.0
0. 0
V
W
12.0
0. 0
V
S
W
W
W
4.0
0. 0
V
W
W
5.0
Low purchase price
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
0. 0
V
W
S
S
11.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
Has to be durable if
I drop it
0. 0
W
W
W
Ea s y to us e
W
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
S
V
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
V
V
Low Graininess
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
0. 0
S
S
0. 0
W
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
0. 0
S
S
V
W
16.0
0. 0
Component
Reqts.
S
S
V
W
V
Clear Pictures
Relative Importance
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
0. 0
C arry ing me cha nis m
35 mm fi lm
0. 0
0. 0
Fl ash pow er
V iew find er A rea
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
L abe l cla rity
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
E xte rnal dim en sion s
F lash re -cha rge tim e
0. 0
Similar to 35
0. 0
U MC
F lash fo rce
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
Bo dy con tou ring
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
0. 0
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
0. 0
Sn ap load res is tan c e
Lo w G rain
0. 0
0. 0
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
D ens ity
C olor Satu ratio n
Co ntra s t
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
General Features
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
V
V
W
S
S
22
S
S
V
W
W
W
W
W
S
V
W
4.0
12.0
15.0
2.0
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
9.0
Has to take a
minimum of 27
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
7.0
How Much
Organizational Difficulty
Weighted Importance
Relative Importance
0. 0
W
5.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
Want to take
pictures in any light
0. 0
V
S
11.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
Low purchase price
0. 0
V
16.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
0. 0
V
W
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
0. 0
W
Ea s y to us e
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
S
W
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
S
S
W
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Mfg. Process
Reqts.
W
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
V
0. 0
S
S
V
W
V
V
0. 0
S
V
W
V
V
-Requirements
Trace-ability &
Documentation
(DOORS, etc.)
System Concept Design Process
Step 1: External Needs
Gathering, Processing & Validating the Voices of
the Customer, Marketing, Technology & Business
Step 2: Internal Requirements & Constraints
Generating & documenting a system of NUD / Kano
requirements in a Key Parameter Mgt. data base
Step 3: Innovation, Architecting & Solutions
Concept Generation, Feasibility Evaluations & final
Concept Selection
23
Metrics for Requirements Can be Compared to
Measures of Sample Data
Cp 
USL  LSL
Cp 
6s
What is Required?
Customer Level (USL – LSL)
System Level (USL – LSL)
Subsystem Level (USL – LSL)
Subassembly Level (USL – LSL)
Component Level (USL – LSL)
Mfg. Process Level (USL – LSL)
USL  LSL
s
What is 6Measured?
Customer Level (Avg & σ)
System Level (Avg & σ)
Subsystem Level (Avg & σ)
Subassembly Level (Avg & σ)
Component Level (Avg & σ)
Mfg. Process Level (Avg & σ)
From this comparison we can document performance Capability
Cp 
USL  LSL
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
W ith in
*
LS L
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
6s
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
O v e ra ll
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
PPU
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
11
12
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
P P M < LS L
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
 X  LSL USL  X 

C pk  Min 
,
3s
3s


Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
W ith in
*
LS L
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
O v e ra ll
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
24
Reqt. Allocation & KP Measuring down through the System
to Subsystems, Sub Assemblies, Parts & Mfg. Processes!
V
V
V
V
S
S
S
W
S
V
S
S
V
S
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
W
V
V
V
V
V
S
W
S
W
V
V
V
S
S
W
V
S
V
V
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
S
S
W
S
S
S
W
W
W
V
W
V
V
S
V
W
S
W
W
S
W
W
S
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
W
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
V
V
Ea s y to us e
S
V
W
V
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
S
V
W
V
V
V
W
4.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
12.0
Low purchase price
15.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
Customer
Assessment
I
Similar to 35
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
K
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
K
V iew find er A rea
K
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
K
C am era w e ight
K
C arry ing me cha nis m
J
S nap force
H
K
L abe l cla rity
F
K
F lash re -cha rge tim e
F
I
W ind ing forc e
F
K
F lash fo rce
I
35 mm fi lm
K
F
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
J
F
Bo dy con tou ring
K
F
Ease of Use
Fl ash pow er
K
F
U MC
K
E xte rnal dim en sion s
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
5.0
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
11.0
Sn ap load res is tan c e
Low Graininess
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
D ens ity
W
16.0
C olor Satu ratio n
V
S
Clear Pictures
Lo w G rain
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
V
Co ntra s t
OTU Camera Example
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
General Features
Image Quality
K
K
J
K
K
K
I
F
F
F
H
F
F
H
H
F
H
H
H
F
H
G
F
F
F
F
H
F
G
H
H
H
H
H
9.0
F
F
F
F
3.0
7.0
2
3
F
G
F
F
F
G
G
F
H
F
H
F
F
H
5
QXY
F
F
F
H
F
F
YX Q
QXY
G
A
H
H
F
F
G
F
A
A
XQ Y
G
AQ XY
G
A YX
Q
F
AX
F
A
Y Q
X YQ
F
F
Q
A
Y
X
F
H
G
F
Key Reqt.s
Allocation &
Linkage
X Q Y
H
H
H
A
F
G
G
F
G
4
A QX
Y
A Q XY
A
G
G
F
8.0
1
G
H
F
I don't want it to
look cheap
Kon ica
Our C am era C o.
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
A QXY
H
F
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
0
F
F
Has to take a
minimum of 27
Q
X
Y
A
F
A XY
Q
F
A
Y
X
Q
F
A
X
QY
How Much
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Organizational Difficulty
Q
Y
A
X
Kon ica
V
5
V
Fuj i
4
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
V
3
V
S
S
2
S
1
W
0
27 .
57
V
S
S
33
22
19
22
29
19
37
14
19
13
14
17
28
24
14
34
78 .
36
16
29
29
S
29
Weighted Importance
V
S
Relative Importance
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
W
V
V
V
V
V
S
W
S
W
V
V
V
S
S
W
V
S
V
V
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
V
S
V
W
W
W
S
V
W
2.0
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
K
J
K
Easy to wind
1.0
10.0
H
H
13.0
F
H
H
H
H
F
F
F
7.0
Our C am era C o.
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
1
2
3
H
G
F
F
F
F
5
A QX
Y
F
F
F
H
F
H
F
H
H
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
G
F
H
G
QXY
YX Q
QXY
G
A
H
H
F
F
G
F
A
XQ Y
G
AQ XY
G
A YX
Q
F
F
A
X Q Y
H
G
G
G
4
A
A
G
F
H
G
H
F
3.0
Kon ic a
A Q XY
G
G
H
H
9.0
0
A QXY
H
G
H
8.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
Q
X
Y
A
F
H
F
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
I
F
F
Has to take a
minimum of 27
K
F
H
F
Has to be light &
easy to carry
K
F
F
Prefer 35 mm format
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
C am era w e ight
C arry ing me cha nis m
K
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
I
F
F
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
Similar to 35
L abe l cla rity
K
V iew find er A rea
K
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
K
35 mm film
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
Bo dy con tou ring
Fl ash pow er
E xte rnal dim en sion s
F lash re -cha rge tim e
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
U MC
C olor Satu ratio n
Sn ap load res is tan c e
D ens ity
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
Co ntra s t
Lo w G rain
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
15.0
Customer
Assessment
K
22
V
W
W
Low purchase price
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
K
F
F
Want to take
pictures in any light
J
19
V
W
S
S
F
H
Ease of Use
K
22
W
W
12.0
F
F
K
29
V
W
4.0
F
F
I
19
W
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
Has to be durable if
I drop it
F
F
K
37
S
S
V
Ea s y to us e
W
V
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
W
V
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
S
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
5.0
I
14
S
S
11.0
K
24
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
S
V
W
16.0
J
14
S
S
V
W
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
K
34
W
K
16
V
V
K
F lash fo rce
General Features
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
Direction of Improvement
AX
F
A
Y Q
X YQ
F
F
Q
A
Y
X
F
H
A XY
Q
H
F
A
Y
X
Q
V
V
F
A
X
QY
V
V
S
S
S
How Much
W
S
V
S
S
V
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Organizational Difficulty
Q
Y
A
X
Kon ic a
S
5
V
V
4
V
V
V
V
3
V
W
2
V
V
V
V
1
33
27 .
57
19
13
14
17
28
78 .
36
29
29
29
S
W
V
V
V
S
W
0
Weighted Importance
V
V
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
V
S
S
W
V
S
V
V
Relative Importance
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
Customer
Assessment
K
K
J
K
H
F
H
H
F
F
F
F
F
H
F
G
H
H
H
F
F
F
F
2
3
F
F
F
G
G
H
G
G
G
F
F
5
QXY
YX Q
QXY
G
A
H
A
XQ Y
G
AQ XY
G
F
H
F
H
F
F
F
G
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
A YX
Q
F
F
A
X Q Y
H
H
H
G
4
A QX
Y
A
F
H
F
G
H
H
1
A
G
G
F
7.0
Kon ica
Our C am era C o.
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
A Q XY
G
H
F
3.0
0
A QXY
H
F
9.0
Q
X
Y
A
F
F
8.0
I
H
H
H
I don't want it to
look cheap
K
F
F
F
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
K
F
F
Has to take a
minimum of 27
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
I
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
Similar to 35
C am era w e ight
K
C arry ing me cha nis m
K
L abe l cla rity
K
V iew find er A rea
K
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
F lash fo rce
K
F
35 mm fi lm
J
Bo dy con tou ring
K
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
K
Fl ash pow er
E xte rnal dim en sion s
Sn ap load res is tan c e
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
C olor Satu ratio n
U MC
D ens ity
H
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
F
I
22
14.0
Co ntra s t
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
6.0
Lo w G rain
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
V
2.0
F
K
19
S
W
15.0
Has to be really
easy to use
F
I
22
V
W
W
12.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
Want to take
pictures in any light
K
F
29
V
S
W
W
Has to be durable if
I drop it
Low purchase price
J
F
19
V
W
S
S
4.0
K
F
37
V
W
W
5.0
K
F
14
S
W
Ea s y to us e
S
S
W
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
W
W
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
W
V
V
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
K
24
S
S
V
W
V
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
V
W
V
V
Low Graininess
11.0
14
W
S
16.0
34
Product or
System
Level
V
S
S
Clear Pictures
16
Direction of Improvement
V
Ease of Use
F lash re -cha rge tim e
General Features
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
AX
F
A
Y Q
X YQ
F
F
Q
A
Y
X
F
A XY
Q
V
H
H
F
A
V
Y
X
Q
V
V
F
A
X
S
S
W
S
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Q
Y
A
X
V
Kon ica
S a m p le N
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
PPU
O v e ra ll
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
P P M < LS L
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
LS L
W ith in
*
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
O v e ra ll
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
J
C arry ing me cha nis m
L abe l cla rity
V iew find er A rea
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
F lash fo rce
Bo dy con tou ring
K
35 mm fi lm
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
E xte rnal dim en sion s
Fl ash pow er
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
Sn ap load res is tan c e
U MC
C olor Satu ratio n
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
Co ntra s t
Lo w G rain
K
K
K
K
I
Q
X
Y
A
Kon ica
Our C am era C o.
Fuj i
V
Store B ran ds
V
V
V
F
S
S
V
2
3
4
5
V
CPU
V
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
F
G
G
F
F
H
A
XQ Y
V
V
H
F
F
F
F
H
F
F
F
F
G
H
H
G
W
AQ XY
G
A YX
Q
S
S
S
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
H
H
H
H
F
F
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
9.0
F
F
F
F
F
F
V
G
F
G
F
G
F
F
H
AX
Y Q
S
W
S
H
F
F
F
F
A
V
W
S
V
V
W
V
W
W
V
V
V
S
3.0
H
H
F
A
Y
X
Q
W
S
S
7.0
G
H
G
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
S
V
V
Q
A
Y
X
A XY
Q
W
Has to take a
minimum of 27
S
W
X YQ
V
I don't want it to
look cheap
V
S
V
H
F
F
A
X
QY
V
W
W
W
W
W
S
Clear Pictures
16.0
Low Graininess
11.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
5.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
4.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
12.0
Low purchase price
15.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
4
K
K
J
K
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
H
V
I
K
I
K
F
*
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
1 2 .0 0 0 0
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
1 .4 7
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
Capability
Assessment
& Traceability
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
K
K
I
F
F
F
F
H
F
H
G
H
H
H
H
9.0
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
H
F
H
F
F
F
G
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
27 .
33
57
22
19
22
29
19
37
14
19
13
14
17
28
24
78 .
14
34
16
36
29
29
29
W ith in
O v e ra ll
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
Mfg. Level
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
LS L
W ith in
*
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
O v e ra ll
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
25
A YX
Q
AX
F
A
Y Q
X YQ
Q
A
Y
X
A XY
Q
F
A
F
27 .
33
57
19
13
14
17
28
78 .
36
29
US L
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
C pk
A
XQ Y
AQ XY
F
100
Cp
QXY
YX Q
F
H
5
4
3
2
1
*
8 .0 0 0 0
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
5
A QX
Y
A
F
F
F
H
7.0
4
A Q XY
Fuj i
9 .9 7 6 6
S tD e v (W ith in )
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
3
X Q Y
G
G
Store B ran ds
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
1 2 .0 0 0 0
LS L
Me a n
S a m p le N
2
QXY
A
A
H
How Much
Kon ic a
1
A
G
H
H
H
G
G
G
F
Organizational Difficulty
Our C am era C o.
Kon ic a
Our C am era C o.
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
H
G
G
F
G
H
8.0
F
F
F
1
Q
Y
A
X
0
G
G
3
2
Q
X
Y
A
A QXY
H
G
F
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
T a rg e t
T a rg e t
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
K
F
F
Part Level
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
CPL
J
H
F
H
O v e ra ll
100
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
C pk
K
F
H
W ith in
*
8 .0 0 0 0
9 .9 7 6 6
S tD e v (W ith in )
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
Cp
Similar to 35
K
H
H
F
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
LS L
Me a n
S a m p le N
I
F
H
F
Sub Assy
Level
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
US L
K
0
1 3 .0 4
T a rg e t
K
F
H
Relative Importance
12
P P M > US L
P P M T o ta l
1 .4 4
Customer
Assessment
K
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
Weighted Importance
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
1 .4 7
1 .4 4
P pk
K
F
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
K
F
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
Has to take a
minimum of 27
J
0
1 .4 7
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
PPU
PPL
V
V
Ease of Use
K
F
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
V
W
5
Fuj i
K
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
Direction of Improvement
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
A
X Q Y
V iew find er A rea
YX Q
QXY
A
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
H
G
C am era w e ight
A
F
G
C arry ing me cha nis m
H
S nap force
F
L abe l cla rity
G
G
G
35 mm film
H
H
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
H
F
22
F
Bo dy con tou ring
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
H
F
Fl ash pow er
F
E xte rnal dim en sion s
2.0
F lash re -cha rge tim e
15.0
Relative Importance
1 .4 7
C pm
V
S
W ind ing forc e
Low purchase price
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
Weighted Importance
1 .5 1
CPL
V
V
General Features
1 .4 9
C pk
V
S
S
W
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
V
V
V
S
S
W
V
V
QXY
A QXY
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
F
U MC
H
F lash fo rce
H
Sn ap load res is tan c e
F
F
D ens ity
H
C olor Satu ratio n
F
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
F
Co ntra s t
12.0
F
Lo w G rain
4.0
Kon ica
V
V
V
A
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
5.0
How Much
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
V
V
V
A QX
Y
A Q XY
H
W
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
Has to be durable if
I drop it
Organizational Difficulty
Q
Y
A
X
V
S
S
1
F
F
W
V
S
W
S
S
0
W
F
F
19
Sub
System
Level
Similar to 35
I
29
W ith in
K
22
S
K
29
W
W
K
19
V
W
W
Customer
Assessment
K
37
S
S
K
14
V
S
W
US L
P pk
V
V
J
24
V
K
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
V
W
K
U niq ue F ea ture s
W
W
F
I
Ea s y to us e
W
V
F
K
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
S
V
V
F
I
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
V
K
14
S
S
Ea s y to us e
W
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
V
W
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
S
V
W
V
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
11.0
J
34
S
S
16.0
K
K
Ease of Use
16
S
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
K
D ens ity
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
S
S
V
W
1 .5 1
1 .4 7
1 .4 7
C pm
S
General Features
F lash re -cha rge tim e
27 .
W
1 .4 9
CPU
CPL
C pk
V
V
33
57
19
13
14
17
28
78 .
36
29
29
29
V
V
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
V
S
S
W
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
Direction of Improvement
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
V
V
S
W
V
V
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
*
8 .0 0 0 0
9 .9 7 6 6
V
V
S
W
2
1
0
29
T a rg e t
LS L
V
V
W
3
Relative Importance
P ro c e s s D a ta
Me a n
V
V
V
4
Weighted Importance
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
V
V
5
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
W
1 2 .0 0 0 0
V
S
S
S
V
V
Organizational Difficulty
W
US L
S
QY
How Much
Y
X
Q
A
X
QY
Product Functional Capability
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
Cp 
USL  LSL
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
W ith in
*
LS L
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
O v e ra ll
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
6s
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
11
12
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
Pp
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
 (USL-LSL): tolerance range
for a KFR response within the product (Sys/SSys/SAys)
 (USL-LSL): as stated in the Reqts. Document
 6s = six times the sample std. dev.
of a Key Functional Response KFR in the design
sKFR  “s” measures functional variation
 “s” is composed of both mfg. and customer-base
variation in product usage and environments
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
26
Part Specification Capability
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
Cp 
USL  LSL
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
W ith in
*
LS L
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
O v e ra ll
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
6s
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
11
12
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
Pp
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
 (USL-LSL): tolerance range
for a KTF spec. on a component / assembly
P pk
1 .4 4
 (USL-LSL): directly traceable to both Product &
Manufacturing KFRs
 6s = six times the sample std. dev.
of a KTF Part specification
sKTF  “s” measures dimensional, surface finish, bulk
material property or material variation
 “s” is composed only of unit-to-unit Part variation
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
27
Manufacturing Process Capability
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
Cp 
USL  LSL
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
W ith in
*
LS L
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
O v e ra ll
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
6s
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
Pp
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
0 .0 0
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
 (USL-LSL): tolerance range
for a KFR spec. on a production machine
P pk
1 .4 4
 (USL-LSL): directly traceable up to Part KTF Spec.
 6s = six times the sample std. dev.
of a KFR specification
 “s” measures Process functional variation
sKFR
 “s” is composed only of functional mfg. variation
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
28
Required KP Mgt. Data for any form of
Capability Assessment
Gage R&R
 All KFRs, KPs or KTF Spec.s must have a
capable metrology process documented
& in use
G a ge na m e :
D a te o f s tudy:
G a g e R & R (A N O V A ) fo r T h ic k n es s
R e po rte d by:
T o le ra nc e :
M is c :
C om p on en ts of V ariation
B y P art
100
8 .3
% C o ntributio n
P ercent
% S tudy Va r
8 .2
% To le ra nc e
8 .1
50
8 .0
7 .9
0
G a ge R & R
R e pe a t
R e pro d
P a rt
P a rt-to -P a rt
1
2
3
S am p le R ang e
R C h art b y O p erator
F red
0 .2
Mary
5
6
7
8
9
10
8 .3
8 .2
UC L = 0 .1 4 5 9
0 .1
8 .1
R = 0 .0 5 6 6 7
0 .0
8 .0
LCL=0
7 .9
0
O p e ra to r F re d
X b ar C h art b y O p erator
J oe
Joe
M a ry
O p erator*P art In terac tion
Mary
O p e ra to r
8 .2
8 .1
UC L = 8 .1 0 2
8 .0
L C L = 7 .9 8 6
A verag e
F red
8 .2
S am p le M ean
4
B y O p erator
J oe
M e a n= 8 .0 4 4
7 .9
F re d
Joe
8 .1
M a ry
8 .0
7 .9
0
P a rt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I & MR Chart
U C L = 5 .9 1 7
5
0
M e a n = -0 .0 3 8 1 6
-5
L C L = -5 .9 9 4
S u b g ro u p
0
50
100
10
M o ving R a nge
 Each KFR, KP or KTF Spec. is placed
under SPC so the Cp can be routinely
quantified for Phase-by-Phase growth &
Life Cycle stability characterization
Individua l V a lue
I and M R C hart for C 2
U C L = 7 .3 1 6
5
R = 2 .2 3 9
0
LC L= 0
Capability Study
P ro c e s s C a p a b ility A n a ly s is fo r C 2
 All KFRs typically have a target of Cp = 2
& Cpk of 1.5
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
LSL
US L
P ro c e s s D a ta
US L
1 2 .0 0 0 0
T a rg e t
W ith in
*
LS L
8 .0 0 0 0
Me a n
9 .9 7 6 6
S a m p le N
O v e ra ll
100
S tD e v (W ith in )
0 .4 4 7 1 3 4
S tD e v (O ve ra ll)
0 .4 5 8 1 8 6
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
Cp
1 .4 9
CPU
1 .5 1
CPL
1 .4 7
C pk
1 .4 7
C pm
*
O ve ra ll C a p a b ility
Pp
8
9
10
O b s e rve d P e rfo rm a n c e
1 .4 6
P P M < LS L
11
E xp . "W ith in " P e rfo rm a n c e
0 .0 0
P P M < LS L
4 .9 2
12
E xp . "O ve ra ll" P e rfo rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
PPU
1 .4 7
P P M > US L
0 .0 0
P P M > US L
3 .0 2
P P M > US L
PPL
1 .4 4
P P M T o ta l
0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l
7 .9 4
P P M T o ta l
P pk
1 .4 4
29
8 .0 1
5 .0 3
1 3 .0 4
KPD&M Flow-Down Map
NUD VOC Need #1
System Reqt.
Y=System KFR
System Level
Subsystem &
Subassembly Level
System Reqt.
Y=System KFR
System Reqt.
Y=System KFR
Subsystem-to-System Level Transfer Functions Y = f(x1, x2, …xn)
Subsystem Reqt.
Subsystem Reqt.
Subsystem Reqt.
Y1=SS KFR
Y1=SS KFR
Y1=SS KFR
Subsystem Reqt.
Subsystem Reqt.
Subsystem Reqt.
Y2=SS KFR
Y2=SS KFR
Y2=SS KFR
Subsystem Reqt.
Subsystem Reqt.
Y3=SS KFR
Y3=SS KFR
Component Level
Mfg. & Support Process Parameter Level
NUD VOC Need #2
Subassy-to-Subsystem Level Transfer Functions: Y = f(x1, x2, … xn)
Subassy. Reqt.
Subassy. Reqt.
Subassy. Reqt.
X1=SAssy. KFR
X1=SAssy. KFR
X1=SAssy. KFR
Subassy. Reqt.
X2=SAssy. KFR
Component Reqt.s
Component Reqt.s
Component Reqt.s
Xn=Comp. KTF Spec.s
Xn=Comp. KTF Spec.s
Xn=Comp. KTF Spec.s
Component Reqt.s
Xn=Comp. KTF Spec.s
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
Mfg. Process Reqt.s
Mfg. Process Reqt.s
Mfg. Process Reqt.s
Xn=Mfg.. KTF Spec.s
Xn=Mfg.. KTF Spec.s
Xn=Mfg.. KTF Spec.s
30
Modeling & Simulation
 M&S was in place & was pretty good - but it left KP
knowledge gaps - & not just a few!!!
 Could not predict physics-based interactions between controllable
engineering parameters very well…
Xi * Xj = ???
 Could not predict physics-based interactions between controllable
engineering parameters AND NOISE PARAMETERS = unwanted
sources of variation…
Xi * Noise = ???
• From variation in production parts, assembly & materials
• From variation in disruptive sources external to the system
• From variation in deteriorative sources internal to the system
 Weibull, Exponential, Gamma, Rayliegh, Lognormal, Normal, etc.????
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
31
2 Major Matrices dominate the KP Dev.
Process!
On the Requirements
Side:
On the Parameters
Side:
 The Houses of Quality
from NUD-based QFD
 The Designed Experiment
(DOE)
 Translated, Ranked,
Prioritized & Allocated
Key Customer Needs
 NUD Transfer Functions
(Key Y = f(Xs)) measured,
Ranked & Prioritized
V
V
V
V
S
S
S
W
S
V
S
S
V
S
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
S
W
S
V
V
V
S
W
W
S
S
K
K
J
K
K
K
K
K
I
K
K
J
K
K
K
W
V
I
V
S
W
S
S
V
W
W
W
W
W
S
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
5.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
4.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
12.0
Low purchase price
15.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
F
F
F
H
F
H
A
QXY
W
W
W
S
V
W
F
H
H
F
A QXY
2.0
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
Fl ash pow er
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
C am era w e ight
C arry ing me cha nis m
W ind ing forc e
S nap force
F lash re -cha rge tim e
F lash fo rce
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
Bo dy con tou ring
Sn ap load res is tan c e
U MC
C olor Satu ratio n
E xte rnal dim en sion s
D ens ity
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
Want to take
pictures in any light
K
K
K
I
F
F
F
F
Kon ic a
Q
X
Y
A
Fuj i
0
1
Our C am era C o.
Store B ran ds
2
3
H
F
F
H
H
G
H
F
G
F
F
F
F
F
H
F
G
F
G
F
A
G
H
F
H
5
F
F
F
G
G
F
H
Factor
A
B
C
QXY
G
G
G
F
F
F
H
YX Q
QXY
G
A
H
F
F
A
X Q Y
H
H
A
Y Q
A
V
S
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
H
H
H
H
9.0
F
F
F
F
F
F
W
Q
A
Y
X
S
F
F
3.0
H
H
F
A
S
H
G
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
F
A
X
G
A
X Q Y
F
27 .
V
W
H
F
F
F
F
H
F
F
F
G
H
H
G
AQ XY
S
S
S
F
G
V
A YX
Q
S
W
S
V
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
Prefer 35 mm format
8.0
V
S
V
W
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
S
W
G
F
G
F
G
F
F
H
AX
Y Q
W
V
S
V
V
S
V
V
W
V
W
W
W
H
H
F
F
F
F
A
H
H
H
F
F
V
W
S
V
W
W
W
W
Q
A
Y
X
W
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
V
S
X YQ
S
H
S
V
W
9.0
F
F
F
F
F
F
V
S
K
K
K
J
K
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
H
33
57
22
19
22
29
19
37
14
19
13
14
17
28
24
14
34
78 .
36
16
XQ Y
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
F
A
V
V
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
1
Relative Importance
Direction of Improvement
H
V
S
V
S
V
V
General Features
A XY
Q
Clear Pictures
16.0
Low Graininess
11.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
5.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
4.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
12.0
Low purchase price
15.0
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
2.0
Want to take
pictures in any light
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
J
K
K
K
K
K
I
K
K
J
K
F
F
F
F
I
0
1
2
3
F
H
G
F
G
F
G
A
G
G
F
F
F
H
H
F
F
F
G
G
H
F
G
F
F
H
QXY
H
F
F
QXY
G
A
H
H
F
A
F
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
-1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1
A
Q
A
Y
X
30
A
F
F
Y
X
Q
A
X
1
20
-1
10
QY
How Much
V
S
S
Sum of Squares
epsilon2
%epsilon2
A
69.82
69.82/2233.39=0.031
3.1%
B
401.70
401.70/2233.39=0.18
C
1620.35
1620.35/2233.39=0.72
72%
AC
27.82
27.82/2233.39=0.012
1.2%
AB
110.85
110.85/2233.39=0.05
5%
Total
2233.39
Effect
A XY
Q
F
S
W
I don't want it to
look cheap
Organizational Difficulty
7.0
G
H
G
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
F
A
X
QY
Q
Y
A
X
Kon ic a
S
V
S
S
5
V
Fuj i
3
V
V
V
V
2
V
V
V
W
27 .
V
V
V
V
S
W
S
W
Relative Importance
V
V
V
S
S
W
V
S
V
V
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
2.0
6.0
Has to be really
easy to use
14.0
Easy to wind
1.0
Large view finder
that helps me get
pictures centered
easily
10.0
Has to be light &
easy to carry
13.0
F
K
K
J
K
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
I
F
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
C am era w e ight
K
C arry ing me cha nis m
K
L abe l cla rity
K
V iew find er A rea
K
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
K
S nap force
F lash fo rce
F lash re -cha rge tim e
J
W ind ing forc e
K
35 mm fi lm
H
F
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
E xte rnal dim en sion s
F
F
F
Bo dy con tou ring
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
Sn ap load res is tan c e
U MC
C olor Satu ratio n
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
Must fit in my shirt
pocket
Want to take
pictures in any light
K
F
K
F
F
K
K
I
Q
X
Y
A
0
Kon ica
Our C am era C o.
1
2
3
F
C
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
H
F
F
F
A
G
H
F
G
G
F
F
F
G
G
H
F
G
F
F
F
H
H
F
F
G
H
H
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Has to take a
minimum of 27
3.0
I don't want it to
look cheap
7.0
H
H
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
A
X Q Y
A
XQ Y
AQ XY
A YX
Q
F
AX
F
H
F
H
A
G
G
H
9.0
G
YX Q
QXY
H
H
8.0
H
H
G
G
F
Prefer 35 mm format
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
G
QXY
A QXY
H
H
F
H
A
F
H
H
10
5
A Q XY
H
H
F
H
4
A QX
Y
F
H
-1
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
F
F
22
V
I
F
J
F
19
S
15.0
22
V
W
12.0
29
V
S
W
W
W
4.0
19
V
W
W
5.0
37
W
V
W
S
S
11.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
Low purchase price
20
Similar to 35
14
W
W
W
16.0
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
24
S
S
V
V
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
14
W
V
V
Ea s y to us e
W
V
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
S
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
27 .
57
22
19
22
29
19
37
14
19
13
14
17
28
24
14
34
16
78 .
36
29
29
33
S
S
34
W
S
V
W
16
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
V
V
S
S
V
W
K
K
D ens ity
Direction of Improvement
2
1
Relative Importance
I
K
K
3
0
Weighted Importance
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
4
Co ntra s t
OTU Camera Example
5
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
Lo w G rain
Organizational Difficulty
1
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
Fl ash pow er
General Features
Image Quality
Our C am era C o.
30
V
33
57
22
19
22
29
19
37
14
19
13
14
17
28
24
14
78 .
34
16
36
29
29
29
B
V
V
1
0
Kon ic a
A
Y Q
X YQ
Q
A
Y
X
A XY
Q
F
A
F
Y
X
Q
A
X
QY
How Much
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
Organizational Difficulty
Q
Y
A
X
Kon ica
5
Fuj i
4
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
3
2
1
27 .
33
57
19
13
14
17
28
78 .
36
29
29
29
0
Weighted Importance
Relative Importance
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
18%
S
4
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
Weighted Importance
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
10
Y Q
X YQ
V
Y
X
Q
15
In teraction P lot (d ata m ean s) for Y p lu s N oise
A YX
Q
A
V
3.0
20
A
XQ Y
AX
F
V
Has to take a
minimum of 27
How Much
Q
Y
A
X
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.969
0.967
AQ XY
G
F
F
H
MS
F
69.82 196.14
401.70 1128.38
1620.35 4551.60
27.82
78.14
110.85 311.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
X Q Y
A
G
F
G
SS
69.82
401.70
1620.35
27.82
110.85
0.00
0.00
2.85
2233.39
YX Q
H
H
H
H
H
G
G
F
F
F
G
A
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
15
A QXY
H
H
F
5
A Q XY
F
H
F
H
4
A QX
Y
H
H
F
H
K
Kon ic a
Our C am era C o.
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
F
F
F
H
K
Q
X
Y
A
F
F
H
7.0
K
H
F
H
I don't want it to
look cheap
K
H
8.0
3.0
I
F
13.0
9.0
K
Similar to 35
F
F
Has to be light &
easy to carry
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
I
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
F
Prefer 35 mm format
Has to take a
minimum of 27
E xte rnal dim en sion s
G
G
V
V
S
W
Sn ap load res is tan c e
H
G
V
S
V
V
Image Quality
OTU Camera Example
C olor Satu ratio n
F
V
V
V
QY
0
G
F
V
V
W
G
V
W
V
V
V
Y
X
Q
V
7.0
5
4
3
2
D ens ity
Kon ic a
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
Our C am era C o.
Weighted Importance
F
Source
A
B
C
A*B
A*C
B*C
A*B*C
Error
Total
V
V
A XY
Q
V
Has to take a
minimum of 27
I don't want it to
look cheap
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
Q
Y
A
X
Co ntra s t
A
S
S
Has to be close to
my 35mm in picture
quality
YX Q
QXY
Lo w G rain
H
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
F
S
S
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
A
G
25
V
X YQ
U MC
G
C
Analysis of Variance for Y plus N
A YX
Q
AX
F
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
H
H
B
AQ XY
F
W
H
A
30
XQ Y
G
G
F
Organizational Difficulty
F
1
1
1
V
H
W
H
F
Type Levels Values
fixed
2
-1
fixed
2
-1
fixed
2
-1
V
H
How Much
F
M ain E ffects P lot - D ata M ean s for Y plu s N oise
ANOVA: Y plus Noise versus A, B, C
A QX
Y
A QXY
H
H
A
F
F
F
A Q XY
H
H
F
4
F
F
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
V
V
V
W
W
J
Ea s y to us e
V
W
W
V
S
S
S
K
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
W
W
W
W
W
K
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
V
S
V
V
W
29
V
W
A Q XY
Similar to 35
I
Te chn ica l
A s se ssm en t
S
S
V
Ea s y to us e
W
V
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
W
V
V
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
S
U niq ue F ea ture s
V
S
V
A QX
Y
F
S
V
V
F
K
F
29
S
S
F
K
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
I
K
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
K
Customer
Assessment
K
C am era w e ight
I
K
C arry ing me cha nis m
K
F
J
L abe l cla rity
F
F
K
V iew find er A rea
J
F
K
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
K
F
F
I
S nap force
K
F
V
K
F lash re -cha rge tim e
K
15.0
F
29
S
V
W
11.0
12.0
F
29
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
S
S
V
W
16.0
Has to be durable if
I drop it
Low purchase price
I
W ind ing forc e
S
4.0
K
F lash fo rce
S
V
W
5
5.0
Can't mis-fire when I
put it away in my
pocket or purse
J
35 mm film
4
11.0
K
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
3
16.0
K
Bo dy con tou ring
S
V
2
U niq ue F ea ture s
W
1
V
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
Pictures can't be
"washed out"
K
Fl ash pow er
S
Ea s y to us e
S
V
0
V
V
V
Ease of Use
Y plus N o is e
V
V
V
Clear Pictures
Low Graininess
Go od Im a ge Qu ality
Direction of Improvement
Lo w G rain
Fuj i
Store B ran ds
W H A Ts for On e-Ti m e -U s e C am era (V O C Inp ut D ata )
Direction of Improvement
V
W
V
S
S
General Features
Co ntra s t
OTU Camera Example
Kon ic a
Our C am era C o.
R egular 35 mm Ca mer a pe rform an c e
H igh app earanc e ra tin g
m in. of 2 7 p ictu res
C arry ing me cha nis m
C am era w e ight
V iew find ing ind icat or g rap hics
L abe l cla rity
V iew find er A rea
Q
X
Y
A
S
V
Image Quality
Similar to 35
35 mm film
Bo dy con tou ring
Fl ash pow er
S nap force
W ind ing forc e
F lash re -cha rge tim e
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
E xte rnal dim en sion s
F lash fo rce
Im pa ct f orce re sist anc e
U MC
Sn ap load res is tan c e
M axim ize pa rt re -us e
C u sto m e r Im po rta nce
D ens ity
C olor Satu ratio n
Lo w G rain
Co ntra s t
Customer
Assessment
Ease of Use
W
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
W
V
V
S
W
V
V
OTU Camera Example
V
V
V
V
V
V
General Features
V
V
V
W
S
HOWs: Measurable Technical Requirements
Image Quality
V
V
V
V
V
V
S
S
S
V
S
S
W
Su rfa ce roug hne ss
S
W
S
S
V
S
W
V
V
L abe l cla rity
W
V
V
V
V iew find er A rea
V
V
35 mm film
V
32
Sequential Designed Experiments Process
Concept
Multi-vari Studies
Screening DOEs
Design
Optimize
Verify
Tolerance
Balancing DOEs
System Stress
Test DOEs
Modeling DOEs
Optimization DOEs
Robust Design
DOEs
Building your knowledge of statistically significant Key
Parameters using a sequential DOE strategy
33
DOE choices in Product Commercialization
There are 7 major types of Designed Experiments
1. Multi-vari studies
- (correlation & hypothesis forming studies)
2. Screening Experiments
- (sorting controllable factors & noise factors for significance)
3. Modeling Experiments
- (quantifying Y = f(x) relationships)
4. Mean Optimization Experiments
“Everything should be as simple as
possible – but not simpler…”
- (adjust mean performance to hit a desired target)
5. Robustness-to-Noise Experiments
- (reduce s in the presence of noise)
6. System Stress Testing Experiments
- (identify sensitivity across interfaces & system boundaries)
7. Tolerance Balancing Experiments
- (refine cost vs. quality in subsystems, subassemblies & parts)
34
Identifying Key Functional Response & Key
Adjustment Parameter Relationships
Key
Functional
Response
Ideal
(KFR)
Key
Adjustment
Parameter
(KAP)
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
35
Key Functional Robustness Parameters:
KAPs & KFRPs: How they affect a KFR - Robust & Tunable Performance!
KFRPs
are KFR
Variance Reducers
Robust
against
Variation
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
KAPs are KFR
Mean Shifters
Mean
Adjusted
to VOC
Target
36
Reliability Development Process
Concept
Design
Optimize
Verify
Reliability Requirements Definition
-System
Reliability Modeling – Probabilistic Simulations
-Subsystem / Subassembly
- Component
Reliability Development Tasks
- FMEAs, CAE/CARD, DOE, Robust Design, Tolerance Design
Reliability Assessment Tasks
-Life Tests, Accelerated Life Tests
-HALT, HASS, HAST, Destructive Tests
37
Design for “X” Process
Design
Concept
Optimize
DfX Requirements
-System (Product & Production Processes)
-Subsystem / Subassembly
- Component / Materials
Design for X Tasks
- Benchmarking, DFMA, Design for Cost, VA/VE…
DfX Assessment Tasks
-HSER DOEs & Related Tests
38
Verify
KPD enhanced Team Performance Score Cards
Preventive Peer Reviews
DFSS
Tool:
Quality
of Tool
Use
Data
Integrity
Results
vs.
Reqts
Avg.
Score
Data Summary
incl. Type &
Units
Task Requirement
Contingent Design Reviews
Phase
Task:
Avg.
Tool
Score
% Task
Fulfillment
Task
Result vs.
Del. Reqts
Red
Yellow
Green
Deliverable Requirements
Reactive Gate Reviews
Gate
Deliverables
Grand
Avg.
Tool
Score
Summary
of Tasks’
Completion
Summary
of Tasks
Results
vs. Del.
Reqt.
Red
Yellow
Green
Gatekeeper Comments
Measuring the use of tools, completion of tasks and
the fulfillment of Gate Deliverable requirements…
39
Gate Deliverable Scoring linkage
from Tool & Task Scorecards
DFSS
Tool:
Quality
of Tool
Use
Data
Integrity
Results
vs.
Reqts
Avg.
Score
Data Summary
incl. Type &
Units
Task Requirement
Quality of
Tool Use
Phase
Task:
Avg.
Tool
Score
% Task
Fulfillment
Task
Result vs.
Del. Reqts
Red
Yellow
Green
Grand
Avg.
Tool
Score
Summary
of Tasks’
Completion
Summary
of Tasks
Results
vs. Del.
Reqt.
Red
Yellow
Green
% Task
Fulfillment
Task
Scoring
Items
Task Results vs.
Gate Reqts
Corrective Action & Due Date
Comments on Risk
Confidence
in Data
Score
40
Tool Results vs.
Task Reqts
Deliverable Requirements
Avg. Tool
Score
Gate
Deliverables
Data
Integrity
Tool
Scoring
Items
Gate
Deliverable
Scoring
Items
Risk Accrual
against Gate
Reqts.
Summary – building KP Dev. capability & maturity
 Companies who have deployed KPD&M are slowly realizing
they can’t use it right if they don’t have SE functional
excellence & governance in their Phase-Gate process…
 With KPD&M integrated into SE the results are much better
 Ad hoc systems work in product commercialization
processes keeps you from being great…
Formal SE
Process & Roles
Ad hoc SE
41
KP enhanced SE
Process, Roles, tooltask-deliverables…
The ARDEC Story:
Defining a process for Pro-active KPD&M
 What approaches are available for conducting KP
Development & Management?
 Are the steps during Development different from
those conducted when defining KPs after Launch?
 Technology & Product Development?
 Post-launch Production & Ongoing Life cycle
Management out to Discontinuance?
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
42
A New Technology & Product Development
Process was constructed: Vector
Similar to the definition of a Vector, the ARDEC T&PDP will serve as a course or
compass direction for navigating ARDEC IPTs through technology and product
development projects doing the right things at the right time.
Webster - Vector: a quantity that has magnitude and direction and that is commonly represented
by a directed line segment whose length represents the magnitude and whose orientation in space
represents the direction; b: a course or compass direction c: a course to be taken by an
aircraft.
ARDEC ‘s Technology & Product Development Process
(T&PDP) = Vector
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
43
Foundations of Vector
 Vector is built upon a wide variety of benchmarks that were “value-mined”…

8 major Corporations:
Ford

6 texts from product development consulting firms:

NASA / DoD TRL models

Latest version of the DoD 5000.2
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
44
Best elements integrated to design the
T&PDP process….
Benchmarks
VOC
NUD Reqts.
Benchmarks, Hybridization and Pugh Concept Selection Process used to
document Value Selection - led to the design of Vector Block Diagrams
Entrance Criteria & Assumptions
Major Activities
Deliverables
Readiness
Tasks
Results
Exit Criteria
Objectives
Completeness
Intent
Enabling Best Practices
Enablers
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
45
Block Diagrams: Defining What to do….
1. Entrance Criteria
3. Major Activities
5. Deliverables
Readiness
Tasks
Results
6. Exit Criteria
2. Objectives
Completeness
Intent
4. Enabling Best Practices
Enablers
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
46
And when to do it….
The Vector Process is
constructed of Blocks
of Major Activities..
Entrance Criteria & Assumptions
Major Activities
Deliverables
Readiness
Tasks
Results
Block of
Major
Activities
Exit Criteria
Completeness
Objectives
Intent
Enabling Best Practices
Enablers
Vector Technology Dev. Process…
9 Blocks of Major Activity Groups defined & documented:
TD1
TD2
TD3
TD4
TD5
TD6
TD7
TD8
TD9
Vector EMD Process…
10 Blocks of Major Activity Groups defined & documented:
EMD1
EMD2
EMD3
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
EMD4
EMD5
EMD6
EMD7
EMD8
EMD9
47
EMD10
Each Block contains a designed Work
Flow… adaptable to the type of Project
Block of
Major
Activities
Activity 4
Activity 2
Activity 5
Activity 1
Activity 3
Block of
Major
Activities
Block of
Major
Activities
Activity 6
Activity 4
Activity 2
Block of
Major
Activities
Activity 5
Activity 1
Activity 3
Activity 4
Activity 6
Activity 2
Block of
Major
Activities
Activity 5
Activity 1
Activity 3
Activity 6
Activity 4
Activity 2
Activity 5
Activity 1
Activity 3
Activity 6
Activity 4
Activity 2
Activity 5
Activity 1
Activity 3
Activity 6
MS Project Network Diagrams will illustrate serial / parallel flow
paths of Major Activities within each Block…
Including linkage between the Actions & their enabling Tool sets.
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
48
Aligning the Blocks to TRLs & MRLs – Vector added KP depth-of rigor & clarity of the TRL / MRL definitions & detailed deliverables
A
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
B
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Materiel
Development
Decision
TD3-4
IOC
C
PRODUCTION &
DEPLOYMENT
TD 7
TD 8
TRLs 1-3
TRL 4
TRL 5
TRL 6
TRL 7
TRL 8
TRL 9
Analytical/
Experimental
Critical
Function/
Characteristic
Proof of
Concept
Component
And/or
Breadboard
Validation
In a
Laboratory
Environment
Component
And/or
Breadboard
Validation
In a
Relevant
Environment
System/
Subsystem
Model or
Prototype
Demonstrated
In a Relevant
Environment
System
Prototype
Demonstrated
In an
Operational
Environment
Actual
System
Completed
Qualified
Through
Test and
Demonstration
Actual
System
“Mission
Proven”
Through
Successful
Operations
MRLs 1-3
MRL 4
MRL 9
MRL 10
Manufacturing
Cost Drivers
Identified
TD3-4
TD5
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
MRL 5
Capability to
Produce
Prototype
Components
Cost Model
Constructed
TD6-7
MRL 6
OPERATIONS &
SUPPORT
FRP
Decision
Review
Post CDR
Assessment
TD5-6
Manufacturing Capability to produce
Feasibility
Technology In Lab
Assessed.
Environment.
Concepts
Manufacturing Risks
defined/
Identified
developed
FOC
EMD 10
MRL 7
Capability to
Capability to Produce
Produce System/ Systems, Subsystems
Subsystem
Or Components in a
Prototypes
Production
Representative
Environment
MRL 8
Pilot Line
Capability
Demonstrated.
Ready for LRIP
Detailed Cost
Analysis
Complete
Cost Model Updated
To System Level
Unit Cost Reduction
Efforts Underway
Engineering
Cost Model
Validated
TD 8
EMD 9
EMD 10
Low Rate
Full Rate
Production
Production
Demonstrated. Demonstrated.
Capability In Lean Production
Place for FRP Practices In Place
LRIP Cost
Goals Met
Learning Curve
Validated
EMD 10
FRP Unit
Cost Goals
Met
49
Technology Dev. Phases & Gates were
defined from the 9 TD Block Diagrams….
Phase 2: Technology
Concept Dev.
Phase 1: Technology Project
Plan & Requirements Dev.
Tech Dev. Project
Definition & Plan
1
Tech Reqts Dev
2
Tech Concept Dev
3
Phase 3: Technology Sub-level Dev.
& Optimization
Subsys Tech
Prototype &
measmnt System
Design & Dev
5
Tech Prototype perf
Stability &
Tunability Dev
6
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
Tech Robustness
Dev (Dynamic)
7
Tech Functional
& Analytical
M&S
4
Phase 4: Technology Integration
& Final Optimization
Tech System
Integration,
Nominal & Stress
Testing
8
Tech Transfer
9
50
Product Dev. Phases & Gates were defined
from the 10 EMD Block Diagrams….
Phase 1: Product Project Plan &
Requirements Dev.
EMD Program
definition and plan
1
Technical reqmnts
Definition,
documentation, and
prioritization
2
Phase 2: Product Concept
Development
Product & production
process Concept
development and
selection, system
architecture
3
Phase 3: Product Sub-level Dev. &
Optimization
Subsys design
testing and
capability perf
characterization
6
Subsys design
robustness testing,
optimization, DOEs
under stress
7
Preliminary Subsys
concepts, modeling,
simulations, virtual
designs
4
Subsys design and
prototyping, test
planning and measmnt
systems capability
readiness
5
Phase 5: Product & Mfg. Process
Verification & Validation
System Integration,
nominal & stress
testing,
desensitization
8
Final Product
Design
9
Product design
verification / Mfg
Process verification
and validation
10
Phase 4: Product System Integration
& Optimization
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
51
Example of Vector Technology Development Process
Swim lanes loaded with major KPD&M Tasks
Vector Swimlanes with KPD&M Process & Enabling DFLSS TMBPs by TD Phase
Swimlanes
TD Phase 1
TD Phase 2
TD Phase 3
Gather &
Define KEY
(NUD)
Customer
Needs
Systems
Engineering
Design Engineering Gather &
Define KEY
(NUD)
Customer
Needs
Translate,
rank &
prioritize
KEY (NUD)
System
Level
Technical
Reqts
Define Key
System
Level
Functional
Responses
(Ys)
Define
System KFR
Target
Values &
Tolerances
Develop &
Load KPM
data base
Develop
Capable
System Level
Measurement
Systems
Translate,
& allocate
KEY (NUD)
Sub Level
Technical
Reqts
Define Key
Sub Level
Functional
Responses
(Ys)
Define Sub
Level KFR
Target
Values &
Tolerances
Develop
ID candidate
Capable Sub Sub Level KAPs
Level
& KFRPs
Measurement
Systems
TD Phase 4
ID
candidate
System
Level KAPs
& KFRPs
ID System Define KP
Design
Level
System Flow- System Level
Noise
down Tree
KP
Maps
Development
DOEs &
Verification
Test Plans
Conduct
System Level
Nominal
Performance
experiments
Conduct
System Level
Robustness
Performance
experiments
Conduct
System Level
Performance
Balancing
experiments
Document
System Level
KPM Data
base
ID Sub
Level
Noise
Diagrams
Define Sub
Level KP
Flowdown
Trees
Conduct Sub
Level
Modeling
experiments
Conduct Sub
Level
Robustness
experiments
Conduct Sub
Level
Tolerance
Balancing
experiments
Document
Sub Level
KPM Data
base
Conduct Sub
Level
Robustness
experiments
Conduct Sub
Level
Tolerance
Balancing
experiments
Document
Sub Level
KPM Data
base
Design Sub
Level KP
Development
DOEs &
Verification
Test Plans
Conduct Sub
Level
Screening
experiments
Develop
Capable
System & Sub
Level
Measurement
Systems
Quality Engineering
& Systems
Assurance
Logistics
Gather &
Define KEY
(NUD)
Customer
LOG Needs
Project
Management
Assure all
KPD&M
tasks are
properly
selected,
resourced &
realistically
scheduled
Translate,
& allocate
KEY (NUD)
Sub Level
Technical
LOG Reqts
Assure the
KPD&M
Process is up
to date &
documented
KPD&M,
in theCopyright
PAL
Define Key
Sub Level
Functional
Responses
(Ys)
Define Sub
Level KFR
Target
Values &
Tolerances
Develop
ID Candidate
Capable Sub Sub Level KAPs
Level
& KFRPs
Measurement
Systems
Define &
Conduct
System &
Sub Level KP
Verification
Tests
ID Sub
Level
Noise
Diagrams
Define Sub
Level KP
Flowdown
Trees
Design Sub
Level DOEs &
Verification
Test Plans
Conduct Sub
Level
Screening
experiments
Conduct Sub
Level
Modeling
experiments
Process Assurance
Intro to
2010, PDSS Inc.
52
Transfer KP
Data base
to
Production
& Supply
Chain
11 General Steps in KPD after you are in Production –
if you did NOT do KPD during Technology or Product Development…
KPD&M Process Step
Enabling Tools & Methods
Step 1: Create a KPD&M Project Charter
 Project Planning & Mgt., Monte Carlo Sim., Cost Estimation, SMART reqts. &
goal ID, Intro to KPD&M Module
Step 2: Create a cross-functional team of
experts to help ID a thorough set of KPs
 Specific, in-depth experience; Technical expertise & judgment, DFLSS
training, JIT training & mentoring in KP tool sets
Step 3: Generate / Assess requirement
clarity, classification & flow-down
 Customer/Stakeholder ID, Interviewing Methods, KJ Analysis, NUD vs. ECO
classification, Kano Analysis, QFD & HOQs, Doors, Relational data base
Step 4: Generate I-O-C-Diagrams, PDiagrams, Noise & Boundary Diagrams
 I-O-C Diagramming, P-Diagm’g, Noise Diagm’g, System Noise Mapping,
Boundary & Interface Diagm’g, 1st Principles Modeling & Simulation
Step 5: Structure a Key Parameter Flowdown Tree & Relational Data base
 Functional Diagm’g, Flow Diagm’g, Cockpit SW, KP Data base dev., KP
Scorecards, KP Reqts. & Measured Y worksheets
Step 6: ID unique sub-areas of focus; lean
out, rank & prioritize the areas to work on
 NUD vs. ECO classification, Kano Analysis, Pareto process, QFD ranking,
Function Trees & Flow Diagm’g., Noise Diagm’g, FMEAs
Step 7: Prove measurement systems are
capable
 Measurement Systems Analysis, Gage R&R Studies
Step 8: Design & conduct experiments on
candidate Key Parameters & Noises
 Hypothesis formation, SPC & Cp/Cpk studies, DOEs, t-Tests, ALT, HALT,
HAST, Duane Plotting
Step 9: Analyze data using ANOVA & other
statistical methods to ID sensitivities & Cpk
 ANOVA, Descriptive & Inferential Statistical methods, Regression Analysis,
Correlation Analysis, Confidence Intervals, Main effects & interaction plotting
Step 10: Establish & verify tolerance ranges
& % contribution to variation of Key Ys
 Screening DOEs, ANOVA, Taguchi’s Loss Function, Additive Variance
Modeling, SPC & Cp/Cpk Studies, F Ratios
Step 11: Create a Mfg. & Production
implementation & control plan for KPs
 Control Planning, SPC & Cp/Cpk Studies, KP documentation, KP relational
data base & Score cards
Summary of KPD&M Concepts
REQUIREMENT FLOWDOWN & ALLOCATION
CAPABILITY FLOW-UP
of Cp & Cpk
SYSTEM KFR
PERFORMANCE
SYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS
SUBSYSTEM KFR
PERFORMANCE
SUBSYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS
SUBASSY. KFR
PERFORMANCE
SUBASSEMBLY
REQUIREMENTS
COMPONENT
REQUIREMENTS
MFG. PROCESS
REQUIREMENTS
TRANSFER FUNCTION
LINKAGE IS USED TO
TRACK KEY
RELATIONSIPS &
TRANSMISSION OF
VARIATION….
COMPONENT KTF
PERFORMANCE
MFG. PROCESS KFR
PERFORMANCE
Why do we take the time to do it properly?
Problem Prevention.
Intro to KPD&M, Copyright 2010, PDSS Inc.
54