Thinking about customer requirements and their conversion to design characteristics may contribute, in a very efficient way, to making the attributes of an industrial training course much more definite.
Moreover, our experiment, which consists of the application of QFD to a service, permits us to note two large differences with respect to a traditional QFD employ- ment for a product development:
1. Confusion exists among elements of technical quality (concerning what the customer really gets from the service) and functional quality (con- cerning the way in which the service is provided) [Gronroos, 1982]. 2. Difficulty exists in measuring the level of many service characteristics.
In fact, in contrast to what happens for product design, only some of the technical characteristics we determined (for example comfort (brightness,
Application of Quality Function Deployment to Industrial Training Courses 177 noises and heat) of the classroom) are easily measurable and can be standardized, whereas we can hardly do the same for the majority of other characteristics. Moreover, some characteristics are measurable just as users’ perceptions (i.e., nice environment and teachers’ behavior).
From the case study we can see that for a training course the final outcome also depends on customer behavior during the providing phase. For this reason a training agency cannot often ensure a good result, but it can assure that everything necessary to reach the expected result will be done. The design process becomes, therefore, a fundamental step, in which it is possible to carry out a prevention activity.
Among the limits we can find in our specific application, there is surely the problem of having the relationship matrix too large. As first approximation, we have not divided into more steps the input–output process of translating customer require- ments into design specifications. One possible solution to make the process leaner could be to divide it into three phases: design of contents, design of providing process, and design of quality control process (Figure 12.1).
REFERENCES
Akao, Y. (1990), Quality Function Deployment, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. Baiardi, D. (1994), Guida allo Sviluppo di un Sistema Qualità per le Organizzazioni di Servizi
Formativi, Ed. Unione Industriale di Torino.
Braga, G. and Roncari, A. (1994), Formazione e qualità, De Qualitate, 3(7), 23–30. Franceschini, F. (1998), Quality Function Deployment: uno strumento concettuale per coniugare
qualità e innovazione, Il Sole 24 ORE Libri, Ed., Milano.
Franceschini, F. and Rossetto, S. (1995a),QFD: the problem of comparing technical-engineering design requirements, Res. Eng. Design, 7, 270–278.
Franceschini, F. and Rossetto, S. (1995b), Quality & innovation: a conceptual model of their interaction, Total Qual. Manage., 6(3), 221–229.
Franceschini, F. and Rossetto, S. (1997), Design for quality: selecting product’s technical features, Qual. Eng., 9(4), 681–688.
Franceschini, F. and Rossetto, S. (1998),On-line service quality control: the qualitometro method, Qual. Eng., 10(4), 633–643.
FIGURE 12.1 Steps for designing a training course using QFD. SL3216-ch12-Frame Page 177 Monday, October 29, 2001 6:59 PM
178 Advanced Quality Function Deployment Franceschini, F. and Terzago, M. (1998), An application of quality function deployment to
industrial training courses, Int. J. Qual. Reliability Manage., 15(7), 753–768. Gronroos, C. (1982), Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector, Swedish
School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsingfors.
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsuji, S. (1984), Attractive quality and must-be quality, J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control, 14(2), 39–48.
Saaty, T.L. (1990), Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions
in a Complex World, (rev. ed.), RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Urban, G.L. and Hauser, J.R. (1993), Design and Marketing of New Products, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
179
Index
A
Activity transaction-based methods, 13 Affinity diagrams, 37
Aggregation model of preferences, 83 Alternatives
MCDA, 98
technical, QFD developments, 134, 135 American Supplier Institute (ASI), 22 Analysis
design macroareas, 13 design process activities, 12 Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
method, 108
advantages and disadvantages of, 68–69
calculation of weights, 64–68 industrial training course service
quality characteristics, 168–170, 171, 176
principles of, 62–63
Applying quality function deployment,
see House of quality (HoQ) construction
Assembly, design for, 14
Associative techniques, brainstorming, 13 Attributes, evaluating importance of, 43 Automated design, 7
Automated workshop, 8 Automation
correlation matrix compilation, 118 IDCR, 111
manufacturing, 8
B
Benchmarking, 13, 26
based on perceived quality, 51 house of quality
on basis of perceived quality, 50–51 expected quality, 55, 57
quality function deployment, 32 service sector issues, 157
Bottega Rinascimentale (Renaissance Workshop), 4
Brainstorming, 8, 13, 36
Brain-writing tools, 8 Break-even analysis, 13
B-type quality attributes, 47, 48, 49
C
CAD/CAM/CAE, 7 Chart, quality, 21 Check methods, 27 Cluster analysis, 14, 37
Communicated (marketing) quality, service sector definitions, 142 Communications, quality function
deployment, 23–24
Communicative-persuasive channel, 3 Company communications, 23–24 Comparison matrix, industrial training
course service quality characteristics, 168–170, 171 Competition
QFD developments, 133 evaluation of, 17
Competitive analysis from customer point of view, 51
Competitiveness analysis, technical benchmarking, 55, 57 Competitor profile, 87, 88, 89 Complaints studies, 36
Computational considerations, IDCR, 114 Computer-aided x (CAx), 14, 16 Computerized workshop, 8
Conceptual model of quality-innovation interaction, 1–9
concepts, quality and innovation, 2–4 concurrent engineering, 5–7
lean and integrated systems (LIS), 4–9 lean production, 7–9
Conceptual model of service sector, 140–146 Concordance test IDCR, 109, 111, 112 MCDA, 99–100 Concurrent engineering, 4, 5–7 Configuration control, 14, 15, 16 Conformance, quality of, see Offered
quality
180 Advanced Quality Function Deployment
Conjoint analysis, 49
Consistency evaluation, AHP, 67–68 Consistency index, AHP, 68 Consumer specifications, 6 Context, service sector issues, 138 Control methods, 27
Control points, 27
Control-science perspective, innovation, 3–4
Co-occurrence matrix, 37
Correlation intensity, relationship matrix, 45–46
Correlation matrix
automatic generation of characteristics, 124
curriculum design example, 121–124, 57–58
house of quality construction, 57–58 house of quality supporting tools,
118–121 Cost analysis, 15 Cost-benefits analysis
design macroareas, 13
technical characteristics prioritization, 78
Cost deployment, 75–77
Costing, simplified model for, 75–77 Costs
design macroareas, 13 evaluation criteria, 84 Creative group methods, 13, 15 Criteria, MCDA, 98
Criteria weighting, 84
Critical part characteristics, 26 part deployment matrix, 26, 27 programmable logic controller design,
130
Critical process steps, 27 process planning matrix, 27
programmable logic controller design, 132–133
Cultural obstacles, LIS concepts, 4–5 Curriculum design example, 121–124 Customer information, company
communications circle and, 23–24
Customer input, industrial training course service, 177
Customer interaction, quality function deployment, 32
Customer-oriented design, 117 Customer perceptions
quality, see Perceived quality service sector issues, 138, 142 Customer ranking, technical design
characteristic weights, 108 Customer needs/desires/requirements
assigning levels of importance, 61–69 advantages and disadvantages of
AHP method, 68–69
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method, principles of, 62–63 calculation of weights, 64–68 house of quality, 27–30, 35–43
attributes, evaluating importance of, 43
customer needs and Kano's model, 46–48
expected quality table construction, 36–39
identification of customer, insiders and outsiders, 35–36
perceptions of quality, 40–43 prioritization of customer
requirements, 48–50 target values of expectations,
51–53
techniques to determine, 39–40 industrial training course, 163–166 prioritization of, 48–50
product planning matrix, 26 product technical characteristics, 46 programmable logic controller design,
129
quality function deployment, 23–24, 25 benefits, 32
concepts, 25–27 developments, 133, 134 problems with QFD table, 31 service sector issues, 138, 140–141,
142, 144 Customer satisfaction
design feature trade-offs, 95
industrial training course analysis, 166 Customer variability, service sector
issues, 138
D
Data, problems with QFD table, 31 Databases, 17
Decision making
customer requirements and, 61 multicriteria (MCDM), 14, 82, see also
Multiple criteria decision aid quality function deployment benefits,
31
Decision support system (DSS), 14, 15 AHP and, 69
group (GDSS), 8, 69, 117 Demanded quality chart, 37
house of quality, 27–28
industrial training course, 166–167, 168–170
Index 181
Departmentalization, and quality function deployment, 30–31
Dependence matrix
correlation matrix compilation, 119 curriculum design example, 121–122 Dependencies, technical characteristics,
120–121
Deployment, quality function, see Quality function deployment
Deployment of costs, 75–77 Design
interactive design characteristics ranking algorithm, 107–114 supporting tools, relationship maps,
14–17 work team, 30
Design challenges management, 12 Design change management, 15, 16 Design characteristics prioritization, see
Prioritization of technical and engineering design characteris- tics
Design contraction, concurrent engineer- ing, 5–7
Design for assembly, 14 Design for logistics (DFL), 14 Design for manufacturing (DFM), 14 Design for x (DFx), 14
Design of experiment (DOE), 14 Design parameters optimization, 15, 16 Design qualification, 15, 16, 17 Design quality, tools and supporting
techniques, see Tools and supporting techniques Design review, 14, 15, 16
design activity-supporting tool relationship map, 15, 16 design process activities, 12
programmable logic controller design, 133
Design specifications, quality function deployment, 24
Development cycle, quality function deployment benefits, 31 Discounted cash flow, 13 Documentation
design process, 12
quality function deployment benefits, 32
Documentation management, 14, 15 Dynamicity, quality characteristics, 95
E
Economical investments analysis, design macroareas, 13
Economic and organizational perspective, reduction of time to market, 11
Economic risk assessment, 13 Effort required, 77
ELECTRE II method, 87, 102–103, 109–114
Engineering concurrent, 5–7
design activity-supporting tool relationship map, 15, 16 design process activities, 12 Engineering, concurrent, 4
Engineering analysis, quantitative, 117 Engineering channel, 3
Engineering characteristics (ECs), prod- uct technical characteristics, 44–45
Engineering design characteristics prioritization, see Prioritization of technical and engineering design characteristics E-type quality attributes, 47, 48, 49 Evaluation methods, 14
Expected quality, 2, 3, 4 house of quality, 46–53
benchmarking on basis of perceived quality, 50–51
customer needs and Kano's model, 46–48
prioritization of customer requirements, 48–50 target values of expectations,
51–53 service sector
definitions, 140
determinants of quality, 146–148 PZB model, 143, 144
Expected quality table construction, 36–39
Experimental design tools, 14
Expert, industrial training course, 164, 165
External design, 12, 15, 16, 17
F
Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA/FMECA), 14, 16 Fault tree analysis (FTA), 14, 16 Features definition, 15, 16 Feedback loops, innovation, 3–4 Financial analysis methods/investments
(FAM/I), 15 Flow diagrams, 13
Forced association techniques, 13 Ford Motor Company, 22 Forecasting analysis, 13 Free association techniques, 13 Fuji Xerox Ltd., 22
Functional analysis, 15, 16