6rawabdeh QFD PAPER - Innovation

A THREE-DIMENSION MODEL FOR QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh
Industrial Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering and technology, University of J ordan
J ordan
E-mail : rawabdeh@ju.edu.jo

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a model that integrates
innovation in a product development process using
Quality Function Deployment. A model entitle 3D-
QFD is suggested to help manufacturing companies
to track their progress towards more profitability
and more customer satisfaction by integrating, in
addition to the WHATS and HOWS dimensions,
a third dimension that represents innovation. An
implementation of the model was conducted on a new
product development process in a manufacturing
company that produces solar collectors. The results
showed a significant improvement in the product
design aspects and its process for the selected
requirements.

KEYWORDS
Quality Function Deployment, 3D-QFD, Innovation,
Customer Satisfaction, Product Design
1. INTRODUCTION
Today, the level of success of companies in global
economy are measured by their ability to efficiently
design, develop and manufacturing products that will
be preferred by customers over those offered by
competitors. There is a need to deliver product
designs that meet these customer needs while making
the designs manufacturable at a competitive cost
within very short time frames. One well known
design and development technique that aids in this
effort is the Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
technique. QFD provides a structured framework to
ensure that the Voice of the Customer (VOC) is
incorporated into all phases of product development
process. QFD continues to be a popular tool and has
been referred to as one of the most useful
techniques in total quality management (Cristiano et
al., 2001).
QFD is a customer driven, forwardthinking and
action oriented market positioning and strategic
planning technique, used for product development,
business development, organizational improvement
and a rang of other applications (Bossert, 1991). It is
a step-by-step deployment of a job function or
operation that embodies quality, into their details
through systematization of targets and means (Akao,
1997). QFD focuses on investing in people and
information and uses cross-functional teams to
determine customer requirements and to translate
them into product designs and specifications through
highly structured and well-documented methods. It
enables an organization to measure customer wants
and map them against the engineering how for
each stage of product development in a way that
highlights trade-offs and drives the products design
towards customer requirements ((Vonderembse and
Raghunathan, 1997). Products designed with QFD
may have lower production cost, shorter
development time, and higher quality than products
developed without QFD (Bossert, 1991).
Customers perceptions about products are changing
so rabidly due to intense international competition.
There is a strong pressure on the manufacturing
companies to compete about their products for the
reason that customers looking for being delighted.
From this point of view a new role of QFD needs to
be introduced in revolutionizing the product under
consideration and not only improving its quality.
Literature shows that QFD could be a product
innovating tool or as starting point for defining
design requirements followed by integrating them,
but it does not give a complete integrated method in
promoting the innovative designs for products within
organization constraints. This paper presents the
development of a new concept for QFD for
developing new product by adding innovative aspects
for both mechanisms and functions of the product
within an achievable range. The innovation
dimension is consider as a third dimension (in
addition to WHATs and HOWS dimensions) so that
the model is named a three-dimension QFD.

Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering,
October 20-23, 2007, Alexandria, Egypt, edited by M. H. Elwany, A. B. Eltawil
1690

2. BACKGROUND

Based on the fact that leadership in the global
marketplace relates to the organizations those meet
or exceed customer requirements, organizations
should focus on what is wrong with their existing
products and try to understand what the customer
really wants (Bouchereau and Rowlands, 2000;
Kathawala and Motwani, 1994). QFD takes the VOC
from the beginning of product development and
deploys it throughout the firm. Through QFD, the
VOC aligns the companys resources to focus on
maximizing customer satisfaction. Zairi and Youssef
(1995) reported that QFD has three fundamental
objectives: to identify the customer; to identify what
the customer wants; and how to fulfill customers
wants. Whether QFD is viewed as a process, a
method, a system, or even a philosophy, it ensures
that customer requirements are integrated into new
products as early as the design stage.

It is known that in addition to "stated" or "spoken"
customer needs, "unstated" or "unspoken" needs or
opportunities should be identified. Needs that are
assumed by customers and, therefore not verbalized,
can be identified through preparation of a function
tree. These needs normally are not included in the
QFD matrix, unless it is important to maintain focus
on one or more of these needs. Excitement
opportunities (new capabilities or unspoken needs
that will cause customer excitement) are identified
through the voice of the engineer, marketing, or
customer support representative. These can also be
identified by observing customers use or maintain
products and recognizing opportunities for
improvement (www.npd-solutions.com/qfdsteps.htm)

2.1. Why we are searching for a new
improvement for QFD?
Increasing demand for quality by customers has
caused more and more companies to realize that they
have to provide quality products to compete in
market successfully. Even though QFD is known to
be a powerful tool that assures the quality of the
product before designing it, however, the needs and
wants of customers can change quickly nowadays.
Unlike conventional quality, innovative quality
creates new products that surprise and delight
customers and they are always waiting for surprising
products with new ideas and values. Additionally, no
one can specify that something is innovation before it
is applied and implemented. This makes it a
challenge for companies to make their developing
effort from the beginning to be innovational. Hence,
the value added by innovation appears from the
interaction between product and customers. It will be
more effective to start from customers and specify
their expectations about value to reach innovation.
Several researchers have enumerated the limitations
of QFD and many of them have brought out either
extended or modified models of QFD. In order to
overcome these difficulties, Devadasan et al., (2006)
adopted an improved model of QFD called Total
Quality Function Deployment (TQFD). Another trial
to minimize the QFD limitation was made by Kumar
et al. (2006) by demonstrating that the integration of
QFD and benchmarking is synergistic and vital to a
companys strategic and financial superiority.
To integrate innovation, a direct interrelationship
between customers' requirements and trend designs
options and evaluate the value of each mechanism
from customer perspective needs to be developed. To
a certain extent, companies are suffering from the
lack of good allocation of resources and deciding
what would be achievable for new designs stages and
what is needed to develop a product in a creative way
within available resources. The proposed new
dimension of QFD is working to assure that the new
innovative products are feasible for the company and
beneficial to the customers and acts as a linkage
between the two sides and integrates a level of
innovation and value added.
2.2. Innovation as a third dimension for
the QFD technique
Innovation is defined as a successful exploitation of
new ideas to increase customer value or create wealth
for a company. The result of that process is to meet
the explicit or implied needs of current or potential
customers. In other words, through innovation the
company seeks to deliver unique new value to its
customers (www.ceoforum.com.au).
Literature on innovation spreads over a broad and
diverse range of approaches, reflecting its
multidisciplinary nature, depending on field of study
and perspective. In general, innovation is viewed as
the interplay between technological, economic and
social development (MacNulty, 1992). In order to
determine the characteristics of an innovative
product, one has to understand what the difference is
between a new product and the products that existed
before. The difference between two different states
1691

will always be measurable or perceivable. It could be
an increase in performance, a new function or a
completely new product that allows the user to do
something in a new or better way. The level of
novelty will vary depending, not just on new to the
world but, on how new it is perceived by the adopter
of the product. Also, as innovation may be with
respect simply to past achievements of the innovator
or to the (local) market or to the world frontier. In the
first two cases, it is possible to obtain the innovation
just by imitating world-class practice (Piana, 2003).
It is possible to define three levels of innovation
based on the degree of newness and the degree of
value added. These three levels are: incremental
innovation, substantial innovation, and radical
innovation. Incremental innovation is unlikely to
provide a dramatic change in business performance.
However, sustained innovation in this area is
required to fuel continuous improvement in both
product and process-related aspects of a business.
Substantial innovation provides greater opportunity
to value-add as it engenders the creation of business
opportunities that are likely to lead the industry and
provide a competitive advantage to the company
developing them. Radical innovation can turn an
industry on its head, creating new bases of
performance, new competitors and new business
models. Radical innovation often comes from outside
an industry and is frequently technology based. It is
ahe result of long R&D exercises
(www.ceoforum.com.au).

Figure 1: Relationships between the Three-
dimension QFD Model

The developed 3D-QFD model consists of the
following components (see Figure 2): Product
Planning Matrix, Innovation Deployment Matrices
(Trends Selection Matrix and Mechanisms Selection
Matrix) and Concept Selection Matrix.
3.1. Product Planning Matrix

The following steps show the product planning
matrix as a first step for developing the 3D-QFD
model.
1. Define the potential customer and decide who
may have interest in the product under
consideration.
2. Gather the "WHATS" (r
i
where i =1 to n
customer requirement).
The 3D-QFD model focuses on substantial value
adding innovation but with a systematic approach to
a new product development which utilizes the effort
of both true innovation and the more minimal
imitation by similar product or technologies that have
already been introduced to the market.
3. THE 3D-QFD MODEL
The developed model is called a three-dimension
QFD (3D-QFD) that integrates the relationship
between the customer requirements and product
design requirements (HOWS & WHATS) with
innovation aspects of products. Through the product
global trends, the WHATS can be satisfied, and the
related satisfying HOWS of these trends will be
selected within the scope of the available recourses
and at the same time it must be innovative (See
Figure 1). Figure 2: Three-Dimension QFD Model

3. Prioritize the customers requirements and
determine the rate of importance (m) for each
i

1692

1. Gather all new trends in technological changes
by using environmental scanning from leader
companies or customer usage experience (n
customer requirement by using a ranking
technique (1-4 rating).
4. Benchmark of prior generation of the product
and competitive products for each customer
requirement. Rate the companys and the
competitors products on a 1 to 4 scale.
).
k
2. Determine the relationship matrix between
customer requirements and new trends by
determining how each trend can satisfy the
exciting requirements of customers (P1 5. Evaluate the sales points (Si) and determine
which products attributes have more important
effect on marketing and image of the product.
ik
).
3. Calculate the relative weight for new trends as in
the following:
6. Calculate the relative weight for customer
requirements (Wr):
= =
=
=
n
i
l
k
ik i r
n
i
ik i r
k n
p r w
p r w
n w
1 1
1
1 * ) (
1 * ) (
) (
=
=
n
i
i i
i i
i r
s m
s m
r w
1
*
*
) (
(4)
(1)

4. Estimate the cost of the new trends (TC) then
calculate the Relative Cost in relation to existing
product cost (PC):
7. Determine the technical requirements "HOWS"
by analyzing how to achieve the VOC (dj).
8. Correlate the interrelationship between technical
requirements.
PC
TC
RC = (5)
HOWS and WHATS (i.e. 9 strong 3 medium
1 weak). These relationships define the degree to
which as product requirements or technical
characteristics satisfy the customer needs (P1
5. Calculate the estimation of value added to the
product of the new trends by considering the
trend weight as performance measure relative to
customer needs fulfillment process.
ij
).
10. Calculate importance rate (m
RC
n w k n ) ( j
) and the weight of
each technical requirement (Wd):
Value added (A
=
=
n
i
ij p ri wr mj
1
1 * ) (
(2)

=
= =
=
n
i
m
j
ij i r
ij i r
n
i
j
p r w
p r w
d wd
1 1
1
1 * ) (
1 * ) (
) ( (3)
11. Establish engineering performance levels or
target values for each requirement for the product
to obtain the substantial innovation for one or
more key product attributes (Tj).
12. Perform technical evaluation of the existing
product against competitive products.
13. Estimate the cost to achieve the engineering
(design) requirement.
14. Determine the critical engineering requirements
according to the weights and poor performance
of the current product.
3.2. Innovation Deployment Matrices
a) Trends selection matrix
The following steps illustrate the development of the
trend selection matrix as a first step to identify the
innovation aspects of a specified product.
nk
) = (6)
6. Determine the number of exciting customer
requirements satisfied by each trend "Delighting
factor" (Dk).
7. Calculate value given by technological
innovation of each trend (Pt) (the ratio of the
increment of the quality by technological
innovation of trend) to the quality increment
achievable by prevailing technologies (E). As the
expected performance accomplished by
satisfying all the engineering requirements at
level of (9), then
E
n w k n ) (
E
Pt
Innovation Trend = = , and
E
w cp
E
Pc
Current Innovation Trend = = (7)
Then the valu given by the technological innovation
(V
nk
) is
cp
cp k n
w E
w n w
) (
(V
nk
) = (8)
To evaluate the effect of technological innovation for
each trend, an evaluation index is proposed:

Innovation effect index (IEI) =V
nk
*A
nk
*D (9)
k

1693

b) Mechanisms Selection Matrix 9. Calculate value given by technological
innovation (Vsk) of each mechanism (the ratio of
the increment of the achievable value by
technological innovation of mechanism to the
increment achievable value by prevailing
technologies.
The selection process of the highly value adding and
innovation mechanisms are illustrated by the
following steps:
1. Gather all mechanisms and technologies used to
achieve the engineering requirements.
2. Identify the previous product design values for
each technical requirement to address the level of
innovation.
c
c k s
w
w s w ) (
(V
engineering requirements and mechanisms by
how each mechanism can achieve a technological
improvement to each engineering requirement
(p1
jk
). The larger the values of (p1
jk)
are, the
higher the degree that technical performance to
mechanism S
k
contributes towards improving
engineering characteristic d
j
.
4. Calculate the relative weight for new
mechanisms (W
s
(sk)):

=
= =
=
m
j
h
k
jk j d
m
j
jk j d
k s
p d w
p d w
s w
1 1
1
1 * ) (
1 * ) (
) ( (10)

(11)

5. Specify the number of correlations between
technical requirements solved by each
mechanism "solution factor" (SF).
6. Determine the correlations between mechanisms
to define which pair of mechanisms
complementing each other. A + sign means
positive interaction, otherwise the - sign is for
negative interaction.
7. Estimate the cost of the new mechanisms(SC)
then calculate the Relative Cost (RC) as it adds to
the Product cost (PC):

PC
SC
RC = (12)
8. Calculate the mechanism value added to the
product.
Value added (A
sk
) =
RC
s w k s ) (
(13)
sk
) = (14)
10. Evaluate the effect of technological innovation
by the innovation effect index (IEI) as follows:

I E I =V
sk
* A
sk
*S
k
(15)
3.3. Concept Selection Matrix

The following steps illustrate the development of the
concept selection matrix.
1. Select the most innovative trends and the related
mechanisms which have high innovation index to
obtain a concept value (C).
i
2. Complete the relationship matrix between the
concept and the design requirement to be (P2
ij
).
3. Evaluate the relative weight for each concept
(W) using relationship between concepts (B
c ij
):

=
= =
= =
=
=
= =
=
m
j
l
k
jk
n
i
m
j
ij i
n
i
j i
m
j
jk
n
i
m
j
ij i
n
i
ij i
k s
P
P r w
i p r w
P
P r w
P r w
s w
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1 *
1 * ) (
1 * ) (
1 *
1 * ) (
1 * ) (
) (
= =
=
=
n
i
m
j
ij j d
m
j
ij j d
i c
B d w
B d w
c w
1
1
* ) (
* ) (
) (
(16)

4. Calculate the level of innovation for each design
requirement by quality estimated characteristic
(d ) and calculated one (d
je jc
), so the value given
to each quality characteristic is:

T d
T d
d v
jc
je
j
= 1 ) (
(17)

Then the
innovation effect index for each concept can be
calculated as (where E is used as a parameter to
evaluate the effect of technological added
innovation):
=
=
l
j
j i c i d v c w c E
1
) ( * ) ( ) ( (18)
5. Find the relationship between product concepts
and available resources in the company (f
ik
).
Through adding the improvement rate (H
zx
) a
company can reach, the achievability factor to
each
concep
t can
be calculated as:
=
+ =
q
k
i c ik zk i c w f H X
1
) ( * * ) 1 (

1694

(19)

This means the most achievable and important
concept by current resources will have the higher
achievability level. At this stage, a decision can be
made about the preferred concept to be
manufactured, which will be valuable for the
customer and the company.

4. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

This model has been implemented for developing a
new design for a solar collector in a sheet metal
manufacturing company that produced high quality
products such as electric heaters, air conditions, and
gas water heaters. A multi-functional team was
formulated so as to determine all the needed data.
The data gathering process is achieved through a
customer survey, focus groups, experts' interviews,
product description brochures, and technical product
specification sheets of several competitors. Several
technical discussion sessions have been conducted so
as to fill the required matrices. The results obtained
are tabulated in the following five matrixes: product
planning matrix, Trend selection matrix, Mechanisms
selection matrix, Concept selection matrix and
Concept achievability matrix.

In the product planning matrix (Figure 3), the most
important design requirements that satisfy 80% and
above of the customer requirements are selected.
They are presented as follow with a descending
order:

1. Over all Size of
component
2. Size of panels

3. Winter efficiency

4. Ability to absorb
radiation
5. Absorptivity /area

6. Operation time in
summer
7. Antifreeze system

8. Insulation
effectiveness
9. Utilities suitable for
integrability
10. Cost effective
11. Insulation
thickness for
tank
12. Tracking the sun

13. Tank volume

14. Meet standards
and specs
15. Temperature
control
16. Purchasing cost 17. Tank Temperature

Therefore, these design requirements must be
considered to be satisfied in the concepts
development. In addition, this matrix gives an
indication about the position of companys product
with respect to the market. So, the weakest points for
their current product in satisfying the engineering
requirements are: Winter efficiency, Antifreeze
system, Tracking the sun, Cost effective and Tank
Temperature.
Based on the collected data, the solar collector trends
were identified and the relative weight, relative cost,
value added, value of technological innovation,
delighting factor and innovation effect index for the
new trends were calculated. The first three ones
(Water-in-glass, Low flow rate system and the
Parabolic trough system) that have the highest IEI
values were taken to be the accredited ones (See
Figure 4). Then these trends were translated into
mechanisms to deliver the technical characteristics
for the enhanced concepts of a solar collector.

More mechanisms were considered to support the
concepts development and to capture most new ones
added to the collector. After performing the
calculations, the following mechanisms have
obtained the highest score:
1. Stationary reflectors (4.89)
2. Parabolic trough concentrating (3.86)
3. Evacuated tubes (0.44)
4. Low flow concept (0.29)
5. Tracking panels (0.15)
6. Integrated storage and collector (0.1)
7. Horizontal water tank (0.056)
8. Drain back system (0.02 )

From the listed mechanisms and innovative trends,
three new concepts were suggested for the new
collector. The suggested concepts developed by the
integration between the mechanisms and the trends
that have the highest innovation index. The selected
concepts are:
1) Concept 1: Flat collector consists of tubes in
serpentine pattern. Using stationary reflectors
and parabolic trough concentrators at the bottom
and the upper loop to increase winter
performance for the system. Also the system
combined with horizontal tank to decrease the
system size and heat losses.
2) Concept 2: This concept uses evacuated tubes
for increasing the energy absorption utilization
and decrease the size of system. It has a
horizontal tank to minimize the manufacturing
cost and increase the tank volume.
3) Concept 3: It is based on having a collector /tank
connection system that uses heat exchanger in
serpentine pattern around the tank. Also it
consists of transparent bottom surface that
enables sunlight to be absorbed both within the
water body and at the bottom of the tank.
1695

From the out put calculations the most innovative
concept was the evacuated tube model with E equal
(-3.21). However it has a minus innovation index
value because it has the highest cost with respect to
the existing products. This cost also can be decreased
with another cost effective alternative mechanisms
that can achieve the same function. The next concept
was the integrated model, its E value is -1.99, while
the direct model concept takes the lowest innovation
degree as (-1.48). The achievability matrix indicates
that concept 3 has the highest achievability level by
the current level with improvements capability for
the companys resources. So achievability level was
(14.46). Although the evacuated tubes concept is the
most innovative, the resources constraints are
limiting the manufacturing practicality of that
concept to be approved. This modified new product
concept is compatible with the companys resources
and capabilities and also compatible with perceptions
of the customers.

5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we demonstrated the successful
development and implementation of a new quality
function deployment technique named three-
dimension QFD. The systematic way of the concept
of the model for developing a new product that is
based on integrating innovation aspects as a third
dimension (in addition to the relationships between
the customer requirements and product design
requirements (WHATS & HOWS)) proofs to be
practical. The concept of 3D-QFD gives an
applicable and realistic results for the case
implemented. The level of technological innovation
represented as a new dimension in the suggested
model gives a powerful edging for the traditional
QFD by making 3D-analysis which may verify the
best outcome with a more systematic approach. The
model shows that it can add value by promoting the
conventional QFD through introducing different
types of matrices that complement the conventional
QFD. The result shows that integration between
quality design in product and innovativeness through
the recommended procedure gives strong quantitative
measures for the qualitative aspects such as
delighting. The new set of matrices that simplify the
integration of the third dimension in the traditional
QFD approach (The House of quality, Trend
selection matrix, Mechanisms selection matrix,
Concept selection matrix and Concept achievability
matrix) are considered as a new addition to the
traditional QFD.

REFERENCES

Akao, Y., 1990, Quality Function Deployment: Integrating
Customer Requirements into Product Design,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bouchereau V., Rowlands H., 2000, Methods and
techniques to help quality function deployment (QFD),
Benchmarking: An International J ournal, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp. 8-19.
Cristiano J .J ., Liker J .K., and White C.C, III, Fellow,
IEEE, 2001, Key Factors in The Successful
Application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD),
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, VOL.
48, NO. 1, pp.81- 95.
Da Silva F. ,Cavalca K. , Dedini F. , 2004, Quality and
Reliability Corner :Combined application of QFD and
VA tools in the product design process, International
J ournal of Quality & Reliability Management ,Vol. 21,
No. 2 ,pp. 231-252.
Kathawala Y., Motwani J ., 1994, Implementing Quality
Function Deployment A Systems Approach, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.31-35.
Kumar A., Antony J ., Dhakar T. S., 2006, Integrating
quality function deployment and benchmarking to
achieve greater profitability, Benchmarking: An
International J ournal, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 290-310.
Morrison G., Solar Water Heating in Australia, School
of Mechanical Engineering, University of New South
Wales.
Shen X.X., Tan, K.C. and , Xie, M. 2000, An integrated
approach to innovative product development using
Kano's model and QFD, European Journal of
Innovation Management , Vol. 3 . ,No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Tan A., McAloone T. C., 2006, Understanding and
Developing Innovative Products and services: The
Essential Elements, International Design Conference -
DESIGN 2006, pp 1.
Vinodh, S. and Devadasan S.R., 2006 Design and
implementation study of innovative total quality
function deployment and its financial accounting
system, Int. J . Business Innovation Research, Vol. 1,
Nos. 1/2,
Vonderembse M. A., Raghunathan T. S., 1997, Quality
function deployments impact on product development,
International J ournal of Quality Science, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 253-271.
Walker M., 2002, Customer driven breakthrough using
QFD and policy deployment , Management Decision ,
Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.248-256.
Zairi M. , Youssef M. A., 1995, Quality function
deployment A main pillar for successful total quality
management and product development, International
1696

J ournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12,
No. 6, pp. 9-23.
Piana, V. (2003), Innovation, http://www.economicswebinstitute.org .
http://www.npd-solutions.com/qfd.html
http://www.ceoforum.com.au/
1697

9
`

Figure 3: Product planning matrix (House of Quality) for solar water heater

R
a
t
e

o
f

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

T
a
n
k
s

v
o
l
u
m
e

O
v
e
r

a
l
l

S
i
z
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

W
i
n
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

A
n
t
i
f
r
e
e
z
e

s
y
s
t
e
m

I
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

f
o
r

t
a
n
k

M
e
e
t

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

a
n
d

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

s

S
t
e
p
s

a
n
d

t
i
m
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

O
u
t

l
e
t

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

f
o
r

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

c
o
s
t

T
e
m
p
.

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
v
i
t
y
/
a
r
e
a

T
a
n
k

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

w
e
i
g
h
t

O
u
r

B
r
a
n
d

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
1

(
N
U
R
)

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
2

(
S
H
A
H
R
O
U
R
I
)

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
3

(
H
A
N
A
N
I
A
)

S
a
l
e
s

p
o
i
n
t

1 2 3 5 7 10 11 1 13 1 2 22 24 26 1 2 3 4
Direction of improvement
Performance Quick heating 1 3.70 3 3 1 9 0.04 3 4 2 3 1.5
No. of panels 4 3.00 9 9 3 1 1 1 9 3 0.03 2 2 4 2 1
Unfreeze in winter 7 3.52 1 9 1 1 1 0.03 1 5 1 1 1.2 Features
Volume of water heated/hr 10 3.48 9 3 3 3 3 3 0.04 4 2 3 4 1
Durability Last an extended period of 12 3.58 3 1 1 0.04 5 _ 4 3 1
Reliability Weather proof 14 3.12 1 9 1 1 3 0.03 4 4 4 5 1
Service Easy to maintain 15 2.55 1 1 9 1 1 1 0.02 4 4 4 4 1
Price Be affordable 16 2.88 1 1 1 1 1 9 0.03 3 4 3 3 1.2
Make integral insulation 22 3.29 1 3 1 1 3 0.03 3 3 3 3 1
Easy & Automatic 23 3.43 3 3 9 3 0.03 1 3 3 1 1.2
Exciting
Requirements
Looks good 25 2.27 3 3 1 1 1 1 0.02 2 2 4 2 1.2
Relative weight(*0.001)
3
5
74

65

50

41

32

19

2
0
45

16

2
8
30

60

28

Cost
6
0
380 + 100 20 + 20 + 100 50
38
0
80 + +
1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 1
3 2 4 3 3 3 1 1 4 3 4 1 3 4 3
Technical benchmarking
4 2 3 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 3 1 2 1

Selected Whats and Hows
1698

Figure 4: Trends selection matrix for solar water heater
A
c
t
i
v
e

c
l
o
s
e
d

l
o
o
p

s
y
s
t
e
m

P
a
s
s
i
v
e

s
o
l
a
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

W
a
t
e
r
-
i
n
-
G
l
a
s
s

D
e
s
i
g
n

L
o
w

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

s
y
s
t
e
m

S
u
n

t
r
a
c
k
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

P
a
r
a
b
o
l
i
c

t
r
o
u
g
h

s
y
s
t
e
m
H
o
t

H
a
r
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m

A
c
t
i
v
e

o
p
e
n

l
o
o
p

s
y
s
t
e
m

(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
)

I
d
e
a
l

s
o
l
a
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

w
e
i
g
h
t

S
a
l
e
s

p
o
i
n
t

Quick heating
1

0.049 1.2
Performance
Use high technology
3 0.034 1
Maximize Temperature
5 0.040 1
Unfreeze in winter
7 0.039 1
Features
Can be integrated with
existing water heater
8

0.040 1.2
Durability
Last an extended period of
time
12

0.040 1
Conformance

Meet national &
international
13

0.035 1
Reliability
Weather proof
14 0.035 1
Service
Easy to maintain
15 0.028 1
Price
Be affordable
16 0.032 1
Design total solar system
for buildings
17 0.046 1.2
Minimize size of solar by
increase material
18 0.043 1.2
Make integral insulation
22
0.037 1

E
x
c
i
t
i
n
g

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

Looks good
25 0.025 1
Importance rate 4.018 3.068 6.042 6.715 3.806 4.764 3.683 4.315 8.973
Relative weight 0.0885 0.0676 0.1331 0.1479 0.0838 0.1049 0.0811 0.0950 0.1977
Cost 650 200 500 1100 700 1000 600 420
Relative cost 1.5476 0.4762 1.1905 2.6190 1.6667 2.3810 1.4286 1.0000
Value added 0.0572 0.1420 0.1118 0.0565 0.0503 0.0441 0.0568 0.0951
Delighting factor
1.1 1 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.2 1 1.2
Innovation index -0.0040 -0.0380 0.0498 0.0437 -0.0060 0.0051 -0.0077 0.0000
1699

11

Figure 5: Mechanisms Selection Matrix for solar water heater

R
a
t
e

o
f

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

T
a
n
k

v
o
l
u
m
e

O
v
e
r

a
l
l

S
i
z
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

W
i
n
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

A
n
t
i
f
r
e
e
z
e

s
y
s
t
e
m

M
e
e
t

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

a
n
d

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

S
t
e
p
s

a
n
d

t
i
m
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

O
u
t

l
e
t

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

f
o
r

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

c
o
s
t

T
e
m
p
.

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
v
i
t
y
/
a
r
e
a

T
a
n
k

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

w
e
i
g
h
t

V
a
l
u
e

a
d
d
e
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
d
e
x

1 2 3 5 10 11 12 13 16 20 22
2
4
26
Direction of

FLow tubes in
parallel pattern
1
0.41

0.02
8
0.05
3
1.2 0.022
Flow tubes in
serpentine pattern
2
0.63

0.04
3
0.06
7
1 0.0002
Thermosyphoning
4
0.62

0.04
3
0.04
6
1.1 0.0004
Drain Back System
(pump)
5
0.80

0.05
5
0.06
6
1.1 0.02
Integrated storage
and collector
7
1.35

0.09
3
0.07
5
1.1 0.01
Evacuated tubes 8
1.90
0.130 0.121 1.8 0.44
Stationary
Reflectors
9
1.76
0.121 1.694 1.6 4.89
Parabolic trough
concentrating
1
0 2.05
0.138 1.159 1.5 3.86
Horizontal water
tank
11
0.83

0.05
7
0.160 1.1 0.06
Low flow concept.
1
4 1.56
0.107 0.128 1.5 0.29
Tracking panels
1
5 1.31

0.09
0
0.09
7
1.4 0.15
Relative weight (*100) 35 74 56 50 32 10 20 45 16 28 30 60 28
Target values 280 3.75 70%
100
%
100
%
0 70
100
%
full 350 Full
5.6
/m
70
Basic values 180 7.5 30 0 100 60/5 65 50 0 380 0 3.4 70
1700

12
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

w
e
i
g
h
t

V
a
l
u
e

w
i
t
h

C
2

V
a
l
u
e

w
i
t
h

C
3

V
a
l
u
e

w
i
t
h

C
1

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

T
a
r
g
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

Concept Concept Concept
3
B
a
s
e

v
a
l
u
e

1 2
Tank volume 1 0.035 280 280 200 180 180
Over all Size of components 2 0.074 3.75 3*3 1.5*2.5 2*2.5 7.5
Winter efficiency 3 0.065 70% 50% 70% 45% 30%
4 0.065 100% 45% 70% 40% Ability to absorb radiation

Antifreeze system 5 0.050 5 3 5 4 3
Operation time in summer 6 0.052 0.5 1.5 1 1.5 2
Insulation thickness for tank 7 0.041 3 5 4 3 6

Figure 6: Concept Selection Matrix for solar water heater

Insulation effectiveness for tank 8 0.046 100% 80% 80%
70%
80%

0.75*1.7
5
0.75*1.
5
0.75*1.7
5
0.75*1.2
5
Size of panels 9 0.074 1.75*0.75
Meet standards and specifications 10 0.032 100% 70% 40% 50% 80%
utilities suitable for integrability 11 0.045 100% 50%
Tracking the sun 12 0.038 100% 90% 80% 75% 0
Cost effective 13 0.042 100% 60%
manufacturing cost 14 0.028 350 600 650 600 380
Temp. control 15 0.030 0
Absorptivity/area 16 0.060 100% 3.4
Tank Temp. 17 0.028 70 70
Relative weight 0.223 0.501 0.277
Value Added -6.63 -6.41 -7.23
Innovation index -1.48 -3.21 -1.99
1701

13

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

r
a
t
i
o

Concept Concept Concept

1 2 3
B
a
s
e

v
a
l
u
e

Human resources 75 10%
1

Machines and equipment 90% 30%
2

Raw materials 90% 1%
3

6*10^3
m
2
4
Layout space 30%

Material handling 75 % 0.00
5

Investment 50% 30%
6

Technology 40% 5%
7

Relative weight 0.223 0.501 0.277

Achievability level
14.47 12.60 5.43

Figure 11: Concept Achievability matrix for solar water heater

1702

6rawabdeh QFD PAPER - Innovation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

6rawabdeh QFD PAPER - Innovation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A THREE-DIMENSION MODEL FOR QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi