MASTER THESIS

By Fantahun Getie
INTEGRATION OF QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT, FUNCTIONAL
ANALYSIS AND FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS IN CONCEPTUAL
PRODUCT DESIGN PROCESS
(A case of Bahir Dar Polytechnic College)

Bahir Dar Institute of Technology

Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Postgraduate Program

in Industrial Engineering (Production Engineering and Management)

October, 2015

Fantahun Getie

INTEGRATION OF QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT, FUNCTIONAL

ANALYSIS DIAGRAM AND FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS IN
CONCEPTUAL PRODUCT DESIGN PROCESS
(A case of Bahir Dar Polytechnic College)

MASTER THESIS

A thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Masters of Science in Industrial
Engineering (Production Engineering and Management)
Presented to the Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Bahir Dar Institute of Technology,
Bahir Dar University
Supervised by: Dr. Sisay Geremew

Bahir Dar University

Bahir Dar-Ethiopia
2015

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in this thesis entitled Integration of Quality
Function Deployment, Function Analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in Conceptual
Design Process is original work of my own, has not been presented for a degree of any other University
and all the resource of materials used for this thesis have been appropriately acknowledged.
_____________________________
Signature
Fantahun Getie
Name of the student
______________________________
Date
This is to certify the above declaration made by the candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge
_____________________
Dr. Sisay Geremew

Date

Approved by Board of Examiners

___________________

Faculty Dean

___________________

Advisor

___________________

External Examiner

___________________
Internal Examiner

______________

Signature

_______________

Signature

_______________

Signature

_______________
Signature

_____________

Date

_____________

Date

_____________

Date

_____________
Date

ABSTRACT
Conceptual design process, which can be represented by three key elements: requirement, function, and
component, has a great impact on the overall product development success. In Bahir Dar Polytechnic
College more than half of technologies failed (about 323,400 ETB loss) to pass the product test due to
poor conceptual design methodology practiced by the college. The methodology does not help to make
requirement, function and failure analysis during design process. However, there were the most practical
design methods, which are Quality Function Deployment, Function Analysis Diagram and Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis, that would be useful to analyze and determine significant requirements, important
functions and potential component failures respectively and then to improve the product design
methodology of the college if these methods had been implemented. If so, the question is how to
systematically utilize the proactive methods in conceptual design process? Having these, the aim of this
study is to improve the design methodology through integration of proactive methods with basic
elements of design process. To do so, college report is reviewed and questions in mind to know the
passed and failed products(from 24 population size); discussion has been made to know the colleges
product development process; assess the root causes; Pareto analysis has been made to prioritize the
causes, and literature is reviewed to determine key elements of design process and proactive methods.
Four scenarios are proposed and after what if analysis, integration of Quality Function Deployment,
Function Analysis Diagram and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis along the design process, which is the
core finding of the study that fills the research gap, is selected and its methodical procedure is developed
to complete the proposed methodology and then plough was taken as a sample to demonstrate and verify
the methodology. After analyzing QFD for plough pulling force requirement (19%), ploughing width
(10.6%) and weight (9.2%) has got the first, second and third priority respectively. From FAD analysis
18 useful and 7 harmful interactions were found. After improving FMEA, the risk is reduced by 62%
(reduction of Risk Priority Number (RPN) value from 350 to 216). Among 14 components wooden pin,
wing and neck holders with 216, 210 and 192 RPN values, are identified as the first, second and third
riskiest components respectively. The methodology verification enhances the knowledge and clarifies
the application of the methods. Finally, the methodology is validated through comparison of related
studies. The researcher strongly recommends the college to use and apply scientific methods such as
QFD, FAD, and FMEA in the product development process. Finally, conceptual design stage must not
be missed and must be given high attention in the college.
Key words: Conceptual Design, Quality Function Deployment, Function Analysis Diagram, Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis, Bahir Dar Polytechnic College, oxen pulled plough
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I want to thank God for all the extra energy he gave me in the thesis working period. It is not
exaggeration to state that without insisting the Almighty God, Jesus Christ, would not have been in a
position to accomplish this thesis paper successfully. So, Glory to him.
I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to my advisor Dr. Sisay Geremew and to
production engineering and management chair Dr. Efrem Gday for their valuable advices to strengthen
my work.
There are really no words to express my special thanks to all of my colleagues. This work could not be
successful without the understanding and support of Bahir Dar Polytechnic College, especially, Ato
Chalie Hunegnaw (technology transfer officer), Ato Abera Alemayehu (designer), Ato Yaye Demlie
(manufacturer) and for all technology transfer staffs. Lastly, I want to give special thanks to Dr. Worku
Biweta (Agricultural Mechanization and Food Science researcher).

ii

CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... ii
CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Justification of the Study ............................................................................................................. 3
1.4. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................................ 3
1.5. Research Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4
1.6. Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.7. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................. 7
1.8. Limitations and Assumption of the Study ................................................................................. 7
1.9. Organization and Structure of the Study................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................................................... 9
RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Conceptual Design and Concept Generation Methods ........................................................ 10
2.2.1. Conceptual Design and Generic Product Development Process ................................ 10
2.2.2. Methods to Identify Requirements, Functions and Components ................................. 12
2.2.3. Concept Generation and Evaluation Methods ................................................................ 12
2.3. The Quality Function Deployment Method ............................................................................. 13
2.4. The Functional Analysis Diagram Method and its Practical Application ............................ 15
2.4.1. The Functional Analysis Diagram Method ...................................................................... 15
2.4.2. Practical Application of Functional Analysis Diagram ................................................... 16
2.5. The Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Method ...................................................................... 17
2.5.1. Development of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in Industry Practice ..................... 18
2.5.2. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Procedure ................................................................. 18
iii

2.5.3. Practical Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis ........................................... 19

2.6. Stage Gate in Product Development Process ..................................................................... 20
2.7. Research Gap Related to this Study ....................................................................................... 20
2.8. Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................................. 22
DATA PRESENTATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 22
3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.2. Colleges Product Development Process ............................................................................... 22
3.3. Reasons for New Product Failure in the College and Pareto Analysis .............................. 23
3.3.1. Reasons for New Product Failure in the College ........................................................... 23
3.3.2. Pareto Analysis of New Product Failure during Product Test ...................................... 23
3.4. Sample Bahir Dar Polytechnic Colleges Product and Its Design Problems..................... 24
3.5. Summary of Data Presentation and Preliminary Analysis ................................................... 27
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................................... 28
PROPOSED DESIGN METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 28
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 28
4.2. Integration Framework Development ...................................................................................... 28
4.2.1. Basic Design Process and Proactive Methods Elements of the Integration
Framework ....................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2. Rationale for Selecting Basic Elements Design Process and Proactive Methods ... 29
4.2.3. Proposed Alternative Integration Models ........................................................................ 29
4.2.4. How Integration Model is selected? ................................................................................. 33
4.3. Proposed Methodical Procedure .............................................................................................. 35
4.4. Summary of Proposed Design Methodology ......................................................................... 38
CHAPTER FIVE...................................................................................................................................... 39
METHODOLOGY VERIFICATION, VALIDATION, AND DISCUSSION ....................................... 39
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 39
5.2. Verification ................................................................................................................................... 39
5.2.1. Requirement Domain .......................................................................................................... 39
5.2.1.1. Identification of the Requirements and QFD Analysis ............................................... 40
5.2.2. Function Domain ................................................................................................................. 45
5.2.3. Component Domain ............................................................................................................ 48
5.3. Validation ..................................................................................................................................... 72
5.4. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 73
iv

CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................................................ 76

CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION, AND FUTURE WORK ..................................................... 76
6.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 76
6.2. Recommendation........................................................................................................................ 77
6.3. Future Work ................................................................................................................................. 77
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 78
APPENDIXES ......................................................................................................................................... 81

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3:1 Reasons and number of failed products .............................................................................................23
Table 4:1 Basic elements of design process and proactive methods .............................................................28
Table 4:2 Comparison of BDPCs design process and scenario one ...............................................................31
Table 4:3 Comparison of BDPCs design process approach and scenario two ............................................31
Table 4.4 Comparison of BDPCs design process approach and scenario three ...........................................32
Table 4:5 Comparison of BDPCS design process and scenario four ..............................................................33
Table 5:1 Ranking of customer needs ..................................................................................................................40
Table 5:2 The absolute, relative weighting value and the rank of technical characteristics ..........................42
Table 5:3 TCF matrix of the mapping between technical characteristics and functions ................................47
Table 5:4 Components to achieve their corresponding functions ....................................................................49
Table 5:5 Worksheet of components failure modes ..........................................................................................54
Table 5:6 FMEA based on traditional method .....................................................................................................58
Table 5:7 Improved FMEA based on the control plan .........................................................................................65

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:1 Research Methodology ..........................................................................................................................6
Figure 2:1 Literature review approach ...................................................................................................................9
Figure 2:2 Generic Product development process .............................................................................................10
Figure 2:3 Steps of conceptual design .................................................................................................................11
Figure 2:4 The conceptual design phase .............................................................................................................11
Figure 2:5 QFD analysis method ...........................................................................................................................14
Figure 2:6 Procedure of FMEA ..............................................................................................................................19
Figure 2.7 Stage-Gatesystem to drive development projects to commercialization ....................................20
Figure 3:1 Colleges Product development process ...........................................................................................22
Figure 3:2 Pareto analysis of new product failure during product test ............................................................24
Figure 3:3 Modern oxen pulled plough rear view ................................................................................................26
Figure 3:4 Modern oxen pulled plough front view .............................................................................................27
Figure 4:1 BDPCs design process approach .....................................................................................................30
Figure 4:2 Integration of QFD with design process approach ...........................................................................30
Figure 4:3 Integration of FAD with design process approach ...........................................................................31
Figure 4:4 Integration of FMEA with design process approach ........................................................................32
Figure 4:5 Integration of QFD, FAD, and FMEA with design process ..............................................................32
Figure 4:6 Integration Model..................................................................................................................................34
Figure 4:7 Proposed Design Methodology ..........................................................................................................37
Figure 5:1 QFD analysis of oxen pulled plough ..................................................................................................44
Figure 5:2 3D view of the oxen pulled plough .....................................................................................................51
Figure 5:3 Numbered components of oxen pulled plough .................................................................................52
Figure 5:4 FAD analysis of oxen pulled plough ..................................................................................................53

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

a

acceleration

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

BDPC

Bahir Dar Polytechnic College

SDD Standard Design Document

Component

TC

CA

Cause

TCF Technical Characteristics Function

CPDP

Colleges Product Development Process

TV Television

DA

Design Analysis

DOE

Design of Experiment

3D three Dimension

EF

Effect

EN

European

ESD

Electro Static Discharge

Function and Force

FAD

Function Analysis Diagram

FC

Function Component

FM

Failure Mode

FMEA

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

FS

Function Structure

FTA

Fault Tree Analysis

GSM

Global System for Mobile Communications

ISO

International Standard for Organization

mass

MIL

Military

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Power

PFMEA

Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

QFD

Quality Function Deployment

RC

Remote Control

Ref

Reference

RM

Requirement Matrix

RPN

Risk Priority Number

viii

Technical Characteristics

Velocity

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background information such as the colleges design methodology and the
attractive benefits of the three proactive methods; what is the problem and how sever it is; justification,
objective-to improve the design methodology, significance, scope, and limitation of the study. The
assumption and organization of the study are also dealt briefly.

1.1. Background of the Study

New product development along with the incorporation of innovation paradigm is becoming a wining
weapon and a sustaining strategy for the various economical sectors whatever the level they are
presented. New Product development (NPD) is not seen separately with innovation as it is process of
bringing a product (goods and services) to the market. The design stage plays a significant role in
defining the physical form and the function of the product to satisfy customers needs while developing
products. The design function includes engineering design such as mechanical, electrical, software, and
industrial design such as aesthetics, ergonomics, and user interfaces. Concept design has a great impact
on the overall product development success.
With rough generalization of NPD cycle, the recommended NDP process starts with idea generation,
concept, system level, detail design, and designed for development (manufacturing) and tested before
commercialization. However, the Bahir Dar Polytechnic College product development process starts
with idea copying, sketching, manufacturing, testing and then ends with production ramp-up.
Now a day the design methodology is practiced by using different design methodology improvement
tools. For instance, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is used to translate the customer requirements
in to engineering characteristics, thus it enables to have a technically feasible design concept via
customer driven product; Functional Analysis Diagram (FAD) is used to analyze functions and
components simultaneously, and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is used to analyze and
control the potential impacts from failures. However, Bahir Dar Polytechnic Colleges design
methodology does not incorporate any design methodology improvement tools instead, it is a run to
build approach without clearly identify, analyze and prioritize requirements, make function analysis and
define component properly and make failure analysis. As a result, from 17 failed products, 58.8% of
them, which is 10 failed, were failed as preliminary analysis revealed using Pareto analysis tool.
1

According to Hua (2013), customer requirements are considered as the input information indicating the
needs of customers, and they are usually obtained and organized in a marketing department through the
market research activity. Product functions indicate the intents of the design without stating the specific
solutions. Product function is expressed in a phrase structure verb + object (Stone, et al., 2000). For
example, if someone drinks the beer in the bottle, the first function which can be described as open the
bottle must be done. Indeed, there can be various ways to open the bottle. Design components are
referred to the specific design solutions that are implemented to achieve the product functions. In the
above example, bottle opener can be a design solution. A component is generally a concept that is
defined by Ulrich and Eppinger (2012) as an approximate description of the technology, working
principles, and form of the product.
The success of a product is mainly depend on how customer needs are considered (quality); what
functions must be done to satisfy needs and how accurately a failure analysis is made (reliability); how
later design change is prevented (cost and time). Quality, time, and cost, which determine the value of a
product, conflict each other. So, improving the colleges design methodology and managing these
conflicting issues is necessary to develop a scientific method for concept generation and evaluation; to
help designers to design products easily, efficiently, and in the right way; to consider product reliability
and quality characteristics early in the product development process, and to reduce later design changes,
loss of customers and waste of resources. To do this, systematically integrating QFD, FAD, and FMEA
in the design process is important.
In general, this study considers the design process as the mapping of requirements, functions and
components. This study also tries to integrate and interpret QFD, FAD, and FMEA in the design process
systematically. So, this study is believed to improve the design process. Therefore, how the reliability
and quality issues can be considered at early stages of product development? This is the question that
this study attempts to answer by developing a methodology and verify it.

1.2. Problem Statement

Bahir Dar Polytechnic College transfers new technologies through manufacturing enterprises or directly
to customers. Among new products that have been produced and planned to be transferred by BDPC,
70.8% of them were unable to pass the product tests which resulted in a loss of 550,000 ETB
approximately. From this, as preliminary analysis using Pareto analysis tool revealed, design problem
contributed 58.8 %. The design problem is mainly resulted from poor engineering product design

process in which the designers methodology is a run to build approach that does not enable the
designers to make requirement, function, and failure analysis during conceptual design process.

1.3. Justification of the Study

Product development contributes a lot for the continuing success of an enterprise. In order to be
benefited from this, the most important attributes of product, reliability and quality, need to be kept
while developing a product. Bahir Dar Polytechnic College is used as a channel in transferring
knowledge and technology to micro, small and medium enterprises which are located around Bahir Dar.
However, the product failure at early stage of product life cycle is not uncommon in the college. This
mainly resulted from design problem whereby the designers do not consider customer requirements,
functional analysis and failure analysis in design process. Hence, how to utilize proactive methods at
early product development stage is a very important question, for the college that has never experienced
using systematic approaches. In order to increase the product success and prevent later design changes,
loss of customer and waste of resources; Quality Function Deployment, Functional Analysis Diagram
and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in conceptual Engineering Design Process are done. Therefore,
since designers need an easy, efficient and right method, improving the current engineering design
process plays an important role. Making a detail analysis of a known product is another contribution
which enhances the knowledge. Generally, the great impact of design stage on the overall success of
New Product Development Process, the presence of a gap in the research and many contributions of this
study, justify why this study is needed. Conceptual design in product development is like a good
foundation in house construction.

1.4. Objectives of the Study

General Objective:
The general objective of the study is to develop an integration approach, which can improve conceptual
engineering product design methodology, through the integration of Quality Functional Deployment,
Functional Analysis Diagram, and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in conceptual design process.

Specific Objectives:
Five specific objectives that are needed to achieve the main objective of this study are:

1. To assess the existing colleges design methodology and its application by taking oxen pulled plough
design as a sample
2. To develop an integration framework of QFD, FAD, FMEA and design process so that the design
process can be improved
3. To develop a methodical procedure for the framework to apply QFD, FAD, and FMEA along the
design process.
4. To verify and demonstrate the proposed design methodology using oxen pulled plough design
5. To validate proposed design methodology

1.5. Research Methodology

The methodology that the research employed to achieve the objective is divided into a chronological
sequence of six steps:
The first step, which is discussed in chapter two, is a study of available literature. Literature review was
employed in order to get the required information about generic product development process,
conceptual design, and elements of the engineering product design process, well known proactive
methods(QFD, FAD and FMEA) and their practical applications those can be integrated in design
process and to identify research gaps related to this study. The kinds of literature that are mainly
referred in this study were: journals and books.
The second step, which is presented in chapter three, is collection of data from case college. The data
collection methods that were employed in order to get required data were: Personal observation:
successful and failed products were critically observed and then the design related problems for failed
products were identified. Collecting secondary data: relevant data was assessed and relevant
information such as the percentages of successful and failed new products (from 24 population size)
were obtained. Secondary data was collected from reports of technology transfer office. Discussion:
Since the design tools require team work, taking discussion as method is unquestionable. The discussion
was made on current product design process with designers; reasons for product failures with technology
transfer manager and those who were during products are being tested in the field, designers and
manufactures. Discussion was also made with those who have experience in farming about working
principle of the case product and the probability of occurrence for failure modes of components. After
Pareto Analysis is made, a design problem is found as a main cause for product failure and from failed
4

products the researchers select oxen pulled plough to verify the design methodology. To represent the
proposed design methodology, an integration model and its methodical procedure is developed. To do
this, third and fourth steps are important and presented in next steps.
In the third step, the basic elements of design process, proactive methods were determined through
comparison; four alternative integration models were developed using what if analysis technique and the
best model was selected to build the integration framework that used to understand how the foundational
and representative design elements integrate with proactive methods so as to achieve the second specific
objective.
In the fourth step, a proposed methodical procedure for the selected model was developed by first
determining the procedures of QFD, FAD, and FMEA that are relevant to this study. Once the model
and its methodical procedure were developed and combined, which is the proposed design methodology,
it needs to be checked whether the methodology is right to conduct a product design. To prove this, the
next step is necessary. The fifth step is a conducting of detailed analysis of oxen pulled plough, which
was taken as a sample, including QFD, FAD, and FMEA analysis. The main purpose of this step is to
demonstrate and verify the design methodology. It is found in Chapter five. In this step, in order to
model the 3D view or physical model of the oxen pulled plough which is a precondition to make FAD
analysis of oxen pulled plough, 3ds max software is used. The sixth step is the validation of the
proposed methodology through comparison of related studies. In addition, discussion, conclusion, and
recommendation are part of the research methodology of this study.

Research Methodology

Methods to achieve stated

objectives

Methods to collect data

Reviewing
College
report

Discussion

To determine the passed

and failed products

To determine

Pareto
analysis

CPDP
reasons of product failure
probability of occurrence
of causes

Comparing different design

methodology improvement tools &
then determining basic design
elements
To develop integration
model
What if analysis technique

To propose alternative
models/solutions and then to
select the best model
To prioritize
reasons

Determining the step by step

procedures of proactive methods
and the output of each design
element

To develop methodical procedure

Conducting a detailed case study
analysis

To verify the design methodology

Figure 1:1 Research Methodology

1.6. Scope of the Study

The scope this study is focused on the application of the QFD, FAD, and FMEA in the engineering
design process of BDPC at concept design stage so as to improve their design process. The study is
limited only to conceptual design stage because it is enough to demonstrate the importance of the three
proactive methods at the stage which determines the overall success of the product development.

1.7. Significance of the Study

This study is devoted to integrate the proactive methods and design elements to solve the problem in
design process. Hence, research outcome is an improved product design process that has the following
contributions:

It can be used as a scientific method for concept generation and evaluation

It can help Designers to design products easily, efficiently, and in the right way

It helps to consider product reliability and quality characteristics early in the product
development process

It helps to Reduce later design changes, loss of customers and waste of resources

It fills the research gap

Real life product is studied so that it can be implemented immediately

Finally, it can be used as a guiding material for any product design

1.8. Limitations and Assumption of the Study

Due to time constraint, the proposed methodology is not implemented in the college. The occurrence
values in FMEA are estimated due to the unavailability of recorded data to verify the design
methodology. In order to utilize full effort on design itself, since design for manufacture is not applied in
this study and in order not to blame on manufacturer, it is assumed that design meets the manufacturing
specifications. It is also assumed that design constraints (for example-budget and design skill) are
satisfied at least to meet the minimum requirements.

1.9. Organization and Structure of the Study

The study constitutes six chapters; the first chapter introduces the study. The second chapter reviews
literatures related to conceptual design, key elements of design process, methods to identify
requirements, deploy functions and define components, uses and applications of QFD, FAD and FMEA
and the research gap related to this study is also highlighted. The third chapter shows the Colleges
Product Development Process, reasons for product failure, Pareto analysis and Sample BDPC product
and its design problems. The fourth chapter contains integration framework that include four alternative
integration models, the selected integration model, and its methodical procedure for facilitating the
practice of QFD, FAD, and FMEA in the design process. At the end, the proposed design methodology
is developed by combining the selected integration model with its methodical procedure. The fifth
chapter contains step-by-step oxen pulled plough design to demonstrate and verify the proposed design
methodology, validation, and discussion. The last chapter contains conclusion, recommendation, and
future work of the study.

CHAPTER TWO
RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter is a literature review that covers about concept design, steps in conceptual design, the
common concept generation and evaluation methods, Quality Function Deployment, Functional
Analysis Diagram and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis methods. The definitions, uses and practical
applications of the above design tools have been discussed briefly. The results of the application of the
three proactive methods have been also summarized. In addition, how oxen pulled plough can be
analyzed in the view of the three proactive design methods is also considered briefly. Finally, the
importance of integrating QFD, FAD, and FMEA in engineering product design process is discussed in
short at the end each method. The literature review approach that is used in this study is shown in Figure
2.1.

Generic Product
Development
Process
Conceptual
design

Design Methodology
improvement tools

RM, QFD, FS,

FAD, FTA, FMEA

Application

Research
Gap

Figure 2:1 literature review approach

2.2. Conceptual Design and Concept Generation Methods

The main points included in this section are definition, steps and phases of conceptual design; generic
product development process those used to compare the colleges product development process;
Methods to Identify Requirements, Function and Component and Concept Generation and Evaluation
Methods.
2.2.1. Conceptual Design and Generic Product Development Process
Concept design, which is one of the fuzzy front end activities and the most important phase of the
engineering design process, has a great impact on the overall product development success (Krishnan
and Bhattacharya, 2002).The design process in engineering has not yet been standardized and thus
various terms and design processes can be found from literature (Pahl, et al., 2007, Ulrich and Eppinger,
2012). According to Ulrich and Eppinger (2012) the generic product development process is shown in
Figure 2.2.

Idea
Generation

Product
concept
Design

System
level
design

Detail
Product
Design

Testing and
refinement

Production
ramp- up

Figure 2:2 Generic Product development process

Pahl et al. (2007) defined conceptual design and steps of conceptual design (Figure 2.3) as follow;
conceptual design is the part of the design process where the essential problems are identified through
abstraction; function structures are established; appropriate working principles are searched and
combined in to a working structure. The basic solution path is laid down through the elaboration of a
solution principle. It is extremely difficult or impossible to correct fundamental shortcomings of the
solution principle. A lasting and successful solution is more likely to spring from the choice of the most
appropriate principles than from exaggerated concentration on technical details.

10

Requirement list
Information
Abstract to identify the essential problems
Definition

Establish function structures overall function-sub function

Creation

Conceptual design

Search for working principles that fulfill the sub functions

Combine working principles in to working structures

Propose solution variants

Evaluation

Evaluate variants against technical and economic criteria

Decision
Principle solution
(Concept)

Figure 2:3 Steps of conceptual design

According to Ulrich and Eppinger (2012) the front end activities comprising the concept development
phase from Generic product development process are shown below in figure 2.4.
Identify
customer
needs

Establish
Target
specification

Generate
product
concepts

Select
product
concepts

Test
product
concepts

Set final
specification

Figure 2:4 the conceptual design phase

Having reviewing design processes, it can be concluded that requirement or need, function and
component are the basic elements of a design. Hence, in this study the design methodology developed is
based on these elements.

11

2.2.2. Methods to Identify Requirements, Functions and Components

The significance of requirements has been well studied in quality engineering and six-sigma
management (Evans and Lindsay, 2005). At this point, market research has traditionally played an
important role to collect and analyze the customers expectations, needs, perceptions, and preferences.
Typical techniques from market research include formal survey, focus group, and internet monitoring
(Bradley, 2010).
In addition, the insights from engineers are also important according to their knowledge and
experiences. Meeting customer expectations is often considered the minimum requirement to reach the
bottom line of customer satisfaction. To be competitive, it is necessary to delight customers by going
beyond the expectation, and for that reason engineers insights about requirements, industry tendency
and challenge are critical in identifying the requirements. Mainly, the insights of engineers are important
to determine the delighters in the Kano classification system (Evans and Lindsay, 2005). In addition, the
insights of engineers make sure the results of market research can be translated into technical
characteristics without deviation.
Moreover, the information of existing products can help the identification of requirements. By studying
the existing products from the competitors in the same industry, we can compare the technical
performance, product features and other characteristics. This technique is so-called competitive
benchmarking that is common for setting realistic and competitive goals in product development
(Stapenhurst, 2009).To deploy the functions based on requirements, we can use some question-asking
techniques that are common in conceptual design (Hua, 2013).
2.2.3. Concept Generation and Evaluation Methods
Concepts are the means for achieving function and concept generation is a means for finding alternative
solutions. Brainstorming, Delphi, analogy and analyzing natural system are among the common concept
generation methods and cost-benefit analysis and Decision- Matrix Method or Pughs Method are few
among some of the of concept evaluation methods(Pahl et al., 2007). In this study, a scientific method
which integrates three proactive methods in design process that can go with the above traditional
methods is expected to be developed systematically. Hence, it is also expected to strengthen the concept
generation and evaluation process.
Ulrich and Eppinger (2012) have introduced various search techniques for concept generation such as
searching the patents and engineering handbooks. Defining the components for achieving the functions
12

can be viewed as a creative process in design. The adjective creative here implies that we do not have
an automated path that can always lead to successful designs. Among some design best practices
(Stapenhurst, 2009), engineers are suggested to focus on the functional descriptions in view of the
necessary inputs and outputs. This helps them to clarify what exactly needs to be achieved in the
products.

2.3. The Quality Function Deployment Method

QFD has been used since the early 1970s in Japan with the purpose of making the product
development process more efficient. QFD is defined as a systematic means of accurately translating
customer requirements into relevant technical descriptors for each stage of product development and
production. Therefore, meeting or exceeding customer demands means more than just maintaining or
improving product performance. It means designing and manufacturing products that delight customers
(Lai-Kow and Ming-lu, 2002). Nadia (2011) also defined Quality Function Deployment (QFD) as a
systematic design tool to translate the customer requirements in to engineering characteristics, thus it
enables to have a technically feasible design concept via customer driven product.
In the QFD analysis, a matrix is used which is called 'the house of quality', where the analysis
is carried out through a number of steps. According to john and herman(2008),there are nine
subsequent steps of QFD analysis, ranging from understanding what customers need up to competitive
evaluation.
In order to accurately translate customer needs into design needs, knowing what customers think about
the product is important; in the first place, their voices need to be correctly captured; this first step is
commonly known as Voice of the Customer" or Customer Requirements; in the second place,
customers are requested to rate the importance of each requirement based on some scale. This number
will be used later in the relationship matrix; in the third place, the technical attributes of the product that
can meet customer needs must be correctly identified; this third step is commonly known as Voice of
the Engineer; in the fourth place, the relationship matrix that shows the strength of the relationship
between the customer needs (what) and design needs (Hows) need to be made. The relation may be
strong positive, positive, negative, strong negative. In the fifth place, correlation matrix that shows the
correlations among the technical attributes needs to be made. It has a big help to the design engineers in
examining how each of the technical descriptors impact each other. In the sixth step, the Absolute and
relative importance need to be determined in which the Absolute Importance is obtained by multiplying
the cell value and the customer importance rating. Numbers are then added up in their respective
13

columns to determine the importance for each technical descriptor. Relative importance is obtained by
dividing each technical attributes absolute importance to the total. Now, it can be known which
technical aspects of your product matters the most to your customer! In the seventh step, to better
understand the competition, a comparison of competitors technical characteristics with companys
technical characteristics is conducted; this seventh step is commonly known as technical evaluation. In
the eighth step, Target Values either in numerical or qualitative descriptions needs to be set for the
technical attributes. Finally, competitive evaluation through customer surveys on company and
competitors product in the view of customer requirements need to be made. Generally, the QFD steps
are iterative till the designer feels the design meets the customer requirements.

Correlation
Matrix
Design attributes or
technical attributes

Customer
needs
Whats

Importance

How

Relationships between
Customer needs and
design attributes

Competitive
assessment

Importance weighting
Target values
How Much
Technical evaluation
Figure 2:5 QFD analysis method

Researches indicate that the QFD method can be used to prioritize the technical parameters, reduced
design costs and product development time. For example, Toyota reduced their design costs by fifty
percent and reduced product development time via thirty three percent after they started to use QFD
(Bergman and Klevsjo, 1994). The importance of the different technical parameters are analyzed
14

and ranked and the most important parameters receives the highest ranking. Karin and John (1996)
carried out QFD analysis of safety shoes to know information about those product characteristics of
the safety shoe that influence the customer satisfaction to the greatest extent. The QFD analysis
of safety shoe revealed that the design of the toe cap' was the most important factor for meeting
the demands of the users. The other important product characteristics were design of sole and size.
In John and Herman (2008) a QFD analysis for TV remote control was also shown and in their studies
they concluded that the product characteristic Dimension of RC chassis, influences the customer
satisfaction to a high degree. The next important product characteristics were Size of buttons and
Number of buttons. Researchers Karin and John did not consider the competitive and technical
evaluation but John and Herman did. In addition, the target values are put in terms of reference number
such as Ref: EN 344 for the technical parameter of size in Karin and John work whereas target
values are put with specific values such as 1x.75cm min. for the technical parameter of size of
button in the work of John and Herman. The target values in this study are put in specific values for
clarity. Hence, the QFD method can be integrated in the design process to improve it. The technical and
competitive evaluations are not considered in this study since these are performed after detail design is
completed. In this regard, the QFD can be used to analyze the oxen pulled plough design for the
customer requirements of light, plough more with minimum number of movements, easy to penetrate
land and comfortable.

2.4. The Functional Analysis Diagram Method and its Practical Application
2.4.1. The Functional Analysis Diagram Method
Function is a key term in engineering design methodology and understanding product functions is a key
aspect of the work undertaken by engineers. The findings from UK diesel engine company show that the
understanding of functions in company is loose and divergent, without a clear definition of function, it is
difficult to use functional methods consistently. Using interviews and the findings from an experiment
where 20 individual designers between 1 and 30 years of professional experience were asked to generate
a functional model of a hydraulic pump, the paper highlights the different notions designers associate
with the word function. In other words, the way designers analyze a product is strongly influenced by
their notion of function. Functional analysis is fundamental to the evaluation and success of all designs.
A design solution that does not function properly is a failure even if it meets all other criteria (Claudia,
2013).

15

FAD is a graphical mapping of blocks which used to represent product structure, users or other
resources, and relations in the form of an arrow with a label (strictly a relation node with one or more
arrows in and out) used to represent either useful or harmful actions. A FAD, unlike the Function Tree
and the Function Structure, represents functions together with the physical elements of a product
(Aurisicchio and Bracewell, 2013).
2.4.2. Practical Application of Functional Analysis Diagram
Aurisicchio and Bracewell (2013) analyzed the case study of water pump using FAD. The notation to
represent the diagram was based on the block and relation elements to map product components and
other resources, useful or harmful actions respectively. The model includes 11 blocks with dark
background to represent the components of the pump (e.g. pump body and pump lid), 4 blocks to model
the liquid flow in different points in time and location (e.g. inlet water flow), and 2 blocks to model
components upstream and downstream of the pump (e.g. electric motor and piping system). There are
approximately 26 relations of which 20 are useful (e.g. shaft drives impeller), and 6 are harmful (e.g. lip
seal generates friction on shaft). The diagram can be read starting from any of the block elements in the
map. The FAD model was created with reverse engineering approach.
The results of the case study research have shown that modeling product functionality together with
structure produces models which are less abstract and more intuitive. A possible reason for the FAD
model being more intuitive is that it better aligns with the natural way of working of engineers involving
simultaneous thinking with function and product structure. The results have also shown that FAD
models capture a richer set of functions. Finally, by modeling not just only useful actions but also
harmful ones, the method offers a starting point to propose design improvements. Therefore, FAD is a
method that can be used how to map and understand function interactions in engineering systems. Thus,
in the functional analysis of oxen pulled plough, blocks represent the components of the plough (e.g.
handle and spacer); other blocks to model components upstream and downstream of the plough (e.g.
oxen and land).The useful relation can be neck holders guide oxen. The harmful relation can be
leather strap 2 generates pressure on centering pin. The detail is found in the research of Aurisicchio
and Bracewell (2013).Therefore, integrating FAD in design process can result in a better design process.

16

2.5. The Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Method

FMEA is methodical and a formal process in which a subject is examined in detail and a risk is assessed.
The goal of any FMEA study is to identify and analyze what might happen wrong before an error is
actually occurred and to prioritize risks quantitatively and to control the potential impacts from failures
(Anleitner, 2010). In other words, FMEA is an analysis technique for defining, identifying and
eliminating potential failures, problems, errors and so on from system, design, process and/or service
before they reach the customer. The main objective of FMEA is to identify potential failure modes,
evaluate the causes and effects of different component failure modes, and determine what could
eliminate or reduce the chance of failure. Through the practice of FMEA, it is expected to anticipate the
possible failures from a product or system before it is actually implemented. In such a way, engineers
can improve the design by deliberately controlling the causes of failures or limiting their negative
effects. One key benefit to implement FMEA in product design is due to the fact that early design
improvements can substantially minimize the expensive cost of modifications at the later stages of
product development (Carlson, 2012).The results of the analysis can help analysts to identify and correct
the failure modes that have a detrimental effect on the system and improve its performance during the
stages of design and production (Hu-Chen, et al., 2013). According to Carlson (2012), a failure mode
described as the manner in which the product or operation failure to meet the requirements. In this
sense, a failure mode ought to be a simple description of the failure without stating its causes or effects.
In the context of engineering design, a failure mode can be referred any displeasure related to
components. On the way to the integration efforts, one important idea of this research is that a failure
mode ought to be defined based on the known component of the design. This idea provides the guidance
for engineers to prepare the FMEA documents logically related to the design context. FMEA suggests
identifying the causes and effects associated with each failure mode. Particularly, the causes are the
possible reasons that can lead to the occurrence of the failure mode, and the effects represent the
negative impacts if the failure mode becomes visible. In this case, the causes and effects are basically
connected by failure modes. Risk Priority Number is numerical ranking of the risk on each potential
failure mode, made up of the arithmetic product of the three elements: severity of the effect, likelihood
of occurrence of the cause, and likelihood of detection of the cause. The higher ranking values indicate
worse risk situations, and RPN is used to prioritize the failure modes based their risk situations (Bradley,
2011).

17

2.5.1. Development of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in Industry Practice

The origin of FMEA can be traced back to the military standard of United States in 1949 (MIL-P-1629).
Beyond the military applications, it has also been applied for space missions. One famous example is
that National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has applied it for the Apollo program for
analyzing the system unreliability and crew safety problems (Carlson, 2012). The Society of
Automotive Engineers (now known as SAE International) is now using the technique in civil systems in
the automotive industry. As noted by Carlson (2012) the Ford Motor Company has been the first
automobile manufacturer in the late 1970s applying FMEA, which was an intensive turning point for
FMEA and FMEA remains one important tool in reliability analysis. International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) has also managed relevant techniques in one standard, ISO/TS 16949 (Duckworth
and Moore, 2010). This indicates the evidence about the popularity and usefulness of FMEA in
industrial practice. Beyond the aerospace and mechanical systems, other industrial sectors have also
reported the application of FMEA for reliability and quality analysis such as healthcare (De Rosier, et
al., 2002). According to the military standards, the techniques of FMEA originally targets for design
improvement. That is, by identifying the potential failure modes during the design stage, we can
minimize the impacts from these failure modes by modifying the original design. This practice can
reduce the overall cost as compared to the modifications at the later stages of the product development
process. This domain of FMEA has been termed as Design FMEA (Anleitner, 2010).
2.5.2. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Procedure
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is accomplished through step-by-step process in the
conceptual design phase to identify potential design weaknesses. The following figure shows the various
steps involved in the FMEA process (Sellappan and Palanikumar, 2013).

18

Identify component function

Determine potential failures modes
Determine the effect of each failure

Determine the causes of each failure

Identify the control method

Find severity
value(S)

Find occurrence
value (O)

Find detection
value (D)

Calculate RPN (S*O*D)

Corrective
action required?

No
FMEA report

Yes
Recommend corrective action
Modification data
Modification
Figure 2:6 Procedure of FMEA

2.5.3. Practical Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

A Design FMEA was applied at Parker Hannifin Company to improve the design of pressure valve. The
result indicates that before the action was taken the RPN value was 150-260 but when the corrective
action was taken the RPN values reduced exponentially from 150-260 to 30-100 (Lefayet, 2011). A
Design FMEA by integrating with the three design elements, for seventeen components of smart phone,
was done to make failure analysis and it is found that among components, GSM transceiver has the
19

highest RPN value of 288 GSM transceiver is damaged by Electrostatic discharge (ESD) and it has a
high severity effect because the smart phone will be unable to connect to GSM network. In this case,
the engineers definitely need to design protection to protect GSM transceiver from ESD in the processes
of handling the GSM transceiver component, or to design the method to eliminate the static electricity,
or to select a GSM transceiver less sensitive to static electricity (Hua, 2013). In the case study of oxen
pulled plough, the failure mode for a ploughshare may be damaged or losses of efficiency i.e., fracture
or wear. The effect may be it cant plough or meets difficulty to plough. Lefayet (2011) applied
corrective actions and reduce the risk where as Hua (2013) proposes actions but the researcher does not
indicate how much the risk is reduced. In this study, both original and improved FMEA is revealed. Due
to the popularity and usefulness of FMEA, it is possible to integrate into design process.

2.6. Stage Gate in Product Development Process

According to Robert (2009) stages are the place where the major processes are undertaken whereas gates
are the place where the go-kill decision is made based on some criteria and the stage- gate system in
product development process is shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7 Stage-Gatesystem to drive development projects to commercialization

2.7. Research Gap Related to this Study

From the review of uses and practical applications of QFD (i.e., Section 2.3), definition and practical
application of FAD (i.e., section 2.4 and 2.4.1), and from the discussion of FMEA in industrial practice
(i.e., Section 2.5.1), and practical applications of FMEA (Section 2.5.3), it is stated that the application
of QFD, FAD, and FMEA becomes more popular and useful in other countries even if none of them
20

have applied in Ethiopia. In these views, this study is intended to contribute to the methodology
development for the systematic practice of QFD, FAD, and FMEA in conceptual design process. It has
been seen that the three proactive methods have been applied for different products. Instead of
integration, previous researchers applied the methods for different product designs in a separate way.
To the best of the our knowledge, integrating QFD, FAD, and FMEA with these three types of design
elements that improve the design process and/or that used as a scientific method of concept generation
and evaluation method has not been found in literature. Hence, this study focused on the integration of
proactive methods along the design process.

2.8. Summary of Literature Review

In the above literature survey, different proactive product design methods were discussed in detail. Thus,
what can be understood from the literature is how these methods are powerful tools in improving the
quality and reliability of a product. The methods have a great role at early stage of a product design. The
three proactive methods are QFD, FAD and FMEA.QFD is used to translate customer requirements in to
design requirements and it was applied in Toyota Company, TV remote control and safety shoe. FAD is
used to analyze functions and components to identify useful and harmful interactions simultaneously and
it was applied using a water pump case study. FMEA is used to analyze failures so as to identify risks
quantitatively and it was applied at product design of smart phone and pressure valve. In addition, the
procedures of QFD, FAD and FMEA were explicitly shown. Therefore, QFD, FAD, and FMEA are
powerful methods that every industry is better to utilize so that the methods help industries in improving
product designs .The other understanding from the literature is that the key elements of a conceptual
design are requirement, function and component. Finally, the methods to identify the customer
requirements are insights from engineer, competitive bench marking and market survey; the methods to
deploy functions are question asking technique and the methods to define components are
brainstorming, Delphi method, analogy, analyzing natural system. Furthermore, the stage-gate product
development process was reviewed to make sure the final product is produced based on some criteria of
successful product. Integrating QFD, FAD and FMEA with three types of design elements has not been
found in literature. So, the research area of this study is focused on the integration of the three proactive
methods in conceptual design process.

21

CHAPTER THREE
DATA PRESENTATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
3.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the data that were gathered by personal observations; discussion and college
report. It includes Colleges Product Development Process, reasons for product failure, preliminary
analysis using Pareto analysis tool, and Sample BPTC product and its design problems and selected
product for verification.

3.2. Colleges Product Development Process

After discussion with designers, the current new product process that is utilized for technology transfer
is shown in Figure 3.1.

Idea
Copying

Drawing/3D
model

Prototyping

Testing

Figure 3:1 Colleges Product development process

Since the majority of the idea source is from internet and photos of new technologies during industrial
site tours, they start modeling rough sketch or 3D model by watching the internet source and picture and
the product design ends in such a way. Finally, the designed product is directly manufactured without
ensuring whether it fulfills the necessary conditions. As we can see, the product designers in the college
follow the oldest design methodology approach instead of using the formal engineering product design
processes. In other words, it is a run to build approach without clearly identify, analyze and prioritize
requirements, make function analysis and define component properly and make failure analysis. From
this point of view, it can be said that the conceptual design which is the base for overall product
development success is missed in the college and hence their design methodology or approach is poor.

22

3.3. Reasons for New Product Failure in the College and Pareto Analysis
3.3.1. Reasons for New Product Failure in the College
Bahir Dar Polytechnic College not only trains people who want to study scientific or technical subjects
especially for a particular job but also it

transfers new technologies through micro, small, and

enterprises or directly to customers. While transferring new technologies product development is the
main part of their task. However, the technology transfer has not been successful so far. The reasons for
the technology transfer failure are related to design, manufacturing, supply and others (such as
management and team work). Design related problems include: poor engineering product design
process, unable to use latest design methods such as finite element method, lack of training for product
designers and poor teamwork. Manufacturing related problems include: poor engineering process design
unable to use latest design methods such as process failure mode and effect analysis (PFMEA), design of
experiment (DOE), lack of training for process designers and poor teamwork. The product designers in
the college do not follow any of the formal engineering product design processes and scientific methods.
As a result, the product failure is high. Reasons and number of failed products collected from the college
are shown in the Table 3.1. The total number of Bahir Dar Polytechnic Colleges new products with
their name and status is shown in appendix I and II.

Table 3:1 reasons and number of failed products

S.N

Reasons

Number of failed products

Relative (%)

Cumulative (%)

Design problem

10

58.8

58.8

Manufacturing

23.5

82.3

problem
3

Supply problem

11.7

94

others

100

Total

17

3.3.2. Pareto Analysis of New Product Failure during Product Test

Pareto Analysis is a statistical technique in decision-making, which is used for the selection of a limited
number of tasks that produce a significant overall effect. It uses the Pareto Principle (also known as the
80/20 rule), the idea in terms of quality improvement is a large majority of problems (80%) are produced
23

by a few key causes (20%). This is also known as the vital few and the trivial many. Even though 80-20
is the basic Pareto principle, now a days there are also 70-30 and 60-40 principles (Singson and
Hangsing, 2015).
12

120.00%

vital few

10

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

Trivial many

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%

number of failed
product
cummulative (%)

Figure 3:2 Pareto analysis of new product failure during product test

From the Pareto analysis it can be seen that about 60% of new product failure is caused by less than 40%
of the cause. In other words, design problem which is one of the four causes (25%), is a cause for 58.8%
new product failure. In other words, among these problems poor engineering product design process,
which is a base for the rest product development processes, contributes a lot for product failure. This is
due to the fact that any poor practice in earlier product development stage resulted in a catastrophic
effect. The Pareto analysis ensures that the colleges poor design methodology causes for higher product
failure.

3.4. Sample Bahir Dar Polytechnic Colleges Product and Its Design
Problems
Before illustrating the problems, lets identify first the common improper designs. According to Hua
(2013), the common improper designs those lead to design failure are listed as follows:

Improper calculation of dimension, tolerance or shape

Improper component selection, including materials and specifications.

Improper load/force analysis

24

Lack of components or required protection

Less consideration of operation conditions in real life

Improper component location

Upon observation and the information that have been gathered from the college, the design related
problems for selected product are discussed below.
Oxen pulled plough
After discussing with designers, comparing with generic product development process and the uses and
the applications of QFD, FAD and FMEA, the design problems are mainly resulted from the conceptual
design phase. Then a sample product was taken to analyze its design problem in detail. The adaptive
design of traditional oxen plough is selected to demonstrate and verify the proposed design
methodology. The selection is based on many conceptual problems of plough, it has been a problem for
many years, and ploughing is common in Ethiopia which results in common understanding among team
while verifying it. The researcher did not try to modify the plough made by the college because colleges
plough has irreversible (researchers view) concept design mistake. The field test of colleges plough,
around Bahir Dar in specific place called Andassa, result showed that the plough was not only very
difficult to till the land but also it was very difficult to be pulled. In addition, the seeds are not dropped at
required time and place. A design solution that does not function properly is a failure even if it meets all
other criteria. The problems of the plough based on field test report and observation are as follows:

The weight is too huge

Improper force multiplication mechanism

Improper angle

Improper ploughshare edge

In appropriate Hopper mechanism and location

The above problems are related to improper calculation of dimension, tolerance or shape (angle and
ploughshare edge); improper force analysis (huge weight); less consideration of real situation (force
multiplication and hopper mechanism) and improper hopper location. In addition to the functionality
problems, there are also usability problems such as farmer faced difficulty in moving to and from the
field and difficulty in operating (weight and wheel slippage), its complexity (inconsideration of real
situation).
Let us take the force multiplication mechanism in detail for a little bit. The plough is designed based on
the car design principle. The components are wheel, shaft (axle), gear, chain etc. In order to improve the
25

farm productivity, they preferred to multiply the force from oxen using gear ratio. However, the source
of power is oxen which move on the ground. Look carefully this case, both oxen and wheels move on
the ground which imply the oxen must stop for sometime till the speed of the oxen transmitted to wheel
and then penetrate the land or the oxen and the plough tool must be separate otherwise the oxen and the
plough will never go together. In car mechanism, the engine which is located in the air has higher speed
than differential speed of wheels. The power through input, output shaft and gearbox is transmitted
freely because the components are free to rotate.
Therefore, it would be good if they differentiated the working principle of a car and oxen pulled plough.
In addition, all components are made up of metal and a number of components are included which
increases the weight of the plough. The cost and complexity is also another burden. This indicates the
conceptual design was not considered and the correlation among parameters such as force and speed was
not determined. To make it clear, force and speed are inversely correlated in car power transmission
(P=F*V) but force and speed are positively correlated in other cases for those governed by Newtons
second law of motion (F=m*a).Therefore, these are the indicators of poor conceptual design process.
The plough is shown in figure 3.3 and figure 3.4.

Figure 3:3 modern oxen pulled plough rear view

26

Figure 3:4 modern oxen pulled plough front view

Hint: 1-hopper, 2-seed outlet, 3-gearbox, 4-axle and 5-ploughshre

3.5. Summary of Data Presentation and Preliminary Analysis

In this chapter, The Colleges product development process was assessed, causes and effects of product
failure are also identified and the plough is selected to demonstrate and verify the proposed design
methodology. The four causes of the failure are:

Design problem

Manufacturing problem

Supply problem and

Others

The contributions of causes for failure are identified using Pareto analysis: Design problem (58.8%),
Manufacturing problem (23.5%), Supply problem (11.7%) and others (6%). After analyzing plough
made by the college, it is found that the function and usability problems are resulted from poor
conceptual design. Depending on many conceptual problems of plough, it has been a problem for many
years and ploughing is common in Ethiopia. The adaptive design of traditional oxen plough is selected
to demonstrate and verify the proposed design methodology. The colleges product development process
was assessed and when it is compared with Generic product development process and the applications of
QFD, FAD and FMEA there is a huge gap. In addition, the Pareto analysis revealed that design problem
is a main factor for the product failure in the college. Hence, it can be concluded that the colleges
design process is poor.

27

CHAPTER FOUR
PROPOSED DESIGN METHODOLOGY
4.1. Introduction
In order to achieve the second specific objective of the study, which is to develop the integration
framework, first the basic elements of design process and proactive methods which are the cornerstones
of the framework were determined. After that four alternative integration models are developed, the best
model is selected so that QFD, FAD, FMEA and the design process can be integrated. Finally, to
achieve the third specific objective, which is to develop a methodical procedure for the framework a
methodical procedure is proposed to apply QFD, FAD, and FMEA along the design process. Finally, the
proposed design methodology is developed by combining the selected integration model and its
methodical procedure

4.2. Integration Framework Development

First the basic elements of design process and proactive methods which are the cornerstones of the
framework are determined.
4.2.1. Basic Design Process and Proactive Methods Elements of the Integration Framework
This study identifies and summarizes the building blocks in this case key elements of design process and
proactive methods for the integration purpose before the model is developed and it is shown in Table
4.1.
Table 4:1 Basic elements of design process and proactive methods

Basic Elements
Proactive Methods
Design process

QFD

FAD

FMEA

Requirement

Technical characteristics (Hows)

Function

Failure
Mode

Function

Relationship between customer

requirements (Whats) and technical
characteristics (Hows),

28

Cause

Component

Correlation among Hows

Effect
Component

Importance of each technical

characteristics

4.2.2. Rationale for Selecting Basic Elements Design Process and Proactive Methods
First comparison of design processes is made. Since design process has not been standardized so far, the
researcher determines the key elements of design process that are common in different design processes.
These are: Requirement, Function and Component. Then Comparison of design methodology
improvement tools i.e. Requirement Matrix with QFD, Function Structure with FAD and Fault Tree
Analysis with FMEA is made.
Requirement Matrix is used to transform the customer requirements to design requirements by only
checking the relationships among customer requirements and design requirements (hua, 2013). Whereas,
QFD not only check the relationship but also determines the weigtage of each relationship, correlations,
target values and priority of each design parameters. Function Structure model is abstract and captures
a predominantly linear mesh of relations (Aurisicchio and Bracewell, 2013). The FAD model is less
abstract than the Function Structure model and the FAD model is much richer and captures a mesh of
interconnected actions. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is a common tool only to make casual analysis in
the study of engineering failures (OConnor and Kleyner,2012).Whereas FMEA suggests identifying the
causes ,effects associated with each failure mode, measures severity value of the effects, occurrence
value of causes, the detection value of causes, and determines the RPN values. Finally, based on the
attractive benefits over other methods QFD, FAD and FMEA are selected.
4.2.3. Proposed Alternative Integration Models
This study develops four alterative integration models that intend to improve the design methodology of
the case college. Then detail what if analysis is conducted to compare and contrast alterative integration
models with the existing approach (As-Is) of BDPC and to select the one that is best.

29

4.2.3.1. What if analysis using Alterative Integration Models

In this study, What if analysis is applied to select the best scenario that can replace the colleges design
methodology. To do so, first the existing approach (As-Is) of BDPC is summarized as follows. BDPC as
shown in Figure 4.1 follows the traditional design process approach. This approach is performed without
using any method to improve the design elements. In other words, identify the requirements,
immediately deploy functions and finally define components roughly as shown in broken border in
Figure 4.1. Quality and reliability issues were not considered in the college.
Requirements

Functions

Components

Figure 4:1 BDPCs design process approach

After understanding current colleges product development process, the following four alternative
scenarios are proposed in this study:
1. Integration of QFD with Design Process approach
2. Integration of FAD with design process approach
3. Integration of FMEA with design process approach
4. Integration of QFD, FAD and FMEA with design process approach
Scenario one: Integration of QFD with Design Process approach
This approach uses QFD as a method to improve the requirement element of the design process.
QFD

Requirements

Functions

Components

Figure 4:2 Integration of QFD with design process approach

30

Table 4:2 Comparison of BDPCs design process and scenario one

BDPCS design

Scenario

process approach

one

Can the requirement be improved?

No

Yes

Can the function and component be improved

No

No

No

No

Basic questions

simultaneously?
Can the component be improved?

Scenario two: Integration of FAD with design process approach

This approach uses FAD as a method to improve the function and component elements of the design
process.
FAD

Requirements

Functions

Components

Figure 4:3 Integration of FAD with design process approach

Table 4:3 Comparison of BDPCs design process approach and scenario two

BDPCS design

Scenari

process approach

o two

Can the requirement be improved?

No

No

Can the function and component be improved

No

Yes

No

No

Basic questions

simultaneously?
Can the component be improved?

This approach uses FAD as a method to improve the function and component elements of the design
process but it does not use any method to improve requirement design element.

31

Scenario three: Integration of FMEA with design process approach

This approach is used to perform the failure analysis.
FMEA

Requirements

Functions

Components

Figure 4:4 Integration of FMEA with design process approach

Table 14.4 Comparison of BDPCs design process approach and scenario three

BDPCs design

Scenari

process approach

o three

Can the requirement be improved?

No

No

Can the function and component be improved

No

No

No

Yes

Basic questions

simultaneously?
Can the component be improved?

This approach is used to perform only the failure analysis. However, it does not play the role of QFD
and FAD.
Scenario four: Integration of QFD, FAD and FMEA with design process approach
This approach fulfills what other scenarios lack.

QFD

Requirements

FAD

Functions

FMEA

Components

Figure 4:5 Integration of QFD, FAD, and FMEA with design process

32

Table 4:5 Comparison of BDPCS design process and scenario four

BDPCs design

Scenario

process approach

four

Can the requirement be improved?

No

Yes

Can the function and component be improved

No

Yes

No

Yes

Basic questions

simultaneously?
Can the component be improved?

This is also identified as a research gap where researchers have used so far only one of the above
proactive methods to improve the design process.
4.2.4. How Integration Model is Selected?
Based on the discussion made at the end of each scenario, among four models, the Integration of QFD,
FAD and FMEA with design process is selected due to its completeness and its better performance to
solve the poor design methodology of the college. It also answers all basic questions positively (yes) as
shown in Table 4.5. In other words, it eliminates the drawback of other scenarios. The selected
integration model was developed by integrating proactive methods, basic elements of proactive methods
and basic elements of engineering design elements. In addition, the output of each design domain is also
specified. Based on the elements of engineering design and QFD, FAD and FMEA, the integration
model of this study is shown in Figure 4.6. In this graphical model, the circles represent proactive
methods (QFD, FAD and FMEA); ovals represent basic elements of proactive methods and tasks to be
done for integration; the rectangle represents the stages at which processes are undertaken; the diamond
shape represents gates at which the go-kill decision is made and the curved arrows between rectangle
and diamond represents loop to make sure the outputs of a process pass or fail the criteria at gates. Bold
single-headed arrows connecting the design elements indicate the flow of a design process from
requirements to functions and components; double-headed arrows show the integration between design
elements and proactive methods; and thin single-headed arrows indicate the desired output from QFD,
FAD, and FMEA analysis along basic engineering design element correspondingly. Remarkably, the
integration model in Figure 4.6 is considered as one contribution of this study since it has not been found
in literature.

33

Basic elements of Proactive methods and

tasks to be done for integration

Proactive methods

Basic elements of
engineering design

Desired outputs

Requirements

QFD

Determine technical
characteristics
link customer requirements to
technical characteristics
correlate technical
characteristics
determine weight age of each
technical characteristics

Requirement
review

Relationship values
Correlation values
Prioritized technical
characteristics

Useful interactions
harmful interactions

Functions

FAD

Function
review

Link functions with

components

Identify failure modes ,causes and

effects
FMEA

Components with

Components

Causes

RPN values
Failure
modes
Effects

Component/
Concept review

Figure 4:6 Integration Model

34

In brief, the integration model which shown in Figure 4.6 is about integrating each proactive method
along each basic element of engineering design process accordingly meanwhile the output after
integrating each proactive method with each basic element of engineering design is checked at each
gate to make go-kill decision.

4.3. Proposed Methodical Procedure

In this section a methodical procedure is developed that incorporates the QFD, FAD and FMEA
practice. The procedure is illustrated as follows and a comprehensive oxen pulled plough based on the
procedure is done in Chapter five.
Step 1: Identify the requirements and list prioritized technical characteristics with their ranks

Identify customer requirements

Rate the importance of each requirement based on some scale

Determine technical characteristics those can meet customer requirements

Decide the relationships between customer requirements and technical characteristics

Decide correlations among technical characteristics

Determine the absolute and relative importance of each technical characteristic

Prioritize the technical characteristics

Put the target values for technical characteristics

List the prioritized technical characteristics with their ranks

Step 2: Deploy and list the functions

Deploy the functions and consider design priorities from step 1while deploying functions

List the deployed functions

Step 3: Define and list the components

Define the components and consider the information from Step 1 and 2

list the defined components

Step 4: link functions with components and determine the harmful and useful interaction

Place the 3D of the concept design of the product with numbered components

Put components in rectangular box and arrange them in actual position

Put the functions using active verbs on the arrow between rectangular boxes

Determine and differentiate the harmful and useful interactions by using colored arrows
35

Step 5: Identify the failure modes and complete the FMEA document in the component domain and
include the information from step 4

Determine components failure modes

Analyze effects

Decide the severity

Determine the cause of each failure

Decide the occurrence of each cause
Identify the control method

Decide the detection

Calculate RPN(S*O*D)
Recommend corrective action
Complete the FMEA of components
Figure 4.7 below shows the Proposed Design Methodology by combining the selected integration
model with its methodical procedure where above steps are incorporated in the procedure of QFD,
FAD and FMEA-facilitated design process.

36

QFD

FMEA

FAD

1
link customer
requirements to
technical
characteristics
correlate technical
characteristics
determine weight age
of each technical
characteristics
prioritize technical
characteristics

5
4
1

Relationship values
Correlation values
Prioritized technical
characteristics

5
Failure
modes

Useful
interactions
harmful
interactions

5
4

Function
review

2
Requirements

Requirement
review

Link functions
with components

Causes

Functions

Effects

5
RPN
values

Components

Component/co
ncept review
Figure 4:7 Proposed Design Methodology

37

4.4. Summary of Proposed Design Methodology

In this chapter, the basic elements of design process (requirement, function and component); proactive
methods (QFD, FAD and FMEA) and four alternative integration models are determined and proposed
respectively. The integration of QFD, FAD and FMEA with design process approach is selected after
what if analysis is made since it fulfills what the other three approaches lack. The selected model is used
to understand how the foundational and representative design elements integrate with proactive methods.
After that by first specifying the procedures of QFD, FAD and FMEA separately that are relevant to this
research and then taking the output of one design domain as an input to the other design domain, a
methodical procedure for facilitating the practice of QFD, FAD and FMEA in the design process is
proposed.
After completing the methodical procedure, the purposes of the proposed design methodology (Figure
4.7) listed as below.

While translating customer requirements to design requirements using clear procedure of QFD, it
helps to prioritize design requirements. As a result it assists to focus on the useful and harmful
interactions when FAD is applied. This is shown in Table 5.4 and Figure 5.4.

Looking Figure 4.7 number 1 and 3 are connected by arrow. This implies when performing the
component design helps engineers prioritize the risk of a component and make decisions on
better solutions at some critical parts when the components selections are on the basis of the design
priorities.

Generally, logical development of QFD, FAD and FMEA documents with reasoning and including
the output of one design domain to another, as an input, minimize mistakes. In other words, when
engineers deploy functions based on requirements, the integration model enables engineers to use the
efforts from requirement (QFD analysis) to function (FAD) analysis. Similarly, when components
are identified based on functions, the integration model enables engineers to use the efforts from
function (FAD) analysis and (QFD analysis) to component (FMEA) analysis. Since this design
methodology with its methodical procedure is intended to improve the design process, a detailed
analysis using plough as a sample is conducted in next chapter so as to demonstrate and verify this
methodology.

38

CHAPTER FIVE
METHODOLOGY VERIFICATION, VALIDATION, AND DISCUSSION
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter a step-by-step oxen pulled plough design using the three proactive methods is presented
to demonstrate and verify how the proposed design methodology is applied and how it integrates the
Quality Function Deployment, Function Analysis Diagram and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
documents in the product development process of oxen pulled plough for 50% farm productivity
improvement. Four main benefits are found during verification. First, prioritizations of technical
characteristics using QFD helps us to focus on the most important parameters those have great impact on
the design. Second, identification of harmful and useful component-component interactions helps to
understand the functions deeply and to improve the design. Third, the prioritization of risk consequences
helps engineers select components and be aware of the detail design to prevent critical failures. Fourth, it
is potentially re-used for the product redesign and used as a reference for other product design. As it is
an integration model, the identified outputs of each domain are considered in the next domain. The
verification is presented based on the sequence of these three design information: requirements domain,
functions domain and components domain. The design methodology is also validated to prove whether it
can achieve is intended purpose. Finally, discussion was made.

5.2. Verification
Verification of the proposed methodology was made to check whether the right methodology was
developed or not. The verification starts with identifying the requirements, functions and component
domain of the plough and then making QFD, FAD, and FMEA respectively.
5.2.1. Requirements Domain
In the requirements domain, the main objective is to identify the customer needs and translate them in to
technical characteristics which prioritize the features which are going to delight the users. In the case
study, it was started by listing five common customer requirements for the oxen pulled plough which is
popular tool that has been being used by the farmers. After QFD analyses and reasoning the output of
requirements domain: relationship values, correlation values and a list of prioritized technical
characteristics are got. The outputs are used to deploy the functions in the next domain.
39

5.2.1.1. Identification of the requirements and QFD analysis

Step 1: identify customer requirements
Using insights from engineer and competitive benchmarking requirement identification methods, the
five common customer requirements of oxen pulled plough are identified and are listed as below. .

I want the product be easy to be pulled by oxen and be easy to move to and from the field

I need plough more with minimum number of trips

maintain the current pace

I need the land to be penetrated properly and easily

I want a comfortable plough to oxen

Step 2: rate the importance of each requirement to customer based on some scale
During ranking all user needs can be compared and their relative importance judged. The user
needs can be ranked by the customers on a scale 1-5, where the rating 1means least important and
the rating 5 means most important. According to the user Plough more with minimum number of
trips is the most important need to be met for the design of oxen pulled plough which is going to be
used around Bahir Dar, followed by Penetrated land properly and easily, Easy to be pulled by oxen
and be easy to move to and from the field (light) etc. The customer needs with their weighting value
is shown in Table 5.1. This information was used directly in the QFD analysis as a basis for
translating the customer needs into product characteristics expressed in technical terms.

Table 5:1 Ranking of customer needs

Customer need

Customer
weighting

Easy to be pulled by oxen and be easy to move to and 3

from the field (light)
Plough more with minimum number of trips

Penetrate land properly and easily

Maintain the current pace

Comfortable to oxen

40

Step 3: determine technical characteristics those can meet customer requirements

In this step the characteristics of the product, required to fulfill the user needs, are listed.
Though technical characteristics should be preferably given in measurable terms, this is not always
possible such as ergonomic characteristics due to difficulty to

measure numerically. the twelve

technical characteristics that must be considered in improving the quality of oxen pulled plough
in respect to the users needs, are listed below.
TC1: Weight

TC7: Ploughing Width

TC2: Rake Angle

TC8: Speed

TC3: Ploughing Depth

TC9: Soil Strength

TC4: Cutting edge thickness

TC10: Frictional Force

TC5: Cutting edge Sharpness

TC11: Ergonomy

TC6: Pulling Force Requirement

TC12: Material

Step 4: decide the relationships between customer requirements and technical characteristics
The relationships between technical characteristics and user needs have to be established in order
to identify important product properties. A 9, 3, 1 scale was used where 9 is strong, 3 is medium and 1
weak. To make the relation matrix more easy to understand, symbols are used to demonstrate the
relationships.

and

represents strong, medium and weak relation respectively. A strong

relationship between technical characteristic and a user need means that changing the product
characteristic would greatly influence the customer need.
In the case study on oxen pulled plough, there is a strong relationship between Plough more with
minimum number of trips and ploughing width; and Easy to be pulled by oxen and be easy to move
to and from the field (light) and weight therefore the rating 9 (strong) is given for each relation .
The relationship between Penetrate land properly and easily and weight is 3 (medium).
Step 5: decide correlations among technical characteristics
In correlation matrix, symbols are used to show the degree of correlation among technical
characteristics.

and X represents strong positive,positive,strong negative and negative

41

correlation respectively.Generally,positive correlation means an increase of one parameters value cause

for an increase in the value of an other parameter whereas negative correlation means an increase of
one parameters value cause for decrease in in the value of an other parameter.for example,the
correlation among weight and

material is strong positive (

) which means an increase of the

composition of material(mass) leads to an increase of weight. However, weight and speed has a strong
negative correlation (

) which means an increment of weight of plough implement causes for

reduction of the speed of operation by oxen. Furthermore, weight and cutting edge thickness has positive
correlation which indicates an increase of thickness of a component causes for an increase in weight of a
component.eventhough,weight has positive correlation,the degree of correlation is different.i.e weight
has strong positive with material(mass) and only positive with that of thickness.Finally, the empty area
means no correation or relation may exist or indirectly correlated. For instance,there is no correlation
between ploughing width and depth; cutting edge sharpness and speed are indirectly correlated.To make
it clear, when the sharpness increases,pulling force requirement decreases and then the speed of
operation can increases.
Step 6: determine the absolute and relative importance of each technical characteristic
In order to determine which technical characteristics are influencing the customer satisfaction and to
prioritize technical characteristics, an overall weighting is calculated. By multiplying the customer
weighting and numerical weighting in the of the relation matrix, and summing these together, each
technical characteristics is given an overall weighting. As an example, the absolute weighting of
pulling force requirement is gained as follows: (5*9) + (4*9) = 81.Similarly for weight: (3*9) + (4*3) =
39. The absolute, relative weighting value and the rank of twelve technical parameters are shown in
Table 5.2.
Table 5:2 the absolute, relative weighting value and the rank of technical characteristics

S.N

Technical

Absolute

Relative

Rank

Characteristics

weightage

weightage(%)

TC1

Weight

39

9.2

TC2

Rake Angle

36

8.4

TC3

Ploughing

36

8.4

36

8.4

Depth
TC4

Cutting edge
thickness

42

TC5

Cutting edge

36

8.4

81

19.0

45

10.6

Sharpness
TC6

Pulling Force
Requirement

TC7

Ploughing
Width

TC8

Speed

18

4.3

TC9

Soil Strength

36

8.4

TC10 Frictional
Force

18

4.3

TC11 Ergonomy

18

4.3

TC12 Material

27

6.3

426

100

Total

Step 7: prioritize the technical characteristics

Looking carefully table 5.2, using the absolute and relative weighting value, technical parameters can
be prioritized and then it can be identified easily which technical characteristics matters most. So,
pulling force requirement (19%), ploughing width (10.6%) and weight (9.2%) have got the first, second
and third priority respectively. It will therefore be wise to pay extra attention to the optimization of
pulling force requirement, ploughing width and weight in order to meet the customer needs.
Step 8: put the target values for technical characteristics
The purpose of the QFD analysis is to fulfill the customers needs. Therefore each technical
characteristic is given a target value. The target values are taken from opinions of experts and previous
research works (Solomon, et al., 2006) and (Worku and Awole, 2012). Setting the target values at
conceptual design stage does not have to be too specific. Hence, it is put in range or minimum or
maximum value. For example, the target value for cutting edge thickness of the ploughshare is in the
range of 2-8mm.

43

Figure 5:1 QFD analysis of oxen pulled plough

44

5.2.1.2. Outputs of Requirement Domain

From the schematic diagram of the methodical procedure of QFD, FAD and FMEA-facilitated design
process (Figure 3.7), the output of QFD analysis are relationship values, correlation values and
prioritized technical characteristics. Here, the QFD analysis of oxen pulled plough verifies it. In other
words, based on the model, the relationship, correlation values and the prioritized technical
characteristics are determined as shown in Figure 5.2. Therefore, in order to improve farm productivity
and to meet the most important customer requirements, we need to consider carefully the output of
requirement domain. To sum up, the most important customer need I need plough more with minimum
number of trips and the top two technical characteristics are pulling force requirement and ploughing
width. This implies the engineers can increase the ploghing width with minimum pulling force
requirement by optimizing other parameters. This reflects how important QFD analysis is.
5.2.1.3. Further Requirements
In principle, requirements lists should be binding and complete. However, any attempt to formulate all
possible requirements at the start of a project will fail and would cause considerable delays. Looking at
the inputs and outputs of individual working steps in the design process, help designers to design a good
product (Pahl, et al., 2007).Hence, the non functional requirements such as price (not more than 2000
ETB), reliability (not less than 0.95), maintainability (easy to maintain) and schedule (to be completed
April 2008 E.C) must be considered in parallel.
5.2.2. Function Domain
In the function domain, two main inputs are the functional and non functional requirements. The
functional requirements are requirements those must be met to make the product functional where as the
non functional requirements are constraints which used as evaluation criteria to compare our product
with competitors products.

Deployment of Functions
A set of functions are listed as below. After that, the mapping between requirements and functions is
presented in TCF matrix (see Table 5.3). In the Technical Characteristics -Functions matrix, TCF km is
th

th

equal to one represents that the m function is necessary to satisfy the k requirement. Otherwise, TCkm
is equal to zero.
45

Deployment of functions:

TC1:pulling force
Transmit pulling force

TC2: ploughing depth

Penetrate land at optimum depth

TC3: rake angle

Penetrate land at optimum rake angle

TC4: cutting edge thickness

Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge thickness

TC5: cutting edge sharpness

Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge sharpness

TC6: soil strength

Break and move soil with optimum force

TC7:ploughing width
Propagate crack at targeted width

Thus, we got a list of functions:

F1: Transmit pulling force and operator force

F2: Penetrate land at optimum depth

F3: Penetrate land at optimum rake angle

F4: Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge thickness

F5: Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge sharpness

F6: Break and move soil with optimum force

F7: Propagate crack at targeted width

46

Table 5:3 TCF matrix of the mapping between technical characteristics and functions

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

TC 1

TC 2

TC 3

TC 4

TC 5

TC 6

TC 7

In order to perform the ploughing operation, a number of other functions (F8- F20) which are equally
important to the above functions (F1- F7) are necessary. Therefore, all functions including the above
seven functions are listed below.

F1: Transmit pulling force and operator force

F2: Penetrate land at optimum depth

F3: Penetrate land at optimum rake angle

F4: Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge thickness

F5: Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge sharpness

F6: Break and move soil with optimum force

F7: Propagate crack at targeted width

F8: allows handle to pass in it

F9: balance load and prevent leather strap 2 from sliding

F10: join yoke to beam

F11: attach rear side wings to beam

F12: hold together ploughshare and side wings

F13: fasten loop with beam

47

F14: guide the oxen

F15: vary the rake angle at junction point

F16: allows the neck holders to pass in it

F17: Support neck holder

F18: Join and adjust neck holders

F19: Lubricate leather strap

F20: Reduce friction to oxen

5.2.3. Component Domain

In the component domain, the main input is the function list. After defining the components to achieve
the functions, the design concept is now ready to define the solutions for each function. In this case
study, the ranking value of technical characteristics from QFD analysis is considered while defining the
components to achieve functions.
5.2.3.1. Definition of the components
To define the components, we have two inputs: a list of functions and a list a ranking value of technical
characteristics. The definition of components is the particular solutions to achieve the functions, and
thus the components are defined one by one based on the list of functions. Principally, the function
description and the knowledge from researchers help us to visualize what components are required. For
example, in our case product, to achieve the function Penetrate land at targeted depth, the researchers
know there are two main ploughs: one is ard type plough and another one is mould board type plough.
The ranks of technical characteristics from QFD analysis are kept in parallel while defining components
but only seven of them are shown. It is due to the other five technical requirements are non functional
requirements. For example, weight has given the 3rd priority and it is among the constraints that must be
considered to have a good design and to win a competition. So, the rank of the five requirements is
considered during functional analysis (FAD) and is going to be considered during detail design.
The components are defined in Table 5.4 by taking reference of the real life product oxen pulled
plough.

48

Table 5:4 Components to achieve their corresponding functions

Technical

Rank

functions

components

Transmit pulling force to handle

beam

Transmit pulling and operator force

handle

characteristics
pulling force

1st

F1

requirement
ploughing depth

4th

F2

Penetrate land at optimum depth

Ard ploughshare

rake angle

4th

F3

Penetrate land at optimum rake angle

Ard ploughshare

cutting edge
thickness

4th

F4

Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge Ard ploughshare

cutting edge

4th

thickness
F5

sharpness
soil strength

Penetrate land with optimum cutting edge Ard ploughshare

sharpness

4th

F6

Break and move soil with optimum force

Ard ploughshare

ploughing width 2nd

F7

Propagate crack at targeted width

Side wings
Ard ploughshare

F8

Balance load and prevent leather strap 2

Centering pin

from sliding
F9

join yoke to beam and transmit pulling

leather strap 2

force to beam
F10

attach rear side wings to beam

Wooden pin

F11

hold together ploughshare and side wings

Metal loop

F12

Fasten metal loop with beam

rope

F13

guide the oxen

neck holders

F14

vary the rake angle at junction point

Spacer

F15

Fix and allow the neck holders and

yoke

centering pin to pass in it

F16

Support neck holder

Rubber washer

F17

Join and adjust neck holders

Leather strap 1

49

F18

Carry yoke

oxen

F19

Lubricate leather strap1&2

Fat or butter

F20

Reduce friction to oxen

Leather for safety

5.2.3.2. Function Analysis Diagram

The FAD for the case study of oxen pulled plough was analyzed. The model includes 17 blocks with
blue background to represent the components of the plough (e.g. ploughshare and beam), and 2 blocks to
model components upstream and downstream of the plough (e.g. oxen and land). There are
approximately 25 relations of which18 are useful (green arrow) (e.g. beam transmits the pulling force to
handle and wooden pin join wings), and 7 are harmful (red arrow) (e.g. beam generates pressure on
wooden pin). The FAD analysis of the case study of plough is shown in figure 5.4.The results of the case
study research have shown that modeling product functionality together with structure produces models
which are less abstract and easy to understand. A possible reason is that it better aligns with the natural
way of working of engineers involving simultaneous thinking with function and product structure. The
results have also shown that FAD models capture a richer set of functions. Finally, by modeling not just
only useful actions but also harmful ones, the method offers a starting point to propose design
improvements. Therefore, FAD is a method that can be used now to map and understand function
interactions in engineering systems. These results support the conclusion made by Aurisicchio and
Bracewell (2013). Therefore, integrating FAD in design process can result in a better design process.

50

Figure 5:2 3D view of the oxen pulled plough

FP1, pulling force of one ox; FP2,pulling force of another ox; Ff, friction force; y, rake angle;130cm and
140cm and 218cm, and 317 cm overall height ,width , length of handle and beam and of oxen pulled
plough respectively.
Fp1

Z
Y
X

Fp2

51

Figure 5:3 numbered components of oxen pulled plough

Numbered components of oxen pulled plough is modeled using 3Ds Max software to make FAD
analysis of oxen pulled plough as shown in Figure 5.4.

52

Fat or
butter (16)

Generates pressure on

Leather for
safety (15)

Spacer (14)
Reduce
friction to
Oxen

Carry
Generates
pressure
on

Centering pin
(6)

Yoke (3)

Balance
load &
prevent (5)
from
sliding

Lubricate
Leather strap
2(5)

junction
point

Join

Fix& allow (2)

to pass

Fasten

Rope (13)

Rubber
washer (1)

Join and
Adjust

Generates pressure
on

Penetrate at optimum

Wooden pin (11)

Side wings (10)

Lubricate
Propagate crack
at targeted width
Fat or
butter (16)
Generates pressure
on
Figure 5:4 FAD analysis of oxen pulled plough

53

Depth
Rake angle
Cutting edge
thickness
Cutting edge
sharpness

Propagate crack, break &

move

Land and soil

Generates resistance
on

Hold
together

Attach

Leather strap
1(4)

Transmit pulling
and operator force
to
Ard ploughshare (9)

Metal loop (12)

Generates pressure
on

Handle (8)

to
Beam (7)

Neck
holders (2)

Transmit
pulling force

Supports

Guide

Generates pressure
on

Vary angle at

5.2.3.3. Determination of Component Failure Mode

What we should not forget is that the purpose of performing FMEA is to prevent serious failures and to
do quality management. In other words, the main output of the component domain is not only a design
concept but also a control plan. Based on this point, the study performs causes analysis and defines the
control plan to complete the FMEA document for components. From the QFD, FAD and FMEA
facilitated design process; the QFD and FMEA are directly integrated. This implies the priority of
technical parameters must be taken in to consideration during component failure mode and effect
analysis. Failure modes of components (one of the basic elements of FMEA) are already identified in
Section 3.2.1. Here, we used the worksheet to review each possibility and the result is displayed in Table
5.5.
Table 5:5 Worksheet of components failure modes

Failure modes
component

Damaged

Loss of

Non-compatible

efficiency
Rubber washer

Neck holders

Yoke

Leather strap 1

Leather strap 2

Centering pin

Beam

Handle

Ard ploughshare

Side wings

Wooden pin

Metal loop

Rope

Spacer

54

5.2.3.4. Effect Analysis of the Components Failure Modes

Effect of components failure modes focus on the impacts of functions achievement. For example, if an
ard ploughshare is damaged, it might have an effect that the ard ploughshare cannot penetrate the land.
The severity value is assigned based on the evaluation scheme in Appendix III-A and the priority of
technical characteristics such as pulling force requirement, width, and weight etc. For example, the
losses of efficiency of leather strap 2 results in difficulty to join Yoke and Beam properly and has given
the severity value of 7. If it was only based on evaluation scheme, 7 represent loss of primary function.
However, the main function is plough the land which does not depend on losses of efficiency of leather
strap 2 unless it is damaged. Therefore, the severity value was claimed to be less than 7 but since losses
of efficiency of leather strap 2 implies it is worn and elongated which results in power wastage and
increases pulling force requirement. From the priority of technical characteristics pulling force
requirement has got the first priority in QFD analysis. Therefore, the severity value is decided to be 7
based on both the evaluation scheme and priority of technical characteristics.
5.2.3.5. Reasoning of severity of components
Two reasoning approaches are used to get severity of components failure modes.

First approach-the severity valuing from the evaluation scheme in Appendix III-A which is based
on components definition to achieve function.

Second approach-the highest ranking value of the technical characteristics from QFD analysis.
From the QFD, FAD and FMEA facilitated design process; the QFD and FMEA are directly
integrated. This implies the priority of technical parameters must be taken in to consideration
during component failure mode and effect analysis.

Based on the two approaches, the severity of the component failure mode is reasoned and determined as
kc

st

follows. S (kc) = Maximum of S (FMs ) (e.g. S (1 c) = Max [(S (FMs

1stc

)].

For example, severity reasoning of Ard ploughshare .Ard ploughshare has three failure modes i.e.
damaged, 1st Failure Mode; loss of efficiency, 2nd Failure Mode; and non-compatibility, 3rd Failure
Mode and the priority of technical characteristics from Table 5.2 pulling force requirement, ploughing
width, and weight are ranked first, second and third respectively.
st

S (1 FM9

thC

) =8 because it greatly affect the primary function based on first approach at the same time,

since the functions of ard plough share are penetrate at targeted with minimum pulling force requirement
55

and propagate crack at required width that has technical characteristics with highest priority based on
second approach; confirms highest severity value is correct.
S (2nd FM9

thC

) =7 because it greatly affect the secondary function based on first approach at the same

time the priority of technical characteristics are considered based on second approach. Finally, S (3rd
FM9

thC

) =8 is determined based on the two approaches.

th

Therefore, (10 c) = Maximum of S (FMs10

thc

= max (8, 7, 8) = {8}

Generally, the severity value for all component failure modes is determined based on the above
reasoning.
5.2.3.6. Causes analysis of components Failure Modes
The main reason for the causal factor existence is improper design. Thus, we listed some common
possible design failures as below as mentioned by Hua (2013).

Improper calculation of dimension, tolerance or shape

Improper component selection, including materials and specifications

Improper load analysis

Lack of components or required protection

Less consideration of operation conditions in real life

In order to make it clear, let us take cause analysis for Ard ploughshare. Ard ploughshare is damaged
may be caused by less consideration of operation condition such as high soil resistance (low soil
moisture, Vertisol soil type) and stone. In addition, improper material selection (the material is too thick
and weak strength) and improper force analysis. Wear due to corrosion and friction and not to sharp are
causes for Ard ploughshare to lose its efficiency. Finally, improper calculation of dimension and
tolerance are the causes for non-compatibility of Ard ploughshare to other components. The reason for
listing the causes clearly is to make the record easy and to assess the occurrence. From the QFD, FAD
and FMEA facilitated design process; useful and harmful interactions are the inputs for component
domain. Hence, the useful interactions are used to understand and improve the design. On the other
hand, the harmful interactions can be considered as causes for component failure. For example, pressure

56

from handle is a cause for spacer to lose its efficiency. After the cause analysis, the occurrence value is
given based on the evaluation scheme.
5.2.3.7. Decision of control plan and detection
One of the important outputs of FMEA is the quality control plan. Once the cause and effect analysis for
the component failure modes and relevant severity and occurrence ranking completed, the engineers get
basic ideas about the failure modes. The occurrence and the severity values provide a guideline for
engineers to decide the control methods. If these two rating values are both high, it is necessary for
engineers to decide a control method with low detection value.
One type of prevention type of control plan is eliminating or reducing the cause, such as setting the
proper dimension tolerance by following a guideline (might be a standard design document (SDD) to
prevent improper dimension. standard design document can include design check lists. The other type of
the control plan is detecting the cause, such as performing function test. However, it is relatively harder
to define the control method because the case study focuses on the conceptual design. In other words,
the engineers may suggest that the component needs to be checked by functional test in order to monitor
the possible failure modes, but the functional test machine will not be made in the conceptual design. In
addition, the method may be too expensive and the capability of the college should be considered while
giving suggestions (Hua, 2013). In this study, the control methods based detection evaluation scheme
Appendix III-C is rated. To complete overall risk by the risk priority value (RPN-See Table 5.6 and 5.7),
the probability of occurrence of causes is important and rated based on the evaluation scheme Appendix
III-B.
RPN= S*O*D where, S=Severity; O=Occurrence; D= Detection
For example, the RPN value for ard ploughshare is as follow:
For the failure mode of Ard ploughshare is damaged which results in Ard ploughshare cannot penetrate
land and propagate crack which has a severity of 8.Let us take one of the causes for it, improper
component selection with probability of occurrence 5 and the ability of the traditional method to detect
this cause is 8.Therefore, RPN = S*O*D
=8*4*8 =128

57

5.2.3.8. Completion of components Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

After all the necessary work in Section 5.2.3 had completed, all the materials have been on our hands to
complete the document of component FMEA. The completion of FMEA for components is one of the
cornerstones in the product development process. The FMEA for components provides a guideline for
engineers to consider the components selection and the proper quality control plan to prevent or reduce
critical failures.
Furthermore, engineers are able to review the critical failure modes of components after completing the
FMEA for components. It gives engineers more information to select proper components or to decide
the control plan when the design is done. With the supporting document of the prioritized risk
consequences of components, the engineers are able to review design concept. For example, in Table
5.6, the row with relatively higher RPN of value 360 is wooden pin is damaged due to higher load it has
a high severity effect because the wooden pin cannot attach side wings. In this case, the engineers
definitely need to select wooden pin which is strong enough to withstand load from beam and handle or
to design a method such as combining FAD, design analysis software and standard design document to
analyze the components, material properties and to select a component with right specification.
Table 5:6 FMEA based on traditional method

components

Failure

Effects

Causes

modes

Current

RPN

Control
method
Ard

Inconsideration 3

Ard

ploughshare

of operation

ploughshare

cannot

condition

penetrate

Foreign

ploughshare land and

material

is damaged

propagate

Improper force

crack

analysis

Ard

Improper
component
selection

58

Traditional 6

144

none

160

Traditional 4

32

Traditional 4

128

10

It loses its

It meets

Wear due to

efficiency

difficulty to

friction and

penetrate

rust

land and

Improper

propagate

sharpness

Traditional 4

140

Traditional 6

126

Traditional 6

96

Traditional 8

64

Traditional 5

20

Traditional 4

48

Traditional 6

24

Traditional 8

128

crack
Ard

it cannot

ploughshare get forces

Improper
dimension

and handle
are not
compatible
Rubber

Rubber

It unable to

Improper

washer

washer is

support the

component

damaged

neck

selection

holders

Excessive
pressure from
neck holders
and yoke

It loses its

It meets

efficiency

difficulty to

Wear due to
friction

support the
neck
holders
Rubber

It unable to 4

Improper

washer and

support the

dimension

neck

neck

holders are

holders

not
compatible
Neck

Neck

Neck

Improper

holders

holders are

holders

component

damaged

cannot

selection
59

Neck

guide the

Excessive

oxen

pressure

Neck

holders lose holders

Traditional 5

240

Traditional 4

56

Traditional 6

48

Traditional 8

128

Excessive wear 2

Traditional 6

96

Traditional 5

70

Traditional 8

128

wear due to
friction

its

meet

efficiency

difficulty to
guide

the

oxen
Neck

Oxen

holders and cannot bear

yoke are

Improper
dimension

the yoke

not
compatible
Yoke

Yoke is

Neck

Improper

damaged

holders are

component

dropped

selection

due to friction

Yoke loses

It meets

its

difficulty to

efficiency

fix and

Friction from
neck holders

allow the
neck
holders to
pass in it
Leather

Leather

Leather

Improper

strap 1

strap 1 is

strap 1 un

component

damaged

able to join

selection

and adjust
neck
holders
60

Leather

It meets

strap 1loses

difficulty to

friction and

its

join and

inconsideration

efficiency

adjust neck

of operation

holders

condition
8

Wear due to

Improper

Traditional 6

126

Traditional 6

48

Traditional 8

192

Traditional 4

96

Traditional 6

48

Traditional 5

140

Traditional 8

128

Traditional 4

128

Traditional 5

105

Leather

Leather

strap 1 and

strap 1 pin

neck

cannot be

holders are

inserted in

not

to neck

compatible

holders

Leather

Leather

Yoke and

strap 2

strap 2 is

Beam

component

damaged

cannot be

selection

joined

Improper force 3

dimension

Improper

analysis
Lack of
lubrication
It loses its

It meets

Wear from

efficiency

difficulty to

beam and

join Yoke

centering pin

and Beam
properly
Centering

Centering

Yoke and

Improper

pin

pin is

Beam

component

damaged

cannot be

selection

joined

Wear due to
pressure

Centering

It meets

Wear due to

pin loses its

difficulty to

tension and

efficiency

join Yoke

friction from

and Beam

Leather strap 2
61

and beam

Beam

Beam is

Beam

Improper

damaged

cannot

component

transmit

selection

pulling

Improper force

force to

analysis

Traditional 8

128

Traditional 4

64

Traditional 5

105

Traditional 6

96

Traditional 8

128

Traditional 4

160

Traditional 5

70

handle

Beam loses

It meets

Friction from

its

difficulty to

handle and

efficiency

transmit

centering pin

pulling
force to
handle
Beam is not

Handle and 8

Improper

compatible

centering

dimension

pin cannot
pass
through
beam
Handle

Handle is

cannot

Improper

damaged

transmit

component

pulling and

selection

operator

Improper force

force to

analysis

handle
It loses its

It meets

efficiency

difficulty to

Friction from
beam

transmit
pulling and
62

operator
force to
handle
Side wings

Side wings

Side wings

Excessive

are

cannot

pressure

damaged

propagate

Improper

the crack

component

Traditional 5

240

Traditional 8

256

10

Traditional 5

350

Traditional 6

96

Traditional 8

320

Traditional 5

360

Traditional 5

315

Traditional 6

96

selection
Side wings

Side wings

lose their

meet

efficiency

difficulty to

Wear due to
friction

propagate
crack
Side wings

Side wings

and wooden become

Wooden pin

Improper
dimension

pin are not

free

compatible

wheeling

Wooden

It cannot

pin is

attach side

component

damaged

wings

selection

Improper

Pressure due to
load
Wooden

It meets

wear due to

pin loses

difficulty to

load and

efficiency

connect

friction

side wings
Wooden

Wooden

pin is not

pin is

compatible

unable to

Improper
dimension

pass
through
beam
63

Metal loop

Metal loop It cannot

is damaged

Improper

join side

component

wings with

selection

Traditional 8

64

Traditional 5

70

Traditional 6

144

Traditional 8

128

Traditional 6

144

Traditional 5

105

Traditional 8

96

Traditional 5

60

Traditional 5

140

ploughshare
It loses its

It meets

Wear due to

efficiency

difficulty to

friction and

join side

rust

wings with
ploughshare
Metal loop

It cannot

is not

join side

compatible

wings with

with side

ploughshare

Improper
dimension

wings and
ploughshare
rope

Rope is

It cannot

Improper

damaged

join beam

component

and metal

selection

loop

Strong tension 3
from beam and
metal loop

Spacer

Rope loses

It meets

its

difficulty to

tension and

efficiency

join

inconsideration

beam and

of operation

metal loop

condition
6

Wear due to

Spacer is

Spacer

Improper

damaged

cannot

component

control

selection

depth

Improper force
analysis

Spacer

It meets

Wear due to
64

loses its

difficulty to

friction from

efficiency

control

handle

depth
Spacer and

Spacer

beam are

cannot put

not

in beam

Improper

Traditional 6

36

dimension

compatible

Table 5:7 Improved FMEA based on the control plan

components

Failure

Effects

Causes

modes

Control

Inconsideration 3

Design

Ard

ploughshare

of operation

analysis

ploughshare

cannot

condition

& SDD

penetrate

Foreign

ploughshare land and

material

is damaged

propagate

Improper force

crack

analysis
Improper

96

none

10

160

Design

24

128

105

84

64

analysis
4

Design

component

analysis

selection

& SDD

It loses its

It meets

efficiency

difficulty to

friction and

&Design

penetrate

rust

analysis

land and

Improper

propagate

sharpness

Wear due to

it cannot

ploughshare get forces

FAD

Design
analysis

crack
Ard

RPN

plan
Ard

Ard

& SDD
8

Improper
dimension

and handle

Design
analysis
& SDD

are not
compatible
65

Rubber

Rubber

It unable to

Improper

washer

washer is

support the

component

analysis

damaged

neck

selection

& SDD

holders

Excessive

pressure from

Design

Design

32

12

36

16

64

192

42

32

analysis

neck holders
and yoke
It loses its

It meets

efficiency

difficulty to

Wear due to

friction

Design
analysis

support the
neck
holders
Rubber

It unable to 4

Improper

washer and

support the

dimension

neck

neck

holders are

holders

Design
analysis
& SDD

not
compatible
Neck

Neck

Neck

Improper

holders

holders are

holders

component

analysis

damaged

cannot

selection

& SDD

guide the

Excessive

oxen

pressure

Design

Design
analysis
& SDD

Neck

Neck

holders lose

holders

its

meet

efficiency

difficulty to
guide

wear due to

friction

FAD
&Design
analysis

the

oxen
Neck

Oxen

holders and cannot bear

Improper
dimension
66

Design
analysis

yoke are

the yoke

& SDD

not
compatible
Yoke

Yoke is

Neck

damaged

holders are

component

analysis

dropped

selection

& SDD

Excessive wear 2

Design

due to friction

analysis

Yoke loses

It meets

its

difficulty to

efficiency

fix and

Improper

Friction from

neck holders

Design

Design

64

48

42

64

84

32

analysis

allow the
neck
holders to
pass in it
Leather

Leather

Leather

Improper

Design

strap 1

strap 1 is

strap 1 un

component

analysis

damaged

able to join

selection

& SDD

and adjust
neck
holders
Leather

It meets

strap 1loses

difficulty to

friction and

analysis

its

join and

inconsideration

& SDD

efficiency

adjust neck

of operation

holders

condition

Leather

Leather

strap 1 and

strap 1 pin

neck

cannot be

holders are

inserted in

not

to neck

Wear due to

Improper
dimension

Design

Design
analysis
& SDD

67

compatible

holders

Leather

Leather

Yoke and

strap 2

strap 2 is

Beam

component

analysis

damaged

cannot be

selection

& SDD

joined

Improper force 3

design

analysis

analysis

Improper

Lack of

lubrication

Design

Design

96

72

32

84

64

96

63

64

48

analysis
& SDD

It loses its

It meets

Wear from

efficiency

difficulty to

beam and

join Yoke

centering pin

Design
analysis

and Beam
Centering

Centering

pin

pin

Yoke and

is Beam

damaged

Improper

Design

component

analysis

cannot be

selection

& SDD

joined

Wear due to

pressure

FAD
&Design
analysis

Centering

It meets

Wear due to

FAD

pin loses its

difficulty to

tension and

&Design

efficiency

join Yoke

friction from

analysis

and Beam

Leather strap 2
and beam

Beam

Beam is

Beam

Improper

damaged

cannot

component

analysis

transmit

selection

& SDD

pulling

Improper force

force to

analysis

handle

68

Design

design
analysis

Beam loses

It meets

Friction from

its

difficulty to

handle and

efficiency

transmit

centering pin

design

72

64

64

120

42

144

160

210

analysis

pulling
force to
handle
Beam is not

Handle and 8

Improper

compatible

centering

dimension

Design
analysis

pin cannot

& SDD

pass
through
beam
Handle

Handle is

cannot

Improper

damaged

transmit

component

analysis

pulling and

selection

& SDD

operator

Improper force

force to

analysis

Design

design
analysis

handle
It loses its

It meets

efficiency

difficulty to

Friction from

beam

design
analysis

transmit
pulling and
operator
force to
handle
Side wings

Side wings

Side wings

are

cannot

damaged

propagate

Side wings

pressure

FAD
&Design
analysis

the crack

Side wings

Excessive

Improper

Design

component

analysis

selection

& SDD

Wear due to
69

10

FAD &

lose their

meet

efficiency

difficulty to

friction

Design
analysis

propagate
crack
Side wings

Side wings

and wooden become

Wooden pin

Improper

dimension

Design

80

160

216

189

64

32

42

analysis

pin are not

free

& SDD

compatible

wheeling

Wooden

It cannot

pin is

attach side

component

analysis

damaged

wings

selection

& SDD

Improper

Pressure due to

load
7

wear due to

Design

design
analysis

Wooden

It meets

FAD &

pin loses

difficulty to

load and

Design

efficiency

connect

friction

analysis

side wings
Wooden

Wooden

pin is not

pin is

compatible

unable to

Improper

dimension

Design
analysis
& SDD

pass
through
beam
Metal loop

Metal loop It cannot

is damaged

Improper

Design

join side

component

analysis

wings with

selection

& SDD

ploughshare
It loses its

It meets

Wear due to

efficiency

difficulty to

friction and

join side

rust

wings with
ploughshare
70

Design
analysis

Metal loop

It cannot

is not

join side

compatible

wings with

with side

ploughshare

Improper

dimension

Design

96

64

72

63

48

36

FAD & 3

84

analysis
& SDD

wings and
ploughshare
rope

Rope is

It cannot

Improper

Design

damaged

join beam

component

analysis

and metal

selection

& SDD

loop

Strong tension 3

design

from beam and

analysis

metal loop

Spacer

Rope loses

It meets

its

difficulty to

tension and

efficiency

join

inconsideration

beam and

of operation

metal loop

condition
6

Wear due to

Improper

Design
analysis

Spacer is

Spacer

damaged

cannot

component

analysis

control

selection

& SDD

depth

Improper force

analysis
4

Wear due to

Design

Design
analysis

Spacer

It meets

loses its

difficulty to

friction from

Design

efficiency

control

handle

analysis

depth
Spacer and

Spacer

beam are

cannot put

not

in beam

Improper
dimension

Design
analysis
& SDD

compatible

71

24

In Table 5.6 and Table 5.7, a complete FMEA for components is shown based on above analysis. In this
document, engineers are able to prioritize the risk based on the RPN. From the improved FMEA Table
5.7, the riskiest components are wooden pin, side wings and neck holders with 216,210 and192 RPN
value respectively.

5.3. Validation
Once the proposed design methodology is verified by conducting a detail case study of oxen pulled
plough, the proposed methodology must be validated to check whether it can achieve the intended
purpose. In other studies, the proposed methodology is mainly validated by field test and face validity
techniques. However, actual testing (field test) of this methodology in the college is difficult due to time
constraint and face validity requires experience in systematic approaches, which the college does not
have, the proposed design methodology in this study is validated through comparison of related studies.
The application of QFD on companies, small and medium enterprises and services is reported based on a
reference bank of about 650 QFD publications established through searching various sources (Lai-Kow
and Ming-Lu, 2002).Its application is reviewed using a case study of safety shoe, TV remote control,
and in Toyota Company in this thesis. According to many researchers such as De Rosier et al. (2002),
Lefayet (2011), Carlson (2012) and Hua (2013), the FMEA application in industry is become popular
.Its application in smart phone and pressure valve is reviewed in this study. Finally the application of
FAD in using a case study of water pump is also reviewed in this study. In addition, many researchers
such as Bush and Robotham (1999), Anleitner (2010), Carlson (2012), Aurisicchio and Bracewell
(2013) and Stone et al. (2005) proposed the applications of QFD, FAD and FMEA to improve the
quality and reliability of the product at early in design stage.
Since the methods used in the proposed methodology are well known, applied at well known companies
and well known products and the conclusions from different researches are similar, the proposed
methodology is validated as it can achieve its purpose.

72

5.4. Discussion
The research methodology with chronological sequence of six steps is illustrated. as the output of the
first step indicated, the researchers and practitioners concluded that QFD, FAD and FMEA are powerful
methods that every industry is better to utilize so that methods help industries in improving product
design mainly in terms of quality and reliability of a product and play a great role if the methods are
applied at early stage of a product design. However, integrating QFD, FAD and FMEA with these three
types of design elements that improve the design process and/or that used as a scientific method of
concept generation and evaluation method has not been found in literature. Following the second step,
Collecting secondary data from reports of technology transfer office was used to obtain relevant
information such as the percentages of successful and failed products; the discussion was made on
Colleges Product Development Process with designers; reasons for product failures with designers,
manufacturers, technology transfer manager and those who were during products are being tested in the
field. Finally, discussion was made with those who have experience in farming about working principle
of the case product and the probability of occurrence for failure modes of components. After that Pareto
analysis to determine the contributions of causes for product failure was made and Design problem,
Manufacturing problem, Supply problem and others contributes

58.8%, 23.5% , 11.7% and 6%

respectively. Sample BPTC product and its design problems are analyzed. From the analysis of sample
product, comparison of colleges product development process with Generic product development
process and from use and applications of QFD, FAD and FMEA there is a huge gap. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the colleges design process is poor. Following the third step integration framework that
includes four integration model scenarios was proposed and the best integration model was selected.
Referring the fourth step a methodical procedure was proposed for the selected model to facilitate the
practice of QFD, FAD and FMEA in the design process.
Requirement, function and component were taken as design process parameters. Technical
characteristics, relationship between customer requirements and technical characteristics, correlation
among technical characteristics and importance of technical characteristics were taken as main QFD
parameters. Functions and components were taken as the key parameters of FAD and finally failure
modes, causes and effects were taken as basic FMEA parameters. The integration model of QFD, FAD
and FMEA applied along with the engineering design process is implemented using a step-by-step QFD,
FAD and FMEA-facilitated design process methodology, which is proposed in Chapter 4, to
demonstrate and verify the proposed design methodology. A detailed case study of oxen pulled plough
73

including QFD analysis, FAD Analysis and improved FMEA is shown in Figure 5.1, in Figure 5.4 and
in Table 5.7 respectively.
Five findings are presented briefly as follow: After analyzing QFD for oxen pulled plough,
determination of relationship and correlation value, the priority of twelve technical parameters are
identified. Among twelve technical parameters pulling force requirement (19%), ploughing width
(10.6%) and weight (9.2%) have got the first, second and third priority respectively. FAD analysis for
oxen pulled plough has been done .18 useful and 7 harmful interactions are found. For example, metal
loop holds together ard ploughshare and side wings is useful interaction whereas beam generates
pressure on wooden pin is a harmful interaction. FMEA analysis for 14 oxen pulled plough components
is done. After applying detection method the risk is reduced by 62% (reduction of RPN value from 350
to 216). Among 14 components wooden pin, wing and neck holders with 216, 210 and 192 RPN values,
are identified as the first, second and third riskiest components respectively. Since no difficulty was
found while conducting the analysis using a case study, the design methodology is verified and it can be
concluded that other product designs can pass through the methodology. Integration of QFD, FAD and
FMEA with requirement, function and component basic design elements with QFD, FAD and FMEA
facilitated design process which incorporates in puts and out puts of each domain with clear procedures
is core finding of this thesis. For example, the prioritized technical characteristics from QFD analysis
and the harmful interactions from FAD analysis help the engineer to decide the severity of the failure
mode effect and to observe some causes for component failure respectively. This design methodology
used as a scientific method of concept generation and evaluation that enable us to realize quality and
reliability at early product development process. Even the concept of the plough seems familiar which
contains common components; it has basic difference with the traditional one. Firstly, the new concept
intends to improve the farm productivity by making the ploughing width double so as to increase the
productivity by 50 %. Increasing the ploughing width means increasing the width of the Ard
ploughshare. Secondly, the handle is tapered so as not to increase the width of the side wings, beam and
handle. All components will be tested and selected based on standards and simulations during detail
design. Finally, the concept developed in this study is only one concept. Other alternative concepts are
going to be generated and evaluated against technical, economic and other criteria.
In what ways do these findings modify/add to the existing literature? The fourth finding modifies the
existing literature by filling the research gap through the integration of QFD, FAD and FMEA with
requirement, function and component basic design elements to improve the design process and to
generate and evaluate concepts. The other findings add to the existing literature by enhancing the
74

knowledge and clarifying the application of QFD, FAD and FMEA in oxen pulled plough. Since none of
the above methods have been applied so far in Ethiopia, the application of this design methodology in
oxen pulled plough design process which can be understood easily and can motivate designers to use it
in the product design process due to popularity of the product (oxen pulled plough) in Ethiopia. Findings
and conclusions from different researches about the proactive methods is used to validate the proposed
methodology.

75

CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION, AND FUTURE WORK
6.1. Conclusion
This study attempts to improve the design methodology since the research gap in design methodology is
found and case colleges design methodology, which is the main reason for product failure, is not right.
From the discussion made in section 5.6, the integration of QFD, FAD, and FMEA in three basic
elements of design process with its methodical procedure, which is the proposed design methodology, is
developed. After verifying the case study of oxen pulled plough using QFD, pulling force requirement
(19%), ploughing width (10.6%) and weight (9.2%) have got the first, second and third priority
respectively; using FAD, 18 useful and 7 harmful interactions were found; using improved FMEA, the
risk is reduced by 62%(from 350 to 216 RPN value) and among 14 components wooden pin, wing and
neck holders with 216, 210 and 192 RPN values, are identified as the first, second and third riskiest
components respectively.
Particularly, the implications of results of this study are pointed out as follow:

First, the proposed methodology used as a good technique in improving the design process as well as
scientific method of concept generation and evaluation so that the number of product success at
product test will be increased. In addition, the core finding, which has not been found in literature,
modifies the existing literature by filling the research gap.

Second, the proposed step-by-step QFD, FAD and FMEA facilitated design process enables to
design products easily and ensures the consistent of requirement, function and failure analysis in
product design process.

Third, prioritizing the technical parameters and risk consequence of components helps engineers to
select components and design the product reasonably.

Fourth, the case study analysis using the design of oxen pulled plough enhances the knowledge and
clarifies the application of QFD, FAD and FMEA.

So this study shows, for the first time, that how we can improve the design methodology by integrating
the well known methods systematically and this study will be important to help us understand how we
can prevent later design changes and increase products success especially in terms of quality and
reliability.
76

6.2. Recommendation
Today there is a severe competition among enterprises and colleges to transfer technologies and to
satisfy customer needs. To win this competition, utilizing design methodology improvement techniques
is the first and the most important thing. To cope up with this, Bahir Dar Polytechnic College should
exploit the advantages of design methodology improvement techniques.QFD, FAD, and FMEA are
among them.
Therefore, the following recommendations are made based on the study that has been conducted.

First of all conceptual design stage must not be missed and must not be given less attention

The researcher strongly recommends the college to use and apply scientific methods such as
QFD, FAD AND FMEA in the product development process.

It is better to apply the proposed methodology by the college in product design first by taking a
pilot product design to validate the methodology so that this may motivate them.

To guide original product designs and to redesign or modification purpose, it is better to have a
good documentation, especially related to reasons for product failures and product development
process of any product.

Furthermore, it is also better if other colleges, companies, and enterprises apply this design
methodology in any product development process.

6.3. Future Work

From the study, it has been observed that the proposed design methodology is a powerful tool in making
requirement, function, and component analysis. In future, after testing the proposed methodology under
real condition to make the validation more acceptable and integrating the proactive methods with other
methods such as heuristic methods to make the design methodology more reliable, the major research
area that is recommended to be undertaken in the future is developing manufacturing methodology by
integrating Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (PFMEA) and Taguchi Design of Experiment
(TDOE).

77

REFERENCES
Anleitner, M.A., (2010). The Power of Deduction: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for
Design, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee.
Aurisicchio, M. and Bracewell, R., (2013). The Function Analysis Diagram: intended benefits and
co-existence with other functional models, journal of engineering, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 41-56.
Bergman, B. and Klevsjo, B., (1994). Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction,
McGraw-Hill, London.
Bradley, J.R. and Guerrero, H.H., (2011). An Alternative FMEA Method for Simple and Accurate
Ranking of Failure Modes, Decision Sciences, Vol. 42, pp.743-771.
Bradley, N., (2010). Marketing research: tools & techniques, second edition, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Bush ,S.A. and Robotham ,A.J., (1999) improving conceptual design quality by use of QFD and DFMA
processes, international conference on engineering design iced 99 august 24-26,Munich,German.
Claudia Eckert (2013). That which is not forms: The practical challenges in using functional
concepts in design. Journal of Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing, vol.27, pp. 217-231.
Carlson, C.S., (2012). Effective FMEAs: Achieving Safe, Reliable, and Economical Products and
Processes using Failure Mode and Effectives Analysis, Wiley, New Jersey.
De Rosier, J., Stalhandske, E., Bagian, J.P. and Nudell, T., (2002). Using health care Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis: the National Center for Patient Safety's prospective risk analysis system, Joint
Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 248-267.
Duckworth, H.A. and Moore, R.A., (2010). Failure Mode Effects and Analysis, CRC Press, New
York.
Evans, J.R., and Lindsay, W.M., (2005).An Introduction to Six Sigma & Process Improvement,
Mason, Ohio and Thomson, South-Western.
Ertas, A., Jones, J. C., (1996). The Engineering Design Process, John Wiley and Sons, NewYork.

78

Hua,W., (2013). Integration of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis in the Engineering Design
Process, quality system engineering, Master thesis, Concordia University, Canada.
Hu-Chen, Liu, Long Liu and Nan Liu, (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and
effects analysis, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.40, pp. 828838.
John, M. and Herman, S., (2008).project management for engineering, business and technology,
third edition, Elsevier inc., London.
Karin, B. and John, A., (1996). Quality Function Deployment (QFD) - a means for developing
usable products, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 18, pp. 269-275.
Krishnan, V. and Bhattacharya, S., (2002). Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product
Development: the Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility, journal Management Science, vol. 48,
pp. 313-327.
Lai-Kow, C. and Ming-Lu, W., (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review, European
Journal of Operational Research 143, pp.463497.
Law, A., (2013).Verification and validation, Mcgraw Hill,New York.
Lefayet, S., (2011). Risk Analysis Method: FMEA/FMECA in the Organizations, International
Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS, Vol.11, No.05, pp. 267-279.
Nadia,B.,(2011).A framework

for successful new product development, journal of industrial

engineering and management,vol.4,pp.746-770.

OConnor P. and Kleyner, A., (2012), Practical Reliability Engineering, 5th edition, Wiley.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.H., (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic
Approach, Third Edition, Springer, London.
Robert G.cooper,(2009). How Companies are Reinventing their IdeatoLaunch Methodologies,
Technology Management,Vol.52, No.2,pp.47-57.
Sellappan,N. and Palanikumar, K., (2013). Development of Modified Evaluation and Prioritization
of Risk Priority Number in FMEA, International Journal of Engineering (IJE), Vol. 7, IssN.1, PP.8193.
Singson, M. and Hangsing, P., (2015). The 80/20 rule, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 41,
pp.207-219.
79

Solomon, G., Abdul, M., Hendrik, V., Herman, R., Jan, N., Hubert, V.,Mintesinot, B., Jozef,D. and
Josse, D., (2006) . Animal drawn tillage, the Ethiopian Ard plough, maresha,Journal of Soil &
Tillage Research,Vol. 89 pp .129143.
Stapenhurst, T., (2009). The Benchmarking Book: a how-to-guide to best practice for managers and
practitioners, first edition, Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Stone, R.B., Tumer, I.Y. and Stock, M.E., (2005). Linking Product Functionality to Historic Failures
to Improve Failure Analysis in Design, International journal in Engineering Design,Vol. 16, pp. 96108.
Stone, R.B. and Wood, K.L., (2000). Development of a Functional Basis for Design, Journal of
Mechanical Design, Vol. 122, pp. 359-370.
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D., (2012). Product Design and Development, Fifth Edition, McGrawHill, New York.
Worku,B. and Awole, M.,( 2014). On farm evaluation and demonstration of animal drawn mold
board and Gavin plows. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, Vol.16, No. 4, pp.7688.

80

APPENDIXES
Appendix I: Failed and passed products, BPTCs report, 2015
S.N

Product Name

Modern plough

Steam bread
baker
3

Slab saw

Cloth washer

Modern poultry
house

Two Block
molding machine

One Block
molding machine

Modern Bee
house

Rope water pump

10

Maize churning
machine

11

Milk churning
machine

12

Fuel gas furnace

13

Rice crasher

14

Local alcohol
distiller

15

Solar cooker

16

Metal bending
machine

17

Modern timber
shaper and
decorator

18

Concrete molding
81

Pass

Fail

machine
19

Bamboo splitting
machine

20

Yarn spinning
machine

21

Eight flying
handle loom

22

Electric stove

23

Sand siever

24

Electric mitad

82

Appendix II: colleges products

View 1

83

View 2

View 3
84

Appendix III-A: FMEA evaluation scheme for severity

Rank Severity

Bad

9-10

Safety issue: hazardous

In operable: loss of primary function

Perform primary function but at a reduced

level of performance

Items for comfort/convenience are in

operable

Items for comfort/convenience are

operable but at reduced level of
performance

2-4

Minor effect noticed by more than 1 % of

customers
Good

Appendix III-B FMEA evaluation scheme for occurrence

Rank occurrence

Bad

9-10

Very high :persistent failures

7-8

High :frequent failures

5-6

Moderate :occasional failures

2-4

Low: Relatively few failures

Remote: failure is unlikely

85

Good

Appendix III-C FMEA evaluation scheme for detect

control method (detection)
9-10

Bad

From very remote chance a

method will detect to no
apparent method to detect

7-8

From very low to remote chance

a method can detect a cause:
Design analysis/simulation

From moderate to low chance a

method can detect a cause
:Standard design
documents(SDD)

4-5

From moderately high to

moderate chance to detect the
cause: Design
analysis/simulation & SDD

2-3

From very high to moderately

high chance a method will detect
a cause :reliability test,/ design
analysis(DA )/simulation or DA
Good

and FAD
1

Almost certainly detect the cause

: Real life product test

86