<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>QFD Online</title>
	<link>http://www.qfdonline.com</link>
	<description>...moving into the House of Quality</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Saving Time by Voting Blind</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/saving-time-by-voting-blind/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/saving-time-by-voting-blind/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 21:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph P. Merts</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Voice of the Customer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/saving-time-by-voting-blind/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although the time saved by reducing unnecessary course corrections far outweighs the additional overhead of implementing Quality Function Deployment, there is definitely a significant upfront time investiture associated with the process.  However, there are several time saving procedures that QFD teams can utilize to significantly decrease the arduousness associated with the methodology. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/saving_time_by_voting_blind.jpg" alt="businessman with his hands over his eyes" class="right" />The Quality Function Deployment (<acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym>) process is probably the most effective methodology available for capturing and responding to the &#8220;voice of the customer&#8221;.  Few people dispute the effectiveness of <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym>, but many people express concerns about its efficiency.  Although the tools of <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> are extremely valuable for prioritizing product and/or service development efforts, they can be arguably cumbersome.  In fact, many management teams that implement a <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> process end up abandoning it after a few months due to the time requirements of following such a rigorous methodology.  Although the time saved by reducing unnecessary course corrections far outweighs the additional overhead of implementing Quality Function Deployment, there is definitely a significant upfront time investiture associated with the process.  However, there are several time saving procedures that <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> teams can utilize to significantly decrease the arduousness associated with the methodology.  One particularly beneficial time saver is that of &#8220;voting blind&#8221;. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/saving-time-by-voting-blind/#more-57" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/saving-time-by-voting-blind/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Planning for Failure: HOQ vs. FMEA</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/planning-for-failure-hoq-vs-fmea/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/planning-for-failure-hoq-vs-fmea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Wolfe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[History of QFD]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Voice of the Customer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[DFSS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CTQ]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[CTC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FMEA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/planning-for-failure-hoq-vs-fmea/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the best tool for prioritizing steps to mitigate potential failures:  Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the House of Quality (HOQ) tool? Coming from a Quality Function Deployment enthusiast, my answer may surprise you…]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/planning-for-failure.jpg" alt="Chain about to break" class="left" />You&#8217;ve probably heard the old adage, &#8220;If you fail to plan, then you&#8217;re planning to fail.&#8221;  That sentiment is certainly echoed in the basic principles of the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) methodology.  There is another old adage concerning failure that, although not quite as recognized, is just as true:  &#8220;Fail to mitigate failure and you will succeed in minimizing success.&#8221;  (Okay, so it isn&#8217;t really an old adage.  I just made it up.  However, you have to admit, it does sound rather catchy, and it does convey the underlying precept fairly well.)  This maxim (regardless of how it is worded) is similarly echoed by the tenets of Quality Function Deployment.</p>
<p>So then, the question arises&#8211;what is the best tool for prioritizing steps to mitigate potential failures:  Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or the House of Quality (HOQ) tool?  Coming from a Quality Function Deployment enthusiast, my answer may surprise you… </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/planning-for-failure-hoq-vs-fmea/#more-49" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/planning-for-failure-hoq-vs-fmea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s the Use?</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/whats-the-use/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/whats-the-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Livingston</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Voice of the Customer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/whats-the-use/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The House of Quality matrix is an almost universal tool that can be used for prioritizing anything from a family budget to the complex engineering tasks of an automobile manufacturer.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/whats-the-use.jpg" alt="Swiss Army Knife" class="right" />I have been asked on several occasions what industries Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is useful for.  My tongue-in-cheek response to such inquiries is that &#8220;<acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> is only useful for those industries that have decisions to make and customers to please&#8221;.  In all seriousness, <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> is about communication and decision making, and its tools can truly be used in any industry.  The House of Quality matrix, in particular, is an almost universal tool that can be used for prioritizing anything from a family budget to the complex engineering tasks of an automobile manufacturer. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/whats-the-use/#more-45" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/whats-the-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It All Depends</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/it-all-depends/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/it-all-depends/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Wolfe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Remodeling the HOQ™]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Agile]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[TRIZ]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/it-all-depends/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The addition of concepts such as dependencies is evidence that just like products or services, methodologies need to be continually refined in order to ensure their usefulness.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/it_all_depends.jpg" alt="PERT Chart" class="right" />I still remember the Brady Bunch episode in which Greg talked his parents into remodeling their attic into his bedroom (after a fight with Marcia over whose room it should be).  From the moment I first saw that show, I dreamt of overhauling my parents’ attic.  Today, many engineers are doing just that–-repurposing their attics and making better use of them.  However, the attics which I am referring to are not in their homes, but rather in their Quality Function Deployment matrices (i.e. &#8220;Houses of Quality&#8221;).  Although many customizations have been made to the <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> &#8220;roof&#8221;, my favorite modifications is the addition of the &#8220;dependency&#8221; concept. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/it-all-depends/#more-43" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/it-all-depends/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Psychology of Notation</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/the-psychology-of-notation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/the-psychology-of-notation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph P. Merts</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/the-psychology-of-notation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just as it is important to tailor a speech or written argument to the needs of the intended audience, it is important to choose the notation for a QFD that is best suited for its target audience.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/psychology-of-notation.jpg" alt="Symbolic and Numeric Ratings" class="left" />There has been much debate over which representation is the best to use when filling in the ratings for a House of Quality: symbolic notation or numeric notation.   The premise behind the debate is that there is somehow a greater inherent value in using circles, filled circles, and triangles or in using 1&#8217;s, 3&#8217;s, and 9&#8217;s.  In actuality, neither format is universally superior to the other.  On the contrary, they both serve different purposes and are uniquely suited for working with different groups.   Thus, just as it is important to tailor a speech or written argument to the needs of the intended audience, it is important to choose the notation for a <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> that is best suited for its target audience.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/the-psychology-of-notation/#more-40" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/the-psychology-of-notation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Hard Can It Be?</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/how-hard-can-it-be/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/how-hard-can-it-be/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Wolfe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Remodeling the HOQ™]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Agile]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/how-hard-can-it-be/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If cost, complexity, and/or difficulty will affect your prioritization, then before you decide that entering difficulty values is too laborious, perhaps you should instead ask yourself, 'how hard can it be?']]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/how_hard_can_it_be.jpg" alt="Weight Lifter" class="right" />I was recently reviewing a <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> that was created by a group of software developers.   They had opted to omit several traditional columns, rows and/or matrices, and had added some new ones.   On their final House of Quality they had added a &#8220;status&#8221; column.  Many of the top requirements on this <acronym title="House of Quality">HOQ</acronym> (the list was sorted by calculated importance) had status values of &#8220;Prioritized&#8221; or &#8220;Completed&#8221;.    However, I noticed that several of the highest ranked requirements had been skipped and had no status at all.  I assumed that these items had no status because they had only recently been added to the <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym>.  However, I soon learned that my assumption was wrong—these items had been skipped because there simply wasn&#8217;t enough time left before the upcoming version release to try to bite off such complex or difficult features. </p>
<p>I asked the team how they knew that a given feature was too complex or time-consuming to complete before a scheduled deadline.   I was informed that team members were assigned to do some preliminary analysis on top features in order to estimate how difficult it would be to complete them. When I then asked where they logged this information, I was informed that they &#8220;just remembered it&#8221;.   I then asked how they communicated this information upstream to the business stake holders and received some blank stares.  When I asked why they had removed the &#8220;difficulty&#8221; row from their <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym>, I was met with questioning glances and the response, &#8220;difficulty row?&#8221;    </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/how-hard-can-it-be/#more-30" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/how-hard-can-it-be/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Spoonful of QFD Helps the Agile Go Down</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/a-spoonful-of-qfd-helps-the-agile-go-down/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/a-spoonful-of-qfd-helps-the-agile-go-down/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Livingston</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Voice of the Customer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Agile]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/a-spoonful-of-qfd-helps-the-agile-go-down/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is a sweetener that can assist executive management in swallowing the sometimes bitter pill of 'Agile' development—and that sweetener bears the name 'QFD'.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/a_spoonful_of_qfd.jpg" class="left" />Imagine for a moment that you are the president of a successful software development company.  Your company is doing reasonably well from a sales perspective, but you have been dealing with some sizable challenges in terms of your development team hitting their scheduled release dates on time.  (The past 2 releases have been late by more than six months a piece.)  Then one day your development manager comes into your office droning on about the success of something called &#8220;Agile&#8221; development methodologies.  He goes on to tell you that he knows how to eliminate the slippages that he and his team have experienced in relation to your two year development plan: simply do away with the two year development plan.  Needless to say, the conversation would probably not go well.  However, there is a sweetener that can assist executive management in swallowing the sometimes bitter pill of &#8220;Agile&#8221; development—and that sweetener bears the name &#8220;<acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym>&#8220;. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/a-spoonful-of-qfd-helps-the-agile-go-down/#more-25" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/a-spoonful-of-qfd-helps-the-agile-go-down/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When to Say When</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/when-to-say-when/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/when-to-say-when/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph P. Merts</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Agile]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://qfdonline.com/2007/06/09/15/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An HOQ can quickly become unwieldy or cease to be useful if requirements are added to it haphazardly or if essential requirements are omitted. Luckily, there are proven guidelines that can assist QFD teams in producing a well-groomed and comprehensive Quality Function Deployment model.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/when_to_say_when.jpg" class="right" />A comment was recently submitted to QFD Online regarding the limits that should be imposed on the number of requirements for any given House of Quality.  The basic premise of the comment was that the number of requirements should be limited in order to keep the <acronym title="House of Quality">HOQ</acronym> &#8220;maintainable&#8221;.  While the core principle was accurate (i.e. that it requires care and attention when crafting a <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> in order to make sure that it can be maintained long-term), the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all limit that can be used is misguided.  Luckily, however, there are processes and procedures that can be applied on a case-by-case basis to ensure maintainable requirement lists.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/when-to-say-when/#more-15" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/when-to-say-when/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heading in the Right Direction</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/heading-in-the-right-direction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/heading-in-the-right-direction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Wolfe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Remodeling the HOQ™]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://qfdonline.com/2007/05/30/14/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are looking for a way to simplify your QFD process, you just might find that changing the direction of your headings may get you heading in the right direction.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/right_direction.jpg" class="left" />Have you ever watched a team of engineers modifying their secondary requirements (a.k.a. the &#8220;quality characteristics hierarchy&#8221; or &#8220;hows&#8221;) on a House of Quality spreadsheet?  They remind me of a group of hillbillies staring at a piece of modern art—their heads are usually cocked to the side with grimaced looks on their faces.  (It’s quite entertaining actually.)  Considering that in a spreadsheet environment secondary requirements are generally edited far more than primary requirements (the primary requirements list or &#8220;demanded quality hierarchy&#8221; is usually pulled automatically from other Houses of Quality in the <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym>), have you ever wondered why it is that the secondary requirements are the ones that are flipped on their sides and run across the top of the <acronym title="House of Quality">HOQ</acronym>?   </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/heading-in-the-right-direction/#more-14" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/heading-in-the-right-direction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This Old House&#8230;of Quality</title>
		<link>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/this-old-house-of-quality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/this-old-house-of-quality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Wolfe</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[House of Quality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Remodeling the HOQ™]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[DFSS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Lean Six Sigma]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Quality Function Deployment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[QFD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://qfdonline.com/2007/06/20/13/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When people ask me why QFD has experienced so much growth in adoption, my answer is simply: 'This Old House…of Quality'.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.qfdonline.com/images/this_old_house.jpg" class="right" />In 1979, a PBS station in Boston called &#8220;WGBH&#8221; aired a one-time, 13-part series entitled &#8220;This Old House&#8221;. Since that time, the program has grown to become one of PBS’s most popular programs, has generated spin-offs, produced a popular magazine, spawned a for-profit website, and even inspired sitcoms.[<a title="Wikipedia: 'This Old House'" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Old_House#History">1</a>] And why has this program been so successful? In my opinion, it’s because people have an inherent love for taking something great, stripping away its faults, and putting it to new found use. That is the same explanation that I use when people ask me about Quality Function Deployment’s resurgence in popularity during recent years. In short, when people ask me why <acronym title="Quality Function Deployment">QFD</acronym> has experienced so much growth in adoption, my answer is simply: &#8220;This Old House…of Quality&#8221;.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/this-old-house-of-quality/#more-13" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.qfdonline.com/archives/this-old-house-of-quality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
