Pilot Study of Quality Function Deployment in Construction ... Tareas/PIlotQFD.pdf · Pilot Study of Quality Function Deployment in Construction Projects Neil Eldin, M.ASCE,1 and

cturedto designroughout theFD waslarge-sizeroved thatentationilot study

Pilot Study of Quality Function Deploymentin Construction Projects

Neil Eldin, M.ASCE,1 and Verda Hikle2

Abstract: Quality function deployment~QFD! is a process that has been used for managing the development of new manufaproducts. In this process, both spoken and unspoken needs of the customers are determined, prioritized, and translatedparameters. Such design parameters are assigned specific target values and are frequently checked against customers’ needs thdevelopment cycle to ensure customers’ satisfaction with the end product. This paper describes a pilot study in which Qimplemented in a design-construction project. The project scope involved the preparation of a conceptual design for a modernclassroom for college students. The design was intended to become a model for the university’s future classrooms. The study pQFD could be successfully adopted in engineering-construction projects. However, the study identified a number of implemchallenges. In addition, more applications are necessary to take the process throughout the full project delivery cycle, as the pinvolved only the preliminary engineering and conceptual design phase.

DOI: 10.1061/~ASCE!0733-9364~2003!129:3~314!

CE Database subject headings: Quality control; Project management; Conceptual design; Construction industry.

unientandotepor-ew

ionsedlopimi-

thetheotat ha

s alesac-re

, a84.

usees

hts inthently

us-

cs,Un-thee

FDtheop-ge

ngingfor

fol-

ss-

nd

e of

he

M

ionsby

ingos-is

/3-

314 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 131.178.209.94. Redistribution subject to A

--

s

-

s

-

During this period, the product development cycle~time to mar-ket! was reduced by one-third, and quality was improved becaof the significant reduction in the number of engineering changand rework incidents.

In the early 1980s, Ford Motor Company and Xerox brougthe QFD concept to the United States. The significant savingdesign costs and the reduction in design time as a result ofQFD process encouraged these two companies to permaneadopt QFD. Today, a large number of companies in many indtries in the United States are using QFD routinely~Griffin andHauser 1993!. These industries include automotives, electronibanking, insurance, healthcare, utilities, and food processing.like these industries, the number of companies that attemptedimplementation of QFD in the construction industry could bcounted on one hand~Schriener et al. 1995!.

The purpose of this paper is to provide the results of a Qapplication in the construction industry. The paper describesstep-by-step implementation of the QFD process in the develment of the conceptual design for a modern large-size colleclassroom.

Scope of Study

The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of usiQFD as a project management tool in the preliminary engineerphase to develop the conceptual design for a large classroomcollege students. The scope of this investigation included thelowing tasks:1. Identifying the needs of all customers of the proposed cla

room using focus groups,2. Organizing the customers’ requirements using affinity a

tree diagrams,3. Building the appropriate house of quality~HOQ! to establish

design parameters and specifications that echo the voicthe customers~VOC!, and

4. Preparing preliminary layouts that satisfy the voice of tcustomers.

1Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Science, Texas A&Univ., College Station, TX 77843.

2Quality Consultant, Salem, OR 97301.Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2003. Separate discuss

must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing dateone month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE ManagEditor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and psible publication on August 9, 2001; approved on April 9, 2002. Thpaper is part of theJournal of Construction Engineering and Manage-ment, Vol. 129, No. 3, June 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2003314–329/$18.00.

Introduction

To cope with increasing demands and fewer resources, manyversities have faced the challenge of increasing the studteacher ratio without sacrificing the quality of instruction. Assolution to the inherent conflict between teaching quality aclass size, designing a large-capacity classroom that promquality teaching was proposed. This proposal provided an optunity to demonstrate the benefits of implementing a fairly nplanning tool—quality function deployment~QFD!. The QFDprocess is an effective planning tool that invites the participatof the customers who could affect or be affected by the propodesign. In other industries, QFD has been successful in deveing new products that achieved high customer satisfaction. Slar results were therefore expected for the subject project.

The concept of QFD was developed in 1972 as part ofimplementation of the total quality management system atMitsubishi Shipyard in Kobe, Japan. In the late 1970s, Toyfurther developed the QFD concept to a detailed process thabeen used in many manufacturing industries. Sullivan~1986! re-ported that Toyota auto body started using QFD in 1977. Aresult, Toyota auto body introduced four new van-type vehicbetween 1977 and 1984, which is a record time for such ancomplishment. Using 1977 as a base, Toyota reported a 20%duction in start-up costs on the launch of its new van in 197938% reduction in 1982, and a cumulative 61% reduction in 19

© ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2003

SCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

teshet ises

y binennlyate

fied

an-tedms,art oess ierss-3;

ces

le-

-erscus

sse

ofeveandtinc

llyomhadatsig

cuscomd exd thmer

cheel-uctt to

urse

rdingheny forpor-auseing

cus

doil-ay

orga-ever,du-

ator.ly byus,stayem-n byion,ould

mod-rsa-sis-ratelyof uti-nex-ativetion

tos in

eting

uni-rator

s

inheysfns.rulestion,

htefullyand

ught-

Quality Function Deployment

QFD provides a set of communication routines that coordinathe efforts and skills available in an organization from tproject’s inception to its completion. QFD creates a culture thanoticeably different from the traditional culture, which assumthat designers knew best and customers would automaticallsatisfied with the end product. The QFD culture is a culturewhich all customers are kept at the heart of the developmprocess of the product. The term ‘‘all customers’’ means not othe owner’s staff, but also those who use, maintain, or participin making the subject product. Unless all customers are satisa product would not be viewed as fully successful.

In the QFD process the implementation of a number of magement tools and procedures is systemically coordinaNamely, focus groups, HOQ, affinity diagrams, tree diagrabenchmarking, value engineering, and market research are pthe QFD process. Although nothing here is being added to thtools, the QFD process provides a series of structured stepwhich these tools are utilized effectively to guarantee customsatisfaction with the end product~Maran 1986; Hauser and Clauing 1988; Burrows 1991; Dika 1991; Nakui 1992; Kinni 199Wasserman 1993; Wolf 1994; Mazur 1995!. The following sec-tions describe these tools/procedures as part of the QFD pro

QFD Team

Effective application of QFD hinges on forming the proper impmentation team and employing the QFD tools~Sullivan 1988;King 1989; Cohen 1995!. The first task for the QFD implementation team is to identify the needs and wants of all customThen, the team uses a number of QFD tools to translate thetomers’ needs to measurable engineering characteristics.

Proper deployment of the implementation team encompathree phases—~1! conceptualizing the subject issue;~2! collectingthe necessary data; and~3! analyzing and reporting the resultsthe data gathered. The conceptualization phase focuses on doping a comprehensive definition of the purpose of the studythe data required. The data collection phase involves three distasks—~1! selection of the focus groups’ participants;~2! devel-opment of questionnaires for the focus group sessions; and~3!utilization of good facilitators’/moderators’ skills to successfuconduct focus group sessions conducive to the collection of cprehensive and accurate data. The analysis and reporting puses the HOQ to record, prioritize, analyze, and translate thecollected from the focus groups’ sessions to measurable deparameters that ensure customer satisfaction.

QFD Tools

To identify customers’ needs and wants, QFD employs the fogroup approach as the data-collection method to ensure aprehensive means to collect the customers’ requirements anpectations. Tools such as affinity diagrams, tree diagrams, anhouse of quality are used to understand the voice of the custoand forecast the expected success of the end product~Bossert1991!. These tools/procedures are briefly described below.

Focus Groups

Focus groups represent a data collection procedure in whigroup of individuals identifies the expectations, perceptions, fings, and thinking pattern of the consumers regarding a prodservice, or an opportunity. The function of a focus group is no

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION


e

t

,

.

fen’

s.

.-

s

l-

t

-sean

--es

a

,

develop an execution plan or make decisions about which coof action should be taken~Krueger 1988!. The function of a focusgroup is merely to voice expectations, needs, and wants regaa product. However, the data produced by a focus group, wanalyzed, would provide the basis for the decisions necessarthe development of the subject product. Because of the imtance of obtaining quality data on the QFD results and becthe focus group is the means of the data collection, the followis provided as guidelines to the successful utilization of fogroups.

Selection of ParticipantsIdeally, a focus group should be composed of individuals whonot know each other and who likely will not meet again. Famiarity tends to inhibit people’s disclosure. This requirement mnot be possible in all cases, since coworkers from the samenization are required to serve on the same focus groups. Howin the selection of participants, it is preferable to select indivials with minimum previous interaction.

Session’s ModeratorEach focus group session must be led by a facilitator/moderThe success of a focus group session is affected significantthe skills of the moderator. This individual should be courteoprofessional, and approachable, and must have the ability toneutral to the various views presented by the focus group mbers. It is recommended that the moderator start the sessioasking each participant to describe his/her own work functhis/her own experience, and the manner in which he/she wbenefit from or be affected by the results of the session.

The moderator should also have an assistant, so that theerator stays primarily attentive to the discussion, keeps convetion flowing, and only takes minimum essential notes. The astant, on the other hand, takes comprehensive notes that accustate the issues discussed. These records are the objectivelizing focus groups. In addition, the assistant responds to upected interruptions and handles logistics and other administrissues~e.g., refreshments, lighting, seating, name tags, operaof a tape recorder, and so on!. The assistant should also tryobserve the participants’ reactions to the session’s questionorder to provide assistance to the moderator in the postmeanalysis of the data.

Session’s RulesAt the beginning of the session, the moderator should commcate the rules for the session. It is advisable that the modestart the session by covering the following items:~1! explainingin detail the purpose of the session;~2! stating that the questionasked in the session have no right or wrong answers~just differentpoints of view!; ~3! inviting and encouraging participants to join the discussion and to share their points of view even if tdiffer from previously stated views;~4! assuring the participantof complete confidentiality; and~5! emphasizing the adoption o‘‘no tolerance’’ to negative comments regarding others’ opinioThe moderator should also state the session’s administrative~e.g., first-name basis, no side discussions, session’s durascheduled breaks, and likewise!.

Session’s QuestionnairesCollection of quality data is directly related to asking the rigquestions in the focus group sessions. Questions must be carselected and properly phrased to elicit the most completeaccurate data. Successful questionnaires consist of well-tho

ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2003 / 315


nd-

uc-n anityatm

s ofidsrytingr’’ at

Fig. 1. Affinity diagram

haapr.eris

ulntnti-ndnoed

ed

raatrehejoto

ch

aion-mea-

x

, as

d-a-o en-OQthe

la-col-the

tri-ycle

nts

316 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMEN


t-

Ital

dto’s

t.

lle

yr

y

next level down~secondary level! provide definitions for the pri-mary level. The next level down defines the details of the secoary level, and so on, as shown in Fig. 1.

Tree DiagramLike the affinity diagram, the tree diagram is a hierarchical strture in which analytical skills are used as a guide to obtaicomplete data set. A tree diagram starts by examining the affidiagram with the objective of identifying gaps and omissionsevery level of its hierarchy. Upon examining an affinity diagrasuch as that in Fig. 1, a QFD team would see that the topic‘‘visual aids’’ and ‘‘computer systems’’ are incomplete. Other asuch as ‘‘VCR’’ and ‘‘software’’ would be added to the tertialevel, as shown in Fig. 2. Based on the analysis of the exisdata, a tree diagram would expand the ‘‘words of the customeall levels in order to represent a more complete structure.

House of QualityThe primary tool of QFD is the house of quality. The HOQ isuseful tool for arranging facts so that important issues, relatships among these issues, the significance of each, and theirsures of success can be readily displayed~McElroy 1987, 1989;Hauser and Clausing 1988; Griffin 1992!. The HOQ uses a matrito present what the customers require~i.e., the WHAT side!against how those requirements would be met~i.e., the HOWside!. When fully developed, the matrix resembles a houseshown in Fig. 3.

The ‘‘WHAT’’ side of the matrix captures the data collectefrom the focus groups~voice of the customers! and thus represents the controlling requirements. The ‘‘HOW’’ side of the mtrix presents the design parameters/specifications proposed tsure the satisfaction of the customers’ requirements. The Hmatrix also provides a structure to systematically evaluaterelationships between the customers’ requirements~WHAT! andthe associated design requirements~HOW!. The cells of the rela-tionship matrix display values indicating the strength of the retionships between each WHAT row and the associated HOWumns. Symbols or numbers are placed in each cell to indicatestrength of such relationships. Empty cells~blanks! mean no re-lationship.

In manufacturing applications, a sequence of four HOQ maces is frequently used to complete the product development cfrom the planning phase to actual production~Fig. 4!. As shownin the figure, the first HOQ displays the customers’ requireme

Fig. 2. Tree diagram

out questions that are appropriately sequenced in a way tseems logical to the participants. However, questions shouldpear to be spontaneous on the part of the moderator/facilitatois recommended to start with questions addressing the genaspects and end with specific questions of critical interest. Itrecommended that no more than 10 questions~preferably, five tosix questions! be presented in a 90-min session. Questions shoalso be of the open-ended type to encourage each respondeanswer from a different perspective, based on the respondespecific function and background. It is critical to provide particpants with consistent and sufficient background information, ato present the questions in the right context. Answers shouldbe implied by the way the questions are phrased and present

Affinity DiagramsThe affinity diagram is a tool used to organize the data collectfrom the focus groups sessions~Cohen 1988!. It provides amethod of arranging a set of unstructured ideas in an ovehierarchical structure. Each idea is often written on a separ335 in. card. When two ideas intuitively seem similar, they aposted next to each other. As the cards are moved around, tgradually form groups of ideas that together suggest some matopic or theme. Then, these topics, in turn, are grouped inhigher-level themes, and so on. The goal is to achieve a hierarwith 5–10 main ideas at the top~primary level!. The ideas at the

T © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2003


e oficalere-

age-singtheIture.pli-

an

lass-ofps

Fig. 3. House of quality

fore,om,



on the WHAT side and the performance requirements capablsatisfying these requirements on the HOW side. The critHOW items from this first HOQ become the WHAT items of thnext HOQ. This process continues until each requirement isfined to an actionable item~simple activity! in the HOQ of theproduction phase, as shown in Fig. 4. To keep the HOQ manable in size, it is necessary to carefully select the items compoeach matrix. The Pareto principle can be used to determinecritical items that should move from one HOQ to the next.should be noted that QFD is a flexible and adaptable procedThe required number of HOQs depends on the individual apcation. The sequence and steps commonly used in buildingHOQ are provided in Fig. 5 and the appendix, respectively.

Case Study

In this case study, the design concept of a large-size college croom was the ‘‘product’’ and the ‘‘customers’’ were the usersthe classroom. A ‘‘user’’ was defined as individuals or grou~students, faculty, maintenance departments, etc.! that would af-fect or be affected by the use of the subject classroom. Therethe customers included teachers who will teach in the classro

Fig. 4. House of quality series for manufacturing industry



Fig. 5. Steps in creating house of quality

ern-t,e

sionthacuucbe

sst aas

aud-

art

adw

edsdi-ar-

forocusandmadetate

argeen-

pletents,s of

cus

ing,Thech ons tolus-ofpic/thethelys-

el-thesterthecrip-



-

t--

-

-

-

-as

used in the focus group sessions to invite the customers’ neand wants. Focus groups were formed by inviting interested inviduals from each user group. A total of eight focus groups pticipated in this study~Table 1!.

Members of the QFD team resumed the role of mediatorsthe various focus group sessions. In these sessions, the fgroup members were asked to identify the worst classroomsthe best classrooms on campus, and state the features thatthem the worst or best. The members were also asked to sfeatures they need and features they want in the proposed lclassroom. Interaction among the focus group members wascouraged during the sessions to receive accurate and cominformation. The mediators’ assistants recorded the needs, waand all ideas discussed. A flip chart was used to keep the wordthe participants clearly posted throughout the session.

Processing Voice of Customers

A total of 199 customer requirements were gathered in the fogroup sessions. Each requirement was copied on a 335 in. post-itnote in the exact words of the customers. In a QFD team meetthe post-it notes were divided among the team members.team members were instructed to read the notes and post eathe wall of the meeting room where all members had accesthem. The members were also instructed to post the notes in cters if the notes seemed intuitively similar. Quickly, clusterscustomers’ requirements were formed and grouped by tosubject. This process continued until all of the notes were onwall. Next, the QFD team analyzed the notes and eliminatedredundant requirements~i.e., requirements expressed differentby different customers! and requirements irrelevant to large clasroom design concepts.

Upon the completion of eliminating redundancies and irrevant information, the QFD team discussed the grouping ofnotes and the description of the topic appropriate for each cluof notes. Such discussion resulted in moving the notes amongclusters until a consensus was reached. The appropriate des

students who will attend classes in the classroom, Facilities Svices staff who will maintain the classroom, campus Media Ceter staff who will provide and maintain the teaching equipmenand the school administration who will approve funding for thproject.

Similar to the manufacturing applications, four HOQ matriceappeared adequate for the application of QFD in constructprojects. Fig. 6 shows the suggested series of HOQ matricesmay be required to develop comprehensive construction doments. When enough QFD applications are available for constrtion projects, the necessary number of HOQ matrices shouldreassessed.

QFD Team

A nine-member QFD team was formed to address the large claroom project. Each of the user groups was asked to appoinrepresentative to serve on the cross-functional QFD team. It wclarified to all groups that each representative must have thethority to officially commit one’s group in any decision approveby the QFD team. The following is a list of the titles and affiliations of the QFD team members:1. Chief business officer of the university,2. Professor of civil engineering, College of Engineering,3. Professor of management, School of Business,4. Graduate student, Civil Engineering Department,5. Undergraduate student, College of Business,6. Manager, Information Services Department,7. Manager, Construction and Maintenance Services Dep

ment,8. Supervisor, Communication Media Center, and9. Administrative assistant, Civil Engineering Department.

Voice of Customers

The QFD team developed a comprehensive questionnaire todress the design aspects of the classroom. The questionnaire



Fig. 6. Proposed house of quality series for construction industry

mi-icsec-. Indal

itsssedof

torsterthe

on-

OQ.am-ofire-



a

The QFD team then examined the affinity diagram to verifycompleteness. Gaps and omissions were identified and addreby developing a tree diagram, through which a complete listcustomers’ needs was prepared.

Building HOQ Matrices

The full list of customers’ needs was thoroughly examineddetermine the critical items that should be entered in the fiHOQ. This examination resulted in the identification of a numbof customer needs that could be satisfied just by inclusion inequipment list for the proposed classroom~Table 2!. The balanceof the requirements~i.e., voice of the customers! was compiled inanother list. Each member rated the requirements~WHAT side!on a scale of 1–5~15not important and 55very important!. Cus-tomers’ needs with an average rating of 4 and higher were csidered critical and were entered in the first HOQ~Table 3!. Thiswas done to keep the number of items manageable in the HNeeds with an average of less than 4 were compiled and reexined collectively by the QFD team. As a result, a numberrequirements were added to the HOQ. The rest of the requments were archived for completeness of the project records.

Table 1. Focus Groups Distribution

Affiliation

Number offocus

groups

Civil Engineering faculty 1School of Business faculty 1Communication Media Center 1Facilities Services 1Information Services 1Civil Engineering graduate students 1Civil Engineering undergraduate students 1School of Business students 1

tion ~topic! of each cluster was posted above each cluster. Exanation of these descriptions resulted in grouping several topunder a higher-level heading. Thus, a hierarchy with primary, sondary, and tertiary levels of customers’ requirements evolvedessence, the clusters of the notes posted on the wall formediagram similar to the affinity diagram. On this basis, a formaffinity diagram was drafted.



gaveewsnsusun-em-tings

of

it?

nd

it?

Table 2. Equipment List

Equipment/customers’ needs Yes No Who wants

White boards X — FChalk blackboards — X FMultiple, long blackboards X — FHook-up to Kidder Hall X — FHook-up to Bexell network X — FControl of all systems from console X — FRemote access to console controls X — F/SVideo monitor in console X — FSimultaneous use of all visual aids X — F/SSimple, user-friendly controls X — FPhone at teacher’s console X — F/SPhone jack in console X — F/CMultiple, user-friendly screens X — FLarge front screen X — FAdequate memory X — FNo pauses during demonstrations X — FZoom-in capability X — FCD ROM X — FFor 35 mm slides X — FRear screen projector — X FComputer projection system X — F/SCompatible with note-taking light X — F/SCompatible with VCR X — FMultiple overhead projectors X — FLow noise X — F/SLarge picture projection capability X — FStorage for spare parts~bulbs, etc.! X — FBlackboards across front wall X — FUp/down, front wall only X — FMotorized, up/down boards X — FElectronic writing board — X FVCRs X — FDocument camera — X FMicroscope camera — X FCamera for taping classes — X SDistance learning for overflow — X FEquipment service chase X — FS/ISTables for assignments and displays X — FStorage for student’s gear X — SAdequate break facilities nearby X — FClock on side wall X — FGood sound system with wireless mike X — S/FFlexible lighting with dimmers X — S/FNatural lighting X — F/SMotorized window shades X — FAll controls below ceiling X — FSPower outlets at front and many outlets X — FConduits for future technology X — F/FSPodium light X — F

Note: S5students, F5faculty, C5Campus Media, IS5Information Ser-vices, FS5Facilities Services. The X symbols above denote ‘‘yes’’ a‘‘no.’’

lisemen

tive

berTheam-

ach



t-

discussed the reasons used in determining the ratings. Thisthe team members an opportunity to exchange their various vion each requirement. The discussions continued until a consewas reached. This resulted in the team’s acquiring a deeperderstanding of the customers’ needs. Since the QFD team mbers represented their respective customer groups, the weighrepresented the customers’ views of the relative importanceeach requirement. The ratings were then entered in the ‘‘relaimportance’’ column of the HOQ~Fig. 7!.

The QFD team held a number of sessions, to which a numof additional resources were invited on an as-needed basis.objective of such meetings was to determine the design pareters or engineering specifications~the HOW side of the HOQ!that would likely affect each customer need. Systematically, e

Table 3. Critical Items for First House of Quality

Category Category Customers’ needs Who wants

Learning Student-teachercontact

Minimize teacher-to-student distance

S/F

Good acoustics Can hear teacher in allparts of room

S/F

Suppress room noise FIsolated from external

noiseF

Group workflexibility

Individuals F

Pairs FGroups F

Chairs easily arrangedfor group work

S/F

Groups and teacher seeeach other

F

Viewing No dead viewing areas S/FNetwork access F

Clearly see screen imagesand take notes

F

Good view of visual aidsby all

S/F

Access tostudents

Room for teacher to walkaround

S/F

Active teacher stage—notelevated

S

Easy access to seats FComfort Comfortable

seatsAmple sized S

Good lumbar support SComfortable

desksWide enough for text and

notebookS

Comfortable height SAir quality Fresh air S

Temperature controlledyear-round

S

Air conditioning S/FAesthetically

pleasingWindows or skylights

~openness!S/F

High ceilings SCheery decor, conducive

to studyS/F

Note: S5students, F5faculty, C5Campus Media, IS5Information Ser-vices, FS5Facilities Services.

Next, each member independently assigned a value~weightedpercentage! to each group of requirements~i.e., good acoustics,viewing, access, etc.!, as shown in Fig. 7. Since the weightingwas stated in terms of a weighted percentage, the completehad to total 100%. The weightings were based on the team mbers’ understanding of the customers’ priorities. The team th



e de ostic

thecter

ofpti-

ofthe

plaom

airgnl reed

the

l--ow

otheerto

tagi-

ve

TsTh

he aof tthetisfipilet min

alson isedugh

thct of thsivxi-sethececusthe

ntlyin

ostdisde

s.

sec-ter-fol-

haster-tsde-

on-otheryoutand

.

uphind

les.low-

ter

cheror

ach

d as

e to

rowof

oks,

at

om.er’s

nal

ent-

and

ed

re

com-u-

need was examined and then associated with the appropriatsign requirements. This process effectively translated the voicthe customers into measurable engineering-design characterithe HOW side of the HOQ.

The team then focused on completing the roof matrix ofHOQ to detect conflicts among the engineering-design charaistics. Especially on sizable projects with large numbersHOWs, the roof matrix is a useful means to determine the omum trade-offs among conflicting characteristics. An exampleconflicting characteristics was seen in some layouts whererequired maximum distance from the student seats to the disscreens was slightly compromised to resolve conflicts with rosize, seating capacity, and cost per seat.

The team next assessed the relationship between each pHOW and WHAT to determine the level at which each desirequirement would affect each need, and to ensure that alquirements were addressed. When a consensus was reachnumber~1, 3, or 9! was assigned to describe the strength ofrelationship between each WHAT~requirement! and the associ-ated HOW~s! ~design parameters!. These numbers were then mutiplied by the ‘‘customer weighting’’ of the WHAT, and the products were placed in the cells at the intersections of the WHAT rand the associated HOW column~Fig. 7!.

The importance of each HOW was established by the sumall of the relationship numbers in each column; the greatersum, the greater the importance of the HOW. These sums wtotaled, and this total was divided into each column’s sumdetermine the relative importance of each HOW on a percenbasis~Fig. 7!. This relative importance is useful in making decsions regarding conflicts among the various HOWs~design pa-rameters! and in selecting the critical items that should mofrom one HOQ to the next.

To create a benchmarking matrix, the rows of the WHAwere extended and columns were added, as shown in Fig. 7.benchmarking matrix is a matrix that evaluates competition~i.e.,best existing classrooms! identified by the focus groups. Eacclassroom was surveyed and classrooms’ characteristics wersessed against each customer requirement. The survey datacompeting classrooms are provided in Table 4. Collectively,QFD team assessed the degree to which each classroom saeach customer requirement. The team then entered the comassessment ratings in the appropriate cells of the assessmentrix, which is shown under the ‘‘competing rooms’’ headingFig. 7.

The data obtained from the competing classrooms wereentered in the appropriate design requirements’ cells, as showFig. 7 under the ‘‘benchmarks’’ heading. These values were uas a guide for setting the target values expected of the sodesign. The target values were set equal to or better thancompeting classrooms. The team also considered the impathe selected target values on the project cost. The objective oteam was to answer the voice of the customers without excescost. To illustrate, the customers required 25 ft to be the mamum distance between the teacher’s area and any student’sThis requirement was compared with the benchmark values ofcompeting classrooms. In all ‘‘good’’ classrooms, this distanwas greater than 25 ft. The moderator who facilitated the fogroup in which this request was made interpreted the intent ofrequest to mean ‘‘good teacher-student contact.’’ Consequethe QFD team lowered the importance of this requirementfavor of the conflicting requirements—seating capacity and cper seat. The target value for the maximum teacher-studenttance was set at 30 ft instead of 25 ft. This target value respon



e-fs,

-

y

of

-, a

f

e

e

e

s-he

edda-

n

tefee

at.

,

-d

to the intent of the VOC without sacrificing other requirementUpon the completion of the first HOQ~Fig. 7! and following

the QFD process shown in Fig. 6, the QFD team started theond HOQ~Fig. 8!. The team prepared the components’ characistics for the second HOQ in a manner similar to the stepslowed in preparing the design requirements of the first HOQ.

With the completion of the second HOQ, the QFD processgenerated a list of equipment and a list of components’ characistics ~Table 2 and Fig. 8! stemming from the needs and wanvoiced by the customers. These two lists were the bases forveloping possible layouts of the new classroom.

Design Concepts

Several layouts were developed using two different design ccepts. One concept adopted workbench-type desks and theadopted conference-table style desks. Fig. 9 shows the lausing workbenches. This layout accommodates 150 studentsprovides the following features:• The floor is terraced, with two workbenches on each level• The aisles are arranged to allow easy access to students.• The seats pivot 360°.• The students can form groups of varying sizes during gro

discussion sessions by turning to face those seated bethem on the same level.Fig. 10 shows the layout using six-person conference tab

This layout accommodates 150 students and provides the foling features:• The floor is terraced, with one row of tables per level for bet

viewing of screens/boards.• Spaces between adjacent groups are sufficient for the tea

to move freely in the room and access individual studentsgroups.

• Pivoting seats enable students to freely rotate to face eother, face the teacher, or face the visual aid screens.

• Seats are fitted with one large folding arm that can be usea surface for note taking when needed.

In all layouts, the following features were observed in responsthe voice of the customers:• The distance between the projection screens and the front

of seats is based on recommendations for good viewingmultimedia images~Clabough 1993!.

• Storage space is available for students to store their bobags, coats, etc. during class time.

• Tables for submitting/returning assignments are providedthe front.

• Windows are available on one or more sides of the classro• Windows have motorized shades controlled at the teach

console.• Acoustic engineering design is provided to control exter

and room-generated noise.• Ample sized, ergonomic chairs are provided to ensure stud

seating comfort.• Wireless microphones are provided to ensure good hearing

to allow the teacher to move freely in the room.• Zone lighting is provided to allow good contrast for project

images with enough ambient light for note taking.• Air conditioning is provided to control the room temperatu

and to allow good ventilation.• The teacher’s console is connected to broadband cable, a

puter network, and telephone jacks to allow superior commnications ability.



Fig. 7. First house of quality for large classroom project

uslleremto

ally

thele of



rd

• Attention to decor is emphasized to ensure an aestheticpleasing learning environment.

Design Selection

Upon the completion of the layouts, the QFD team evaluateddesigns against the components’ characteristics using a sca

• The teacher’s console is equipped with a simultaneomultiple-function digital control panel, which accesses apieces of equipment in the classroom. For instance, if the uspresses the VCR icon, screens and window shades are loweautomatically, video projectors are turned on and lowered frotheir recessed position in the ceiling, and lights are dimmeda preset level.



Fig. 7. „Continued!

chpeingcu

o-or aers

who



c-

s

Summary and Conclusions

A multifunctional team was formed to administer the QFD prcess as a planning tool for developing the conceptual design flarge classroom. The team evoked the voice of the customthrough focus groups that represented the entire population

1–5 ~15characteristic not addressed at all and 55very well ad-dressed!. The overall averages of these ratings for the workbenconcept and conference table concept were 4.4 and 4.6, restively. Both ratings compared favorably against the correspondaverage for the best existing classrooms according to the fogroups~Fig. 7!.



Table 4. Survey Data of Competing Classrooms

Equipment/customers’ needs

Building and Room Number

E 102 C 216 D 118 G 124 S 109

Square footage 1,824 1,560 1,848 2,286 1,134Type of seating Tables/swivel Fixed chairs Fixed chairs Fixed chairs Movable chairsLinear footage of chalkboard — 41 20 20 24Windows ~yes or no! No No No No YesWindow darkening —b —b —b —b Yes, but poorNumber and size of projection screens One 8310 ft One 636 ft One 15320 ft None One 8312 ftAccess to audiovisual equipment/projectors Yes Mediocre Yes No YesAudio or video connections Complicated Yes Yes No NoHookups? To what? To all networks Almost none Decent No All networksTelephones or jacks Yes No No No NoLighting system — — — — —

• Zone control A little None Some No Yes• Number of zones 6 1 4 8 3• Dimmers Yes No 1 No Yes

Electrical outlets Many Yes Very few Very few Very fewTackboards No No No No YesMap hooks Yes No Yes No YesAir conditioned Yes No Yes Yes NoAmericans with Disabilities ACT compliance Yes No Yes Yes YesMaximum distance—teacher to studenta 38 ft 45 ft 45 ft 50 ft 42 ftCan hear teacher in all parts of rooma Yes Yes Yes No YesSuppress room noisea Not really Not really Wall surfaces Yes YesIsolated from external noisea Yes Somewhat Yes Yes YesTables and chairs~four to six people per table!a No No No No NoChairs easily arranged for group worka No No No No YesGroups easily view teachera —b —b —b —b YesNo dead viewing areasa Yes Yes Yes No YesGood view of visual aids by alla Yes Yes Yes No YesWindows or skylightsa No No No No Yes, windowsHigh ceilingsa Yes Yes Yes Yes YesGreen plantsa No No No No NoCheery decor, conducive to study~1–5!a 4 3 4 2 3Desk width for text and notebooka 19324 in. 14314 in. 9.5311.5 in. 11312 in. 14320 in. and 12313 in.Seat to desktop dimensiona 9 in. 9 in. 9.5 in. 9 in. 9.5 in.Good ventilationa Yes No Yes No NoTemperature controlleda Yes Minimal Yes No NoAir conditioninga Yes No Yes No NoAmple sized seatsa 18315.5 in. 18316 in. 16316 in. 16315.5 in. 15315 in.Good lumbar supporta Yes No No Yes YesFootrest at front of seatsa No No No No NoRoom for teacher to walk arounda Yes Yes Yes Yes YesActive teacher stage—not elevateda Yes, small Yes Yes Yes YesEasy access to seatsa Yes No No No NoQFD team’s opinion, 1–5 scalea 3.3 2 3.8 0.75 3aCustomer attributes.bNot applicable.

y,sx-atnmsthoa

and

thebutestionof

res/cost



,

en-s

viewed as a distraction by the focus groups. Both the studentsthe teachers wanted a complete communications station~includ-ing computer capability and video projection! only at the teach-er’s station.

The team utilized the HOQ to compile the needs voiced infocus group sessions, to determine the necessary design attriand to resolve conflicts among such attributes. At the compleof this study, several layouts for the large classroom, a listteaching-aid equipment, a description of equipment featuspecifications, equipment cost estimates, and the project total

would affect or be affected by the classroom design—facultstudents, administration, Information Services staff, FacilitieServices staff, and Communication Media Center staff. This eercise revealed that designers’ perception might differ from thof the customers. For instance, at the outset of this investigatiothe QFD team intuitively perceived that the proposed classroowould have to be a ‘‘high-tech’’ room with computer connectionat every student seat. However, the VOC revealed that neitherstudents nor the teachers wanted computers at every seat. Ctrary to the initial perception, such heavy access to computers w



Fig. 8. Second house of quality for large classroom project

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2003 / 325

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 131.178.209.94. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 9. Workbenches design:~a! classroom layout;~b! details of students’ desks

e

sni-

s’mcireto.chnIteofnanm.

ojectringFD

ctionnvi-beanyepa-able

uildorumatethe

makeandcon-

ignsen-fully



-

s-

--s

y

d

d

-s

Based on our success in this small design-construction prand the success of others in more complicated manufactuprojects, it is sensible to conclude that the application of the Qshould be successful also on larger projects in the construindustry. When used on large construction projects, it is esioned that the four HOQ matrices shown in Fig. 4 wouldconstructed. It is anticipated that some of the HOW items ofHOQ might become subprojects in themselves, requiring a srate HOQ to provide more details and to maintain a managenumber of items in any one HOQ.

The QFD process appears suitable for fast-track design/bcontracts. The process provides a systemic procedure and a ffor all parties affecting or affected by the project to communictheir needs objectively, prioritize such needs according tooverall project goals, reach a consensus systematically, andcritical decisions in a manner that eliminates design mistakesoversights. Thus, the QFD process can minimize causes ofstruction delays, materials waste, and quality degradation.

The scope of this project involved only the conceptual desof the classroom. Although the ratings by the customer repretatives on the QFD team indicated that QFD was success

were presented to the administration of the university. These dliverables were well received.

This study has demonstrated that QFD could be used succefully in the development of conceptual designs of constructioprojects. The QFD process made it possible for a group of indviduals with different interests to listen clearly to the customerneeds, communicate their own functional group needs, find copromises that were acceptable to all, and approve critical desions on a timely basis. The QFD process provided proceduthat always moved the project forward and eliminated the needloop backward to correct an oversight or a design requirement

QFD provided a systematic process that did not require muprior experience. In fact, none of the QFD team members had aQFD prior experience and most had never heard of QFD.should be noted, however, that some difficulties were experiencduring this exercise. For example, reconciling similar requestsvarious customers, differentiating between design attributes asolutions to certain problems, reducing the WHAT and HOW tomanageable number without sacrificing the VOC, reaching a cosensus on the evaluation ratings, and choosing the critical itefor the HOQ were some of the challenges that the team faced



Fig. 10. Conferences design:~a! classroom layout;~b! details of students’ desks

deen

.

persn

rch,the

he

yedent

f aare

wnby

ews,the



dt,

’

are best obtained from personal interviews, market reseabroad-based customer surveys, and likewise. Critical items onlist are entered to the HOQ in the room called ‘‘voice of tcustomer.’’

Step 2—Prioritize Customers’ Requirements List

The significance of each of the owners’ requirements is displausing a number that reflects the importance of each requiremto the customers. Usually this number is provided in terms opercentage, a complete list totaling 100%. The percentagesplaced in the customers’ weighting column of the HOQ, as shoin Fig. 7. These numbers are obtained from the input providedthe customers in focus group sessions and personal interviand through direct interaction between the customers andQFD team.

used in this conceptual design project, further studies are neeto demonstrate its usefulness in the detail design, procuremand construction phases as well.

Appendix: Building House of Quality

The 11 steps involved in building a HOQ are described below

Step 1—Prepare Customers’ Requirements List

Compile the qualitative requirements~voice of the customers—wants and needs! voiced by the customers in the focus grousessions. Also, the list should include the unspoken customrequirements~i.e., what would make customers delighted, evethough they are not asking for those things!. Such requirements



or. I

ob-inel-w

t,surent

he

elyp

ate

c-

anip,onAotdr

tic, an

6th

the

sthe

themnth

de-omernt

ndi-

heachmer

s byred

sible,eter-the

ale cus-the

sat-

val-aluat-d 9,

estics.

theas-

pet-cus-n toatingstion

-

ree

-

rk

or

Step 3—Translate Customers’ Requirementsto Quantifiable Measures

The QFD team translates the customers’ requirements to mquantifiable technical measures that reflect such requirementsother words, the team translates the WHATs to HOWs. Thejective is to include all design requirements that will resultsatisfying the VOC. The entire team should participate in devoping the list to ensure that all issues are captured and all vieare considered.

Step 4—Determine Units of Measurement for HOWs

The units of measurement~i.e., feet, decibels, pounds, square feeetc.! of each design characteristic must be established to enthe clear communication of expectations among the differdisciplines/functions.

Step 5—Prepare Correlation Matrix

The correlation matrix in the HOQ detects conflicts among tquantitative measures~design characteristics!, as one characteris-tic may positively affect one customer requirement and negativaffect another. The correlation matrix is the triangular rooftomatrix as shown in Fig. 5. Symbols are usually used to indicthe relationship~e.g., blank5no relationship, S5slight relation-ship, and M5major relationship!.

Step 6—Determine Relationships between WHATs andHOWs

A number~1, 3, or 9! is placed in the cell located at the intersetion of each row~WHAT! with each column~HOW!, which rep-resents the strength of the relationship between each WHATeach HOW. A 1 in the intersection indicates a weak relationsha 3 indicates a moderate relationship, and a 9 indicates a strrelationship. The cell is left blank if there is no relationship.WHAT row with all blank cells means that a requirement has nbeen addressed and design requirements must be added to adit. A HOW column with all blank cells means that a characterishas been added that does not satisfy any of the requirementstherefore should be eliminated.

Step 7—Determine Relative Importance of DesignCharacteristics (HOW)

To establish the ranking of the design characteristics~HOW!,each relationship rating~1, 3, or 9 of step 6! is multiplied by theprioritization rating~percentage determined in step 2! of the in-tersecting customers’ requirement~WHAT!. The products of thesemultiplications replace the relationship rating number of stepfor each cell. The numbers in each column are then added andsum is entered in the corresponding cells at the bottom ofcolumn. These sums provide the relative ranking~importance! ofthe design requirements~HOWs!.

Step 8—Evaluate Current Competition

The right-hand room of the HOQ is used to assess the succesthe products competing with the one being designed. In Fig. 7,rows of the customers’ requirements~WHAT! are extended to theright and columns are added to form this matrix. The names ofcompeting products are entered as the headings of these coluThis matrix is used to ensure that the QFD team discusses



en

s

e

d

g

ess

d

e

of

s.e

characteristics of each competing product and determines thegree of satisfaction that each product earns against each custrequirement~WHAT!. A scale of 1–5 provides the assessme~with 1 indicating that a requirement is not addressed and 5 icating that a requirement is totally satisfied!. The number isplaced in the cell at the intersection of the WHAT’s row and tcolumn of the competing product. Averaging the numbers in ecolumn provides a measure for the overall degree of custosatisfaction received by each competing product.

Step 9—Determine Benchmarks

In manufacturing industries, companies assess their succesbenchmarking their products against competing products offeby other companies, as discussed in step 8. Whenever posactual measurements of the engineering requirements are dmined for the competing products. These values are entered inappropriate cells in the ‘‘benchmarks’’ row of the HOQ to revestrengths and weaknesses. The QFD team uses these and thtomer importance rankings to guide the decisions regardingpriorities of the design characteristics to maximize customerisfaction as understood from spoken and unspoken needs.

Step 10—Determine Target Values

Target values for each of the design requirements~HOWs! aredetermined and placed in the appropriate cells. These targetues are based on benchmark values established through eving competing products, the ranking established in steps 7 anand the assessments of cost impacts.

Step 11—Evaluate New Design

Upon the completion of the first HOQ, the QFD team examineach customer requirement in light of the design characterisWhen an agreement is reached as to the degree to whichdesign has addressed the voice of the customer, a rating issigned in a similar manner as presented in step 8 for the coming products. This assessment requires reexamination of thetomers’ requirements and comparison to the proposed desigensure that all needs have been properly addressed. These rwould then be compared with those of the strongest competito ensure the potential success of the proposed design.

References

Bossert, J. L.~1991!. Quality function deployment: A practitioner’s approach, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee.

Burrows, P.~1991!. ‘‘In search of the perfect product.’’Electron. Bus.,17,11–12.

Clabough, S., ed.~1993!. Design of general purpose classrooms, lectuhalls, and seminar rooms, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, CollegPark, Md.

Cohen, L.~1988!. ‘‘Quality function deployment: An application perspective from Digital Equipment Corporation.’’Nat. Prod. Rev.,7~3!,197–208.

Cohen, L.~1995!. Quality function deployment: How to make QFD wofor you, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Dika, R. J.~1991!. ‘‘Overview of quality function deployment.’’Trans-actions, 3rd Symp. on Quality Function Deployment, 2–16.

Griffin, A. ~1992!. ‘‘Evaluating QFD’s use in U.S. firms as a process fdeveloping products.’’J. Prod. Innov. Manage,,9~3!, 171–187.

Griffin, A., and Hauser, J. R.~1993!. ‘‘The voice of the customer.’’Mark.Sci. (Providence R.I.),12~1!, 1–26.



-

the-

ree-

fus-

ac-y

-ction

e-

s

d

Hauser, J. R., and Clausing, D.~1988!. ‘‘The house of quality.’’HarvardBus. Rev.,66~3!, 63–73.

King, B. ~1989!. Better designs in half the time, 3rd Ed., GOAL/QPC,Methuen, Mass.

Kinni, T. B. ~1993!. ‘‘What’s QFD?’’ Ind. Week,242~21!, 31–34.Krueger, R. A.~1988!. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied re

search, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif.Maran, E.~1986!. New product management and the social climate of

1980s: The new products handbook, L. Wizenberg, ed., Irwin Professional.

Mazur, G. H. ~1995!. ‘‘Elicit service customer needs—Using softwaengineering tools.’’Transactions, 7th Symp. on Quality Function Dployment, QFD Institute, 618–626.

McElroy, J., ~1987!. ‘‘For whom are we building cars? Let’s get rid o‘opinioneering’ and start building cars that meet the voice of the ctomer!’’ Automot. Ind.,167~6!, 16–21.



McElroy, J., ~1989!. ‘‘QFD—Building the house of quality.’’Automot.Indu., 169~1!, 35–41.

Nakui, S.~1992!. ‘‘Gaining the strategic advantage: Implementing protive quality function development.’’Transactions, Symp. on QualitFunction Deployment.

Schriener, J., Angelo, W., and McManmy, R.~1995!. ‘‘Total quality man-agement struggles into orbit.’’Eng. News-Rec.,15, 24–28.

Sullivan, L. P.~1986!. ‘‘Quality function deployment—A system to assure that customer needs drive the product design and produprocess.’’Qual. Prog.,19~4!, 39–50.

Sullivan, L. P.~1988!. ‘‘Policy management through quality function dployment.’’ Qual. Prog.,21~6!, 18–20.

Wasserman, G. S.~1993!. ‘‘On how to prioritize design requirementduring the QFD planning process.’’IIE Trans.,25~3!, 59–65.

Wolf, M. ~1994!. ‘‘Development of the city of quality: A hypertext-basedecision support system for quality function deployment.’’Decis. Sup-port Sys.,~11!3, 299–318.



Documents

Pilot Study of Quality Function Deployment in Construction ... Tareas/PIlotQFD.pdf · Pilot Study of Quality Function Deployment in Construction Projects Neil Eldin, M.ASCE,1 and