Design Process Error-Proofing: Project Quality Function Deployment

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Quality Function Deployment ◽  
Time To Market ◽  
Quality Function ◽  
Product Features ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Catastrophic Failures ◽  
Practical Design ◽  
Product Definition ◽  
Error Proofing

This paper presents an advanced application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) for product development projects. Design process error-proofing not only seeks to prevent catastrophic failures but also addresses product definition problems that compromise product features, time-to-market, or cost. Project QFD helps identify the organization requirements and flow them down to the activities, tools, and other solution elements for the project. This approach aids both product definition and resource allocation to clarify and strategically align project goals. The paper explains the method, illustrates it with an example, and discusses its effectiveness through a survey in industry and practical design projects at Stanford. The paper concludes with the proposed work to further disseminate this method.

Design Process Error-Proofing: Development of Automated Error-Proofing Information Systems

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Product Development ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Quality Function Deployment ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Product Development Process ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Engineering Information ◽  
Error Proofing

This paper presents a framework for representing and deploying error-proofs (poka-yoke) in the product development process. Information technology (IT) already plays a key role in product development through tools such as numerical computation, CAD, simulations, and process planning. Information management for error-proofing in manufacturing is also quite common in many industries. However, experts agree that many field failures and quality problems stem back to errors in engineering design. While there are many case studies on design process error-proofing, one must deploy them through leveraging engineering information systems for them to be effective. Towards this goal, this paper proposes the use of quality function deployment (QFD) to characterize potential design errors, evaluate the risks, identify effective error proofing elements, and prioritize their implementation.

Design Process Error Proofing: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of the Design Process

2006 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 491-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Product Development ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Potential Problem ◽  
Product Development Process ◽  
Time To Market ◽  
Development Teams ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Error Proofing

This paper presents a new application of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) on design processes. Our research develops error-proofing methods for the product development process to prevent serious design errors that can compromise project features, time to market, or cost. Design process FMEA is a systematic method which allows product development teams to proactively predict potential problems. The method decomposes the design process into six potential problem areas—knowledge, analysis, communication, execution, change, and organization errors—with a question-based FMEA approach. The paper explains the method, illustrates it through a case study, and discusses its effectiveness. The paper concludes with the proposed work to address design process error-proofing solutions.

A Study of the Design Process of Turbopump Rotor by Using Quality Function Deployment and Concept of Axiomatic Design

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (0) ◽  
pp. J1030306
Author(s):  
Satoshi KAWASAKI ◽  
Masaharu UCHIUMI ◽  
Mitsuru SHIMAGAKI ◽  
Yasuhiro KUROKI ◽  
Kazuyuki YADA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Quality Function Deployment ◽  
Axiomatic Design ◽  
Quality Function

Design Process Error-Proofing: Engineering Peer Review Lessons From NASA

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Irem Tumer ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Design Review ◽  
Support Teams ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Structured Design ◽  
Critical Design ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Error Proofing

This report describes the state of design reviews observed at NASA and research into improving review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA. Formal, programmatic project reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the informal and technical engineering peer reviews that support teams’ work on such projects are informal, ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA’s review experience, benchmark against industry techniques, and develop methodologies to improve the process. Thus far, the research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and execution, including the use of information technology and structured design methodologies, of reviews all impact the technical, engineering peer reviews to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

Design Process Error-Proofing: Strategies for Reducing Quality Loss in Product Development

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Quality Management ◽  
Product Development ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Research Topic ◽  
Quality Loss ◽  
Global Organizations ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Management Techniques ◽  
Error Proofing

Design errors are a major source of quality loss in industry today. “Design Process Error-Proofing” seeks to prevent errors during product development by adapting quality management techniques. Poka-yoke solutions used in manufacturing and operation aim to prevent mistakes from occurring or detect them immediately after they are committed. The goal of design process error-proofing is to extend this strategy and develop innovative structured methods and tools that understand, predict, and prevent design errors. Because the research topic is fairly new, case studies are used to both explain and demonstrate the usefulness of solutions. Through a series of design initiatives at leading global organizations, important lessons were identified in the treatment of design errors. This paper discusses these error-proofing strategies and results.

Design Process Error-Proofing: International Industry Survey and Research Roadmap

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kurt A. Beiter ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Survey Methodology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Error Management ◽  
Systematic Design ◽  
Structured Design ◽  
Process Error ◽  
International Industry ◽  
Error Proofing

Abstract This paper presents the results of a survey on the use of error management methods during the design process at several leading corporations in the United States and Japan. The survey reveals that although many companies are aware of the benefits of structured design processes, and although most have implemented systematic design practices to some level, many companies are still reliant on reactive tools (such as design reviews and checklists) to manage design-related errors. This paper discusses the survey methodology, the results of the survey, and the authors’ proposed work to address the existing lack of a systematic approach to design process error-proofing.

Design Process Error-Proofing: Lessons From and Challenges for NASA

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Irem Tumer ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Design Practices ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Error Proofing

This report describes the state of design observed at NASA and collaborative research between NASA and Stanford University into improving design practices. Just as there are many types of missions and projects, there are many types of design practices and reviews at NASA. Through exploration of the NASA life-cycle across the organization and deeper case studies of specific missions, the goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA’s review experience, benchmark against industry techniques, and develop methodologies to improve the process. By introducing design process error-proofing methods based on FMEA and QFD into the NASA framework, more robust corrective actions and solutions can better detect and prevent design errors. This paper demonstrates the methods through retroactive exploration and implementation on the Mars Climate Orbiter.

Design Process Error-Proofing: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of the Design Process

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence P. Chao ◽  
Kosuke Ishii
Keyword(s):  
Product Development ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Knowledge Analysis ◽  
Process Error ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Product Development Processes ◽  
Error Proofing

This paper presents a new application of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) on product development processes. Our research develops error-proofing methods for product development processes to prevent serious design errors that compromise project features, time, or cost. Design process FMEA categorizes design errors in six areas: knowledge, analysis, communication, execution, change, and organization errors. The paper explains the method, illustrates it with an example, and discusses its effectiveness. The paper concludes with the proposed work to address the existing lack of a systematic approach to design process error-proofing.

Application of a Modified Quality Function Deployment Method for MEMS

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina L. Lamers ◽  
Milnes David ◽  
Ken Goodson ◽  
Kos Ishii ◽  
Beth L. Pruitt
Keyword(s):  
Heat Exchanger ◽  
Manufacturing Process ◽  
Quality Function Deployment ◽  
Sensor Technology ◽  
Customer Requirements ◽  
Quality Function ◽  
Handheld Device ◽  
Design Methodologies ◽  
Product Specifications ◽  
Product Definition

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) has long been used as a successful design methodology in the heavy industrial and automotive industries. QFD helps designers utilize the ‘voice of the customer’, or customer requirements, to determine which engineering metrics or product specifications are the most essential [1]. This prioritization helps designers know what part of the product or process is most beneficial to focus on during design, resulting in products that better meet customer requirements and generate increased commercial success. QFD and most other design methodologies have rarely been applied to MEMS products [2]. In the case of QFD, the structure of the most common format of the tool dictates that engineering metrics should be related to parts characteristics in the second step of applying QFD. This causes difficulties in using the tool for MEMS as most MEMS do not have physical ‘parts’ that are assembled into a final device. Rather, MEMS have product specifications and a manufacturing process used to create the product. Generally there is a tight link between product and process in MEMS. This link has been utilized in creating a modified version of QFD that relates engineering metrics to design concepts, including product conceptualization and manufacturing process. The modified QFD utilizes aspects of Pugh Concept Selection, and differs from typical QFD primarily in consideration of product idea and manufacturing process in the early phases of product definition. The modified QFD was applied to a MEMS project whose goal was to develop a handheld device that allows users to control the selection and release of a variety of stored scents. The technique was also applied to a microscale heat exchanger for integrated circuits. The scent dispenser and heat exchanger were designed and prototyped at Stanford University in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The modified version of QFD gave insight early in the product definition phase on which design concept to pursue to prototype. Use of this and other design methodologies in the MEMS field could shorten the time it takes to progress through product development to volume manufacturing, and increase confidence in the marketability of the chosen design and manufacturing process. A case study demonstrating the effects of using modified QFD Phase II to assist in finding a good fit between technical capabilities and market application was performed by the author on an acoustic sensor technology [3].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document