Qiiiihiy E'lginecrinM. 18:299- ?
23, 2006
Copyright r Taylor & FrariL'is Group. LLC
ISSN: 0S98-2I12 print/1532-4222 online
DOI: It).1080/08982110600719349
Designing New Housing at the University of Miami: A "Six Sigma"®
DMADV/DFSS Case Study
J.A. Johnson and H. Gitlow
Department of Munagcment Science. School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Coral Gahles, FL
S. Widener
Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering University of Miami, Coral Gables. FL
E. Popovich
Sterling Enterprises International, Inc., Boca Raton, FL
The "Six Sigma" management DMADV model is used in this
paper to design a new dormitory concept at the University of
Miami. It is intended to provide a roadmap for conducting a
Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) project.
Keywords Case study: Design for Six Sigma; DFSS;
DMADV; Six Sigma.
INTRODUCTION
"Six Sigma" management is the relentless and rig-
orous pursuit ofthe reduction of variation in all critical
processes in an organization. Us purpose is to achieve
continuous and breakthrough improvements that
impact the bottom line and increase customer satisfac-
tion. Six Sigma management is an organizational initia-
tive designed to create processes that produee no more
than 3.4 defeets per million opportunities.
The two methods employed in Six Sigma initia-
tives to achieve this high standard of quality are called
the DMAIC (the Defme-Measure-Analyze-Improve-
Control) method (Rasis et al.. 2002; vol. 15 no. 1
pp. 127-145), and the DMADV (Detme-Measure-
Analyze-Design-Verify) method. The DMAIC method
is used primarily for improvement of an existing
' "Six Sigma" is a registered trademark of the Motorola
Corporation.
Address correspondence to Howard Gitlow, Professor of
Management Science, School of Business Administration,
University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA. E-mail;
hgitlow@miami.edu
299
Taylor & Francis
Ia/lor(.franci5 Croup
product, service, or process, while the DMADV
method is used primarily for the invention and innova-
tion of modified or new products, services, or pro-
cesses. This paper focuses on the DMADV method.
DEFINE PHASE
Introduction
The Define Phase of the DMADV model has five
eomponents: establish the background and business
case; assess the risks, benefits, and costs of the project;
form the product development team; develop the
project plan, and write the project charter.
Background and Business Case
The University of Miami has experienced rapid
growth in student enrollment, a policy that stipulates
that all ineoming freshmen must live on campus (unless
they live with their family), and the wish of the presi-
dent for a more residential campus created more
demand than supply for on-campus housing. This is
clearly seen by the portion of the University's mission
and dashboard, shown in Table I.
A partial hst of potential projects is shown in the
right-most column of Table 1. The potential projects
are prioritized for action in a project prioritization
matrix (see Tabie 2).
The project relating to the School of Business
Administration with the highest weighted average from
Table 2 is selected as a ''Six Sigma" project, as it has
the most impact on the business objectives, in this case,
300 J.A. Johnson et al.

Tahle I
The mission and selected portions of the dashboard for the University of Miami. "Mission Statement: The University of
Miami exists that human knowledge be treasured, preserved, expanded and disseminated and that the human mind, body and
spirit be nurtured and strengthened through learning." Coiiivni Las! Modified on March 28. 2003
President Provost Dean ofthe school of business

Key objectives Key indicators Key objectives Key indicators Key objectives Key indicators Projects
Improve student Number of Increase the Number of Increase the Number of Create more
experiences students number of students number of business on-campus
applying students living living business students housing for
on campus on campus students living business
by semester living on on campus students
campus by semester (new housing)
Percent of Increase Percentage Increase Percentage of Improve on-
students student of students business business campus housing
returning resident retained student students options for
by semester retention each semester retention retained by business
rate semester students
(housing
renovation)
Improve the 1-MR chart Improve on-
national of national campus housing
ranking ranking options for
ofthe business
university students
(housing
renovation)
Improve Number of Improve on-
inlerdisciplinar> / interdisciplinary campus housing
research projects options for
business
students
(housing
renovation)
Increase the Total value of Improve on-
university the endowment campus housing
endowment by year options for
business
students
(housing
renovation)

Tabh' 2
Six Sigma project prioritization matrix
Partial list of potential projects for business school
Weight Office wing New housing Housing renovations Business library

President s business objectives

Improve national ranking 0.4U 9 3 1
Improve interdisciplinary 0.30 9 1 3
research
Increase the endowment 0.15 I 9 1
Improve student experience 0.15 3 9 3
Weighted average 1.00 6.9 4,2 1.9
 Designing New Housing at tho L'niversity of Miami
the Office Wing Construction, vi^ith a score of 6.9.
However, this project is near completion, so the Dean
of the School of Business can start to set up the next
project. New Housing Construction.
Risks. Benefits, and Costs of the Project
Risks
Table 3 shows a failure modes and effects analysis
(FMEA) for the new housing project that was created
in a brainstorming session by team members. Each
individual item was rated by (1) severity, (2) probabil-
ity of occurrence, and (3) detectability, on a 1 to 10
scale. In each case, the scale is established so that 1
is the ideal state, that is, cheapest or least damaging,
least likely to occur, and easiest to detect. Accordingly,
a 10 is the most undesirable state, that is, expensive or
heavily damaging, likely to occur, and difficult to
detect. The three scores for each failure mode are
multiplied to get a composite score ofthe risk, known
as the Risk Priority Number (RPN). An RPN can
range from 1 ( 1 x 1 x 1 ) to 1.000 (10 x 10 x 10), with
higher numbers being more problematic risks.
In the dormitory case, team members established a
plan to decrease risk. After the plan is put into place,
the three component scores arc estimated again to
compute a revised RPN,
The two major risks, obsolescence (RPN =560)
and design team dynamics (RPN - 448). can be
avoided by planning flexible interiors that can be easily
updated (revised RPN = 2!0) and maintaining a team
environment (revised RPN = 192). respectively.
Benefits
The measurable benefits of new housing construc-
tion can be broken down into two groups, financial
and non-financia! benefits. Financial benefits include
rental of the new rooms. However, the dormitory is
planned to be a break-even operation (see Table 4).
Non-financial benefits would also be realized, for
example, in potentially increased ratings from sources
like Bu.siness Week and U.S. News and World Report.
Another example is the positive feelings evoked from
a physically apparent sign of growth, as the new build-
ing stimulates interest and excitement.
Composition of the Team
The team comprised two members (Adam Johnson
and Scott Widener). one advisor (Dr, Edward
301
Popovich). one Black Belt (Professor Howard Gitlow),
and one Champion (Dean Paul Sugrue).
Project Plan
The fourth step in the Define Phase is to develop a
project plan which has five components: opportunity
statement, project objective, project scope, multi-
generational product plan, and a Gantt chart. The
purpose of the project plan is to define the project.
Opportunity Statement
The opportunity statement clarifies the opportu-
nity the project provides toward bottom-line profits
or customer satisfaction. It asks: "What is the pain
that will be addressed by the project?'"
In the dormitory example, the University of Miami
president stated her desire to create a more residential
campus (see the dashboard in Table 1). The Dean of
the School of Business would like to establish the
School of Business as a top 50 business school. Cur-
rently, there is a need to expand the facility and infra-
structure to keep up with the escalating competition to
become a top 50 business school.
Project Objectives
The project objective clarifies the goal of the pro-
ject. In the case of the dormitory example, the project
objective is to create a design for a high-class living
facility that encourages learning and community aimed
at executives-in-residence. MBA students, and junior
and senior undergraduate business students. The facil-
ity should increase the number of on-campus residents.
Project Scope
The project scope focuses the opportunity state-
ment by considering the constraints on the project.
The first issue considered by the project scope is
resource constraints. Eor the dormitory project, the
only constraints are a deadline for completing the
design and a particular plot of land. The second issue
considered by the project scope is obstacles, Eor the
dormitory project, obstacles include confidentiality
about the project, political struggles between key
groups with vested interests, and an extremely diverse
population that needs to be appeased with any newly
designed facilities. The third issue considered by the
project scope is financial constraints. Einancial
constraints for the project are set by the construction
 aei
00 c ^
t:
Jesig

c
:utiv
and

O X O ^ ^

2P
eff
c
aj 5J " ^
I/;
</l
1— •a £ ^ •5
X u u c — o c Oil r-;
'«_•
X o . TO «^ o ••- CJ
aj - .E

Insui

;seat
• - ^
*-*
anni

u c

ime
ra >
'3 .r bO
aj
c OJ ra " ^ TO
£ « o .5 aj
^.2 • & .
O "^ aj OJ > ,

— 00 ra C 0 0 k-
(/]

TO ^ %— o c
o 'ra c ^ UH o TO
a: c < i;
Z o cc CO o o
1-
a. o 1-
r-l
^—
.—•
c^
c
-o
u o
r/1
inn

O •o
a. o
o o
D. X
"lJ u
-a

0 >
<
>
OJ

u.
D
or.r renr
ikel lood

x: ,Si
c '^
•3 T ;
^ P. = a
ra U5
<u <=o 3
c
.5
ij "ra
•o 3 c 2 iJ £ i_
s
olil

o £ •o
o c
ttJ O a: Q CL.

00
c

1) q/l

-h l/l -a
3
I..
1)
a- xi o ul • —

II c 3
JJ ra
^y ^ 00
60 —
o l i

'S X
c n . u= c
c
o
o. U U-r

302
 Designing New Housing at the University of Miami 303

Tahle 4
Finaneial estimates by year
Revenues by floor
Single room rent per student S12.00D for year
40 single rentals floor $480,000 per year
Total rent per floor S480.000 per year
Debt service by floor
25.137 square feet per tloor
S200 per square foot construction costs
Construction cost per iloor ($5,027,400)
30-year bond (ii $"/<, interest rale $327,040 per year
Net revenue by floor (Revenue less debt service)
$480,000 per year
-$327,040 per year
$152,960 per year
Maintenance by floor
25.137 square feet per floor
$6 per square foot $150,822 per year
Net net revenue by floor (Net revenue less maintenance)
$152,960 per year
-$150,822 per year
$2,138 per year
Net net revenue for building (7 floors) $14,966 per year

budget and the project budget ($1,000). All expendi- Gantt Chart
tures must be cleared through the project's Black Belt.
The final section of the project plan is to lay out
Multi-Generational Product Plan (MGPP) the timeframe of the project using a Gantt chart.

A MGPP is a method used to view the "entire Project Charter

picture" of a project. Table 5 illustrates the three
categories of MGPPs.
In the dormitory project, it can be seen that the new
facility is a cross between Generations I and 2. It is
Generation I because there is some bleeding in the
housing market as students leave campus to seek off-
campus housing. However, it is Generation 2 because
it develops and incorporates new technologies into an
on-campus living facility. Consequently, the new facil-
ity design will be treated as a Generation 2 project.
A project charter identifies the market segments
for a product, service, or process, as well as the mea-
sure(s) of success with direction(s) and target(s). and
a deadline. In the dormitory example, the project
objective is to create a design for a high-class living
facility that eneourages learning and community (the
product) aimed at executives-in-residence, MBA
students, as well as junior and senior undergraduate
business students (the market segments) to increase

Table 5
MGPP categories and definitions
Generation MGPP generation MGPP generation 2 MGPP getieration 3
Vision Stop bleeding in Take offensive action Take leadership in new markets
existing markets by filling unmet needs
of existing markets
Product/service Improved or less New major features New products or services or processes
generations expensive existing features
Produet/service Current leehnology Current technology Current technology and
technologies and with relevant teclmological development of new technology
platforms enhancements if needed if possible
304 J.A. Johnson cl

(the direction) the number of on campus residents (the Kano Survey

measure of success) by 280 students (the target) by July
15, 2003 (the deadline).
MEASURE PHASE
Introduction
The Measure Phase has three steps: seginent the
market, design and conduct a Kano Survey, and use
the Kano survey results as Quality Function Deploy-
ment inputs to fmd Critical to Quality Characteristics
(CTQs).
Market Segmentation
The first step ofthe Measure Phase is to identify the
market segments. In the dormitory example, the Dean
of the School of Business Administration identified
three distinct market segments for the nev^' on-campus
housing. These market segments are executives-in-
residcncc. regular MBA students, and undergraduate
business students. Executives-in-residence are indivi-
duals that come to campus for one or two weeks to
attend a concentrated class. Currently, no regular
MBA sttidents live on campus.
A Kano survey (Gitlow, 1999; Kano and Takahashi,
1979) is an instrument that collects data concern-
ing the wants and desires of regular users of a
potential product, service, and process and leads to
the classification of said needs and wants into tacti-
cally important categories. In the dormitory example,
several key stakeholders of the current housing system
at the University of Miami were interviewed to collect
preliminary data on the needs ofthe proposed housing
construction; they included two former Resident Mas-
ters (faculty members who live in apartments inside
dormitory buildings), the Facilities Director (maintains
existing dormitories), the Director of Residence Halls
(coordinates residential assignments, residential poli-
cies, and other residential aftairs), and the Dean of
the Business School. Focus groups were conducted,
which consisted of a mixture of full-time MBA students
and undergraduate business students. Additionally,
data were collected on five-star hotels to address the
needs ofthe executives-in-residence market segment.
Team members developed a Kano survey using the
features (called cognitive images) identified from the
above focus groups, (see Table 6). For a discussion
of how to identify cognitive images see Gitlow
(1999). The survey was then completed by a quota

Table 6
Partial Kano survey lor donnitory example
How would you How would you feel What percent increase over the
feel if this feature or if this feature or serviee eost of a typical dorm room would
service was ineluded was NOT ineluded in a you be willing to pay to have this
Feature or service in a dormitory residence? dormitory residenee? feature or serviee?
Single occupancy a) Delighted a) Delighted a) 0% 0 5%
rooms b) Expeet it and like it b) Expeet it and like it b) 0.5% g) 10%
e) No feeling e) No feeling c) 1% h) 15%
d) Live with it d) Live with it d) 2% i) 20%
e) Do not like it e) Do not like it e) 3% j) 30% or more
0 Other 0 Other
Individual a) Delighted ;L) Delighted a) 0% f) 5%
bathrooms b) Expect it and like it b) Expect it and like it b) 0.5% g) iO%
c) No feeling c) No feeling c) 1% h) 15%
d) Live with it d) Live with it d) 2% i) 20%
e) Do not like it e) Do not like it e) 3% j) 30% or more
0 Other 0 Other
Queen-sized a) Delighted a) Delighted a) 0% 0 5%
bed b) Expect it and like it b) Expeet it and like it b) 0.5% g) 10%
c) No feeling c) No feeling c) 1% h) 15%
d) Live with it d) Live with it d) 2% il 20%
e) Do not like it e) Do not like it e) 3% j) 30% or more
0 Other f) Other
 Desii>nin}; New Housing at the University of Miami
sample of 295 regular MBA and undergraduate busi-
ness students collected by class section.
There are six different Kano categories, which are
formed by looking at the difference between the
responses of the first two questions on the Kano
survey. These six categories are:
• One Dimensional (O)—user satisfaction increases
proportional to performance in both the positive
and negative directions.
• Must Be (M)—user is unsatisfied with low perfor-
mance but indifferent to high performance.
• Attractive (A)—user is indifferent to low perfor-
mance but excited by high performance.
• Reverse (R) the researchers' prior view is the oppo-
site of what was found, meaning that the user is
satisfied with low performance and dissatisfied with
high performance.
• Indifferent (I)^the user has no feelings about pre-
sence or absence of the object in question.
• Questionable (Q) the user provided contradictory
responses to a particular cognitive issue.
For a discussion of how to classify the cognitive images
on the Kano survey into their Kano categories see
Gitlow(I999).
A cotnplete Kano quality categorization of the
cognitive images, or features, and their expected per-
centage price increase for all market segments is listed
in Table 7.
Table 8 shows the Kano quality categorizations of
the cognitive images by Kano quality category and
expected cost increase, for each market segment.
The cognitive images classified into the I-R-Q Kano
quality categories do not present any benefit to the indi-
viduals in a market segment. Consequently, they are
eliminated from consideration in future designs. The
cognitive images classitied into the O-M-A Kano qual-
ity categories provide an array of features that need to
be considered in future designs, as they positively
impact the market segments.
Quality Futiction Deployment (QFD)
Quality Function Deployment is a tool used to
build the "Voice ofthe User."" in this case the cognitive
images, into the design o f a product, service, or pro-
cess. Table 9 is an excerpt from the QFD tables, which
shows the relationships between the rows, or cognitive
images, and the columns, or features. These strong
one-to-one relationships between the cognitive images
and the features occur because the cognitive images
305
are the features needed to fulfill customer require-
ments. For example, the cognitive image associated
with providing each room with individual climate con-
trots requires rooms to be built with individual climate
controls. This structure caused the features, now clas-
sified as CTQs. to be "present or not present" vari-
ables. Table 9 indicates that Single Occupancy rooms
are very important to all market segments. This is evi-
denced by the high normalized weight in the Single
Occupancy Room column.
ANALYZE PHASE
Introduction
The Analyze Phase contains four steps: Design
Generation, Design Analysis. Risk Analysis, and
Design Model. In this case study, the aim of the Ana-
lyze Phase is to develop several high-level dormitory
design concepts. In addition to this, risk assessments
will be prepared for each design. Usually, nominal
values are established for all CTQs; however, in the
dormitory example, all of the CTQs are either present
or absent, and consequently, do not have nominal
values.
Design Generation
Table 10 depicts three designs generated in the
Analyze Phase. "Undergraduate Preferences" depicts
the design selected by undergraduate students via the
Kano Questionnaire, "Graduate Preferences" depicts
the design selected by graduate students via the Kano
Questionnaire, and "Composite" depicts the design
with all ofthe O-M-A CTQs from the Kano Question-
naire.
The Analyze Phase utilizes design generation tech-
niques such as Lateral Thinking {De Bono. 1992).
TRIZ (Altshutler. 1996). and brainstorming techni-
ques. The dormitory project used brainstorming to
generate two additional designs. It was determined that
the simplest design considered should be the equivalent
of the nicest room currently available on-campus;
therefore a study of the room was performed. The
design of the room is generalized in Table 11. It is
referred to as "Eaton Hall," the name of the building
housing the rooms. Another design promotes academic
success by including "business-related" features and
services. This design is called the Business Suite design.
(Table II). All features not included in the Business
Suite desicn were then deemed as luxury items which
306 J.A. Johnson et al.

Tahle 7
Kano Survey results for all market segments
Cognitive images Largest Kano category E (percent increase in pay)
Single occupancy rooms One Way (25.6%) 6.58%
Individual bathrooms Attractive (37.5%) 5.75%
Qucen-sizcd bed Attractive (56.8%) 2.99%
Broadband internet Attractive (36.4%) 1.65%
integrated iiudio system Indifferent (49.3%) 0.49%
Intcgriiled headphone jacks IndilTcrent (65.3%) 0.37%
Television Attractive (54.5%) 1.74%
Telephone Attractive (34.2%) 0.60%
Cordless telephone Attractive (49.3%) 0.66%
Addilionyl phone services Attractive (60.0%) 1.19%
Personal computer rental service Indifferent (61.8%) NA
Shared common printer Attractive (44.3%) 0.69%
Large corner desk Attractive (54.8%) 0.53%
Executive desk chair Attractive (53.4%) 0.56%
Additional desk chairs IndilTerent (47.1%) 0.42%
Climate control by room Must Be (43.7%) 3.10%
Full-size bathtub Attractive (29.6%) 1.80%
Microwave Attractive (31.0%) 1. 17%
Small refrigerator Attractive (32.4%) 1.61%
Kitchenette Attractive (45.1%) 3.83%
Indifferent (47.8%)
Appliance rental service NA
Attractive (40.0%)
VCR 0.69%
Attractive (60.3%)
DVD player 0.49%
Attractive (33.3%)
Carpet 0.69%
Indifferent (50.7%)
Tile 0.59%
Indifferent (46.4%)
Enforced quiet areas Indifferent (50.7%) 0.74%
Vacuum cleaner rental service Attractive (39.1%) NA
Shared common vacuum cleaner Attractive (42.6%) 0.63%
Accessible roof Must Be (33.8%) 1.36%
Security guard One Way (30.4%) NA
Laundry facility by floor Indifferent (57.4%) 1.11%
Iron and ironing board Attractive (47.8%) 0.57%
Optional laundry service Attractive (43.3%) 1.36%
Optional maid service Attractive (35.3%) 1.66%
Concierge Attractive (48.0%) 1.02%
Reserved convenient parking place Indifferent (53.3%) 1.98%
Competitive admissions (vs. conventional assignment) Indifferent (38.7%) 0.27%
Admission based on GPA Reverse (25.7%) 0.2 i%
Admissions for business students only Indifferent (43.8%) 0.77%
Admissions for junior level and up only InditTercnt (44.6%) 0.28%
Segregate residents by class level Attractive (43.8%) 0.34%
Armoire Indifferent (61.6%) NA
Coffee table Indifferent (48.0%) 0.36%
High-quality linens One Way (30.7%) 0.45%
Option to rent by semester 1.33%

led to the renaming ofthe "Composite" design as the
"Luxury Suite" design.
In summary, there are five room designs posited:
• Undergraduate Preferences—This design includes
only the features that are deemed as "One-Way."
"Attractive." or "Must-Be" via the undergraduate
responses in the Kano Questionnaire.
Gradtiate Preferences— This design includes only the
features that are deemed as "One-Way." "Attrac-
tive." or "Must-Be" via the graduate responses in
the Kano Questionnaire.
 < rr *N r'j p 3

r-i d d d z d d d—
UJ

o o :;
C —
3 ^

lO *N Tf
-a rt — d d — c c — d d d d r - i r i — — —d — —

o o
ou o<<<- -

00 ^r; p p p p rn
d d d d r-i r^ r-i r^i d
-^ d d d d d d

o<<o- < - s < <

< <
r>( p (^
(N — d
r-i 00 rn — p z
d — — _; -^

III
^ S^ o^ <
00 so p r^ o rn 00 r-i 00 iJ-i t ^ — O
n-l fN — d _; d d r-i <^ d d -rt d

o o t; o
=3 ^
O< < <
a- ?3

'^ a^ r~- p <

(-1 d d — z d d d d—

•- O
O O < < < -

£ u
o c
o o
a
-a o c
J=l O
a j=

.li 3 I IS I H -z — y o
c
ra ^^
"O fO
ti
quii
ppli

Q ,o
o
DU ra 0^
o a
o
s-
U iy5 = £ HP U < < > Q u H UJ

307
 < So — O 5^
ra
d "") O —'

3
13

O •B ^
- < - - < < < O

,O V* -vO

'i Z d ri d —• Z rn ^O —

o ^
c
ra ra

, o ...o ^o
p — — O "-.
— rn
d

o i*
- < - < < ^ -

d — —; —
•a
3

c -3 au - < <OO - < < < < - - <O

o
U

5Z - d d d -^
O
E
o
o.
o
- <

d — d
UJ

U.
< - O -

= >>
Oi)
c
lace

ou c > >
c .y 2
1^
iea

> c
id iro

al lai

al m;i

ission
titive

o c
oor

X) ~
rge

IU P K O OJ ^'
itui
itiv

-_ '-J
o 3 -C
E 1...
1=1
c c <L. c r c
ra ra '>
o > c n. E .^ ^
3 i2
c -a
2i •r 1-
^j 5 i
• o IU t= •J-l
d B
o ^ ra "- _^ o X) D. I/I c. o
u |> C/3 O O X O

308
 f ^ l ' O ' ^ r f ' T O O V i ^ . ' : ^ — r^irnoOr-^Ov

i?
o o
un.

O I ococoooooco
oire
lujv

c
o
JU ra
bl
O O O O O O O O O O O O C O — C — OO — — —
E ra 1 -
ou
i. G
—
ou
o

s § O O O — a^ C; = • 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O r ^ . O

O O O i > — O —— O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o

o X O O O v O O O O O O O O O O O O < 0 0 C 2 0 C 2 O 0 O 0 O 0 Q —
3
c

75 o
O s O v O O O O O O O O O O O O ^^ ^"^ ^ ^ ^ ^ •""• ^^D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^_J

^y O fO — — O — O O O—

•a
00 O
.E c
.i^ O
c > ra '^
o E 1/1 „ E c
>- o
c Co., tj
•a ^ij ra ra X > on
'E c- x: £ o -a j ^ "^ o
ll X
•o = _aj D. 5
C , "z:
i/> 11 J - o •D
•B ^ B
3 ra
S c ^'
O 3 '-^
c

N C ^ 2iraJ :p 1- oj 2 S -^ OJ
ra 5 1/1 := ra o o > c •15 15 £?"5 (U ^
^^ X
^ S .9 c- i
_ ^ N
<J -ji: o
e c u

u
3
a
OJ
3
ra
O
H H O < Q-
X ra Pill
UJ < U U-
-I O O
.2 . 2 '(J •—
3 i2
03 U
irt
^o
H.
O
o
Z

309
310 J.A. Johnson et al.

Tahle 10
CTQ relationships between target markets
CTQ (feature or service) Undergraduate preterenees Graduate preferences Composite
Single occupancy rooms X

Individual bathrooms X
Quccii-sized bed X
Broadband internet X
Television unit X
Telephone unit X
Cordless telephone unit X
Additional phone services X
Personal computer rental service X
Shared common printer X
Large corner desk X
Executive desk chair X
Additional desk chairs
Climate control by room X
Full-size bathtub X
Microwave
Small refrigerator X
Kitchenette X
Appliance rental service
VCR
DVD player X
Carpet X
Enforced quiet areas
Shared common vaeuum cleaner X
Accessible roof X
Security guard X
Laundry facility by floor X
Optional laundry service X
Optional maid service X
Concierge
Reserved convenient parking Place X
Admissions for business students only
Segregate students by class level
Armoire X
Option to rent by semester

• Eaton Hall—This design includes only the features Design Analysis

of the nicest dormitory rooms currently available
on campus.
• Business Suite—This design includes only the fea-
tures and services that have large contributions to
business activities.
• Luxury Suite—This design includes all of the fea-
tures that were deemed as "One-Way," "Attractive,"
or "MusI-Bc" by any of the participating market
segments via the Kano Questionnaire.
Note that the Hve designs do not consider common
area designs, just the rooms themselves. However, all
designs will share the same common area design within
the building.
The five designs are graded on six criteria deter-
mined by project team members through brainstorm-
ing using a Modified Pugh Matrix (Pugh. 1991),
with Eaton Hall serving as a baseline. The six criteria
are:
• Willingness of Customer to Pay More—Luxuries
come at a price that must be evaluated with respect
to customer price sensitivity. This information can
be determined by the Kano Questionnaire. This
information is included in Table 12.
• Low Repair Frequency—This is a general compari-
son to the baseline that answers the question: Will
 Designing New Housing at the University of Miami 311

Tahle II
Alternative room designs
CTQ (feature or service) Eaton hall Business suite Luxury suite
Single occupancy rooms X X X
Individual bathrooms X X X
Queen-size bed X
Broadband internet X X X
Television unit X
Telephone unit X X
Cordless telephone unit X X
Additional phone services X
PC rental serviee X X
Shared common printer X X
Large corner desk X X
Executive desk ehair X X
Additional desk chairs X X
Climate control by room X
Full-Size bathtub X
Microwave X
Small refrigerator X X
Kitchenette X
Appliance rental service X
VCR X
DVD player X
Carpet X
Enforced quiet areas X X X
Shared common vacuum cleaner X
Accessible roof X
Security guard X X X
Laundry facility by floor X X X
Optional laundry serviee X
Optional maid serviee X
Coneierge X
Reserved convenient parking place X
Admis.sions for business students only X
Segregate residents by elass level X
Armoire X
Option to rent by semester V

this de.sign increase the frequency of needed repairs
over that of the baseline?
Ease of Repair—This is a general comparison to the
baseline that answers the question: Will this design
introduce CTQs that will unduly burden current
campus employees in repair and maintenance work?
Replacement Frequency—Does the design introduce
many CTQs that need yearly replacement?
Ease to Clean and Common Maintenance—Do any
of the introduced CTQs require an inordinate
amount of maintenance and cleaning? As an exam-
ple of this criterion, fish tanks would score a low
grade on this criterion, as they require significant
upkeep, whereas plastic plants would score high, as
they only require an occasional dusting.
• Low Cost/Benefit Ratio—This criterion considers
the cost of the design and tries to match the soft ben-
efit of appreciation of current university students
and the value as a selling point to future students.
The willingness ofa customer to pay more for a dormi-
tory facility is first broken down by individual CTQs in
Table 12. The calculations assume that the current cost
of an Eaton Hall dormitory room is $875 per month.
Given ihis cost structure, the expected values of the
customers" willingness to pay additional money for
CTQs can be determined from their input from the
Kano Questionnaire. Team members graded each
CTQ on a - I to -Hi scale. A zero can be assumed
as a break-even value on the customers" willingness
 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

•- . ^
X X XX

UJ

X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X XX

x x x x x x x x

O O C O O — C O OO — — — OOC: o
I
o

O rn O oc ri
•n ^ —•

• ^ c ' - •—•

t; n <u 1- oc — — ~ — — r n i / ^ r - i o
C ^ O ^ ^ - • —^r--;r-ioi»^^O
§ - <
^ C ' ^ ' ^ r ^ i l — l/-lO'T|•^n•^•^D
<- 'y. -^ r- y ^ t ^ t ^ t o r - i ^ - — m*-oo
(/J t ^ &« LA {/I

c OJ
o 55 ra
O
a d d d d --^i — — —^ r^. d
UJ

, o o^
v^ •< c^
•< o^
' ^ "-r
O-. "e^
^ -<:
6^ "-v
o^
^ ' / ^ oc ' ^ 1-1 r-1 r^j O rn oc Tt . o- ^
i^r--\o^Ttrtoid ^ v-1 u-1 ^ rn (^1
— — — _ TT —
CJ 4> U -— '^^ O

_J CQ

^ < < < ^ S < < < < = < < <

OJ
B
o
o I .s 1-
'ra
o
C IJ OJ JZ •J n
a
oc 3 c o -:^
o •§ 3

ax a B 1., O
0)
G 1- •o •o 00 (L> >-
IJ — u So o
B c • J ra -^ra >
o o > j^ ra
.' X ra "ra • n o o 2> c c a^
iti

c OJ 3 ra o
a •£ ^ 5 ^ X ra
H O <

312
 X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X 5

QJ [ / ^
"^ QJ
o o o o o o c o o o o —
'^ 'J ra
'5
o o oc c —' o o o o o *? c c X
d —'• o c o c c d c — o
pref ere

c
pref ere

c
o O
1/1
sine

sine
Eat

Ui
1 3
o i o
QJ

3
QJ

3
o
3
c B C
— 1/5 — to z ^ CO p 3
CO
a
CO
pi"j BO 3
1 — t>0
•a
3
3
— •jT O^ — •rf OO r- o "o
B B
CO

<
— •^ r- O O

•--?
a^
tfei 'ent (44.6'

OO
stj Q-- ^ L'J r-p r-j r-
(-1 0 0 • [...J rn lO O
•S p -^ S S Ci rr,
act ive

QJ -^^ --^ (D O 1> >.

,> O ^ . > .> .> ra
•—' CD " : i *—<•*.-»*—*
u 12 ^ L L- i^ I-
•5 3
S "^ C ^ S E
^ <o

§1 •a
c
ra
i/i
E:
o
;*, 1- S^ 'S QJ
•a
C ra (2. 3
ra o o
nta

cr p _2J 3 c t/i
>, ra L- .3 'i7 C
t/^
>
[lci
tio
tio

3 c QJ ra 3
F o_
a. a. cc QJ

Oo u
313
314 J.A. Johnson et

to pay more while a - 1 reflects that the University
would lose money if it provided the CTQ. This cost
recovery is based on the Total Life Cycle Cost (TLCC)
of the CTQs (features and services). While these
TLCCs for the CTQs could not be precisely estimated,
a general consensus regarding TLCC recovery was
determined from expert advice. For instance, tenants
are expected to be willing to pay approximately
$63.75 per year for a cordless phone. Cordless phones
have a life expectancy of approximately one year in a
dormitory environment. Given that, the TLCC should
be recovered on a yearly basis. In this example, the
TLCC is very near the expected value of the amount
tenets are willing to pay for that feature, meaning that
it "graded out" at zero. The largest portion of the
TLCC of a parking place would be the coupons paid
on the bonds that finance the parking place. Therefore,
the expected value of the amount the customers are
willing to pay should exceed the coupons needed to
cover the 30-year bonds that would finance the parking
places. By considering TLCC and the length of a life
time for the feature or service, a perpetual recovery
can be predicted. Any "grades" below zero are a pre-
diction of an under-recovery and any "grades" above
zero are a prediction of an over-recovery. It should
also be noted that the ""grades" are not integer values
and represent the likelihood of recovery and not the
magnitudes of recovery, although there is a relation-
ship between the two. For instance, a CTQ can be
graded at 0.5 to indicate that the likelihood of over-
recovery is positive but not as likely as another CTQ
graded at 0.7. The opposite is true for negative grades.
The sums of those grades are then standardized and
used as an input into the Pugh Matrix for the different
designs. To further illustrate this concept consider the
following example:
The Kano surveys indicate that students are willing
to pay an additional 3% in rent if they are furnished a
queen-sized bed as opposed to a twin-sized bed. This
amounts to an estimated value of $287.77 per year.
Now, the marginal TLCC o(^ furnishing a queen-sized
bed as opposed to a twin-sized bed should be consid-
ered. Given the conservative estimate ofa three-year life
span for the bed. an additional $863.31 (3 x $287.77.
ignoring interest effects for simplicity of example)
should be willingly generated by the patrons of the
dormitory due to the added vaiue of furnishing a
queen-sized bed. The addiiional cost incurred due to
upgrading this provision from that ofa twin-sized bed
should fall well below $861.31, and therefore, the Uni-
versity has a very favorable probability that they can
fully recover the cost of the queen-sized bed via rent.
This favorable probability of cost recovery is repre-
sented with a score of 0.8. indicating that an over-recov-
ery is actually likely. This score is also summed into the
following raw values: "Sum of Undergraduate Prefer-
ences." "Sum of Graduate Preference." and "Sum of
Luxury Suite." It is excluded from the other two sum-
mations because the Eaton and Business Suite designs
do not include a queen-sized bed. The summations are
then standardized by dividing all sums by the vaiue of
the largest sum. These standardized sums are then used
as inputs in the Modified Pugh Matrix (Table 13) in the
row labeled "Willingness of Customer to Pay More" as
a substitute for the usual + / s / - notation. This change
in notation will be discussed below.

Table 13
Modified Pugh matrix
Designs
Baseline Criteria Standardized
Criteria to evaluate designs Eaton Undergraduate Graduate Business Luxury weights criteria weights
Willingness of customer 0.09 0.70 0.80 0.26 1.00 5.00 0.24
to pay more
Low repair frequency 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 3.00 0.14
Ease of repair 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 2.00 0.10
Replacement frequency 0.00 -0.50 -0.60 -0.40 -0.70 3.00 0.14
Ease to clean and common 0.00 -0.30 -0.30 -0.10 -0.40 3.00 0.14
maintenance
Low cost/benefit ratio 0.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.24
Sum of positives 0.09 1.70 L80 1.26 2.00 21.00 LOO
Sum of negatives 0.00 -1.00 -1.10 -0.50 -1.50
Difference 0.09 0.70 0.70 0.76 0.50
Weighted sum of positives 0.02 0.40 0.43 0.30 0.48
Weighted sum of negatives 0.00 -0.14 -0.15 -0.07 -0.20
Weighted difference 0.02 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.27
 Designing New Housing at the University of Miami
Also note that the column "Year Sum" assumes
that the room is rented out for 11 months. All rental
services are graded out at zero because theoretically,
the University can match the price and inventory to
the demand. All CTQs with a price close to zero, yet
students are willing to pay for, are assigned a grade
of + 1 . An example of one of these features is admis-
sions for business students only. The selective admis-
sions have no direct cost, yet students are willing to
pay for it.
The standardized values in the bottom of Table 12
provide the only calculated input for the Modified
Pugh Matrix in Table 13>\ see "Willingness of custo-
mers to pay more" row. The other criteria were graded
on holistic level rather than one feature at a time, using
the Eaton design as the baseline. As such., Eaton
earned a score of zero for those respective criteria.
The other designs were then compared to Eaton and
comparatively graded on the five criteria. For example,
the cell Graduate/Low-Repair Frequency has a value
of -0.10 because the Graduate Design included addi-
tional features that are expected to require repair more
frequently than the features included in Eaton. The
Luxury graded out at —0.20 on this feature because
it contained even more additional features that are
expected to require frequent repair. These criteria were
then weighted to composite out a final series of differ-
ences between the designs, and the weights shown were
then standardized for multiplication back against the
criteria to composite a final picture as to what would
be perceived as the best design.
The Modified Pugh Matrix results with the realiza-
tion that the Graduate Preferences concept is the best
concept, with Undergraduate and Luxury concepts
being possible substitutes.
Risk Analysis
A Hazard Analysis was used to study the risks
associated with each CTQ. This required the team
members to analyze the "hazard severity" for each
CTQ using the following scale:
• Class 1: Neghgible—Will not result in personal
injury or property damage
• Class 11: Marginal—Can be counteracted or con-
trolled without personal injury or major property
damage
• Class III: Critical Will cause personal injury or
major property damage
• Class IV: Catastrophic—Will cause death, severe
personal injury, or severe property loss
315
A full hazard analysis is depicted in Table 14.
The Hazard Analysis reveals seven Class IV hazards:
• Single Occupancy Rooms—Potential lack of help in
disabling circumstances
• Kitchenette—Potential Fire
• Microwave—Potential Fire
• Appliance Rental Service— Potential Fire
• Individual Bathrooms—Potential lack of help in
disabling circumstances
• Full-Size Bathtub—Potential lack of help in dis-
abling circumstances
• Accessible Roof—Potential Falls
There are two primary types of actions to counter
these hazards. There are actions that reduce the poten-
tial of hazards occurring and there are actions that
remove the possibility ofthe hazards. It is believed that
the tire hazards can be adequately controlled with a
fire control system, and that single occupancy room
hazards are bearable being that it is common for uni-
versities to offer single occupancy rooms. However.
the accessible roof hazard is harder to control. This
"Graduate Preferences" design excludes this feature
while "Undergraduate Preferences" and "Business/
Luxury Suite" designs do not. This is a continuation
of the evidence revealed in the Pugh Matrix that the
"Graduate Preferences" design may be the most suita-
ble because it will eliminate the hazards of falls and
suicide attempts. However, it should be noted that
other solutions will continue to be considered, such
as having a roof that is semi-accessible, as it could be
used for various formal functions.
Design Model
Finally, a model has to be put forth that captures
the leading design, that is, the "Graduate Preferences"
design. The model was created with Broderbund's 3D
Home Architect 4.0 and is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1
shows a room layout with the dimensions intentionally
not included. However, it is within range of what is
expected to be available for a single room.
DESIGN PHASE
Introduction
Tbe Design Phase has four steps: constructing a
detailed design, converting CTQs into Critical to Pro-
cess elements (CTPs), estimating the capabilities ofthe
CTPs in the design, and preparing a verifieation plan.
 UIBJ
hon

ory
c .=i § c
tive
:ive

;ssi ble
ra
1-
o .2 h O .ii ,^ O
— ±1 "
u UJ
c 3 a o
IU
1-
•£
i—
*E O P o p o P o P o
ra o C a a, ?: a
o c o
O 0- E <•
D Q O Q

u u o U

o c
a
ees o
ident
bling

ra (J
lone

E C- w

ra ra cra ^ ' XI
S3.

_>. '•B
"ra ^^ E
• ^

c 3
"2
ire
:iu

c ra
^/ "c
o • —
o
a. h- U
C
o
.5 3~- cOJ c1 ) c1 ^ C
T3
!= c -yi
-Ji -o
T3 •o
ra o c^ cdJ c (J n
tn o CL U
O
a ra '~^ *^ o ra
'* "ra a o o o o o
•^ c ra "O
r- a. H.
ttj IU
Q. & c
^ ra .E u ra •J
-J c
:^ O
II j - r-

N ra

o o

g 5
.i a E ra

CL • -
.2 E
ra c c
11 C "O "^ o
Z

>s •E E
o o c c
cra s o o
isi
isi

ra ra o
c Q. o.
looi

3
ecu

3
;* ^ o ^ o
onl

U *< V
u
>^ Jl^
3 O 3 O
-o
D o u Hu H 3
d < < <

C
>.
:s onl}

u
class level
• residi
ssions for
cupan

Ite clontro

1 unit

pla yer

3 ^
E c
'I 1 c
lOISI
•met

o g a o o
ess

o
E
o TO
a D.
-^
o1 •-O "Sj o "E in OX)
>. a.
ra
_aj
Q a:
O
X!
o *-*
(j H Q
u (75 u

316
 UJ ILJ
•Ji p ra U.
u. 0
c -r lu •Ji

eon rol
T3 O XI
o -^ P
QJ 1 CJ 1

eha
o o o P •? o x: o
Cl- Q . Cl. (M) "ra
OJ '-^ O c o o. CL CJ
CJ
X X <

— >•

_ra
U U O U U

3 3
m cn HJ •Jl u
E* aj bl) CJ
o o
Idin
Idin

E ra P

Iin
"ra E O SJ) c
O "ra p
CJ OJ

p Xi CJ
o '5 ,'ra -o
ra 1- 3 -^ ' 3 ,ra
ra ra ra Pra
•,
1 -, X) 1 X)
o Uc
DJj o t .
•Xi
3 O • ^
oil o TO - g U. :^
P
c "p5" O cn •a p ra P
E 'E o
ra a o
Q 'p
u<
p c
ra a.
3
3 p
o 3 c o
m u. ca h-
a.
c p
c 1 ^
o
C
QJ
ra 3 ra 3
cn x; ra 3
r/l
C XI •n o
a a
CJ U I—.' Qj fU D, CJ
"ra
o ra u . ra ra u O ra
a. '0p C p E
u c -o
1E
(n Q. p
o CM
,p
E D. o
> i
XL o ra
U CU O Z c

QJ CJ

c^ S
OJ <U O
ra O
X3
CJ
c p p p
CJ
E Q
2J I S 8

O o o o o •^ Op O O

p c
g ra
CJ E is _ra
nne

u 'y !^
o
CJ
a
c a ra I/;
D.-- 3 -E
o p "
z 2 ?3 p
^

C
o
3 .t: c a. p
c
a s E
s o o c 5 3
c U U

3 O
aj c: 'ra QJ
iri a ^CJ u,
1 E > a CJ
M
ra ra
QJ x : 2 x:
-O
P
p QJ c ll 1
aj
tai '

cn
II3J

>DUR

hro

> u P CJ ra CJ
'- ^ 2 ^ XI ra ra
XI
E p
3
"3
QJ

c CJ
p ••J

? "^ .5 "S "S o

cn QJ Ul
u
' '- ' ^
cQJ ra '
OJ £
CJ (J .1-1 o ra u Ul
xra
5 a.
QJ : E "2
QJ
LU
T3 ^
<
X)
CD
C
1/} CJ
5 cn "- LU

317
 3
c3 aj
I- L-i
O O
1- u '5 "3
oa ou a- cr
..^

xtensive: bac

xtensive : bac
and gu ards
c

heck-in and

heck-in and
out

Check- out
3
V S

checks
checks
> 00
o

U 3
UJ UJ u O u o

-3
u O O

>. >.
OJ
=
'J
— D.
— IS c
UJ H H H H U.

•a
c
o l
p. 5
I-
U
a

ru I
c
o O

TO

o •B 00
in

t5
/5
i •yi c '£
aj OJ • |

CJ
CJ u -rt •0
LJJ UJ
nven

mest

TO
lace

O .^ -
IJ O
:: o P a o
-S' ^ £ tl
is
ccessliblc

par!dng

eg • > -a -
I'I'l "11
>1
OJ
3 p u Xi t-
eser\

oncit

T3 3 u.
c 'S .2 § .2 (u o
c
"c &!
- J O O i: =^ UJ O U
TO >

318
 Designing New Housing at the Lniversity of Miami
Figure I. Room layout.
CTPs are revised definitions of CTQs that are measur-
able using statistical methods. In the dormitory exam-
ple, the CTQs. such as inclusion of a queen-sized bed,
are not easily converted into data measurable in
Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO). As such,
for purposes of this case study. CTQs and CTPs are
interchangeable terms that will refer to cither the inclu-
sion or exclusion oi^ the studied features.
Construction of a Detailed Design
The design phase develops a detailed design of the
actual product, service, or process to be delivered. In
319
319
Tahle 15
Building facilities chariicterisiics by design type
CTQ Luxury
(feature or service) Undergraduate Graduate suite
Single occupancy x
rooms
Individual bathrooms x X X
Climate control x X X
by room
Full-size bathtub x X
Kitchenette x X X
Carpet x X X
the dormitory case, the product to be delivered is a
design concept, not the actual dormitory, and as such,
detailed specifications will not be stipplied. As an exam-
ple. Figure I explicitly removed all dimensions from the
floor plan, as the idea ofthe floor plan is the actual out-
put. Whether the room is 19 feet long or 21 feet long is
more the concern of the architect given other external
restrictions such as available land area and building
codes, as well as other stakeholders who will take the
outputs of this project in the Verify Phase.
The physical facilities requirements of the room,
by design, are shown in Table 15, as these would be
permanently placed into the room.
The room layout shown in Figure I is developed
from Table 15. and is going to be fixed into place once
the concrete forms are poured. Note that this floor
plan shows a bathtub in the bathroom, despite the fact
that the graduates preferred to not have a bathtub.
Given that the single rooms, such as those in Eaton
Hail, have bathtubs, this is not a significant change.
Furthermore, the eost of a bathtub is not very high
relative to the cost of tiling an entire shower; therefore
to remain generie and standardized, all bathrooms will
be fitted with bathtubs.
Given that the physical constraints ofthe building
are not all that relevant in the design., the primary pro-
blem becomes that of furnishings. The Kano survey
determined the furnishings that belong in each room.
Table 16 shows the listing of the furnishings that will
be placed in eaeh style of room.
Table 16 shows that these furnishings are also very
similar between all three ofthe available options. The
difference among furnishings for the three designs is
small, so a standardized room closely resembling the
Luxury Suite appears to be the best option.
The final portion of the dormitory that must be
designed in the common areas. Many of the common
area CTQs were highlighted by the Kano survey
and discussions with stakeholders. For example, there
320 J.A. Johnson et al.

Tahle 16 Table IS
Furnishings by design type Services desired by design type
CTQ Luxury CTQ Luxury
(feature or service) Undergraduate Graduate suite (feature or service) Undergraduate Graduate suite

Queen-stze bed X Broadband internet x X X

Television unit X Additional phone x X X
Telephone unil X services
Cordless telephone-unit X PC rental service X X
Large corner desk X Shared common x X X
Executive desk chair X printer
Additional desk chairs Appliance rental
Microwave service
Small refrigerator X Enforced quiet areas
Kitchenette X Shared common x
VCR vacuum cleaner
DVD player X Accessible roof x
Armoire X Security guard x
Optional laundry x
service
Optional maid x
must be some sort of mail distribution facility, which is service
dictated by law. Concierge
Other design issues relating to the fad that the Admissions for
dormitory is to be a residential college were not consid- busines.s
ered by this project; for example, the team had no students only
input regarding classrooms and other academic and Segregate residents by
social facilities. However, two common area design class level
CTQs that were addressed are shown in Table 17. Option to rent by
The requirements here are clear and no further expla- semester
nation is required.
The tlnal area to be addressed is the services that students by educational status {undergraduate, gradu-
the dormitory will provide. Table 18 shows a list of ate, and executive-in-residence). The Undergraduate
service CTQs by design option. design favors an open door policy, which is in strict
Table 18 shows a distinct difference between the opposition to the segregated views of the other two
Undergraduate design and the other two designs, as design types. Other stakeholders, including the
the Undergraduate design does not require many Dean ofthe School of Business Administration, favor
services. However, this difference is not as significant a segregated structure for the dormitory; conse-
as it might seem at first. The key factor here is that quently, the building will be segregated by educational
the marginal cost of providing many of the services status.
demanded by the Graduate and Luxury designs
The final design derived from the three significant
approach zero.
Pugh designs will contain the CTQs shown in Table 19.
The only two services not covered by the marginal Figure 2 shows what a residential floor would look
cost problem are those dealing with the segregation of like, given the constraints placed by the dimensions of
the plot of land, and integration of common areas and
other required items such as stairs, elevators, and trash
Table 17 disposal.
Common area requirements by design type
CTQ Luxury
Estimating the Capabilities of the CTQs in the Design
(feature or service) Undergraduate Graduate suite
Laundry facility In this case, the CTQs are either present or absent,
by floor hence, it is impossible to have a process capability mea-
Reserved convenient sure for a CTQ., for example, a "television set" is either
parking place provided, or not provided.
 Designing New Housing at the University of Miami 321

Table 19
Final design featiu-es
CTQ (feature or service) Reduced design
Single occupancy rooms X
Individual bathrooms X

Quccn-size bed X

Broadband internet X

Television unit X

Telephone unit X

Cordless telephone unit X

Additioiial phone services X

X
PC rental service
X
Shared common printer
X
Large corner desk
X
Executive desk chair
X
Additional desk chairs
X
Climate control by room
X
Full-size bathtub
X
Microwave
X
Small refrigerator
X
Kitchenette
X
Appliance rental service X Figure 2. Floor plan.
VCR X
DVD player X VERIFY PHASE
Carpet X
Enforced quiet areas X
Sbared common vacuum cleaner Introduction
X
Accessible roof X
Security guard X
The intent ofthe Verify Phase includes facilitating
Laundry facility by floor X the buy-in of process owners, designing a control and
Optional laundry service X transition plan, and concluding the DMADV project.
Optional maid service X The results of this DMADV project are highly concep-
Concierge X tual and it is not a substitute for the crafts and
Reserved convenient parking place X disciplines of engineers and architects. The result of this
Admissions for business students only X
project is a starting point for the professionals that will
Segregate residents by class level X
now continue the process of building this dormitory.
Armoire X
Option to rent by semester
Process Owner Buy-In

Preparing a Verification Plan Process owners need to be involved to facilitate

The final step in the Design Phase is to set up a con-
trol system to keep the new design from deteriorating
under the force of entropy. This involves setting up
control charts and other metrics to track the CTQs.
However, as with the previous section., this part ofthe
Verification Plan does not apply because this project
is just a concept piece.
This step also includes a plan to ensure that this new
design can be scaled up from the drawing board and
become reaUty. The floor plans and three-dimensional
renderings need to beeome prototypes for testing, and
from there, to become the means for constructing a fully
functional residential college building.
buy-in to the final design. In the dormitory example,
the process owners were kept intimately involved in
the project. Additionally, the results have been dis-
cussed with appropriate stakeholders and 3-D models
have been rendered and reviewed by the stakeholders.
The Champion for the project has long-term working
relationships with all stakeholders that create trust
and energy regarding the work of the team, further
facilitating process owner buy-in.
Transitional Controls
A summarized checklist of the findings of this pro-
ject was developed in the Design Phase. This checklist
322 J.A. Johnson et al.

should act as a guide for the engineers and architects
who will further develop llie project. All bids must
include historical process capabilities of the bidding
parties. These process capabilities may include:
• Defects per units constructed
• Timeliness of deliveries
• Timeliness of construction
• Defects per units fabricated
• Rework time per initial man hours invested
• Fines per project ihat result from construction regu-
lation violations
All bids must include Gantt charts with budgets
that can be contractually agreed upon.
Ongoing Controls
A preventive maintetianee system per manufac-
turer recommendations must be implemented after
construction. There must be a detailed flow chart for
every preventive maintenance task. All regular mainte-
nance must be extensively logged and conlrol charted
by hours to provide essential details for determining
special causes of variation in the future. Additionally,
the number of hours may be reduced via the PDSA
cycle. This will minimize the inconveniences experi-
enced by the tenants due to property failures.
Occupancy indicator control charts must also be
implemented. They include;
• Number of applications per semester
• Percentage of rented rooins by semester
• Number of students on a waiting list by semester
• Time between meeting capacity and move-in date by
semester
The previotisly mentioned controls can be most effec-
tively initiated with a dashboard dedicated to mana-
ging the dormitory. The partial dashboard in Table 20
is well suited as a starting point.
The final part of the Verify Phase is to maintain
communication between the champion and the process
owner. These lines of communication will alleviate any
confusion or other unforeseen problems that will inevi-
tably develop. It will ensure that the conceptual design
is not compromised by outside forces and entropy.
This concludes the project. This process will now
be turned over to the process owner with control plans
for future turns of the PDSA cycle and the team will
now disband, celebrate their success, and take on other
projects.
CONCLUSION
"Six Sigma" management is the relentless and rigor-
ous pursuit of the reduction of variation in all critical
processes in an organization. Its purpose is to achieve
continuous and breakthrough improvements that impact
the bottom line and increase customer satisfaction. The
two methods employed in Six Sigma initiatives to achieve

Table 20
Partial dormitory management dashboard
Dormitory management
Key objectives Key indicators Projects
Minimize TLCC # of PM work order Determine relationship on the
hours per month TLCC with respect lo preventive
# of non-PM work maintenance work orders and
order hours per month optimize this relationshiop
Minimize # of nights any tennet Pareto diagram reasons for student
student must be displaced due inconveniences and then use Ihc PDSA cycle
inconveniences to dormitory issues (i.e.,
broken water lines, etc.)
# of common inconveniences
documented per month (i.e.,
interiipl student to momentarily
work on their A/C switch, etc.)
Maximize % of rented rooms by month
reveunc # of students on waiting list
Average time room is
imrentabic due lo repair
between occupancies
 Designing INew Housing at the Universiiy of Miami
this high standard of quality are called the DMAIC
method and the DMADV method. The DMAIC method
is used primarily for improvement of an existing product.
service, or process, while the DMADV method is used
primarily for the invention and innovation of modified
or new products, services, or processes. This paper
focused on the DMADV method.
The Define Phase of the DMADV model has five
components: establish the background and business
case; assess the ri.sks, benefits, and costs ofthe project;
form the product development team; develop the pro-
ject plan; and write the project charter. The Measure
Phase has three steps: segment the market, design
and conduct a Kano survey, and finally, use the Kano
survey results as Quality Function Deployment inputs
to find Critical to Quality Characteristics (CTQs). The
Analyze Phase contains four steps; Design Generation,
Design Analysis. Risk Analysis, and Design Model.
The Design Phase has four steps: constructing a
detailed design, converting CTQs into critical to Pro-
cess elements (CTPs), estimating the capabilities of
the CTPs in the design, and preparing a verification
plan. CTPs are revised definitions of CTQs that are
measurable using statistical methods. The intent of
the Verify Phase includes facilitating the buy-in of
process owners, designing a control and transition
plan, and concluding the DMADV project. Each of
the above phases was illustrated using a dormitory case
study.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Adam Johnson graduated from Auburn University in
December of 2000 with a Bachelor of Science in
Mechanical Engineering. He received his Master of
Business Administration at the University of Miami
and is a Six Sigma Black Belt.
Scott Widener graduated from Iowa State Univer-
sity in May of 2001, with a Bachelor of Science in
Ceramic Engineering, and from the University of
Miami in May of 2003 with a Master of Business
Administration in Quality Management. He is a Six
Sigma Black Belt.
323
Dr. Edward Popovich is Vice President of Process
Excellence at Boca Raton Community Hospital. He
has taught at the University of Florida, University of
Central Florida, Florida Atlantic University, Nova
Southeastern University, and has guest-lectured at
several other universities.
Dr. Howard S. Gitlow is Executive Director of the
Institute for the Study of Quality and a Professor of
Management Science, University of Miami. Coral
Gables, Florida. He is a Six Sigma Master Black Belt
and a Fellow of the American Society for Quality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Jason Niggley for his contribu-
tions in organizing and leading the discussions of the
focus groups and his contributions to the content of
this article.
REFERENCES
Altshuller. G. (1996). Ami Suddenly the Invenlor Appeared:
Triz, the Theory of Invenlive Prohlem Solving. 2nd ed.
Worschester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.
Center for Quality Management. (1993). A special issue on:
Kanu 's Method.'^ for Understanding Cu.slomer-Defined
Qualiiy. The Center for Quality Management Jourmil.
(Cambridge, MA), 2(4):Fall.
De Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity: Using the Power of
Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas. New York: Harper
Business.
Gitlow, H. (1998 1999). Innovation on Demand. Quality
Engineering. l l ( l ) : 7 9 89.
Kano, N., Takahashi, F. (1979). The Motivator Hygiene
Factor in Quality. JSQC, 9(th) Annual Presentation
Meeting, Abstracts, pp. 21-26.
Pugh. S. (1991). Total De.sign: Integrated Methods for Suc-
cessful Product Engineering, Addison-Wesley Pub Co.
Boston. MA.
Rasis, D.. Gitlow, H., Popovich. E. (2002). Paper organizers
international: a fictitious six sigma green belt case study-
part 1. Quality Engineering. 15(1): 127-145.
Rasis. D.. Gitlow. H.. Popovich, E. (2002). Paper organizers
international: a fictitious six sigma green belt case
study-part 2. Quality Engineering. 15(2):259 274.