QFD Phase I 08/08/2018

Phase I
Customer-Focused Design Using QFD

Project: OTU Camera

Date: 12/14/2001
Input areas are in yellow
PHASE I QFD
EM Correlation Matrix
1 Picture grain size
2 Contrast X
3 Distortion
4 Corner illumination X
5 # of steps to take picture
6 Force to advance film
7 Force to depress shutter button
8 Thickness
9 Height
10 Width (or Length)
11 Parallax error at 6 feet
12 Minimum focus range X X
13 Red-eye probability index X
14 Light capture index X X X
15 Flash output X
16 Aesthetic measure
17 Weight
18
19
20
Engineering Metrics Customer Perception
Force to depress shutter button

Red-eye probability index

# of steps to take picture

Parallax error at 6 feet

Minimum focus range

Force to advance film
Customer Weights

Light capture index

Corner illumination

Aesthetic measure
Width (or Length)
Picture grain size

Acceptable

Excellent
Flash output
Thickness
Distortion

Poor
Contrast

Weight
Height

Customer Needs

5
1 Good pictures 9 9 3 3 1 CAB
2 Easy to use 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 B AC
3 Pic looks the way I see in viewfinder 3 1 1 3 3 C AB
4 Reduced red-eye 3 9 BC A
5 Works in low light conditions 3 9 9 CA B
6 Aesthetically pleasing 3 9 A C B
7 Easy to carry 9 3 3 3 3 A B C
8
% light @ corners
RMS granularity

Lumen-seconds
Contrast index

% deflection

Units
1-5 scale

ounces
# steps

inches

inches

inches

inches

inches

LCI
lbf

lbf

EM Direction sib Nom sib Nom sib sib Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom sib sib Nom Nom LIB sib Benchmarking
Kodak OTU 8 1.2 2.0% 75% 5 2 1 1.2 2.3 4.8 8 36 35% -1 15k 3 8 A Kodak OTU

Technical Benchmarking Fuji 6 1.1 1.0% 85% 4 1.5 1 1 2.3 4.4 4 24 50% 0 18k 5 5 B Fuji

Konica 8 1.4 4.0% 80% 4 1.5 2 0.9 2.2 4.3 4 24 60% -2 14k 4 4 C Konica
81

27

30

12

30

30

30

27

27

27

27

27

Raw score
9

9
20%

7%

7%

3%

2%

2%

1%

7%

7%

7%

2%

2%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

Relative Weight

Rank 1 6 2 12 13 13 17 2 2 2 13 13 6 6 6 6 6

Technical Targets 4 1.2 2.0% 95% 3 1 1.5 1 2.3 4.3 4 24 40% 0 18k 5 5

394048402.xls
QFD Phase II 08/08/2018

Phase II
Customer-Focused Design Using QFD

Project: OTU Camera

Date: 12/14/2001
Input areas are in yellow

PHASE II QFD
Components

Shutter & aperture mechanism

Phase I Relative Weights

Winding mechanism
Front housing

Back housing

Viewfinder

Battery
Flash

Label
Lens

PCB
Film
Engineering Metrics
1 Picture grain size 20% 9
2 Contrast 7% 9 3 3
3 Distortion 7% 9 3 3
4 Corner illumination 3% 3 3 9
5 # of steps to take picture 2% 3 3
6 Force to advance film 2% 9 3
7 Force to depress shutter button 1% 9
8 Thickness 7% 1 1 9
9 Height 7% 3 1 1
10 Width (or Length) 7% 1 3 1 3
11 Parallax error at 6 feet 2% 3 9
12 Minimum focus range 2% 3 9
13 Red-eye probability index 7% 1 1 9 3 3
14 Light capture index 7% 1 3 9 9
15 Flash output 7% 3 9
16 Aesthetic measure 7% 9 9 3 3
17 Weight 7% 3 3 3 3 3 9
18
19
20
1.1

1.1

1.1

0.2

0.3

4.0

1.7

1.5

1.2

1.0

0.2
Raw score

Relative
30%

13%

11%
8%

8%

8%

1%

2%

9%

8%

1%

0%
Worth

Rank 5 5 5 10 9 1 2 3 4 8 10

394048402.xls
Cost-Worth Analysis 08/08/2018

Cost/Worth Analysis
Customer-Focused Design Using QFD

Project: OTU Camera

Date: 12/14/2001
Input areas are in yellow

Target: Total Component Cost $4.00 (1)

Budget: Component Design $500,000 (2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Relative Target Estimated Relative Cost/ Cost Recommended
Component Worth Cost Cost Cost Worth Overrun Design Budget
1 Lens 8% $0.32 $0.16 4% 0.5 $0.16 $40,000
2 Front housing 8% $0.32 $0.40 10% 1.3 ($0.08) $40,000
3 Back housing 8% $0.32 $0.40 10% 1.3 ($0.08) $40,000
4 Viewfinder 1% $0.06 $0.28 7% 4.8 ($0.22) $7,000
5 Winding mechanism 2% $0.08 $0.46 12% 5.9 ($0.38) $10,000
6 Film 30% $1.20 $1.10 28% 0.9 $0.10 $150,000
7 Flash 13% $0.51 $0.54 14% 1.1 ($0.03) $63,000
8 PCB 11% $0.46 $1.00 25% 2.2 ($0.54) $57,000
9 Battery 9% $0.37 $0.25 6% 0.7 $0.12 $46,000
10 Shutter & aperture mechanism 8% $0.31 $0.15 4% 0.5 $0.16 $39,000
11 Label 1% $0.06 $0.10 3% 1.7 ($0.04) $7,000
12 0%
Total 100% $4.00 $4.84 121% $499,000

Cost Overrun: $0.84 21%

(1) Target: Total Component Cost - total target cost for all components listed in table
(2) Budget: Component Design - project budget for design of the components
(3) Component - name of component; from QFD Phase II matrix
(4) Relative Worth - worth of component; from QFD Phase II calculations
(5) Target Cost - Relative Worth (4) * Total Target Cost (1)
(6) Estimated Cost - input by project team; estimated unit cost for that component
(7) Relative Cost - Relative Cost of component compared to Total Target Cost (1)
(8) Cost / Worth - Relative Cost (7) / Relative Worth (4) of the component
(9) Cost Overrun - Estimated Cost (6) - Target Cost (5); red indicates a cost overrun
(10) Recommended Design Budget - Budget: Component Design (2) * Relative Worth (4)

394048402.xls
Cost-Worth Diagram 08/08/2018

Cost-Worth Diagram
45%

40%

35%

30% Cost Reduction

Area 6
25% 8
Relative Cost

20%

15%
7
5
10% 3
2

4
9
5%
1
10
11
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Relative Worth

394048402.xls