QFD设计案例课件.ppt

1、Quality Function DeploymentQFD for Software Requirements ManagementGuy DavisCarmen ZannierAdam Geras2 of 46ObjectivesUpon completion of this chapter, students will:nUnderstand what Quality Function Deployment (QFD) isnUnderstand how QFD compares to other software development life cyclesnBe able to i

2、dentify the primary QFD tools and conceptsnBe able to identify the QFD practices that might be useful in non-QFD working environments3 of 461. Introduction to QFDQFDRequirements Engineer?4 of 461(a) QFD - Definition+VOICE OF THECUSTOMERQFD=CUSTOMERSATISFACTION5 of 461(a) QFD Definition (Cont.)ASI, 2

3、0006 of 461(b) QFD - BenefitsASI, 20007 of 461(c) QFD - HistoryQFDSTATISTICALPROCESS CONTROLDESIGN QUALITYVALUEENGINEERING8 of 461(d) Software Engineering ContextCustomerTQMSoftware EngineerSDLCSQFDRequirements Engineer9 of 461(e) Requirements Engineering ContextVoice of theCustomerSQFDRequirements

4、EngineerCustomerRequirementsPrioritization10 of 462. QFD Life Cycle ConsiderationswQFD ProcesswSQFD Process11 of 462(a) Traditional QFD Phases12 of 462(b) Adapting QFD to SoftwareProductPlanningMeasurableObjectivesCustomer VoicePhase 1:ConceiveDesignPlanningHigh Leve lDesignMeasurableObjectivesPhase

5、 2:DevelopProcessPlanningMethods,toolsHigh LevelDesignPhase 3:ManufactureProductionPlanningProceduresMethods, toolsPhase 4:Deliver13 of 462(b) SQFD Process14 of 463. The House of Quality6. Targets6. Targets4. Inter-relationships4. Inter-relationships2. Planning Matrix1. CustomerRequirements3. Techni

6、calRequirements3. TechnicalRequirements5. Roof5. Roof15 of 463(a) Customer RequirementsStructuredRequirementsDocumentGroup 1 Group 2Group 3Title CardGroup 1 Group 2Group 3Title Card16 of 463(b) Affinity and Tree DiagramsAttractiveAttractiveUsabilityUsabilityPerformancePerformanceFacilitates Climbing

7、Does notrestrict movement SafeAccessibleGear Loops LightweightAttractiveComfortable Fits overDifferent clothes Does notrestrict movement SafeAccessibleGear Loops LightweightAttractiveComfortable Fits overDifferent clothes Does notrestrict movement SafeAccessibleGear Loops LightweightAttractiveComfor

8、table Fits overDifferent clothes Does notrestrict movement SafeAccessibleGear Loops LightweightAttractiveComfortable Fits overDifferent clothes 17 of 46Exercise 1 Affinity Workshop18 of 463(c) The Planning MatrixwQuantifies Customer Requirements.w Quantifies Perceptions of Existing Products.w Allows

9、 adjustment based on design team.COMFORTABLE54321EASY TO PUT ON54321FITS OVER DIFFERENT CLOTHES5432119 of 46Customer Satisfaction existing products fulfilling specified requirements.Improvement Ratio = Planned Performance / Existing PerformanceSales Point weight for marketabilityOverall Weighting =

10、Importance Weighting x Improvement Ratio X Sales Point3(c) The Planning Matrix20 of 463(c) The Planning MatrixComfortableEasy to Put OnFits over different clothesImportance WeightingCustomer SatisfactionPlanned SatisfactionImprovement RatioSales PointOverall WeightingImportance WeightingCustomer Sat

11、isfactionPlanned SatisfactionImprovement RatioSales PointOverall Weighting5122135242.521.31.41.01.117.522.921 of 463(d) Technical RequirementswEngineering Characteristics, Voice of the Company.wIdentify Measurable Characteristics related to Customer Requirements.wDirection of change included to lead

12、 to improvement of product performance.22 of 46Critical Question:How significant is technical requirement A in satisfying customer requirement B?3(e) InterrelationshipswBetween customer requirements and technical requirementswTranslation and correlation stepwCritical to generate consensus between de

13、velopment team and customers.23 of 463(e) Interrelationships6.0Safe11.23.0Technical PriorityLight weightDoes not restrict movement6.0Safe11.23.0Technical PriorityLight weightDoes not restrict movementHarness weightWebbing strength# of bucklesHigh -Medium -Low -Overall Weighting(9)(3)(1)Customer Requ

14、irementsTechnical Requirements24 of 463(f) “The Roof”wConsiders impact of technical requirements on each otherw Feature to feature comparisonw Augment or impede?Critical Question:wDoes improving one requirement cause a deterioration or improvement in another requirement?25 of 46+positive/supportingM

15、eets standardsHarness weightWebbing strengthPadding thicknessLegend-negative/tradeoff3(f) “The Roof”26 of 463(g) TargetswSummarize previous stepsw Draw conclusionswConsists of:n Technical Prioritiesn Competitive Benchmarksn Final Product TargetswResults from previous steps:nCustomer requirementsnPri

16、oritized customer requirementsnTechnical requirementsnCorrelated requirementsnFeature interdependencies27 of 463(h) Technical Priorities6.0Safe11.23.0Technical PriorityLight weightDoes not restrict movement6.0Safe11.23.0Technical PriorityLight weightDoes not restrict movementHarness weightWebbing st

17、rength# of bucklesHigh -Medium -Low -Overall Weighting(9)(3)(1)28 of 463(i) Competitive BenchmarksCompetitor #2Existing SystemCompetitor #1Competitor #2Existing SystemCompetitor #1Webbing strengthMeets standardsPadding thickness# of bucklesHarness weight29 of 46Target SystemWebbing strengthMeets sta

18、ndardsPadding thickness# of bucklesHarness weight3(j) Final Product Targets30 of 463(k) House of Quality SummarywInputs:nCustomer requirementsn Technical requirementsn Customer prioritiesn Market reality / competitive analysisn Organizations strengths & weaknesseswOutputsnPrioritized technical requi

19、rementsn Measurable, testable goals31 of 46Exercise 2 Build a House of Quality32 of 463(l) House of Quality Pros and ConswPros:n Generates specific technical requirementsn Requirements are traceablen Follows a repeatable, quantitative processn Effectively translates Voice of the Customern Records ra

20、tionale for each technical requirementwCons:n Time-consuming process for 10 requirementsn Data storage, manipulation and maintenance costsn Very dependent on customer requirement gatheringn Inflexible to changing requirements; must recalculate33 of 464. QFD Life Cycle ComparisonsQFD?CLEANROOMSASD?PD

21、RADJADRUPXP?SSM34 of 464(a) QFD and CleanroomSAIC, 200135 of 464(b) QFD and SASDEnvironmentalModelsBehaviouralModelsImplementationModels36 of 464(c) QFD vs. JADJAD is a communication-focused approachQFD is a Quality-focused approach37 of 464(d) QFD and PDWorkers and Designers work together38 of 464(

22、e) QFD vs. RADQUALITYSPEED39 of 464(f) QFD vs. SSMWilson, 200140 of 464(g) QFD and RUPRonin, 200141 of 464(h) QFD and XPWells, 200142 of 465. ConclusionsQFDRequirements Engineer?43 of 465. Conclusions (Cont.)QFDRequirements Engineer?44 of 465. Conclusions (Cont.)QFDRequirements Engineer?45 of 46QFD DesignerwQFD Designer Business Improvement SoftwarewTemplates to define various aspects of QFDwIcons, graphs, simplify add/delete46 of 46References