Best practice QFD application: an internal/external benchmarking approach based on Ford Motors' experience

Purpose – This paper is based on a benchmarking exercise involving some 164 QFD practitioners within Ford Motor Company and 27 selected external QFD companies. The predominant response “cell” was from Vehicle Centre 1, Power‐Train Systems Engineering, although there was both a US and non‐power‐train response content. The benchmarking focused on four parts: (1) criteria of success; (2) learning experience; (3) teamwork; and (4) future of QFD. Design/methodology/approach – Quality function deployment (QFD) is a bridge between the customer and the product (process/service) development community. The QFD technique translates customer requirements obtained from market research into product measurables using matrix diagrams and product development teamwork. Ideally this process continues throughout the product development cycle, from design to production, using a series of QFD phases, prioritising and trading off the key measurables at each step. The ideal result should be both perceived and actual improvements to quality, functional performance and reduced cost on key attributes to prompt higher customer satisfaction. Use of QFD is therefore seen as both a strategic and a tactical tool within a competitive market. The problem facing many QFD practitioners, including Ford Motor Company, is that the cost, complexity and commitment required to deliver effective QFD‐driven targets in a timely manner either exceed available resources or represent a cultural anathema. Findings – Following a discussion of the major findings from the Ford survey on usage pattern, the results were then benchmarked with a 1991 QFD usage survey conducted by MIT with 100 US companies. Research limitations/implications – The concept of QFD was developed in the mid‐1960s in Japan, with many Japanese companies now automatically incorporating QFD as an integral part of company‐wide quality practice. In contrast, many Western companies, having used QFD only since the mid‐1980s, either have already abandoned QFD in frustration or are in the process of radically rethinking its practice within their own changing quality improvement environments. Originality/value – Senior and middle management support, including the release of resources, remains a critical component of successful QFD implementation. There is also a need to integrate a more flexible and timely QFD process within the requirements of the established product development process. All this depends on well‐trained, cross‐functional and multi‐disciplined teams with unified goals and focus.