QFD-理论案例

Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,*,Click to edit Master title style,Quality Function Deployment,QFD for Software Requirements Management,Guy Davis,Carmen Zannier,Adam Geras,1,Objectives,Upon completion of this chapter, students will:,Understand what Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is,Understand how QFD compares to other software development life cycles,Be able to identify the primary QFD tools and concepts,Be able to identify the QFD practices that might be useful in non-QFD working environments,2,1. Introduction to QFD,3,1(a) QFD - Definition,4,1(a) QFD Definition (Cont.),ASI, 2000,5,1(b) QFD - Benefits,ASI, 2000,6,1(c) QFD - History,7,1(d) Software Engineering Context,8,1(e) Requirements Engineering Context,9,2. QFD Life Cycle Considerations,QFD Process,SQFD Process,10,2(a) Traditional QFD Phases,11,2(b) Adapting QFD to Software,12,2(b) SQFD Process,13,3. The House of Quality,14,3(a) Customer Requirements,15,3(b) Affinity and Tree Diagrams,16,Exercise 1 Affinity Workshop,17,3(c) The Planning Matrix,Quantifies Customer Requirements.,Quantifies Perceptions of Existing Products.,Allows adjustment based on design team.,18,Customer Satisfaction existing products fulfilling specified requirements.,Improvement Ratio = Planned Performance / Existing Performance,Sales Point weight for marketability,Overall Weighting = Importance Weighting x Improvement Ratio X Sales Point,3(c) The Planning Matrix,19,3(c) The Planning Matrix,20,3(d) Technical Requirements,Engineering Characteristics, Voice of the Company.,Identify Measurable Characteristics related to Customer Requirements.,Direction of change included to lead to improvement of product performance.,21,Critical Question:,How significant is technical requirement A in satisfying customer requirement B?,3(e) Interrelationships,Between customer requirements and technical requirements,Translation and correlation step,Critical to generate consensus between development team and customers.,22,3(e) Interrelationships,23,3(f) “The Roof”,Considers impact of technical requirements on each other,Feature to feature comparison,Augment or impede?,Critical Question:,Does improving one requirement cause a deterioration or improvement in another requirement?,24,3(f) “The Roof”,25,3(g) Targets,Summarize previous steps,Draw conclusions,Consists of:,Technical Priorities,Competitive Benchmarks,Final Product Targets,Results from previous steps:,Customer requirements,Prioritized customer requirements,Technical requirements,Correlated requirements,Feature interdependencies,26,3(h) Technical Priorities,27,3(i) Competitive Benchmarks,28,Webbing strength,Meets standards,Padding thickness,# of buckles,Harness weight,3(j) Final Product Targets,29,3(k) House of Quality Summary,Inputs:,Customer requirements,Technical requirements,Customer priorities,Market reality / competitive analysis,Organizations strengths & weaknesses,Outputs,Prioritized technical requirements,Measurable, testable goals,30,Exercise 2 Build a House of Quality,31,3(l) House of Quality Pros and Cons,Pros:,Generates specific technical requirements,Requirements are traceable,Follows a repeatable, quantitative process,Effectively translates Voice of the Customer,Records rationale for each technical requirement,Cons:,Time-consuming process for 10 requirements,Data storage, manipulation and maintenance costs,Very dependent on customer requirement gathering,Inflexible to changing requirements; must recalculate,32,4. QFD Life Cycle Comparisons,33,4(a) QFD and Cleanroom,SAIC, 2001,34,4(b) QFD and SASD,35,4(c) QFD vs. JAD,36,4(d) QFD and PD,37,4(e) QFD vs. RAD,38,4(f) QFD vs. SSM,Wilson, 2001,39,4(g) QFD and RUP,Ronin, 2001,40,4(h) QFD and XP,Wells, 2001,41,5. Conclusions,42,5. Conclusions (Cont.),43,5. Conclusions (Cont.),44,QFD Designer,QFD Designer Business Improvement Software,Templates to define various aspects of QFD,Icons, graphs, simplify add/delete,45,References,46,