QFD-理论案例

Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,#,of 46,Click to edit Master title style,Quality Function Deployment,QFD for Software Requirements Management,Guy Davis,Carmen Zannier,Adam Geras,1,Objectives,Upon completionofthischapter,studentswill:,Understand whatQualityFunctionDeployment(QFD,),)is,Understand howQFDcomparestoothersoftwaredevelopmentlifecycles,Beable to identify theprimary QFDtoolsandconcepts,Beable to identify theQFDpractices thatmightbeuseful in non-QFDworkingenvironments,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,),)RequirementsEngineeringContext,9,2.QFDLifeCycleConsiderations,QFDProcess,SQFD Process,10,2(a,),)TraditionalQFDPhases,11,2(b,),)AdaptingQFDtoSoftware,12,2(b,),)SQFD Process,13,3.TheHouseofQuality,14,3(a,),)CustomerRequirements,15,3(b,),)Affinity andTree Diagrams,16,Exercise1 AffinityWorkshop,17,3(c,),)ThePlanningMatrix,Quantifies Customer Requirements.,Quantifies Perceptions of Existing Products.,Allowsadjustmentbasedondesignteam.,18,CustomerSatisfaction,existingproductsfulfilling specifiedrequirements,.,.,ImprovementRatio,=,=PlannedPerformance,/,/ExistingPerformance,SalesPoint,weightformarketability,Overall Weighting,=,=ImportanceWeighting xImprovementRatioXSalesPoint,3(c,),)ThePlanningMatrix,19,3(c,),)ThePlanningMatrix,20,3(d,),)TechnicalRequirements,EngineeringCharacteristics,Voice of theCompany.,IdentifyMeasurable Characteristicsrelated to Customer Requirements.,Directionofchange included to leadtoimprovementofproductperformance.,21,CriticalQuestion:,Howsignificantistechnical requirement AinsatisfyingcustomerrequirementB?,3(e,),)Interrelationships,Between customer requirementsandtechnical requirements,Translationandcorrelationstep,Criticaltogenerateconsensusbetweendevelopmentteam andcustomers,.,.,22,3(e,),)Interrelationships,23,3(f,),)“TheRoof”,Considersimpact of technicalrequirementsoneachother,Feature to featurecomparison,Augment or impede?,CriticalQuestion:,Does improvingonerequirementcauseadeterioration or improvement in anotherrequirement,?,?,24,3(f,),),“,“The Roof,”,”,25,3(g,),)Targets,Summarizeprevioussteps,Draw conclusions,Consistsof:,TechnicalPriorities,CompetitiveBenchmarks,FinalProduct Targets,Results fromprevioussteps,:,:,Customerrequirements,Prioritizedcustomerrequirements,Technicalrequirements,Correlated requirements,Feature interdependencies,26,3(h,),)TechnicalPriorities,27,3(i,),)Competitive Benchmarks,28,Target System,Webbing strength,Meetsstandards,Padding thickness,#of buckles,Harness weight,3(j,),)FinalProduct Targets,29,3(k,),)HouseofQuality Summary,Inputs,:,:,Customerrequirements,Technicalrequirements,Customerpriorities,Marketreality,/,/competitive analysis,Organization,sstrengths,&,&weaknesses,Outputs,Prioritizedtechnicalrequirements,Measurable,testablegoals,30,Exercise2 BuildaHouseofQuality,31,3(l,),)HouseofQuality Prosand Cons,Pros:,Generatesspecifictechnical requirements,Requirementsare traceable,Follows arepeatable,quantitative process,Effectivelytranslates Voice of theCustomer,Records rationaleforeachtechnicalrequirement,Cons:,Time-consumingprocess for,10requirements,Data storage,manipulationandmaintenancecosts,Very dependentoncustomerrequirementgathering,Inflexible to changing requirements;mustrecalculate,32,4.QFD LifeCycleComparisons,33,4(a,),)QFDand Cleanroom,SAIC,2001,34,4(b,),)QFDand SASD,35,4(c,),)QFDvs,.,.JAD,36,4(d,),)QFDand PD,37,4(e,),)QFDvs,.,.RAD,38,4(f,),)QFDvs,.,.SSM,Wilson,2001,39,4(g,),)QFDand RUP,Ronin,2001,40,4(h,),)QFDand XP,Wells,2001,41,5.Conclusions,42,5.Conclusions,(,(Cont,.,.),43,5.Conclusions,(,(Cont,.,.),44,QFDDesigner,QFDDesignerBusinessImprovementSoftware,Templatestodefine variousaspectsofQFD,Icons,graphs,simplifyadd,/,/delete,45,References,46,