The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

Department of Civil Engineering

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT: A METHOD FOR IMPROVING

CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS IN THE US CORPS OF ENGINEERS

A Thesis in

Civil Engineering

by

Alan Michael Dodd

-q - 1997 Alan Michael Dodd

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Master of Science

December 1997

19971217 101
DISTRIBUTION:

A - Public Release; Unlimited Distribution

I grant the Pennsylvania State University the nonexclusive right to use this work
for the University's own purposes and to make single copies of the work available
to the public on a not-for-profit basis if copies are not otherwise available.

Alan Michael Dodd

We approve the thesis of Alan Michael Dodd.

- -? Date of Signature

Gar R. Snh
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
Thesis Advisor

H. Randolph khornas. Jr.

Professor of Civil Engineering.

Hossar EI-Bibanv
Assistant Professor of Architectural Engineering

Paul P. Jovanis

Professor of Civil Engineering

Head of the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering
 III

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

as a management tool to benefit US Army Corps of Engineers' project managers. The United

States Army Corps of Engineers is one of the largest construction management organizations in

the world, annually performing over 3.5 billion dollars worth of work. The project manager has

primary responsibility within the Corps to ensure the design both fulfills user's requirements and

is prepared correctly, and that quality control/assurance procedures are correctly administered.

QFD was developed by the Japanese in 1972 to improve quality and lower costs in

industrial and business related fields, by assuring all of a company's operational decisions are

driven by customer needs. It uses a set of matrices to relate customers wants and needs with

project specifications and requirements. Through this process, shortcomings, redundancies, or

conflicts in specifications are identified and resolved. Critical material requirements and

construction processes are identified, allowing the user to focus the project delivery system on

fulfilling customer requirements.

The scope of this research is limited to development of a procedure for integrating QFD

into the Corps of Engineers' design/construction delivery process. The procedure was applied to

a Corps' construction project to evaluate its feasibility for contributing to the delivery process.

QFD assists project managers to clearly identify and prioritize customer requirements in

development of the conceptual and final design. It is best suited to projects involving repetition

of units or when higher-than-average quality is demanded. Managers are able to make better-

informed decisions made during the delivery process, resulting in a better customer satisfaction.

QFD is time consuming and requires very technological knowledge; the process must be

streamlined and automated before it could be effectively integrated into the construction process.
 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. vi

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ...................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ I

Pre lu d e ................................................................................................................................ I
Objective ............................................................................................................................ 2
Research M ethodology ................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2. US ARM Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS ...................................................................... 5

Background ......................................................................................................................... 5
M ilitary Design / Construction Process ........................................................................ 6
Quality Control / Assurance Procedures ........................................................................ 9
Initiatives to Improve the Process .................................................................................... I1

Chapter 3. QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYM ENT ............................................................. 12

Background ....................................................................................................................... 12
Advantages and Disadvantages ................................................................................... 13
The QFD Process .............................................................................................................. 14
QFD M atrix Analysis ................................................................................................... 16
Customer Requirements .............................................................................................. 17
Development of the QFD M atrix ................................................................................ 20
Quality in Construction .............................................................................................. 25
QFD Research in the Construction Industry .............................................................. 27
QFD in the ACOE Phases of a Construction Project ................................................. 28

Chapter 4. QFD IN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ............................................................... 34

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 34
Project Background ..................................................................................................... 34
Customer Requirements .............................................................................................. 35
M atrix 1: The Project M anagement Plan ..................................................................... 36
Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................ 38
M atrix 2: Customer Requirements vs. M ajor Components ........................................ 42
 V

Chapter 5. QFD TO IMPROVE QUALITY IN THE FINAL DESIGN .................................. 44

Intro d u ctio n ...................................................................................................................... 44

Matrix 3: Designing Quality into Exterior Walls ........................................................ 45
Matrix 4: Subcomponent Failure Modes ...................................................................... 46
Matrix 5 & 6: Evaluating Specifications ...................................................................... 50
Designing for the Functional Quality of Providing Security ...................................... 59

Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 63

C o n clu sio n ........................................................................................................................ 63

L im itatio n s ........................................................................................................................ 64
R ecom m endations ........................................................................................................ 65

R EFE R E N C E S .............................................................................................................................. 66

Appendix A. GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND POLICY MEMORANDUMS .. 69

Executive Order 12862 Setting Customer Service Standards ...................................... 70

Presidential Memorandum, 22 March, 1995 ............................................................... 72

Appendix B. PROJECT DIRECTIVE (DD 1391) OSEG PROJECT ...................................... 74

 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

[jg ore Paoe

2-1 Corps Construction Organization .............................................................. ...... 6..

2-2 Military Design / Construction Process ........................................................... 7

3-1 Paradigm Shift: QFD vs. Traditional US Business Methodologies (from Guinta, 1993) .... 15

3-2 The four Phases of QFD (from Guinta, 1993) ................................................................. 16

3 -3 T he M atrix ............................................................................................................................ 18

3-4 Defining Customer W HA Ts ............................................................................................ 21

3-5 Correlation M atrix (from Eureka, 1994) ........................................................................... 22

3-6 Whats vs. Hows (From Eureka, 1994) ............................................................................. 23

3-7 Importance Ratings to Determine How Much ................................................................. 24

3-8 Q FD in C onstruction ........................................................................................................ 29

3-9 Work Breakdown Structure for a Major Project (from Barrie and Paulson, 1992) .......... 32

4-1 Customer Requirements (WHATs), OSEG Facility ........................................................ 37

4-2 Design Requirements (HOWs), OSEG Facility ............................................................... 39

4-3 OSEG Facility Customer Requirements vs. Design Requirements ................................. 40

4-4 OSEG Facility Design Requirements vs. Components .................................................... 43

5-1 Exterior Wall Failure m odes ............................................................................................. 46

5-2 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Design Requirements vs. Failure Modes ........................... 47

5-3 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Components vs. Subcomponent Failure Modes ................ 48

5-4 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Subcomponent Failure Modes vs. Material Specifications... 51

5-5 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Material Specification Correlations ................................. 53

 vii

5-6 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Subcomponent Failure Modes vs. Process Specifications .... 55

5-7 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Process Specification Correlations .................................... 56

5-8 OSEG Facility Exterior Wall Process Chart and Quality Assurance Plan ....................... 58

5-9 OSEG Facility Provides Security Design Requirements vs. Failure Modes ................... 61

5-10 OSEG Facility Provides Security Component vs. Subcomponent Failure Modes ........... 62
 viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is extended to Dr. Gary R. Smith, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering,

who served as graduate advisor and thesis committee chairman. Your concern for student

development and personal mentoring greatly enhanced the construction management program,

both in and out of the classroom. Without your guidance, completion of this thesis would not

have been possible. Appreciation is also extended to the members of the committee, Dr. H.

Randolph Thomas and Dr. Hossam EI-Bibany, for their support and interest in this effort. The

different perspectives and recommendations you have given me have greatly influenced my

overall understanding of this topic and allowed me to develop a much better thesis. I also wish

to thank the Baltimore District, US Army corps of Engineers, and in particular Mr. Thornas

Rowe, for your contribution to this research. Your advice and input have been invaluable,

without it I would not have been able to complete much of this work.
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Prelude

On March 22, 1995, a Presidential Memorandum was issued for all executive

departments and agencies that addressed improving customer service through benchmarking and

continual improvement of customer service standards. This was an extension of Executive Order

12862, issued on September 11, 1993, that required all agencies within the United States

government to develop customer service plans to improve performance by identifying custorner

requirements, implementing service standards which prioritize those requirements, and

measuring success at fulfilling demands. To comply with the directive, the US Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) is focusing on identifying customers' needs and requirements and

developing ways to improve its services. The Corps conducted a survey of 480 customers in

April of 1995; it identified that, although customers are generally satisfied with services

provided, improvements are most needed in two areas: 1) providing timely service, and 2)

reasonable cost for services (USACE, 1995). In any construction project three factors, time,

cost, and quality, are balanced; a change in one can affect the other two. To maintain standards

in quality, errors or design omissions are compensated for through additional time (project

delays) and/or additional cost. In 1986, the Federal Commission of Engineering and Technical

Systems, National Research Foundation, directed the Building Research Board to conduct a
 2

study of quality control on federal construction projects. The study found that projects

constructed by the Corps of Engineers had an average cost growth of approximately 6 percent,

attributable primarily to design error and owner changes (Ledbetter, 1991). When the design is

correct and representative of the user needs, few change orders are needed. However, when

numerous changes are needed to correct deficiencies, generally productivity suffers, delays

occur, and project costs rise (Thomas, 1990). To improve customer service, the Corps must

reduce project delays and cost increases, while maintaining its standards of quality. One method

of achieving this goal is by improving the quality of designs prior to commencing construction.

The Corps must improve its design process by accurately identifying and translating user

requirements into the plans and specifications, prior to beginning construction. By starting with

a better design, there will be fewer changes required, resulting in fewer delays and cost increases,

and a more satisfied customer. This research effort was undertaken to develop a management

tool for Corps of Engineer Project Managers to use to during the design/construction process

which will reduce changes required during construction by identifying user requirements up-front

and ensuring the design integrates those priorities.

Objective

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate a management tool which can be beneficial to

Corps of Engineers' project managers. The Corps of Engineers operates under several

constraints, including numerous federal laws, regulations, and statutes. Any tool developed

would have to work within the policies established by the Corps, and be able to complement
 3

other methods and procedures currently being used. This thesis therefore will have three

objectives:

I) To model the project delivery process by which plans and specifications are

developed, from conception to final award of the contract, within a Corps of Engineers District

Office.

2) To develop a procedure for using Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in construction

design as a means of ensuring customer demanded quality throughout the project delivery

process.

3) To apply the developed procedure to a recently constructed project and make

recommendations concerning the future use of Quality Function Deployment within the Corps of

Engineers' project delivery process.

Research Methodology

The research methodology is divided into five phases as follows:

Phase one. Obtain necessary documents, perform preliminary interviews, and locate available

references that define the current process used within the Corps of Engineers to prepare contract

specifications. Research the use of Quality Function Deployment in construction and other

applications.
 4

Phase Two. Review documents and other materials to develop a model of how contract

specifications are prepared by Corps of Engineer personnel. Validate the proposed model by

comparing it to the actual process followed during programming of project within the Corps of

Engineers' Baltimore District. Develop QFD procedure to be used in construction management

process.

Phase Three. Working with the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, identify a construction

project as a survey sample. Obtain project specifications, customer requirements at project

initiation, and other information to begin QFD analysis.

Phase Four. Prepare QFD analysis of the project to compare user requirements with

specifications prepared by Corps personnel.

Phase Five. Perform a comparison analysis of data acquired in the previous two phases to

determine the effectiveness of the Corps specification development process and make

recommendations regarding further development of Quality Function Deployment.

 5

Chapter 2

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Back2round

The United States Army Corps of Engineers is one of the largest construction

management organizations in the world, annually performing over 3.5 billion dollars worth of

work. The Corps of Engineers plans, designs, builds, and operates numerous water resource and

other civil works projects throughout the world. Their projects include maintenance of several

hundred harbors and waterways, production of one-fourth of the nations hydroelectric power, and

operation of several hundred reservoirs, providing flood damage reduction and water storage.

The Corps of Engineers also provides military construction for the Army and Air Force, and

design and construction management support for other Defense and Federal Agencies. The

Corps designs and manages construction of numerous military facilities such as ranges, barracks,

maintenance facilities, and other training and quality of life facilities. The corps provides

management services for more than 12 million acres of land where Army and Air Force

installations are located (USACE, Mission).

To provide effective management worldwide, the US Corps of Engineers is broken down

into twelve divisions and forty districts, with each division managing up to six districts (see
 6

Figure 2-1). The Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) has overall responsibility for managing

the program, developing policies, procedures, and standards for the Corps. In many cases, a

District covers a large geographic area and it is necessary to further divide them into Area

Offices. The Area Office establishes project offices at construction sites as necessary. A

District, depending on its mission, is responsible for completing construction at the annual rate of

$30 million to several hundred million dollars.

Military Design / Construction Process

Although the Corps of Engineers primarily uses a traditional design-bid-build delivery

SOffice of Chief
of Engin eers

Division 12 Divisions Worldwide

District 0 to 6 Districts in a Division

Area Office As Needed

As Needed Project Office

Figure 2-1 Corps Construction Organization

 7

system, it has in recent years begun use of design-build as a method of project delivery. The

increasing use of design-build reflects an increased demand for rapid delivery of a project.

Although on any project deviations occur, the general steps involved in the process are as follows

(See Figure 2-2):

1) Project Initiation: The project begins with receipt of the DD1391 (Directive) which

provides design information and funding for the project. DD1391 s are prepared by user

organizations and submitted as part of the Department of Defense Budget, approved by

Congress. Once the Federal Budget is approved, directives are forwarded to the Corps of

Engineers for action. The DD1391 contains design criteria and funding information. During this

phase, the District will develop a project management plan, including selection of a delivery

system, appointment of a project manager, and tentative schedule for completion.

F -PROJECTINITIATION ]

SA-E SELECTION IN-HOUSE DESIGN

PROCESS

CONCEPT DESIGN

FINAL DESIGN

ADVERTISING~wR
AND

CONSTRUCTION

FW ARRANTY

Figure 2-2 Military Design / Construction Process

 8

2) Design Selection and Concept Design. The District Engineer and project manager

decide whether to perform design work in house or to contract an A&E firm to provide design

services. Once the design method is determined, and an A&E firm selected if necessary, the

design is completed in two phases. In the concept-design phase a preliminary design is

completed. The preliminary design is focused on size and capacity decisions, selection of major

structural components (concrete vs. steel structural system), and economic studies. The design is

reviewed to ensure design requirements are fulfilled and a value engineering study is performed.

The conceptual design is checked to ensure adequate funding is available to complete

construction.

3) Final Design. The A&E firm or in-house design section completes a detailed design

of the project. Using the preliminary design as a basis, the project is broken down into its

components, analyzed, sized, and engineered to comply with standards of safety and

performance. Every element of the project is analyzed, resulting in the preparation of plans and

specifications, which will be used to construct the project.

4) Advertising and Award. The Corps solicits construction firms to bid on the project.

The Corps uses a competitive bidding system and the project is awarded to the lowest qualified

bid submitted. In order to submit a bid, contractors are prequalified by the Corps, reducing the

risk of contractors defaulting or providing inferior workmanship.

5) Construction. Contractors construct the project according to the plans and specifications.

Corps personnel coordinate work between separate contractors, issue change orders as required
 9

to modify the plans and specifications, and audit performance to ensure compliance with the

contract.

6) Warranty. The completed project is guaranteed to perform as designed for a given

period of time, usually one year. The contractor is expected to repair or correct deficiencies

discovered (i.e. a leaky roof due to faulty construction) at no further cost to the government.

Quality Control/Assurance Procedures

Although there are several definitions of quality in construction, this thesis will use the

definition provided by the Building Research Board (Ledbetter, 1991):

Quality is conformance to adequately developed requirements. This definition indicates

that a quality constructed facility will result provided that several conditions are met:

1. Contract documents comprise a clear, complete, and accurate description of

the facility to be constructed, correctly conveying the intent of the owner regarding the
characteristics of the facility needed to serve his or her purposes.

2. The contract documents define a constructed facility considered acceptable

under the applicable regulatory codes and standards of professional practice, in terms of
its reliability, the ease with which maintenance and repairs can be performed, the
durability of its materials and operating systems, and the life safety provided to its users.

3. The facility is constructed in accordance with those documents.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) establishes the procedures used by federal

agencies in the acquisition of supplies and services with Congressionally appropriated funds.

The FAR, along with the Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, changed the procedures used

by the Corps of Engineers to manage construction projects. Prior to the FAR, the Corps executed
 10

its own Quality Control measure to dictate quality on projects. Construction specifications were

very rigid; many were combined method and performance specifications, which directed how

results were to be obtained in addition to what the results were to be. A large staff of inspectors

would ensure compliance through aggressive inspections and quality control testing. The cost of

this system was significant, adding up to six percent to the total cost of a project (Moore, 1980).

Manpower and funding constraints forced the Corps and other government agencies to

look at other ways of delivering quality. The Corps was one of the first government agencies to

change to the new system of quality management. Part 52 of the FAR, "Contract Clauses", states

that contractors are responsible for maintaining an adequate inspection system and performing

inspections which ensure the work called for in the contract conforms to contract requirements.

Corps personnel would provide quality assurance, inspecting primarily to ensure contractor

quality control mechanisms are working properly. Contractor Quality Control allowed the Corps

to substantially reduce manpower requirements and overhead costs, while theoretically providing

the same level of quality to customers (Moore, 1980). As part of the contract requirements,

contractors submit a quality control plan, outlining the testing and inspection procedures they

will use to ensure the product they provide complies with the plans and specifications. The role

of the project manager is to provide quality assurance for the Corps of Engineers, ensuring the

plans and specifications will fulfill the users requirements and that the contractors quality control

system is functioning adequately. As part of quality assurance, when mistakes or discrepancies

between the plan and user requirements are discovered, the project manager submits changes to

the contractor to correct the deficiency.

 11

Initiatives to Improve the Process

Although the change to a contractor quality control system reduced the overhead and

management problems associated with quality control inspections, there are still numerous

challenges to providing quality construction. The Building Research Board reported that a 1990

study showed more than one-third of projects fail to meet budget objectives, a similar portion

finish behind schedule, and only about 80 percent meet technical objectives. In 1988, Executive

Order 12552 directed the implementation of Total Quality Management in government activities.

TQM revolves around teamwork, an integrated effort by all participants to produce a quality

product. In the construction industry, there is an adversarial relationship between owners,

contractors, and designers. Under TQM, the three parties work together to resolve disputes

(Ledbetter, 1991). As part of this process, the Corps introduced partnering into its management

practices. As part of the pre-construction process, Corps representatives, contractors, and

designers attend a joint partnering workshop. The workshop is used to develop team spirit, plot

project goals, identify critical issues, develop dispute resolution methods, and as a group develop

an implementation plan. Throughout the construction process the 'partnership' is used to resolve

differences and reduce conflicts. Although differences still occur, partnering has significantly

reduced the number of projects, which have gone to court to resolve differences.
 12

Chapter 3

QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT

Background

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) originated in Japan in the late 1960's. As an

international leader in the production of low-cost steel, Japan desired further expansion into the

shipping industry. Faced with the challenge of building supertankers in its Kobe shipyard, one

contractor, Mitsubishi, turned to the government for help developing the complex logistics

required for building cargo ships. The Japanese government contracted several university

professors to create a system, which would ensure each step of the construction process was

linked to fulfilling a customer requirement. The developed process is known today as QFD

(Guinta, 1993). QFD was first introduced in 1972 by Professor Yoji Akao at the Tamagawa

University in Tokyo and has since been introduced into numerous other industrial and service

applications throughout the world. (Fowler, 1991).

Quality Function Deployment, as defined by Akao (1990), is:

Converting the consumers' demands into "quality characteristics" and

developing a design quality for the finished product by systematically deploying
the relationships between the demands and the characteristics, starting with the
quality of each functional component and extending the deployment to the
quality of each part and process. The overall quality of the product will be
formed through this network of relationships.
 13

In Japanese, "deployment" has a much broader meaning than it's English translation;

referring to an extension or broadening of activities (Sikorski, 1990). QFD is a planning tool

which ensures the voice of the customer is deployed throughout the product planning, design, and

production stages. The goal of QFD is to learn exactly what customers want, then using a logical

system determine how to best to fulfill those needs within available resources. It ensures

everyone in an organization works together to give the customers exactly what they want

(Guinta, 1993). Guinta provides the following way of viewing QFD:

1. What qualitiesdoes the customer desire?

2. What function(s) must this product serve and what functions must we use to

provide this product or service?

3. Based upon the resources we have available, how can we best provide what

our customer wants?

Advantages and Disadvanta2es

The value of QFD is that customer needs are clearly defined up-front, resulting in a

better design and requiring fewer changes during the production phase. Projects are traditionally

defined by three factors: cost, time, and quality. Improving one factor often requires a tradeoff in

another. During the design process, many decisions are made regarding materials to be used,

construction techniques, etc. In making these decisions, approximately 80% of the projects

overall costs are locked in, before any construction has been started. When changes are required
 14

early in the planning process, they can easily be integrated into the plan with minimal effects;

problems found later in the process have a greater impact to fix them (See Figure 3-1).

Although using a QFD approach increases the time and cost associated with initial project

planning and development, it will result in time and dollar savings downstream from reduced

changes and conflicts during production (Hybert, 1996). A producer of QFD training videos,

Technicomp. Inc., reported QFD produced 30% to 50% reduction in engineering charges, 30% to

50% shorter design cycles, 20% to 60% reduction in start up costs, and 20% to 50% reduction in

warranty costs (Kinni, 1993)

The OFD Process

The QFD process is an orderly sequence of activities for evaluating customer

requirements and developing a product. QFD uses a series of matrixes to organize, analyze, and

compare information about a product. QFD integrates these matrixes and charts into a system (a

matrix of matrixes) to realize customer requirements, functions, quality requirements, parts

definitions, breakthrough methods and manufacturing (construction) requirements (Mallon, 518).

The number of matrixes in a QFD study can range from four to thirty (Mallon - King, 1987,

Hauser and Clausing, 1988, Ross, 1988), although the quality matrix or "House of Quality" is

often the only one used. Most manufacturers break the process into four phases (See Fig 3-2).

The QFD phases are a guide through the product development cycle from design to production.

At each stage, the items which are most important, require new technology, or are of high risk to

the organization are carried to the next phase.

 15
U sing QFD

Traditional A pproach
W ithout QFD

Effort .
Et f ro ,f

Approxim ately 80% of Ov erall costs can only he

overall cos51s are locked in reduced by app ro xin ately 21

D esign D etails Process C o n p letin n/In trod Letion

Target D3ate

Figure 3-1 Paradigm shift: QFD vs. traditional US business methodologies. (From Guinta, 1993)

Guinta, (1995) describes the four phases as:

1) Design. The customer helps define product or service requirements. A QFD

matrix is used to translate customer requirements into design requirements. Design

requirements are ways in which the design team is able to satisfy the customer

requirements. After evaluation, the most important design requirements are carried into

the next phase.

2) Details. The details and components necessary to produce the product or

service are determined. Details most critical to fulfilling product requirenents specified

by the customer are carried into the third phase.

 16

1.D sign

2. Details

4. Production

"*High Risk
"* NewNechnology

"* Imora:
RiR
*~~~~~ High ,k t I <,

Figure 3-2 The Four Phases of QFD (from Guinta, 1988)

3) Process. The processes needed to produce the parts and components are

developed. The processes most critical to fulfilling customer product requirements are

carried into the fourth and final phase.

4) Production. Production requirements for producing the product are

developed. The production methods will enable the company to produce a high-quality

product that meets customer's requirements.

OFD Matrix Analysis.

The heart of QFD is the matrix analysis. Numerous references (Eureka, 1993,

Guinta, 1995, Akao, 1990) explain in detail how to perform the analysis. The
 17

calculations can be easily performed using a simple spreadsheet program. This section

uses a conventional House of Quality to describe the parts of the matrix, however a

spreadsheet version will be used in further sections (See Figure 3-3). The same analysis

method is used to complete subsequent matrixes in each phase.

The process begins with a determination of project scope. The project manager

defines the product or service to be studied. Key elements to consider include a) is there

a need for a QFD study, b) what is the purpose of the QFD study, c) how will tile study

be accomplished, and d) who will accomplish the study? The project manager identifies

up-front what problems are to be solved using QFD. The manager recruits individuals

from all areas involved in the product development (marketing, product planning,

product design and engineering, process development, manufacturing, assembly, sales

and service) to be part of the QFD team (Eureka, 1994). Typically, the ideal group is

three to seven people with the needed expertise. If possible, the people chosen should

want to participate. Their willingness to participate will improve the development

process (Sikorski, 1990). A QFD facilitator or trainer may be used to familiarize tearn

members with the rationale, vocabulary, and techniques of QFD.

Customer Requirements

The strength of QFD is in the identification of customer's requirements during

the beginning of the process. The QFD team must understand the customer and their

needs, both spoken and unspoken. Guinta (1993) breaks customer requirements down

into four categories:

 18

HOWs
vs
HOWs
HOWs WHYs
Project Importance
Specifications to Customer

WHATs WHATs WHYs

Customer vs vs
Requirements HOWs WHATs

HOW MUCHs

Figure 3-3 The Matrix

1) Expecters. The basic qualities or characteristics a customer expects will be

part of the product or service. Customers rarely ask about expecters, because they

anticipate them as part of the standard features (i.e., a new building will meet current

building codes).

2) Spokens. Specific features customer says they want in a product of service.

These are normally communicated verbally or in writing as specific items the customer

requires (i.e., square footage requirements, certain number or types of rooms, color or

fixture requirements)

3) Unspokens. Specific product or service characteristics a customer does not

convey, but are still important and cannot be ignored. The QFD team must rely upon its
 19

expertise and breadth to uncover u.nspokens. Typically unspokens fall into one of three

groups:

a) Didn't remember to tell you. The customer forgot to state everything

they needed (i.e., special storage area for a certain type of equipment). Often when

programming large projects, the customer is so overwhelmed with details and time

constraints, important details are forgotten, poorly defined, or omitted.

b) Didn't want to tell you. The customer does not want to reveal all their

requirements. The customer tries to give the minimum amount of information for the

project, and only reveals details when pressed for more information (i.e., information

regarding a patented process to develop computer chips).

c) Didn't know what it was. The customer does not know how to

express the requirements. When dealing with an inexperienced owner they are unaware

of the options they can specify and, therefore, request something less than they really

want (i.e., customer requests a lOx 10 ft storage area when they actually wanted a

classified storage vault with an automatic alarm system, humidity controls, and high fire

protection capabilities).

4) Exciters. These are unexpected features of a product or service, which a

customer does not request, but is pleased when he gets them. The features may be easy

or inexpensive to provide, use of a new technology, or inclusion of a new feature. These

often begin as unique features, with customers paying a premium for them, later to
 20

become and industry standard (i.e., adding color dies to a concrete slab to improve the

architectural appearance).

Development of the (FD Matrix

The QFD team uses the following five steps to complete a matrix:

1) Identify customer needs (WHATS). (Ref. 1, Figure 3-3) The interdisciplinary

team defines the product or service as a function of customer demands and functions.

Customer demands are defined as a statement of what the customer wants and needs,

using the four types of customer requirements defined above, in the customer's language.

Functions describe a level of performance the customer expects the product to be able to

deliver. Demands are gathered from customer interviews and surveys, focus group data,

observation of satisfiers and dissatisfiers, and other sources. Often there are more

customers to be considered other than the end-user/owner (i.e. real-estate agents,

operations and maintenance personnel), and their demands should also be considered.

The team consolidates the list to eliminate duplicate entries and groups demands into

categories (affinity categories), listed on the left side of the matrix. To provide the

required definition, each WHAT item is refined into one or more substitute quality

elements. In Figure 3-4, a new homeowners requirements are refined. Care must be

taken when consolidating to not loose the original meaning of the customer demands.
 21
Customer Requirements
Good House
................
I.....................
...........
, .... . . . . . . . . ..I .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................
............ .. . . .................... . . . . . I.[.............. . . . . . . ............ ......... .................. i. . . . ..........
:. . . .................. .............. .....
Single Story, 2,500 Livable SO FT Four Bedrooms Two and One-Half baths Three Car Garage Spacious Yard
Southwestern Design

Sotwetr Style Muse30000o

FT FoilBothandShower 2-CurDoorund

~TileoRoof...... .........
...............
...... outhwester .............. .. .. L s Bedrooms
a2 d 3 FullBati
r
thared Between
............ . ...........
Large100 SF WomrArea
..... .........
F200 SO FT 20othe Bedroos
Stucco iExerorr HullBati NeurFamily Walhin Closetfor

ar e plcblo hepoet Cutm r roo

MastereBedt t Craste
Do tor tcnia

2)eListe
h sprect/cprocess cha rctheristusert atnwilldmeetsthe

Ths).(ef. 2,pFigurt
(H e s-3).Detep
rmines w h quaiOty charelacteris tics ( nc aOns)(h

are aplcbe for th projet.)i

Customer 3-.Requirem s aretransted aeinte tec nic

requirements and specifications that satisfy the demands. HOWs are simply what the

organization can measure and control in order to ensure they are going to satisfy the

customner's requirements. The team consolidates technical requirements and decides on a

value for each specification that fulfills the user demands.

The final part of the step requires evaluating the correlation between HOW's (the

roof of the house of quality) (See fig 3-5). Relationships are rated as either strong

positive, positive, negative, strong negative, or non-existent. A positive relationship is

one in which an increase in one will cause an increase in the other; a negative

relationship is one in which an increase in one causes a decrease in another. This helps

to assess effects when a trade off between requirements is necessary.

 22

@ Strong Positive
How 0 Positive
What * Negative
x Strong Negative

Figure 3-5 Correlation Matrix (From Eureka, 1994)

3) Determine Relationship between Customer Needs (WHATs) and Project

Characteristics (HOWs). Customer needs are compared to project specifications to determine

how well specifications fulfill customer needs. Relationships are rated as weak, medium, or

strong, with a corresponding value of 9, 3, or I (See Figure 3-6). Shortcomings are identified,

where customer requirements are not fulfilled by any specifications, or unnecessary

specifications are included which do not address customer requirements.

4) Market Evaluation (WHYs). Customer Needs (WHATs) are rated from I (minor

importance) to 5 (extremely important) from the viewpoint of the customer. The team works

with the customer to prioritize the list (Ref. 4, Figure 3-3). Care must be taken to not give the

same priority rating to every customer demand, otherwise; in effect, none are prioritized. One

technique often used is to stress 'if only one demand could be fulfilled, what would it be', and

add demands to the list one at a time until the priority is set. Competitive evaluations are often
 23

How

What

o A
A 0 A A Weak Relationship

0 @ 0 Medium Relationship

0 0 Strong Relationship

__ _ A

Figure 3-6 Whats vs. Hows (From Eureka, 1994)

used to highlight strengths and weaknesses in the competition that can be exploited. The WHYs

are used to determine how the customer needs (WHATs) will be prioritized.

5) Determine Targets (HOW MUCHs). Determine targets values for specifications

(HOW MUCHs) which reflect priorities (WHYs). Importance Factors (IFs) for each

specification is determined by summing the relationship factor, determined in Step 3, multiplied

by its priority rating, determined in step 4. The IF identifies which product requirements are

most critical to fulfilling customer requirements and should be assigned more stringent controls.

In subsequent phases of the QFD analysis, the HOWs are deployed using the HOW MUCHs as a

priority rating. By focusing on customer requirements, the end product should reflect a higher

quality as measured by customer needs, and a lower cost by not producing to too high a standard

or forcing additional work to be done to correct a deficiency.

 24

How

Priority

What~LL
3 0 A
2 Ao A
1 0 0
5 0 0
4
_ _20@ A 0
Importance

Ratings3389 11 1 2118

Figure 3-7 Importance Ratings to Determine How Much

 25

Quality in Construction

There is no single standard of quality within the construction industry. What is

considered good quality in a warehouse project would be substandard for construction of a

microcomputer chip plant; each project has its own standards, based on engineering analysis,

user requirements, and special needs. Many decisions regarding standards of quality and

customer requirements are made early in the construction process, often during the conceptual or

preliminary design phases. Integration of a QFD analysis would assist project managers by

identifying the purpose of the project and owner requirements and expectations. By clearly

identifying the customer requirements, in particular expecters and unspokens, the project team

can focus on customer priorities throughout the design process Barrie and Paulson (1992) define

quality as having three elements:

1) Quality Characteristics. One or more properties that define the nature of a product for

quality control purposes. Quality characteristics include dimension, color, strength, etc.

2) Quality of Design. When developing a design, engineers specify not only quality

characteristics for materials to be used, but also acceptable variance from the specified value.

Requiring too high a material standard, or too tight a tolerance, results in increased cost and

delays due to rework. Likewise too low a standard, or loose a tolerance, results in use of failure-

prone materials and poor workmanship, increasing long-term costs. A quality design is therefore

one in which the standards specified are most economical and functional for the project,

conforming to minimum required standards.

 26

3) Quality of Conformance. Once the design is completed, quality of conformance is the

degree to which the physical work conforms to the design.

Within the construction industry, projects are often managed through time schedules and

project budgets. To manage a project within cost and time constraints, contractors will

compromise quality, selecting minimally acceptable quality materials to reduce costs, or

accepting minimum standards in workmanship to stay on schedule. Often the substandard

quality is not identified until after completion of the work, resulting in rework, lower than

expected performance, and general dissatisfaction by the owner. This has resulted in a general

impression quality in construction is declining, and an increased use of courts to remedy

disagreements. Hybert (1996) contends the problem is the construction process does not

emphasize what a customer requires in developing a project. He attributes this to five primary

reasons, that a quality-based approach could help solve:

"* Poor up front definition of customer needs.

"* Incomplete evaluation criteria for awarding the contract (an overemphasis on price).

"* Poor planning of the project activities.

"* Poor assimilation of necessary midstream project changes (driven by problems or

improvements discovered during the project).

"* Metrics and rewards driving the wrong performance.

 27

OFD Research in the Construction Industry

Since its conception over twenty years ago, the use of Quality Function Deployment has

primarily been centered in the manufacturing industry. Although its success in manufacturing is

clearly established, its use in other applications has been limited. Sikorski (1990) uses QFD to

estimate impacts on quality and productivity in the design-construction industry; he concluded

that QFD can be used to evaluate success at fulfilling customer requirements. Hybert (1996)

describes integration of QFD into the contracting process; he concluded that implementation of a

QFD based system would benefit both owners and contractors.

Akao (1990) provides a model for QFD use in the construction industry, as well as a

description of its use by the Taisei Pre-Fab Construction Company in development of factory-

manufactures, multiple, multiple-family housing over a ten-year period. Taisei has found they

have been able to continuously improve quality, while maintaining the balance between

construction and quality.

Mallon and Mulligan (1994) explain the use of QFD to redesign a computer room. They

found that QFD will not reduce the cost or time associated with a projects initial design, but

through the reduction or elimination of redesign, construction costs and delays will be reduced.

A study conducted by Burati and Farington in 1987 reported that such deviations accounted for

12.4% of the total-in-place-cost of projects, design deviations accounted for 9.5% of this amount.

In research conducted at VTT Building Technology, Antti, Mikko, and Petri (1995)

adapt QFD to the construction industry in Finland. Their study used QFD in three projects,

programming of an apartment block, design of a restaurant, and structural design of an industrial

 28

building. The study found that although QFD does speed up the design process and make it more

responsive to customer needs, QFD is not a substitute for engineering expertise. Its greatest

benefits lie in identification of customer requirements (often not clearly defined), enhancing the

decision-making process later on.

OFD in the ACOE Phases of Construction Project

Figure 3-8, integrates the use of QFD into the construction sequence used by the Corps

of Engineers. The QFD process is modified to reflect the complexities involved with

construction projects and the design process. To perform a QFD analysis on every part of a

project would be very long and tedious; critical components are therefore identified and a

subsystem analysis is performed. In development of matrixes to develop manufactured housing,

Akao identifies three types of analysis which could be performed in construction (Akao, 1990):

1) Demanded quality deployment flow. The demanded quality for a product is translated

or deployed into demanded quality for its components, materials, and the processes required to

construct the product.

2) Function flow. The demanded quality is defined by certain functions. The required

functions are deployed into required functions for components, materials, and construction

processes. Function flow analysis can be very useful when introducing new or unfamiliar

technology.
 29

I-

z
0 .4

r,.
o

Cd' 0o
Sl'1ou!, ooln

cjcn
u0
soo
13. sapoK ojnl~tA
2 w% luouoa'tuqnS

.cc
oo

S
=2-
sluomou~nnbmoiqn

0-

cr-I

C-o Eiuluoo-bo .

1 i~i [uauodtuio jo.frI

0)
.

bb ................. ............... .....

00

z .

%u
 30

3) Failure Mode Tables. The demanded quality is defined by failure modes of the

product. The failure or lack of quality is deployed into the components, materials, and

construction processes.

The analysis must also take into account necessary qualities of construction. Akao (1990) states:

The quality function deployment ... may be effective for translating user
requirements into housing quality, but that alone cannot build a house. For
example, the user expects that the quality of a foundation of a building to be
adequate and generally does not express much interest in it. It is therefore not
that important in quality deployment. Since the foundation is an important
component of the building, however, we must remember that the necessary
qualities of housing must be figured into the engineering, regardless of the user's
demand.

Particularly when dealing with inexperienced customers, many demands are expecters

and unspokens. It is therefore particularly important in construction that the right people are

selected to serve on the project team; people who understand both user requirements and the

relationship between numerous engineering components. A typical QFD team should include,

but is not limited to, the following: the project manager, a user representative, architectural,

mechanical, and other design engineers, a security manager, and a post/facility maintenance team

representative. Using the procedure outlined in figure 3-8, the team should complete the

following steps to perform the QFD analysis:

Step 1) Development of a Project Management Plan. The project is initiated by a

customer identifying a requirement to the facility Directorate of Public Works or the Corps of

Engineers. Through meetings with the user agency, customer requirements and priorities are

identified, as well as a time schedule required for completion. Special requirements (such as

higher than normal security needs) are identified through regulations, technical manuals, or
 31

project reviews by outside agencies. Customer requirements are deployed into technical design

requirements and functions, which are used to prepare the DD 1391 and conceptual design.

Step 2) Design Requirements vs. Major Components. Customer requirements are

compared to project major components during development of the conceptual design. The

design requirements and priorities established in step I are used to guide the design team in the

development of space requirements, etc. and incorporation of special needs. The team assigns a

relationship factor (9,3, or I) corresponding with each design requirement and major component;

using the priorities established an importance factor (degree of importance) for each component

is calculated. In development of the conceptual design, many organizations utilize a standardized

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to describe the work elements of a project (See figure 3-9).

Major components used at this level would be comparable to the subfacility/subarea detail

designator in the WBS.

Step 3) Major Component Design Requirements vs. Failure Modes. To reduce matrixes

to a manageable size, a subsystem analysis (steps 3 through 7) is performed for critical

components; as time and/or money permits additional components can be analyzed. Critical

components may be further divided into sub-components, using a WBS or other method, to allow

focusing on a particular assembly (such as the building security system, part of the electrical

system). The same procedure of assigning relationship factors and calculating importance

factors is used to identify the most critical failure modes for the component.
 32

CLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS
BASIC NUMBERING FORMAT

PROJECT IDENTIFIER *

FACILITY/AREA - MAJOR DIVISION OF WORK

SUBFACILITY/SUBAREA DESIGNATOR - FURTHER DETAIL OF FACILITY

SUBFACILITY/SUBAREA DETAIL - MAJOR GROUPS OR SYSTEMS

STANDARD ELEMENT OF WORK (CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS)

1000 EARTHWORK 6000 PIPING

2000 CONCRETE 7000 ELECTRICAL
3000 METALWORK 8000 MISCELLANEOUS
4000 ARCHITECTURAL 9000 INDIRECTS/CLEARINGS
5000 EQUIPMENT

WORK ELEMENT DETAIL - UNIQUE TO EACH ELEMENT OF WORK

WORK ELEMENT DETAIL DESIGNATOR

BASIC ELEMENT OF COST

OLABOR 5 OPEN
1 BURDEN 6 ENGINEERED EQUIPMENT
2 EQUIPMENT USAGE 7 EXPENSES
3 MATERIAL 8 EXPENSES
SSUBCONTRACTS
9 TRANSFERS/COMMITMENTS

FURTHER DETAIL OF BASIC COST

LOWEST DETAIL

Ix lix J IxL xx
xL.1xx x1 IxL x W DESCRIPTION
WORD
PROJECT! FACILITY ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
FUNCTION OF WORK OF COST
*PROJECT IDENTIFIER IS USED ONLY
ACCOUNT NUMBER FINANCIAL ON MULTIPROJECT PROGRAMS AND
IS THEREFORE OPTIONAL

Figure 3-9 Work Breakdown Structure for a Major Project (From Barrie and Paulson, 1992)
 33

Step 4) Component Failure modes vs. Subcomponent Failure Modes. For each critical

component, design requirements are further defined by comparing component failure modes to

subcomponent (individual part) failure modes. Subcomponent failure modes result fiom

insufficient quality materials being used or poor quality control during construction. Using

relationship factors and importance factors, the most critical subcomponent failure modes are

identified.

Step 5) Subcomponent Failure modes vs. Material Specifications. For each critical

component, subcomponent (part) failure modes are compared to contract material specifications.

Using relationship factors and importance factors, critical specifications are identified, and more

stringent requirements and tolerances incorporated into the specifications. Critical material

specifications are further deployed to step 7 for development of the quality control plan.

Step 6) Subcomponent Failure modes vs. Process Specifications. For each critical

component, subcomponent (part) failure modes are compared to contract process specifications.

Using relationship factors and importance factors, critical specifications are identified, which

may be given more stringent controls (method specifications). Critical processes are deployed to

step 7 for development of the quality control plan.

Step 7) Quality Control Plan. For each critical component, the critical construction

process and material specifications identifies in steps 5 and 6 are compared to production

requirements. Production requirements are used to develop schedule milestones, and select

critical quality control procedures, which should be included in the quality assurance plan.
 34

Chapter 4

QFD IN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

Introduction

To further explain the use of QFD in the programming of a construction project, a case

study was developed using a project recently completed by the Corps of Engineers. The case

study is based on integration of a hypothetical QFD team in the design process. Development of

customer requirements and priorities was completed through discussion with the project

manager; based on historical records from the project history, the project directive (DD 1391),

and his personal experience managing the project. This chapter will focus on integration of QFD

analysis in the conceptual design stage.

Project Background

As part of the 1993 Congressional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decision, Vint Hill

Farms Station, VA was identified for closure. The Operations and Security Group (OSEG),

located at Vint Hill Farms, therefore required a new headquarters and training facility be

constructed at Ft Belvior, VA. The project was managed by the Baltimore District, US Army

Corps of Engineers. The project directive (see Appendix B) and conceptual design were

developed in late 1994 with an estimated cost of $4.9 M. Architectural services were contracted

with an outside A&E firm; the final design was completed in Feb 1996. Bidding was conducted
 35

in March of 1996 as a lump-sum project, and construction began soon afterwards. The OSEG

facility was completed in Feb 1997.

Customer Requirements

The user and primary customer for this project was OSEG. Secondary customers

identified include the Directorate of Public works, Ft. Belvior who would be responsible for

maintenance of the facility, and the Corps of Engineers, who were responsible for construction.

Due to the classified nature of work to be performed in the facility, the design required detailed

coordination with the Ft. Belvoir physical security agency and review for compliance with

numerous physical security requirements. The QFD process begins with the project manager

assembling the QFD team and defining a scope of analysis. The scope is defined by answering

the question "What are the important qualities of this training and administrative facility?" The

resulting list should capture all the customer requirements for the completed project. Based on

input from the project manager regarding the project initiation, the following list reflects what

the QFD team would have completed at this point in the procedure:

I) Expecters

- Adequate structural performance in building

- Low maintenance
- Attractive building design
- Complies with applicable regulations and statutes
- Completed as quickly as possible

2) Spokens

- Sufficient administrative and storage space for entire group

- Classified storage areas and arms room
- Conference room
- Learning center
- Applied instruction classrooms with team rooms
 36

- Photo laboratory
- Uninterrupted operations for communications systems
- Controllable access to building sections
- Secure communication requirements
- Intrusion Detection system
- Integrated alarm system
- Backup generator and power supply system
- Handicap accessible

Once the team agrees on customer requirements, they would begin to develop the project

management plan.

Matrix 1: The Proiect Manag~ement Plan

In development of the first matrix, customer requirements (WHATs) are broken down

into three affinity categories, time, cost, and quality (See figure 4-1). During the projects

conceptual design early completion was desirable, however staying within the approved budget

and providing adequate quality, particularly regarding security, were viewed as more important

by OSEG and the Corps of Engineers. The priorities assigned by the hypothetical QFD group

reflects the priorities established at that point in time. Each requirement was broken down into

substitute quality characteristics and prioritized from I to 5, with 5 being the highest priority.

There is a natural tendency to assign high values to all the requirements; however, this will tend

to negate those few requirements that are the utmost priority to the customer. While the team

assigns priorities, it also reviews the customer requirement list to ensure no requirements are

missing. Upon completion, the team reviews the list of customer requirements and priorities to

ensure correctness and a proper balance of highs to lows; it may take as many as three reviews to

compile a priority list, which adequately reflects the customer's true requirements.
 37

Customer requirements assigned the highest priorities were as follows:

* Structural durability of building

0 Building adequately support loads (sturdiness)

* Ability to conduct uninterrupted operations (both due to reliability of components

and fewer requirements to shut down classified operations while repair personnel are

working)

* Security of facility

Z,

E
0

WHATs
REGUIREMENTS Substitute Quality
WANTs Ouality Characteristics Charecterisitcs
Minimum Design Delays No unforseen conditions 3
Drawings correct 3
On Shop Drawinsapproval 1
Time Minimum Contractor No Sequence problems 2
Delays No Material Delays 2
Good Productivity 3
No rework 4
Minimum change orders 3
Minimum Material Changes in quantity 3
Cost Increase unit cost firm 4
Material expediting 3
Cost Labor Labor costs tised 4
Minimum rework 3
Labor hours fixed
4
Equipment utmen requirements known -

Equipment costs fixed 4

Good Productivity 2
Structural Performance Durable Building 5
Isolates outside environment 3
Sturdy - supports loads 5
Withstand weather extremes ..3
Energy efficient 3
Functional Quality Good use of space 3
Fixtures perform as req 4
Easy access to all rooms .3
Building Adequate Storage 2
Quality Easy to maintain 3
Design Quality Attractive appearance 1
Rooms fullfill purpose or use 3
Social Quality Fits in with environment 1
Environmentally Sound 2
Special Concerns Uninterupted Operations 55
Securit
Handicap Accessable 2

Figure 4-1, Customer Requirements (WHATs), OSEG Facility

 38

Conceptual Design

In development of the conceptual design, the QFD team would select design

requirements (HOWs) which reflect ways in which the Corps would satisfy customer

requirements. The project management plan includes two types of HOWs: project delivery

system HOWs, and design requirement HOWs. The project delivery system HOWs validate

decisions made by the project team regarding selection of the delivery system (design-build,

design-bid-build, or separate prime contracts) and the design method (in house design or

contracting an outside A&E firm). Although decisions regarding project delivery cannot be

made solely using QFD, it does provide insight as to critical factors within each system which

affect quality and should be considered when making decisions.

Design requirements are the project's technical characteristics that are incorporated into

the design to fulfill customer requirements (See figure 4-2). Design requirements are further

broken down into more detailed requirements. As an example, one of the most important

customer requirements is to provide adequate security for the facility. This requirement involves

specifying certain material qualities and components (i.e., the strength of security vault doors),

and providing certain functions (i.e., ability to detect unauthorized access to a restricted area). In

answering how to provide adequate security, the team would come up with the following list,

which was used to develop figure 4-2:

"* Design special areas for classified work

"* Construct a sturdy building which limits unwanted access and observation

"* Construct a security fence to limit access to the building

 39

Delivery system Design Requirements

U)
o Good Auto
Good Space Low Environment Uninterupted Emerg
Delivery System Design I Allocation Sturdy Building Maintenance Controls Limits Unwanted Access Power Supply System

ccccc

.0 0 0)0
.2) 0i 0 X:)- >C (D CD>

a0 E 0 0 Ei C- 0) E

.0~ E 0- 0 , E ~00 0 _ 0
0 ))~~
.T..
2- E
- ~ r , E 000
C9e4 ign n0 ( st0 w 0F
OSE0
WDs w 0q
c unane ind0vid0als CL >y
McilE
.0 T 0) Mi 0L CL 0 D Wi . - -
ci LM0L
.
z2 E2 *0 E C a) a)c~~~
CW 0U)C, .2 a. Z oz I-Oj
ci. wX. E:ICEL
2 z'a '0 .J
CD
Jw a') .20 o i '0 Mc .

Figure 4-2, Design Requirements (HOWs) OSEG Facility

"* Install an intrusion detection system which would detect unwanted individuals

"* Install security lighting which assists in the detection of unwanted personnel

"* Construct a secure storage area to protect items when assigned personnel are not present

"* Develop a system to control access into the building

" Provide systems to allow secure communication

"* Provide a backup system to ensure security measures continue to operate during power

failures

There are three steps involved in completing the first matrix: a) evaluate the relationships

between customer requirements (WHATs) and design requirements (HOWs), b) calculate an

importance factor (IF), and c) calculate a priority for each design requirement (See Figure 4-3).
 40

'099

E tuasAs uopolep joe~e 'R)

0w uJoiseddnseojid

asAs joiluoo !R6uiuouiuow Abieu2 (

&nSModeunbopV
wio jao L 0(

welsAs owwoo ainoeS -( 62)

995008 peiioiluoo) m0( m5tc M

Leiv ebeiols peij!ssgI0 (mtt m0

00 SI (

o6u!~qf~il /)'-"'S -got5 m5 0

eoual AljpnooS 0 o"(- SL

E weIsAs uoiloolep uo!sfijlJI( ( ( 0 . N

- OiUO0 SSOWN mc
E' Slooll JoLij)Sm uo;J uopq)oalo
m

wsloiuoD619Jnd8S(0Ot.1 (5mtO( m05m(0N

riosp u (0jlu
gI .1u UC o N
U)X~j tu Et'(
sonj ~ ~m t~ t OZLt
0JPdsjnx~
pe(bUS
6

I I I f

0 )J OAI JSO! P

EE
1-o at 0u
5 z sc l )j- 1- 1
&w ~Sem dtmmo
s0o)uo ~E 1 - 1 6

o U-

0 U0
__ _ __ Em
0 1 11. f 5
 41

a) Evaluating Relationships. The relationship between WHATs and HOWS are

evaluated as either strong (9), medium (3), weak, (1), or nonexistent (0).

b) Calculating IFs. To calculate the IFs for a matrix design requirement

(HOW), each customer relationship factor (from a, calculated above) is multiplied by the

respective priority associated with the customer requirement (WHAT). For each design

requirement this quantity is summed to determine the IF.

c) The weighted percentage for each design requirement is calculated by

dividing its IF by the sum of IFs for the matrix. This gives an indication of the relative

importance of each design requirement (HOW) to fulfilling customer requirements (WHATs).

The priority for each design requirement is calculated by dividing its IF by the greatest IF in the

matrix.

In example, the highlighted portions of figure 4-3 are used to calculate the IF and priority

for the design requirement to supports loads under sturdy building. There are four customer

requirements (WHATs) which have a relationship factor other than 0:

Relationship
Customer Requirement Priority Factor (RF) Priority*RF

Durable building 5 9 45

Sturdy - supports loads 5 9 45

Withstand weather extremes 3 9 27

Good use of space 3 1 3

Total (IF) 120

 42

For the matrix, the total of all the IFs (TOT) is 2887. The highest IF calculated (MAX) was for

the design requirement to use durable components, with an IF of 213. For the design requirement

support loads, the weighted percentage is calculated to be IF/TOT = 120 / 2887 = 4%. The

corresponding priority, on a scale of I to 5, is 5*IF/MAX = 5*120/213 = 3.

Matrix 2: Customer Requirements vs. Major Components

Once the project management plan is completed, design requirements and corresponding

priorities are deployed into the second matrix, Design Requirements vs. Major Components (see

figure 4-4). During development of the conceptual design, design team typically develops a

conceptual estimate by dividing the project into major components and making rough

calculations regarding square footage, major components, and design. Using generic unit costs

based on quality levels (economy, average, luxury) for each component, the rough costs are

calculated; the estimated project cost is then included in the DD 1391 (See Appendix B). While

this analysis is being performed, a second QFD matrix is also developed. In the second matrix,

the QFD team uses the HOWs from the first matrix (Design Requirements) as WHATs. The

team then identifies which components will satisfy the design requirements. In this project,

fourteen components were identified which make up the facility. The same procedures are used

to evaluate relationships and calculate final priorities. From this analysis, three components

receive a priority of 4 or 5, indicating a high correlation to customer satisfaction. The team

identifies these components for further analysis during the detailed design phase:

"* Exterior Walls

" Electrical System

"* Security System

 43

0
w w w

welsAs ~uiw18n
gid CY, LI co'
w-sA .line 1-1- 1- - - - - -- - - ___ -- c

wa~sAs ebu1DeIi M
- - -q Lo

oU w eisAsjo m, co m
o81481 , 0) a) ) ) 0 C\J
ci - - - - - * -- - _ _ -
0
eweqij IOrJnns 0) 0) Z

0eouedj pinjonS a, a, a, a te

sOIOu 0) 0)c)c)m
suA').IdJewo 0
VLL

oo

0) 0 (D
2 (1 zC a) E -.
COr .Ci(D a C D
Ca
U) 0), E , 0 E_
0.C
= a2 nc - (n ~0 (D Ca
S~CD g ~ ) g cai 0 ii c> -2
cd
CaCaC2C 0
Cfl 0 ~ a
0~~~* O
a 0~anE.
0
r ~-cED -
o
C ~ >
a)
o c :cc a)~
.2. Ca ZD

0 E
* 5-L
0
0
~ Ca
a D
-rnIA= :=
Ca t
-2
00C
E

cuO
3 x x Ca)5 t a co
OO/E C Ca n M LZ-o( 0 Ca m
Ca L
cn 0 Ca) 0

0 M.2
0 Ca ~C E E
CD
Ca Ea
w 20

0C a c Ca
CD L= _ DEb _c

0 0 0
 44

Chapter 5

QFD TO IMPROVE QUALITY IN

THE FINAL DESIGN

Introduction

In the previous chapter critical components were identified during development of the

conceptual design. As the design team progresses into final design, QFD can be integrated into

the design process to improve the quality of those components. As time and/or cost permits,

other components can be analyzed to improve the design. As previously discussed, in the

construction industry owners often expect structures and components will perform at a certain

level (the industry standard), and have no other spoken or unspoken requirements. When a wall

or other component fails to perform in the expected manner; however, there is a perceived lack of

quality. The failure could be as extreme as a catastrophic failure (collapse) of a section, or as

minor as a window that does not secure properly, allowing drafts to enter the room. A failure is

any way in which the component detracts from the expected performance; a quality product is

therefore one in which failures, both extreme and minor, are reduced or eliminated. Quality is

improved by identifying modes in which failure may occur in the component, and applying

controls to reduce or eliminate the failure. QFD accomplishes this by identifying critical sub-

components, materials and construction processes that contribute to component failures, guiding
 45

preparation of construction specifications and the quality control plan. This chapter uses QFD

analysis in two ways; first, to design quality into the construction of exterior walls, and second,

to develop a system which fulfills the functional requirement for security.

Matrix 3: Designing Quality into Exterior Walls

During the conceptual design, exterior walls received a priority rating of 4, indicating a

high correlation between quality construction of the walls and fulfilling customer requirements

for the overall project. Analysis of the exterior walls begins with the QFD team asking "What

are the required qualities of an exterior brick wall?" Using the design requirements (WHATs) of

figure 4-4, the team begins to develop the first component matrix. This analysis is more

technically oriented, and may require the addition of engineers or design personnel to the QFD

team. The QFD team identifies HOWs for exterior walls that will satisfy customer requirements.

Since 'expecters' for structural components often define customer requirements, it is preferable

to focus the analysis on component failure modes, to more accurately reflect the customer's true

requirements. During development of HOWs, the team should identify as many failure

mechanisms as possible; then, through grouping of similar items, reduce the list to a manageable

number of the most likely failure modes (See figure 5-1). As in the previous chapter, the team

completes the matrix by evaluating relationships and calculating final priorities for each failure

mode (See figure 5-2).

 46

FAWLUEMOS

Amxearan Stwural Eircrmnta Ctrds

Inl Surfa Ex Surfabm Sqr Heat VWter Vapor Air

CL
0' C
C) CD S=
C) C C) a) a) CY
c) E CI C) CO C
U) :EC C) oC aC)Q

a , ca c ~o(D
C0
u 0s
'0"
(0 0o - 0>
CU~
Il =1 C)

Figure Exeio0al
5-1.:W aiue oe
Matri 4: Sucmpnn Fa)lr 2Modes

Once component failure modes are identified, the QFD team must determine how
failures in the subcomponents (parts) that comprise the wall contribute to the overall component

failure. The failure modes identified in the matrix 3 (figure 5-2) become the WHATs; the team

must determine HOWs which reflect subcomponents failures which would cause failure in the

component. Failure could be caused either by improper or low quality materials being used, or

through improper performance during construction. This analysis is shown in figure 5-3. Once

again, the team uses grouping of similar items to reduce list of failure modes to a manageable

number. Completion of this matrix requires an understanding of the complex relationship

between wall performance, material properties, and construction techniques; and is best

performed by a dedicated committee with the required technical skills. Once the analysis of
 47

0 960t

<uado Iou op smopu! - 6 '-0

96LWE9Q
MePp' LE~ V')CS

m 99U!IU9A IOU9900 11

Aj!AU3 I1I9MU! 95LUMM1ON 0 0

J000 / mopU!M
1V96VIP81 -l a, 9c M
119M
qtnjqljt UO!IPJIOU~d
JOIRa,9

onleA uoilInsl9f1100, a, 91 N

I!9 SU0109900, a, U)N

l091 IJoddnS)ON990C m, m m s
s1JujdaS sIu!o t,8,I
CO U ~ AI1doid 919399 Iou op amopurm/s9100 9) aC) O
SM o,

sesdeIIoo 10991)1308
11N a, a, a, 6

eIJejd9s s19u103/sp~ol-0

diqp9eiq s19!1919wIx: a, a0R'

9), 91q!S!A
SIU!O(0

ale 9 ud JflS 99J8A -

9Sle1w10 ccao,

AIISOSU!9I aOC a, a, Nu

9 o) o- mc r t )CJC 0 ME
ja o~n Lo Loc
0r 9)9)op
j' 9)j 9j

SE a
0'
ca cr 'd E ~ >

09)o -2 ,> 0 (

.c wo L9E r 2' ) .03 9)

<0j C
a, ~ Z
~
9) ) 0
0
C0
I )" 9
co3
L2
m
~ ~i C
9

L) a) D
0 ) Lj '

E9 a)c
<) cn )
I!Z

Ca0~ CL
CI)
'9 Eo
0'

CC 0)0c
 48

I!Lj selbue lioddnS 0 99

peapooq salotq doe -0

sI!9lja!jjuq jod6 C 9
JOIL0M 11em
9UI0loJ 1 0 0 1

00
6 S~
ui O U-IIOr
Lp9ual C 0

0 ~ iue
Np swp ejfliou
upuqoq CC00C 0L

0u

0 Aliedoid puoq)ou990c

0 6C

ca

lq 1e C. -

lq1el 9 .2' o,

AIO~
jewOsn N cowS
-. tvm ~ C~0 2 W~
fl(0 ~ 00 -
C

*~c Io'

tnE 00O
00 2 2e
00
ECO ,
0o -0 42 ?Cf
0fl 0-. S
3: ca LL(R
4, 00 'a a)- Z D Ex

0*

c6
CC

c 0(0

0 01
0. 0 "ra C
 49

S60l

seiedoid 8ewiO41
JOO08 0

aSOlouedojou ss9oQ
ApRsua O , co

S AlJadoid
819Sinoe 880soCz

iz lio0mAddoic

8 pduPJ8W OU!

3: SIU!Of0
aq!18!A

0 10

Ai~edoid
qeueqp8 seoU C'Oz 98

S u0Q8ejlau
d iie 818lm
smoll ' V

6u01180]
SIISIj 0n 8
V9 c~)N

0 C

C',

+ 0
c.)
.0
AwOjeoCn ~ cl loo'T c' - m -59

0~ 'D~
o~ ~ O) CL( 0
aj~cocl

E 0
2 >
.0 2 -6-
19 m , 0 J-- 3: u (D c0
'a a 20 C)

-6 -6 CC

U) 0-
 50

relationships and failure modes is completed, the team will have identified the most critical

failure modes for subcomponents, which would cause customer requirements to not be fulfilled.

The following failure modes were identified achieving a priority of 4 or higher:

"* Bricks - cracked after installation

"* CMU Block - does not adequately support loads

"* Mortar - does not properly bond

"" Mortar - cracks after hardening

" Reinforcement - insufficient strength

Matrix 5 & 6: Specification Development and the Quality Assurance Plan

Subcomponent failure modes are then deployed to the final two matrixes, comparing

failure modes to the construction specifications. To keep matrixes to a manageable size, and to

facilitate development of a quality assurance plan, material properties and construction processes

are separated. In general, Corps of Engineers' specifications are organized with material

properties contained in part 2 of the specification; construction processes and execution are

contained in part 3. During the conceptual design, the project manager and/or design team

identifies which specification sections are required from the Corps of Engineers General

Specifications. As the final design is developed, specifications are modified as necessary to

fulfill engineering requirements.

In development of matrix 5, subcomponent failure modes are compared to material

specifications (figure 5-4). The QFD team begins by identifying HOWs from the Corps of

Engineer General Specifications. To keep the matrix size to a manageable size, only those

specification paragraphs directly related to fulfilling customer requirements for exterior walls are
 51

C- BEJ U- SJOZf
6. L

qlD.
2 ..- 6.,p -0te L
M.1 rz0
-- BUN 67n

olo
Ild sL
_7 * "W!
Z __ _ _ _ __.d_ _
;C') _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
6u~ddj-41-M 9
89-:1PUR JO00I- S
lugl~s PWJOIJd 6

lu-1--S 9
 52

used in the analysis (Only those specifications which address HOW a failure mode (what) will

be prevented or controlled). Relationship factors and specification priorities are calculated as in

previous matrixes. For each specification, the priority reflects its importance to preventing

failure modes and therefore fulfilling customer requirements. Based on the traditional

engineering analysis performed during the final design and the priorities resulting from this

analysis, specification values are modified as necessary. For construction of exterior brick walls,

the analysis identified six specification paragraphs with priority 3 or greater, indicating a high

correlation to fulfilling customer requirements:

Specification Paragraph #

04200, Masonry: 2.2 Clay or Shale Brick Properties

2.4 Concrete Masonry Units

2.10 Mortar

2.12 Anchors, ties, bar positioners

2.14 Reinforcing bars

08110, Doors and Frames 2.1 Doors and Frames

During the analysis, material specifications are also compared to each other. As can be seen in

Figure 5-5, specifications are generally specific with few redundancies. The construction

manager ensures better quality for high priority items during development of the project's quality

assurance plan, by either by dictating higher material quality standards within the specification or

requiring tighter inspection standards for materials as part of the contractors quality control plan.

Quality assurance inspectors would conduct inspections and evaluations during construction to
 53

0~-

S lu!8d VZ

.- ~NSJOUDISU 6-VSZ
E 2 punoduioo 6uiqsiuij LS9,
c4 6uldel 5~

00

X eN buls013 JOOO
SOOLAQP 7

0 walss lojuoiUlensur LV

aJue upuojadOu!sA ZV -

E UIULS oqj'U CC
u!lelsu

N0 Sl~e

-0)
spupesboq 6o~u!)oZ-

O lOdSUI-UZ
Jjo1Cnl -
~ 0
0w
0 slep!uqnS Z)
.E r sjaco m r uo uu#3L LU

E sle4wqnS C
20 r0
2 6u~qslj 9 v
t5 c:U-)
uo!)ensul
VZ r
0)
-F 2sA*;U!! IOUO, PL
 54

ensure materials being used comply with the critical specifications and material testing is being

conducted properly.

During comparison of subcomponent failure modes to process specifications (figure 5-6),

generally the same subcomponents received higher priorities. Seven specifications were

identified as having a priority of 3 or greater:

Specification Paragraph #

04200 Masonry 3.9 Mortar

3. 10 Reinforcing Steel

3.14 Control Joints

3.15 Brick Expansion Joints

3.16 Shelf Angles

08110 Doors and Frames 3.1 Installation

08520 Windows 3.1 Installation

Once again specifications were compared to each other; the comparison is found in figure 5-7.

Based on this analysis, during completion of the final design the design team is able to

specifically address those critical failure modes that detract from fulfilling customer

requirements. By identifying critical specifications, the designer can specify higher quality

material be used for those specification, and more stringent requirements on the construction

process be adhered to (a combination dictating both method and performance), as well as

additional quality control requirements. Figure 5-8 represents the general process used in
 55

SU.I1ppsq6.ijde StEIIM T III1

SpssoqUndA 0q.1~odd
.. V-

- - IB'!J PIIB SIB!

d
0

po ndo~ousopsddVVE

B
6
~S6I LL

.
6..d SU- ISO.OM
jtt E

o ~q..td BS !O~ 1,
LZs

U00

BSouojosee OV
ZE 5 B

o SSO 9 E
uS 60!IBBS
Bu~mqe c3

-1 C_
eBu- U 0 .
5'U011-13 1'Efl
MS BUd. 0a'
uaepu
E~=~ IZ U - =0 5 U vUU

T .,-o.ovuoflSSco
J."U., ZOO

quiovv icuoc C90

Sn
Wow v8-!u- 9 z M e
sm-usA-10 ~z E

ii:
 56

a~pepJas 6up!iaed0,-E
'6. 4, eq -1 -- aPnS LCE
-Prad

gm. 6.!1.., Aod3 6YE

6
a aluaIqlpueBUa!4C!
q
S0.'Ca d.ad ...PnSZ'

T OI~ 6ua008 LT

fiutq arP..o
6 Old.
q 0
ndAE
p..q 1 .. n-ardd V
z www 1- 3
.6 1 1 11u 11 - L
ueaJOu!.!1-a...
S POOLS
6U, 0U0a,0L0!Oe
Rpe 0p a1aa-) 55 0

PaqWp)
4S!poc flVL3 Z7E
0.o ECsp aA~ - .
slao~anbo
le~aa~uO~naqOs C
5 0 0l10jQ5
I.E jI I u ,aei.,nd Z-E

%, 'F l
I4!0
F -J. 0 d. .. pS ,
aa ~
E ia~atas ~ C
U-_u.C
HEw
'.P..
-p 0
W~lll
uiloy
I LL1I
TTTF dmS u!ITNV-9 o

00
 57

2-8
- ~ ~ a

- - - - -

a al

aa~ a

ac~a a,

cc.a a

o~~~~ a-6ao,
o a. ~ ~ ~ _
u

t,10a
~
,~a
a~ aa

a~~ ~a 2
Lu a O~a~a~E
cc a

CL 0)a

a, 0 0 7
E~E
 58

- E

~a

oE E

w IN

0N

0- 0

W~ a) 0
0~ 0?C
76'
Rn 2
CC Car
 59

construction of exterior brick walls; for each step in the process, critical failure modes and high

priority specifications are identified. The QFD team is able to develop a quality assurance plan

that focuses on compliance with the highest priority specifications. The project manager uses this

information to evaluate and approve the contractor's quality control plan, ensuring critical

concerns are addressed in the plan. As part of the quality assurance plan, inspectors would

evaluate the procedures used by the contractor to ensure compliance, and reduce failure modes.

Designing for the Functional Quality of Providing Security

In figure 4-4, Facility Design Requirements vs. Components, the security system

received a priority of 5, indicating a high importance in satisfying customer requirements.

Analysis of the security system begins with a review of customer requirements. During

development of customer requirements in chapter 4, several requirements were identified

regarding security needs. As in the previous example, the QFD team must answer the question

"What are the desired qualities of a security system?" To provide for security requirements

involves the performance of several components; walls must withstand penetration, doors and

locks must restrict movement, and the electrical system must be able to detect unauthorized

intruders and automatically notify the proper authorities. In developing a QFD analysis for

security, the team identified three functions that the facility must fulfill to satisfy customer

requirements:

* Preventing unauthorized access

* Protecting items within the facility

Detecting unauthorized persons

 60

Fulfilling requirements involves several components; the failure of any would result in an overall

failure to provide security. A failure mode analysis is therefore used again to develop the matrix.

Figure 5-9 compares design requirements to failure modes for security. The failure modes are

then deployed to figure 5-10, which compares component to subcomponent failure modes. As in

the previous example, the design team can then evaluate individual specifications to determine

those most critical to minimizing or eliminating failures, and improving quality.

 61

I-F

s)ilneA /pinflDs 01 ssoooe pazlUot4)fl6uf SMOII 6) 60t -,t

0-0

.NL6JV IsOAO
ed ao 0l ol uoweio~unwwo,,

I!IUSISAS
J 6U0 UO!JIXfhl
44619P

E AIJole
SI~~liae 1 abv!WL63

0lpam10
0UIwep aJ!J9 )C
0-

paideeiau! eq ueo3!geA~
seuoqc

suopiado papJselop sMOIN

BuiO!UMA

a ooAlledo
p0)036
mod P oS 6'z 6)CP

LZ C')

co~I C)s C

AIpseaumoppaloou5 6,) t l

mol sde) w~se 6L a)

~ II ,~ 'a

N06 <l
co c LOO M q e.ONjol m'm ocr')mN (i V0 43
~C6OOLL C -=
a))a
C-

6
'6)E -c d .60)026

C7)
m- : COc

(U 0) 6D ED

M, .0w,
C Cl 0) 6)
0) T 0 c
< 0 -0 .
a)0ooE3 0 - a)
, - ca -E -cc a! > j
?j 0
6D
r j,
_ > W
 62
In S
o~e)D990 COOLns

099*0
Dl 0100099
IOUUDO ,

MO9o 9L99001U9!0*lflop 9v L M

ONII!VDIJ9
aLIPDI
P0i 19909, 91

-~~ sliplwaisAs
601! DL
9, D

I!IDJJDle
DD9009IDPUD1IED D
919, 0

E le9
01019199
91JD 9' F,
isI99D0919
.0 lnA ajl lo lVs 9 LD

$19119019
Sol101 JDiIOUI9
DODSaN~ LD

1191ILUDIOMImo
91 OU
Do"SO 9

09

eJ11a ~0
ll IOU
999909 o 9

Is11 -S J1D91 I~ I I -'r I- L

91o Jam, alid L'LUn
OLu,,z
OSCI~nb
96LDMO 9I919d DN9
suolln991 r r

6
999*9lePm9!sea10 uODil
LMMid 01~ Dr FDF

919L9199*
Wpo9S9T
ID10 IOU
9151*19
O 1 L
L'S
Buprqo soeplrus
1U99D
0pnilsu.109m 9 Driis Dr 9*

DrA~e 9'90M9"'9
,..... .- D9 IOU9d
saw
90.

DIIpaquflo91L9I
JOAO up. 9, 6

Ali9dcud*6011910 0109 m
IOU109 90 0r
9*s 19 0 0 e 1 " 818019 c*9D

9-
DrJOJ 0
-aon E
A91JI~dG9*99939*99*9**9*
- - - - -L' ~ 9.
2
'5 r L

9,
-a 1
91E9 ~ ~ ~ E U 092

~9 9119 99 91 i9 9,S

090

20 -LL*
w
J20 >'19 U.~~
9
to =* E9
LL 01~ 9* 9.< 0. ~U.1
 63

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of QFD as a management tool to

benefit project managers within the Army Corps of Engineers. As the primary construction

management service for the Department of Defense and other government agencies, the Corps

must provide a timely, cost effective, quality product to its customers. Executive Order 12862

established that those services would be based on identification and fulfillment of customer

requirements. Quality Function Deployment, as a management tool, assists project managers to

clearly identify customer requirements and emphasize those requirements throughout the project

delivery process. In both the conceptual and final design, QFD was able to provide useful

information to the project design team. By emphasizing fulfillment of customer requirements

during the design process, the Corps should be able to improve service by reducing the number

of design changes required after construction has begun.

During the conceptual design, QFD identified which components were most critical to

fulfilling customer requirements. As the project's cost is analyzed, the QFD analysis could be

used to support decisions to require a higher level of quality (and therefor a higher cost per unit

quantity) for certain components. Other less critical components could suffice with average or

economy quality levels, while still fulfilling customer requirements. The analysis also identifies
 64

which components should receive priority for further analysis during completion of the final

design.

The biggest benefit of QFD analysis occurs when integrating it into the final design.

During the QFD analysis, the most critical failure modes or failures to fulfill customer

requirements are identified. As the final design is completed, critical construction specifications

can be made more stringent to reduce or eliminate the failure modes. The analysis also allows

the quality control and assurance plans to focus on eliminating failure modes during the

construction process. Through the use of QFD analysis, the Corps should be able to improve the

quality of its construction delivery process by focusing the design process on providing for

customer requirements, and minimizing quality control problems and design changes.

Limitations

The use of QFD in today's construction industry is clearly limited by the realities of cost

and time constraints. QFD analysis will increase the cost and time associated with planning

stages; owners may not be willing to pay for these 'additional' services or wait for the analysis to

be completed without being able to see the long term benefits. Prior to beginning a QFD study

there must be a commitment to the methodology; including additional training for personnel and

longer planning time required for QFD sessions. The QFD process is time intensive to prepare

the numerous matrixes; until computer software is developed which facilitates the analysis, it

will continue to be an encumbering process.

Finally, an analysis of structural components requires the QFD team to understand the intricate

relationships between materials, construction processes, and performance of completed

components. A building component such as a brick wall is actually a composite of many vastly

different materials. A QFD team would require several individuals with specialized knowledge
 65

to adequately evaluate material performances, their relationship to failure modes, and

requirements during the construction process. To effectively support QFD teams for every

project managed by the Corps of Engineers would require a significant commitment of personnel

Recommendations

The use of QFD to improve the current project delivery process clearly warrants further

investigation by the Corps of Engineers. Due to the increased lead time and cost associated with

the procedure, it would be best used when the benefits can be applied to future projects, as in a

phased barracks or housing project. QFD analysis also can benefit the corps when developing

projects with higher than usual quality requirements. Through clearly identifying customer

requirements and prioritizing them during design, the Corps should be able to better provide for

the customer.

The most difficult part of the analysis involves development of the matrixes requiring

failure mode analysis. To effectively develop the analysis requires specialized knowledge and

skills. Due to the generic nature of many components in construction (such as brick walls),

however, a dedicated committee assembled by the Corps could develop matrixes to support the

Corps of Engineer General Specifications. Once a projects' QFD team completes the conceptual

design (step 2 of figure 3-8), it could use the pre-formatted matrixes to augment the process.

QFD provides the project manager with a systematic method of compiling and analyzing

customer needs. Further research needs to be conducted on streamlining the procedure; to reduce

the time spent developing charts and matrixes. Additional research also needs to be conducted

on using QFD analysis to calculate target values for the specifications.

 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akao, Yoji (1990). Quality FunctionalDeployment: IntegratingCustomer Requirements into

ProductDesign. G.H. Mazur, trans., Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Barrie, Donald S. and Boyd C. Paulson (1992). ProfessionalConstruction Management:

Including C.M., Design-Construct,and GeneralContracting. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York.

Brown, Patrick G. (1991). QFD Echoing the Voice of the Customer, AT&T Technical Journal,
Naperville, IL.

Cohen, Lou (1995). Quality FunctionDeployment: How to make QFD work for you. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA.

Crow, Kenneth. (1996) "Customer Focused Development with QFD", DRM Associates.

Daetz, Douglas (1989) "QFD: A method for Guaranteeing Communication of the Customer
Voice Through the Whole Product Development Cycle" Conference Record -
InternationalConference on Communication, v 3, p 1329 - 1333.

Department of the Army. Corps of Engineers (USACE). Mission of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) August, 1994.

Eureka, William E. and Nancy E. Ryan (1995). Quality up, Costs Down : a Manager's Guide to
Taguchi Methods and QFD. ASI Press ; Irwin Professional Pub, Burr Ridge, Ill.

Eureka, William E. and Nancy E. Ryan (1994). The Customer-Driven Company.: Managerial
Perspectives on Quality Function Deployment. ASI Press ; Irwin Professional Pub, Burr
Ridge, IL

Ermer, Donald S. "Using QFD Becomes an Educational Experience for Students and Faculty"
Quality Progress,May, 1995, 131-136.

Foo, Suantong and Jamshid C. Hosseini. (1995) "A Framework for Analyzing Perceptual
Quality in Manufacturing" Department of Management, College of Business
Administration, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Fowler, Theodore C. (1991). "QFD - Easy as 1-2-3", SAVE Proceedings(Society of American

Value Engineers), Dayton, OH, p 177 - 182.
 67

Franceschini, F. and S. Rosetto (1995) "QFD: The Problem of Comparing

Technical/Engineering Design Requirements" Research in EngineeringDesign, v 7, n4,
p 270-278.

Gluchkovsky, Eli A. et. al. "Avoid a Flop: Use QFD with Questionnaires" Quality Progress,v
28, n6, Jun. 1995, p 57-62.

Graessel, Bob and Pete Zeidler. "Using Quality Function Deployment to Improve Customer
Service" Quality Progress,Nov., 1993, p 59 - 63.

Guinta, Lawrence R. (1993) The QFD book: The Team Approach to Solving Problems and
Satisfying Customers Through Quality Function Deployment. AMACOM, New York

Hashimoto, Yoshitsugu (1986) Improving Productivity in Construction Through QC and IE.

Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D. (1988). "The House of Quality." HarvardBusiness Review,

66(3):63-73.

Havener, Cliffon L. "Improving the Quality of Quality" Quality Progress,Nov., 1993, p 41 -

44.

Hunter, Michael R. and Richard D. Van Landingham. "Listening to the Customer Using QFD"
Quality Progress,April, 1994, p 55 - 59.
Hybert, Pete. "Five Ways to Improve the Contracting Process" Quality Progress,Feb., 1996, p
65-70.

Kinni, Theodore B. (1993) "What's QFD?" Industry Week, I Nov. 1993, v242, n 21, p 3 1 .

Lakka, Antti, Vainio Mikko, and Laurikka Petri (1995) Quality Function Deployment, QFD in
Construction,VTT Research Notes 1685.

Ledbetter, William B. and Adrew C. Lemur, ed. (1991) Inspection and Other Strategiesfor
Assuring Quality in Government Construction. Committee on Inspection for Quality
Control on Federal Construction Projects, Building Research board, Commission on
Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press.

Maier, Mark W. (1995). "Quantitative Engineering Analysis with QFD." Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL.

Mallon, J.C. and D.E. Mulligan (1993) "Quality Functional Deployment - A System for Meeting
Customer Needs." Journalof Construction Engineeringand Management, ASCE,
119(3) September, pp. 516-531.

Mears, Peter (1995). Quality Improvement Tools and Techniques. McGraw Hill, New York.
 68

Moore, William B. (1980). An Assessment of Construction Quality Management in the Corps of

Engineers. Masters Degree Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.

Pyzdek, Thomas and Roger W. Berger, ed. (1992) Quality Engineering Handbook. ASQC
Quality Press, Milwaukee.

Ross, P.J. "The Role of Taguchi Methods and Design of Experiments in QFD" Quality
Progress,Jun. 1988, p 41 - 47.

Shillito, M. Larry (1994) Advanced QFD: Linking Technology to Market and Company Needs.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.

Sikorski, Charles S. (1990). Productand ProcessIntegration for the U.S. Design-Construction

Industry. PHD Thesis, Texas A&M University.

Swanson, Roger. "Quality Benchmark Deployment" Quality Progress,Dec. 1993, p 81 - 84.

Thomas, H. R. and Gary R. Smith (1990). Loss of ConstructionLabor Productivity Due to

Inefficiencies and Disruptions: The Weight of Expert Opinion. Report to the
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA.

Wasserman, Gary S. "On How to Prioritize Design Requirements During the QFD Planning
Process" lIE Transactions,May, 1993, pp. 59 - 65.
 69

Appendix A

GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND POLICY MEMORANDUMS

 70
Executive Order 12862
Setting Customer Service Standards

September 11, 1993

Putting people first means ensuring that the Federal

Government provides the highest quality service possible to the
American people. Public officials must embark upon a revolution
within the Federal Government to change the way it does business.
This will require continual reform of the executive branch's
management practices and operations to provide service to the
public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the
private sector.

Now, Therefore, to establish and implement customer service

standards to guide the operations of the executive branch, and by
the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Customer Service Standards. In order to carry

out the principles of the National Performance Review, the
Federal Government must be customer-driven. The standard of
quality for service provided to the public shall be: Customer
service equal to the best in business. For the purposes of this
order, "customer" shall mean an individual or entity who is
directly served by a department or agency. "Best in business"
shall mean the highest quality of service delivered to customers
by private organizations providing a comparable or analogous
service.

All executive departments and agencies (hereinafter referred

to collectively as "agency" or "agencies") that provide
significant services directly to the public shall provide those
services in a manner that seeks to meet the customer service
standard established herein and shall take the following actions:
(a) identify the customers who are, or should be, served by
the agency;
(b) survey customers to determine the kind and quality of
services they want and their level of satisfaction with
existing services;
(c) post service standards and measure results against
them;
(d) benchmark customer service performance against the best
in business;
(e) survey front-line employees on barriers to, and ideas
for, matching the best in business;
(f) provide customers with choices in both the sources of
service and the means of delivery;
(g) make information, services, and complaint systems
easily accessible; and
(h) provide means to address customer complaints.

Section 2. Report on Customer Service Surveys. By March 8,

1994, each agency subject to this order shall report on its
customer surveys to the President. As information about customer
 71
satisfaction becomes available, each agency shall use that
information in judging the performance of agency management and
in making resource allocations.

Section 3. Customer Service Plans. By September 8, 1994,

each agency subject to this order shall publish a customer
service plan that can be readily understood by its customers.
The plan shall include customer service standards and describe
future plans for customer surveys. It also shall identify the
private and public sector standards that the agency used to
benchmark its performance against the best in business. In
connection with the plan, each agency is encouraged to provide
training resources for programs needed by employees who directly
serve customers and by managers making use of customer survey
information to promote the principles and objectives contained
herein.

Section 4. Independent Agencies. Independent agencies are

requested to adhere to the order.

Section 5. Judicial Review. This order is for the internal

management of the executive branch and does not create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party
against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its
offices or employees, or any other person.
/s/
William J. Clinton

The White House

September 11, 1993

[About HHS]
[Consumer Information]

[News & Public Affairs]

[Policy Information]

[What's New]
[Employee Information]

[Search]
[Partner Gateway]

[HHS Agencies on the Internet]

M Bcto the HHS Home Page

 72

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

March 22, 1995

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGI

SUBJECT: Improving Customer Service

In the first phase of this Administration's reinventing

government initiative, I established the principle that
government must be customer-driven. Executive Order No. 12862,
"Setting Customer Service Standards," called for a revolution
within the Federal Government to change the way it does business.
The initial agency responses to that order, including the service
standards published in September 1994, have begun the process of
establishing a more customer-focused government. For the first
time, the Federal Government's customers have been told what they
have a right to expect when they ask for service.

In the second phase of reinventing government ("Phase II"), this

effort should be continued and integrated with other
restructuring activities. The first question agency
restructuring teams should ask is whether a program or function
is critical to the agency's missions based on "customer" input.
To carry out this Phase II effort and assure that government puts
the customer first, I am now directing the additional steps set
forth in this memorandum.

Actions. The agencies covered by Executive Order No. 12862

are directed as follows:

1. In order to continue customer service reform, agencies

shall treat the requirements of Executive Order No. 12862 as
continuing requirements. The actions the order prescribes, such
as surveying customers, surveying employees, and benchmarking,
shall be continuing agency activities. The purpose of these
actions will remain as indicated in Executive Order No. 12862 --
the establishment and implementation of customer service
standards to guide the operations of the executive branch.

2. Agencies shall, by September 1, 1995, complete the

publication of customer service standards, in a form readily
available to customers, for all operations that deliver
significant services directly to the public. This shall include
services that are delivered in partnership with State and local
governments, services delivered by small agencies and regulatory
agencies, and customer services of enforcement agencies.
3. Aaencies shall, on an onaoina basis, measure results
 73
achieved against the customer service standards and report those
results to customers at least annually. Reports should be in
terms readily understood by individual customers. Public reports
shall be made beginning no later than September 15, 1995.
Measurement systems should include objective measures wherever
possible, but should also include customer satisfaction as a
measure. Customer views should be obtained to determine whether
standards have been set on what matters most to the customer.
Agencies should publish replacement standards if needed to
reflect these views.

4. Development and tracking of customer service measures,

standards, and performance should be integrated with other
performance initiatives, including Phase II restructuring.
Customer service standards also should be related to legislative
activities, including strategic planning and performance
measurement under the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, reporting on financial and program performance under the
Chief Financial officers Act of 1990, and the Government
Management and Reform Act of 1994. Operating plans, regulations
and guidelines, training programs, and personnel classification
and evaluation systems should be aligned with a customer focus.

5. Agencies shall continue to survey employees on ideas to

improve customer service, take action to motivate and recognize
employees for meeting or exceeding customer service standards,
and for promoting customer service. Without satisfied employees,
we cannot have satisfied customers.

6. Agencies should initiate and support actions that cut

across agency lines to serve shared customer groups. Agencies
should take steps to develop cross-agency, one-stop service to
customer groups, so their customers do not needlessly go from one
agency to another. Where possible, these steps should take
advantage of new information technology tools to achieve results.

The standard of quality we seek from these actions and the

Executive order is customer service for the American people that
is equal to the best in business.

Independent Agencies. Independent agencies are requested to

adhere to this directive.

Judicial Review. This directive is for the internal

management of the Executive Branch and does not create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party
against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its
officers or employees, or any other person.

/s/
William J. Clinton

[About HHS] [Consumer Information]

 74

Appendix B

PROJECT DIRECTIVE (DD 1391) OSEG PROJECT

 95 44499 W REVISION DATE: 26 OCT 1994
ARMY BCA (AS OF 10/26/1994 AT 14:30:32) 10 JUN 1994
LAF=1.03
roft Belvoir
Virginia Ops & Training Facility, 300 Area

141 84 44499 4,900

PRIMARY FACILITY 3,859

Administration SF 13,675 93.69 (1,281)
Classroom SF 4,125 99.86 (412)
Special Purpose SF 16.633 101.47 (1,688)
Emergency Generator KW 50 574.43 (29)
Intrusion Detection System LS .... (21)
Total from Continuation page (428)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES 557
Electric Service LS .... (60)
Water, Sewer, Gas LS .... (35)
Paving. Walks, Curbs And Gutters LS .... (169)
Storm Drainage LS .... (80)
Site Imp( 185) Demo( ) LS .... (185)
Information Systems LS .... (28)

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST 4,416

C011TINGENCY PERCENT (5.00%) 221

SUBTOTAL 4,637
SUPERVISION, INSPECTION & OVERHEAD (6.00%) 278

TOTAL REQUEST 4,915

TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED) 4,900
INSTALLED EQUIPMENT-OTHER APPROPRIATIONS (457)

Construct an operations and training facility. Project includes administrative

and special purpose space consisting of company storage areas, logistics and
supply, operations center, isolation area, classified storage, medical aid
station, conference room, learning center, arms room, copier rooms, student
administrative area, student lounge, and computer room. Work also includes
space for general and applied instruction classrooms with team rooms, photo
laboratory and classroom storage. An emergency generator, secure
communications system, automatic fire suppression system, and a water
detection alarm system are required. Install an Instrusion Detection System
(IDS). Connect Energy Monitoring and Control System (EMCS). An uninterrupted
power system is required to accommodate the main computer, telephone and
security systems. Humidity and temperature controls will be provided.
Supporting facilities include utilities, electric service, fire protection,
and alarm systems, paving, walks, curbs and gutters, parking, storm drainage,
F-curity lighting and fencing with controlled access, access roads,
.ormation systems, and site improvements. Access for the handicapped will be
provided. Heating will be provided by a dual-fired system. Air-conditioning
(127 tons) will be provided by a self-contained unit. Provide comprehensive
 76

95 44499 W REVISION DATE: 26 OCT 1994

ARMY BCA (AS OF 10/26/1994 AT 14:30:32) 10 JUN 1994
LAF=l.03
fert Belvoir
Virginia

Ops & Training Facility, 300 Area 44499

9. COST ESTIMATES (CONTINUED)

Unit Cost
Item U/M QTY COST ($000)

PRIMARY FACILITY (CONTINUED) 428

EMCS Installation LS .... (6)
Building Information Systems LS ... (422)

Description of Proposed Construction: (Continued)

building and furnishings related interior design services.

11. REQUIREMENT: NONE ADEQUATE: NONE SUBSTANDARD: NONE

PROJECT:
Construct an operations and training facility. (New Mission)

REQUIREMENT:
is project is required to provide administrative, training, and special
rpose space for US Army Operations Security Evaluation Group (OSEG). OSEG
evaluates the security systems of Department of Defense (DOD) facilities and
other sensitive facilities worldwide. OSEG is currently stationed at Vint Hill
Farms Station, Virginia, occupying substandard facilities. Vint Hill Farms
Station has been identified for closure under Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) 93 decision. OSEG is scheduled to relocate to Fort Meade under that
BRAC 93 decision, but desires to relocate to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. There are
no permanent facilities available at Fort Belvoir in which to relocate this
activity.

CURRENT SITUATION:
This activity is currently located at Vint Hill Farms Station, Virginia. Vint
Hill Farms Station has been identifed for closure under the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) 93 decision. OSEG is scheduled to relocate to Fort Meade
under this BRAC 93 decision but desires to relocate to Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
where their Headquarters Command is located. The current OSEG facilities
complex at Vint Hill Farms Station is classified as a restricted site. At the
present time the unit occupies ten trailers and two permanent buildings. While
the permanent buildings are in relatively good condition, the trailers have
deteriorated. Vint Hill Farms Station engineers have classified them as
uneconomically repairable.

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED:

If this project is not provided, this activity will not be located near their
"adquarters Command. Adequate facilities will not be available at either Fort
ade or Fort Belvoir to accomodate the relocation of the OSEG under BRAC 93
 77

95 44499 W REVISION DATE: 26 OCT 1994

ARMY BCA (AS OF 10/26/1994 AT 14:30:32) 10 JUN 1994
LAF=l.03
1,t Belvoir
Virginia

Ops & Training Facility, 300 Area 44499

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: (Continued)

decision.

ADDITIONAL:
This project has been coordinated with the installation physical security
plan, and all required physical security and/or combatting terrorism (CBT/T)
measures are included. This project complies with the scope and design
criteria of DOD 4270.1-M. Construction Criteria, that were in effect 1 January
1987. as implemented by the Army's Architectural and Engineering Instructions
(AEI), Design Criteria, dated 9 December 1991 and all subsequent revisions.

Peter J. Geloso
COL, EN
Garrison Commander

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION START: NOV 1995 INDEX: 1986

ESTIMATED MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION: JUN 1996 INDEX: 2015
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: FEB 1997 INDEX: 2056
 76

95 44499 W REVISION DATE: 26 OCT 1994

ARMY BCA (AS OF 10/26/1994 AT 14:30:32) 10 JUN 1994
LAF=1.03
turt Belvoir
Virginia

Ops & Training Facility, 300 Area 44499

Unit Cost
U/M Qty Cost ($000)

2.A PRIMARY FACILITY.

2.A1 GENERAL.
1.0) 61050 Administration SF 13,675 93.69 (1,281)
2.0) 17120 Classroom SF 4.125 99.86 (412)
3.0) 14184 Special Purpose SF 16,633 101.47 (1.688)
4.0) 81190 Emergency Generator KW 50 574.43 (29)
5.0) 88040 Intrusion Detection System LS -- -- t21)
6.0) 88090 EMCS Installation LS -- (6)

2.A2. INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

1.0) 80800 Building Information Systems LS (422)

2.B SUPPORTING FACILITIES.

2.B1 Electric Service LS ..-- (60)

1) 500 MCM Direct Burial LF 600 37.74 23
2) Dist Trsfmr Pad Mtd KV 500 45.90 23
3) Street Lighting LF 600 24.11 14
4) Manholes EA 2 33.17 0
2.B2 Water, Sewer, Gas LS ..-- (35;
1) 8 inch RPVC, Water LF 600 37.43 22
2) 6 Inch VCP, Sewer LF 400 19.89 8
3) Sanitary Sewer Manhole EA 3 303.11 1
4) Fire Hydrant EA 2 2,088 4
2.B4 Paving, Walks. Curbs And Gutters LS -- -- (169;
1) A/C Surface, 1-1/2 Inch SY 7,800 6.97 34
2) Base Course, Unclass, 8 inch SY 8,000 5.80 46
3) Subbase Course, Unclass, 6 inch SY 8.200 2.79 23
4) Curb & Gutter, 6 in x 18 in LF 2,500 16.59 41
5) Sidewalks SF 1,400 2.89 4
2.B5 Storm Drainage LS -- -- (80
1) 12 Inch RCP LF 900 26.68 24
2) 18 Inch RCP LF 400 36.11 14
3) Drop Inlets EA 5 1,270 6
4) Headwalls EA 2 1,073 2
5) Stormwater Management Pond SY 400 81.60 33
2.B6 Site Improvement/Demolition LS -- -- (185
1) Site Clearing AC 4 3.372 13
2) Haul & Spread CY 4,000 17.65 71
3) Grading, Rough SY 14,500 4.83 70
4) Grading, Fine SY 2,650 1.17 3
5) Grass Seeding SY 3,200 .84 3
 79
95 44499 W REVISION DATE: 26 OCT 1994
ARMY BCA (AS OF 10/26/1994 AT 14:30:32) 10 JUN 1994
LAF=1.03
.- rt Belvoir
Virginia

Ops & Training Facility. 300 Area 44499

Unit Cost
U/M Qty Cost ($000)

Landscaping LS .... 25
6)
Information Systems LS .... (28)
2.B7
1) 80800 Information Systems LS .... 28
 80

IOA-