QFD for cloud computing security, e-learning systems, service industry, FMEA, VOC codification

This continues a preview of the upcoming The 19th International Symposium on QFD (ISQFD) on September 6-7 in Santa Fe, New Mexico USA.

The 2-day symposium welcomes people of all levels QFD, from the beginner to the experienced, people of countries and industries. It is complimentary to the attendees of QFD Green Belt^® Certificate Course and QFD Black Belt^® Certificate Course  We hope you will join us!

See the previous posts:

• QFD for public transportation, software development, eco-friendly supply chain 

• QFD for modular design, value creation, business development, organic products development

---

QFD and Requirements Prioritization: A Survey on Security Requirements for Cloud Computing

Prioritization is an essential task within QFD, and QFD is highly suitable for the development of Cloud Computing (CC) applications where non-functional requirements play a main role. Many of them are security requirements, often the main concern for CC investments. This paper introduces the usage of QFD for Cloud Computing (CC). In this research, CC security requirements were prioritized by pairwise comparison, showing that not all security requirements are equally important. With this finding, the appropriate usage of QFD for CC development will be discussed.

Keywords: QQFD, Requirements Prioritization, Security Requirements, Cloud Computing, GERMANY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Improving a Learning Management System based on QFD and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

This paper reports how to improve web-based Learning Management Systems (LMS) through integration of the elements of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
The users of an LMS are typically invisible to the systems developers and administrators, However, understanding the user needs has high priority in any networked learning systems, in order to develop and implement effective virtual learning services that meet diverse expectations of the users. An example will be presented based on a Turkish platformed LMS.

Keywords: Learning Management System, Service, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), QFD (Quality Function Deployment), TURKEY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Study of Service Quality Improvement Using the Theories of Nonverbal Communication, FMEA and QFD

Study of service industry presents unique challenges because of soft issue measurements such as quality evaluation and service quality.
With this in mind, the authors propose a quality improvement process specifically for service industry. The presentation will include a case study using non-verbal communication, FMEA, and QFD.

Keywords: Service Quality Improvement, QC story, QFD, JAPAN

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Statistical Engineering Approach to Codifying the Voice of the Customer

Virtually all design projects involve the collection/processing of the Voice of the Customer to develop a set of requirements to which the producer designs their process/product.Approaches to efficiently and effectively deriving those requirements involve multiple techniques from the fields of market research, quality engineering, design engineering, and inferential statistics. This paper proposes a way to create a logical flow for the Voice of the Customer processing by codifying a series of tools into a linear statistical engineering road-map, and thereby more efficiently populating the House of Quality matrix that uses the "whats" (functions) and "hows" (functional requirements) approach. The exposition is supplemented with a lucid hypothetical example.

Keywords: Voice of Customer, Function Analysis, Kano classification, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Function Requirements, Specifications, Quality Function Deployment, USA

---

View more papers & presentations

QFD Courses at this symposium

How to Attend

Laundry detergent pods mistaken for toys as well as candy

In a recent blog "Design for Safety? The dirty laundry of NPD!", I wrote how dangerous the new laundry detergent pods are for small children because they look like colorful jelly candy and are packaged in clear "candy jar" container that is a magnet for a child's attention.

I thought the problem was limited to children ingesting them, but now there are more safety modes to consider.

In a new story on this news video, it seems that just squeezing the pouches like a balloon can cause them to spray out on the child's face and eyes. The pouch's outer skin is thin for easy dissolving in water, and the concentrated chemicals (one small pouch replaces a cup of standard detergent) are so caustic that they can immediately begin burning the lining of the eyes.

While the manufacturers are busy describing the cautionary language on the packaging (which pre-school toddlers can't read), parents are having to choose between laundry convenience and their children's eyesight.

For those of us concerned with product and packaging design, I again urge a safety mode and effects analysis akin to FMEA ((Failure Modes and Effects Analysis). Sure, we can blame the customer, but that does not build business and trusting relationships. As companies go global with their products, we have to consider the context not only of our familiar homes, but the different use modes and environments of the global customers to whom we wish to sell.


PS: You may also need a better RPN calculation when designing for a black swan event. See "How To Handle VOC Issues — Lessons from Japan crisis: Anticipating Improbables with Irreversible Consequences"

How To Handle VOC Issues — Lessons from Japan crisis: Anticipating Improbables with Irreversible Consequences

This is a QFDI newsletter from April 2011, discussing the danger of using ordinal scale math in FMEA, namely for computing risk priority number (RPN) for assessing black swan events. The topic is too important that we thought to share it again for those who missed it.

---

"The role of Quality in Fukushima nuclear crisis"

1. Centralized consensus vs. triage leadership in disaster preparedness and decision making.

One of the tenets of quality management is "Plan-Do-Check-Act." We find that when the planning has been done properly and consensus built among constituents, most processes will fulfill requirements, and the Check-Act serves to fine tune the process. In Japan, this consensus building is called "ne-mawashi" or going around the roots of a tree before transplanting it to make sure everything is ok.

While TQM experts praise consensus as good for planning, there is a downside that Dr. Deming warned about in chapter 6 of his book The New Economics. That is — "with shared responsibility, no one is responsible." Thus, ne-mawashi can lead to finger pointing and blame instead of collaboration, as well as increased murkiness in accountability and delay in critical actions.

2. This raises these quality questions:

(a) In a disaster, do we go back to Plan or do we go directly to Do-Check-Act (sometimes called Do-Redo) at the local level?

'Planning' may require subject matter experts who may not be optimally located since the exact location of the disaster may be unknown until after it occurs, and time which may be limited by threat to life or subsequent failures in other systems.

Also, in terms of 'planning' resources, are the same resources being competed for various emergency operations (such as fire, police, medical), or should different resources be planned? From a time perspective, should the priority be given to allocating the resources to take care of those who are still alive and need immediate assistance, or should the resources be expedited first to cooling nuclear fuel to address the medium term risk to the life and livelihood of survivors?

In the case of Japan, were certain needs more urgent than others? Such as the need to verify the emergency level vs. the need to issue a quick evacuation order; the need to determine resources for disaster relief vs. the need to add resources to prevent a nuclear event, etc. And how should those priorities be made, by whom, and when? Should such priorities have changed the way the leaders approach the 'planning,' 'doing,' and 'checking'?

(b) In disaster preparedness, how has the extent of the disaster be predicted?

If the disaster falls within the predicted parameters, the planned response may be sufficient. If the disaster rises to unanticipated levels, however, as is the case in Japan, the response plan can easily become insufficient.

"Beyond expectation" was how virtually everyone — from Tokyo Electric Power Company (the operator of Fukushima power plant) to the government nuclear power regulators and safety commission— described the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Tohoku region, although retrospective review of historic data begins to hint otherwise.

The probability of a nuclear fatality was set in 2003 by the Japanese Nuclear Commission (JNC) to not exceed 1 × 10^-6 per year or about 1 in a million years. On the Japanese nuclear event, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan, cautions, that model error causes underestimation of small probabilities and their contribution (see his web site). This highly improbable event with massive consequences is what Taleb calls a "Black Swan."

(c) Is standard FMEA practice adequate for for a Black Swan event?

In FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) we try to account for this Black Swan by looking at not only frequency of occurrence, but also impact and detection. Assuming JNC's probability estimate for a nuclear fatality of 1 × 10^-6, the likelihood of a M9.0 earthquake at less than 1 per 100 years or 1 × 10^-2 (worst case prediction), and the likelihood of a 20 meter tsunami at less than 1 per 100 years or 1 × 10^-2 (worst case prediction), the probability of all three occurring simultaneously would be 1 × 10^-10, or 1 in 10,000,000,000 (one in ten billion).