Showing posts with label features-to-benefits analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label features-to-benefits analysis. Show all posts

18 May 2015

How to become a great salesperson

(photo of apartments - photo courtesy of Roy Googin/wikipedia)
photo of big city apartments
photo courtesy of Roy Googin / wikipedia
Last week while apartment hunting with our newly graduated son, I got to meet one of the best sales people I ever met. I'll call her Brittany.

The challenge was this the apartments she had ready for instant move-in were the unites that had two bedrooms and cost about $100 a month more than the one bedroom our son had budgeted.

While he hesitated, Brittany chatted with us about the graduation, our son's new job, and how often we would visit him. Then she struck:

"If he had a two bedroom apartment, you could stay with him!"

Immediately, I did the mental math of our 5-day graduation visit: $150/night for a hotel, $100/day for three meals for two people, etc. If we visited twice per year for five days, our hotel and meal cost would be more than double the difference between a one- and two-bedroom apartment.

Why doesn't he get the two-bedroom and we pay the extra $100/month. A definite win-win!

This is what good sales people do, and why they are so valuable on a QFD team. Brittany was able to quickly translate the feature of "two-bedroom" into the customer need of "parents can visit cheaply."


11 November 2014

New Kano Model for better design decisions and hidden market opportunities



Many people wrongly assume that so-called Kano model (diagram on the right) describes the relationship between customer needs, fulfillment of product features, and satisfaction.

The1984 research, "Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality" by N. Seraku, F. Takahashi, and N. Kano, Ph.D.,  measured satisfaction merely against the existence or absence of a feature. It did not and does not address customer needs.

Additionally, the Kano categories came from customer survey responding to inverse-paired questions. They were not and are not assigned by product engineers or producers.

The most serious error that people often make is the misleading "curved-arrow" that is often cited as shown in the above diagram. The inverse-paired question yields only two data points:  the "if" and the "if not". You can only draw a line (= linear) with two data points. It takes three data points to inscribe a curve!  This is why Glenn Mazur (QFD Institute), who translated Kano's original Japanese paper into English over two decades ago, wonders how many people who cite the Kano model actually read their study.

New Kano Model, www.qfdi.org/symposium.htmlThis problems was addressed by Mr. Harold Ross, a now retired General Motors engineer and a director of the QFD Institute. He called this the New Kano Model, which adds the necessary questions to draw the "curve" and use it to reveal hidden market segments and extrapolate better design decisions.

Using the Modern QFD tools that are taught in the QFD Black Belt® course, you can then identify the invisible, moving target of customer satisfaction that the original Kano model does not address.

This new methodology will be presented at the 26th Symposium on QFD, December 5, 2014 in Charleston, South Carolina USA. It will include implementation examples of automotive industry, development of marketing and advertising content, as well as identifying clearer performance targets for each customer segment.

Everyone is welcomed at this symposium, regardless of your QFD knowledge.
Here is how to attend.





27 November 2012

QFD at Holiday Time

The holiday season is a great time to sharpen our QFD skills. Here are some techniques that might make the celebrations and shopping a little easier.
photo - holiday gift shopping
  • Gift shopping for someone? Instead of asking them what your should buy (a solution), try asking for what they need (what difficulties do they have at work or home, what opportunities do they wish for, how would they like others to see them)? This helps us practice the Customer Voice table where we translate VOC into true needs.
  • Hard to choose among several options for a gift, a restaurant, or a party to attend? Practice your alternative selection technique.
  1. First list your options.
  2. Write down what is attractive about each option, and what is unattractive about each option. Convert unattractive statements into positive ones. For example, this restaurant is "too far away" becomes "nearby." These are your judgment criteria.
  3. Prioritize the judgment criteria. For emotional decisions, AHP's pairwise decision making is a great way to work through them.
  4. The highest priority judgment criteria will drive your decision. Look at which option best fulfills them. Feel comfortable that you made the best choice possible given all the wonderful options.
photo - holiday party options
  1. Define your dilemma using the Engineering Parameters in Table 2 in the above link. For example, I am invited to two parties at the same time – my best friend and my in-laws. One contradiction is improve EP 26 Amount of Substance (I want to improve my pleasure for the afternoon) without the undesired result of EP 13 Stability of Object (I don't want my marriage to become unstable).
  2. Look up the pair in the Table of Contradictions to find Inventive Principles 15, 2, 17, 40. Let's see what solutions we can invent.

    IP 15. Dynamicity.
  1. Make an object or its environment automatically adjust for optimal performance at each stage of operation. Have the meal at your in-laws (so you can compliment her cooking) and dessert at your friends (so you can stay late).
  2. Divide an object into elements which can change position relative to each other. Same as above, but decide that day where to go first.
  3. If an object is immovable, make it movable or interchangeable. E-mail your suggestions to qfdi@qfdi.org

    IP 2. Extraction.
  1. Extract (remove or separate) a "disturbing" part or property from an object.
  2. Extract only the necessary part or property. Exchange gifts, have a drink at the in-laws and then see your friends.

    IP 17. Move to a new dimension.
  1. Remove problems with moving an object in a line by two-dimensional movement (i.e. along a plane). Invite in-laws and friends to your house, instead. Have one party upstairs and the other downstairs.
  2. Use a multi-layered assembly of objects instead of a single layer. Add pleasure to visiting your in-laws by inviting your friends to come with you. Or, have lunch with in-laws and dinner with friends.
  3. Incline the object or turn it on its side. E-mail your suggestions to qfdi@qfdi.org

IP 40. Composite materials.
  • Replace a homogeneous material with a composite one. Take two cars, and divide the family up so each can stay as long as they want at either party.

 

25 July 2012

When executive solutions become design constraints #2 – The case of Sweden's 17th century warship Vasa

In my last blog, I related the case of the boss who did not listen, and actively discouraged the advice of the very specialists he hired. An historical, but famous example of this recently came to my attention.

In a recent onboard flight magazine, I came across an article recommending things to do in Stockholm. Among the list was the Vasa Museum. I remember visiting it on one of my earliest QFD trips to this beautiful Scandinavian country. It was impressive to see the fully intact 135 foot wooden warship from the 17th century despite it being lost under water for over 300 years.

From my QFD perspective, the ship’s history offered interesting insight to the management style problem discussed in “The unreasonable boss - when executive solutions become design constraints.”  
photo of Vasa, the legendary 17th century Swedish warship
Vasa, fully intact 17th century Swedish warship
(photo - wikipedia)
Vasa was commissioned by King Gustavus Adolphus (1594–1632) to flag the nation’s largest and most powerful naval force at the time. But immediately after leaving the dock on its maiden voyage in 1628, the ship sank in the Baltic Sea.

Why? Too many design changes as after-thoughts, lack of specifications and documentation detailing the ongoing design changes and modifications, unclear division of responsibility, unrealistic schedule demand, the project mission that got blurred by those changes, and stunted communication between the customer (king), producer (shipwright and builder), and operator (naval officers in charge of testing and navigation).




In particular, the changes that the king ordered after the timbers had been cut to size and the ship’s keel had been laid exacerbated the ship’s instability and ballast deficiency. Other late changes also shifted the project mission unwittingly.

For example, adding the second gun deck (after learning Denmark was building such a design) not only increased the weight burden (too many cannons) but also changed the main objectives of naval war tactics (from crippling the enemy ship with firing volleys from one deck and taking over onboard to capsizing the enemy ship by broadside firing from two decks).
image of Vasa stern model, photo by Peter Isotalo / Wikipedia
decorated stern model of Vasa
(photo - wikipedia / Peter Isotalo)

In those days it was customary for warships to have ornate decorations that glorified the king. Again, many more sculptures were added on Vasa than its original design. Each measuring 10 feet long, you can imagine how heavy 500 sculptures were to the 135 foot ship.

None of the workers and subordinates had the courage to reveal these structural problems to the king, who had issued a threat against anyone causing schedule delay.

As we discussed in our previous post, Modern Blitz QFD® tools can help analyze and offer solutions to these scenarios.

Readers, can you follow the process described in that post and do your own analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the king’s orders for the Vasa project?  Please share your analysis and questions with us in the comments.


20 July 2012

The unreasonable boss - when executive solutions become design constraints

An acquaintance of mine recently complained that her new boss just didn't listen. She was recently hired by a large sports wear chain to manage their social media and promotional events in advance of their entering new markets and attracting new customer segments.

The owner, it seemed, was so attached to his ideas of how to promote because of his past successes that he could not comprehend that the new customers he wished to attract needed to be approached differently. His most recent demand was that because his children liked popcorn, he told the marketing team to rent an old-fashion popcorn cart for the product booth at a street fair in 100°F weather.

image of an old fashioned popocorn machine (source: wikipedia)

What bothered my acquaintance most, however, was that her direct boss and other managers were afraid to challenge the owner's positions. Whatever he demanded, he got.

QFD has some solutions to such a scenario. Whether it is the boss or the customer, proposed solutions need to be translated back into functional requirements, and then into solution-independent needs, so that better solutions can be examined to achieve those needs.

In the sports wear store example, the popcorn is a solution to what problem or need? Can we analyze for the owner the advantages and disadvantages of popcorn.

For example:
Popcorn's aroma attracts attention. Functional requirement: Attract attention. Need: Our booth stands out in a crowded event. What other ways can we stand out on a hot day? How about misting fans? Handing out folding fans?
Popcorn is something kids love to eat. Functional requirement: Distract kids. Need: Keep kids entertained while mom looks at our sports wear. How else can we entertain kids on a hot day? How about water guns?
Popcorn from an old-fashioned cart shows we are traditional and have been here a long time, and will continue to be here a long time in the future. Functional requirements: Show we are your neighbors and a trusted part of your community. Need: We are a trusted place to shop. How else can we build trust in this new market segment? How about our brands, satisfaction guarantees, our current customers who are respected in the community?
Food sales require a city license, trained operators, food handling protocols. This is a constraint that makes it expensive and time consuming. Our focus is to sell sports wear, and the popcorn could be a distraction.
Popcorn oil can damage our sample products. Kids and adults eating the popcorn and then touching the products will leave fingerprints and stains that will make our samples unattractive and discourage potential shoppers. This is another negative.
If you have attended a QFD Green Belt® course, you remember that this solution-to-need translation is the job of the Customer Voice table and that the analysis of solution constraints is the job of the Maximum Value table.

Both are new tools  in Modern Blitz QFD®. These are core tools in the QFD Green Belt® Course offered in St. Augustine on October 21-November 1, 2012.