Bonehead specs are not customer needs

An automotive customer may demand these things from its vendor, for example:

• Performance level or specifications
• Features or functions
• Specific hardware or methods
• Complaint solutions or failure mode prevention
• Lower prices, etc.

In concept, the product performance, features, and methods outlined by the automaker may seem exciting. But sometimes satisfying these requirements still fails to satisfy the end customers (consumers).

Similarly, customers may express desires for such things as speed, engine power, braking performance, roomy interior, and so forth for a new car. Often these requirements show up in customer surveys, focus groups, various marketing research and even in consumer magazines.

The problem is that what you get from these stated requirements are specifications, not "customer needs." People often confuse the two. The distinction is critical for successful new product development.

"The stated customer wants are only a starting point in design. What they said they want is the best guesstimate of what they think the producer could deliver," says Glenn Mazur, executive director of the QFD Institute. "In New Product Development (NPD), the goal should be creating the future experience and value for the customers."

This is how to better-understand this:


The relationship between the customer needs and what customers tell you is similar to a fishbone diagram, with needs representing the "head" or a desired effect, and the specifications, functions, components, materials, etc. representing the "bones" or causal factors.

Customers are experts in "heads" and producers are experts in "bones." When customers give your bones instead of heads, you get "bonehead specs" ☺ where the customer mistakenly thinks their stated specs will meet their unstated needs. Then. when the product is delivered, it fails to fit their use, and they scream.

In the above automotive industry example,
Classical QFD using a 4-phase model and House of Quality matrix would lump all of the customer-stated requirements together and attempt to prioritize the results.  When you approach NPD that way, price and complaint issues dominate, and innovative product development gets inhibited.

Modern QFD, on the contrary, has specific tools for these:

• Identify what are product features and specs vs. what are customer needs
• Uncover 'unstated' customer needs
• Identify the unknown unknowns
• Determine what are 'true' customer needs (the foundation for highly competitive products)
• Set the needs priorities correctly

Modern QFD tools are strongest where you want to make a difference by widening the gap between merely meeting product specifications vs. satisfying the customer.

To truly build the "true customer needs" and innovation in your New Product Development, rather than the same old fixes of complaints and cost-pinching, we invite you to come learn the Modern QFD in the next public courses.

This advice also applies to those who have been doing Classical QFD for many years or learned the old QFD from books.

Big Soda and Obesity Fishbone Analysis

New York City mayor Bloomberg made headlines recently by proposing a ban on the sale of sugary soda that is larger than 16 ounces (473 milliliters). He explained it as “a way to fight obesity in a city that spends billions of dollars every year on weight-related health problems.”

The mayor’s proposal is stirring up a myriad of debates, from anti-junk food / sugary drink movement, freedom of choice, food stamp, school lunch program, political motive to healthcare cost management, universal health care, and legislative legality. “What’s next on the list? Large slices of pizza? Double-scoop ice cream cones? Tubs of movie-theater popcorn? The 16-ounce strip steak?” asked a newspaper.

Well, obesity is a national problem. According to the CDC, an estimated 30 percent of U.S. adults (over 60 million people) can be classified as obese. One study said that obesity adds $190 billion in the nation’s health cost [msnbc.com 4/30/2012].

We applaud the mayor’s good intentions and willingness to tackle the obesity problem. But obesity has so many causes. Is the oversized sugary soda the major one?

So here we‘ve tried a simple quality tool, a fishbone diagram.

What comes next is further studies to determine which cause has the high contribution to obesity and what would be the most effective and efficient solutions to address this cause.

But until the mayor can prove that an oversized sugary soda indeed has the highest contribution, the proposed soda ban may only have a minimal effect on the war against obesity.