Preface

A collage of historical facts brings us to the realization that concerns about quality are present not only in the minds of top management when things go wrong but also in the minds of customers when they buy something and it does not work.

We begin the collage 20 years ago, with Wayne's (1982) proclamation in the New York Times of "management gospel gone wrong." Wayne quoted two Harvard professors, Hays and Abernathy, as saying, "You may have your eye on the wrong ball." In a discussion of the cost differential between American and Japanese companies, Wayne said that American business executives argue that the Japanese advantage is largely rooted in factors unique to Japan: lower labor costs, more automated and newer factories, strong government support, and a homogeneous culture.

The professors, though, argue differently, Wayne said. They claim that Japanese businesses are better because they pay attention to such basics as a clean workplace, preventive maintenance for machinery, a desire to make their production process error free, and an attitude that "thinks quality."

Other authors writing in the early 1980s made similar points. Blotnick (1982) wrote, "If it's American, it must be bad." The headline of an anonymous article in The Sentinel Star (1982) referred to "retailers relearning lesson of customer's always right." Ohmae (1982) wrote an article titled "Quality control circles: They work and don't work." Imai (1982) wrote that unless organizations control (eliminate) their waste, they would have problems. He identified waste as:

1. The waste of making too many units

2. The waste of waiting time at the machine

3. The waste of transporting units

4. The waste of processing itself

5. The waste of inventory

6. The waste of motion

7. The waste of making defective units

Imai pointed out some of Toyota's advantages, specifically its autonomation system. Autonomation means that the machine is equipped with human wisdom to stop automatically whenever something goes wrong with it.

Wight (1982) urged management to "learn to live with the truth." When Honda rolled out its first American-built car, Lewin (1982) wrote, "Japanese bosses ponder mysterious U.S. workers." Among other things, the Japanese wondered why Americans have so many lawyers , Lewin pointed out. Lohr (1983) wrote that "it's just wishful thinking to say that Japan cannot catch up software. That is what a lot of people were saying about semiconductor industry a few years ago and the auto industry a decade ago."

Holusha (1983) wrote of the "U.S. striving for efficiency." Serrin (1983) described a study that showed that the work ethic is " alive but neglected." Holloran (1983) wrote that an "army staff chief faults industry as producing defective materials."

Almost twenty years later, Zahary (2001) reported that Toyota strives to retain its benchmark status by continuing its focus on the Kaizen approach and genchi genbutso (go and see attitude). Winter (2001) wrote that GM is "now trying to show it understands importance of product." McElroy (2001) wrote, "Customers don't care how well your stock is performing. They do not care you are the lowest producer. They do not care you are the fastest to market. All they care about is the car they are buying. That is why it all comes down to product."

Morais (2001), quoting O'Connell (2000), claimed that over 100,000 focus groups were fielded in 1999, even though marketing and advertising professionals have mixed feelings about their value. Steel (1998 pp. 79 and 202 “205) expressed industry's ambivalence about focus groups. Among other things, he claimed that they are not very representative at all. The odd thing about focus groups is that we still use them to predict the sales potential of new products primarily because of their instant judgments , non-projectable conclusions, and comparatively low costs, even though we know better ” that is, we know that we could do better by learning about consumers' product needs and attitudes and understanding their lives.

In the automotive industry, the evidence that something is wrong is abundantly clear, as Mayne et al. (2001) have reported. Here are some key points:

1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records showed more than 250 vehicle recalls as of mid-June 2001 ” well on pace to exceed the previous year's record 12-month total of 483. The 2000 total broke the previous high of 370 ” set in 1999 ” and shattered the next -highest mark of 328, set the year before.

2. Numbers of recalled vehicles have risen correspondingly ” 23.4 million in 2000, 19.2 million the previous year, and 17.2 million in 1998.

3. The number of vehicles snared by non-compliance recalls ” issued for failure to meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ” increased to 4.5 million in 2000. This represents a 61% hike compared to 1999's 2.8 million, and it is nearly three times the 1.6 million recorded in 1998.

4. A total of 18.9 million vehicles were recalled in 2000 because of safety-related defects. That is 81% of the overall recall total and a sharp increase compared to 1999 and 1998, when safety- related defects prompted recalls of 16.4 million and 15.6 million vehicles, respectively. Even more telling, perhaps, it is 9% more than the 17.3 million new light vehicles sold last year in the U.S.

5. A supplier executive, who wants to remain anonymous, bristles at the suggestion that quality problems fall at the feet of suppliers. He says quality has suffered because of the Big Three's relentless pursuit of cost reduction. He also suggests that buyers at the Big Three are evaluated primarily on the basis of cost savings rather than on the quality of the parts they procure . In the final analysis, "Americans build to print and specification, whereas Japanese build to function."

Powerful statements indeed, yet I could go on with examples involving home appliances, food, electronics, health devices, and many other types of products. However, the point is that the problems we are having are not new. The actions necessary to fix these problems are not new. What we need is a new commitment to pursue customer satisfaction and mean it. We must put quality in the design of all our products and services in such a way that the customer sees value in them. We must become like a philologist who believes that there is truth and falsehood in a comma. The pleasures of philology are such that by merely changing the placement of a comma, you can make sense out of nonsense ; you can claim a small victory over ignorance and error. So, we in quality must learn to persevere and learn as much as possible about the customer. We must make strides to identify what customers need, want, and expect and then provide them with that product or service.

We must do what the French philosopher Etienne Souriau observed : pour inventer il faut penser a cote . To invent, you must think aside ” that is, slightly askew. Or we must follow the lead of Emily Dickinson when she wrote, "My business is circumstances," and her readers understood the serendipity of ideas and the rewards of looking aside to see those ideas' unlikely , or at least less than obvious, connections.

This is the essence of Design for Six Sigma (DFSS). The upfront analysis and investigation of the customer is of paramount importance. So is trying to identify what is really needed (trade-off analysis) to make the difference. The DFSS approach is based on a systems overhaul and a new mindset to cure the ailments of organizations (profitability) and provide satisfaction to the customer (functionality and value). It is a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach, unlike the regular six sigma methodology. DFSS is a methodology that works for the future, rather than the present or past.

DFSS is a holistic system that is based on challenging the status quo and providing a product or a service that not only is accepted by the customer but is financially rewarding for the organization. To do this, of course, managers must take risks. They must allow their engineers to design robust designs ” and that means that the traditional Y = F(x) is not good enough. Now we must look for Y = F(x,n). In these equations, x is the traditional customer characteristic (cascaded to smaller and precise characteristics), but now we add the n, which is the noise. In other words, we must design our products and services in the presence of noise for maximum satisfaction.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. This suggests that the best way to know what is coming is to put yourself in charge of creating the situation you want. Be purposeful. Look at what is needed now, and set about doing it. Action works like a powerful drug to relieve feelings of fear, helplessness, anger, uncertainty, or depression. Mobilize yourself as well as the organization because you will be the primary architect of your future.

One of the keys to being successful in your efforts is to anticipate. Accept the past, focus on the future, and anticipate. Consider what is coming, what needs to happen, and how you can rise to the occasion. Stay loose. Remain flexible. Be light on your feet. Instead of changing with the times, make a habit of changing a little ahead of the times. This change can happen with Designing for Six Sigma and beyond. The only requirement is that we must take advantage of the future before we are ready for it. I am reminded of Flint's (2001), Visnic's (2001), and Mayne's (2001) comments, respectively. American automotive companies, for example, have abandoned the car market because they do not make money on cars. They forget that the Japanese companies not only sell cars but make money from them. So what does Detroit do to sell? It focuses on price ” rebates, discounts , 0% finance, lease subsidies, and so on. What does the competition do? Not only have they developed an engine/transmission with variable valve breathing , they are already using it. We are trying to perfect the five-speed, and the competition is installing six speeds; we talk about CVTs, and Audi is putting one in its new A4. We are focusing on 10 years and 150,000 miles reliability, and our competitors are pushing for 15 years and 200,000 miles reliability.

In diesel technology, the Europeans and Americans are worlds apart. Even in this age of globalization, the light duty diesel markets in Europe have become more sophisticated and demanding to the point where policy makers have recognized the environmental advantages of diesel and have allowed new diesel vehicles to prove themselves as efficient, quiet, and powerful alternatives. What do we do? Our policy makers have created a regulatory structure that greatly impedes the widespread use of diesel vehicles. Consequently, Americans may be denied the performance, fuel economy, and environmental benefits of advanced diesel technology.

A third example comes again from the automotive world in reference to fuel economy. One of the issues in fuel economy is the underbody design. Early on, American companies paid great attention to the design of the underbody. As time went on, the emphasis shifted to shapes that channel airflow over the bodywork, instead of what lies beneath . But while U.S. automakers were accustomed to being on top, BMW AG was redefining airflow from the ground up. Underbodies have been a priority with the Munich-based automaker since 1980. That is when BMW acquired its first wind tunnel and began development of the 1986 7-series ” code named E32. Today, underbodies rank second behind rear ends, wheel housing and cooling airflow. As of right now, the initiative for BMW has gained them 2 miles per hour .

When we talk about customer satisfaction we must do certain things that will help or improve the image of the organization in the perception of the customer. We are talking about prestige and reputation . Prestige and reputation differ from each other in three ways:

1. Reputation applies to individual products or services, while prestige is a characteristic of the organization as a whole.

2. Reputation can be measured on absolute scales , but prestige can only be judged in relative terms.

3. Prestige is judged relative to other organizations; reputation is not.

It is prestige that we are interested from a Design for Six Sigma perspective. The reason for this is that prestige compels each organization to perform better than its competitors, thereby promoting excellence and continuously raising industry standards not only for the customer but also for the competitors. To achieve prestige, we must be cognizant of some basic yet inherent items, including the following:

• Be ready to engage our customers in conversation every second of the day. In the digital age, this means having an interactive medium where people can tell you what they think about your brand and your product or service whenever they have an idea, a complaint, or a compliment, or when they just want to air some ideas with somebody who knows where you are going. Easy places to start are always- open discussion boards and focus groups. When you get more sophisticated, you can try regularly scheduled special events or special meetings. The best solution? Set up an Internet communication structure that lets you have a 24 — 7 open line of communication.

• Make customer relations a two-way street. Today's customers not only want to be heard , they want to respond. They want to engage you in conversation, brainstorming, and relationship building. To facilitate this, you may want to consider two-way communication into your Web site that provides means for real-time sharing of ideas, debate, and interaction. Another way to facilitate this is through moderated chat rooms or other more organized techniques. Online events and presentations allow you to show off new ideas or development to customers, then take questions in a moderated and controlled manner, across time zones and around the world. Online meetings allow you to have customers attend "by invitation only." Keys to success: make sure your communication is honest and credible and that the "idea flow" is going both ways. In today's world, an organization can design digital communication systems that can provide instant information. This system can be used to brainstorm, to test concepts and features, and more importantly, to consider trade-offs.

• Get your customers to help design your products and services. Most organizations ignore the best product and service designers and consultants ” people who know your product or service inside out and know intimately what the market needs, more often than not. They are your customers. They can tell you a lot more than just what is right and wrong with your current products. They can tell you what they really need in future products ” in functional terms.

• Let your customers get to know each other. Word of mouth is a concept that no one should ever underestimate in the Internet age. The power of conversation has the lightning-quick ability to create trends, fads, and brands. People talking to each other in a moderated environment and sharing unprompted, honest opinions about your brand of product or service remains the number one way for you to get new satisfied customers.

• Make your customers feel special. When you get down to it, we have been talking about delighting the customer for at least 20 years, but that is where we have stopped . We have forgotten that relationships with customers should not be any different from relationships you have with close friends . You need to keep in touch. You need to be honest. You need to tell people they matter to you. To facilitate this "special attitude," an organization may have special days for the customer, special product anniversaries and so on. However, in every special situation, representatives of the organization should be identifying new functionalities for new or pending products and shortcomings of the current products.

• Never try to "understand" your customer. (This is not a contradiction of the above points. Rather, it emphasizes the notion of change in expectations.) Customers are fickle. They change. As a consequence, the organization must be vigilant in tracking the changes, the wants, and the expectations of customers. To make sure that customers are being satisfied and that they will continue to be loyal to your products and services, make sure you have a system that allows you to listen, listen, and then listen some more to what they have to say.

• Shrink the globe. The world is shrinking. It has become commonplace to discuss the information revolution in terms of the creation of "global markets." To "think global" is in vogue with the majority of large corporations. But global thinking presupposes that we also understand the "global customer." Do we really understand? Or do we merely think we do? How do we treat all our customers as though they live right next door? One way, of course, is through a combination of modern communication technology and old-fashioned neighborliness. You need good, solid, two-way conversation with someone half a globe away that is as immediate, as powerful, and as intimate as a conversation with someone right in front of you. This obviously is difficult and demanding, and in the following chapters we are going to establish a flow of disciplines that perhaps can help us in formulating those "global customers" with their specific needs, wants, and expectations.

• Design for customer satisfaction and loyalty. Some time ago I heard a saying that is quite appropriate here. The saying goes something like "everything is in a state of flux, including the status quo." I happen to agree. Never in human history has so much change affected so many people in so many ways.

The winds of change keep building, blowing harder than ever, hitting more people, reshaping all kinds of organizations. Incredible as it may sound, all these changes are happening even in organizations that think that they have understood the customer and the market. To their surprise, they have not. How else can we explain some of the latest statistics that tell us the following:

1. Business failures topped 400,00 in the first half of the 1990s and exceeded 500,000 by the end of the decade. That is double the number of the previous decade. The same trend is projected for the first decade of the new century.

2. Eighty-five percent of all U.S. organizations now outsource services once performed in house.

3. More than three million layoffs have occurred in the last five years.

What can be done to reverse this trend? Well, some will ride the wind based only on their size , some will not make it, and some will make it. The ones that will make it must learn to operate under different conditions ” conditions that delight the customer with the service or the product that an organization is offering. The organization must learn to design services or products so that the customer will see value in them and cannot stand it until it has possession of either one . As the desire of the customer increases for the service or product, the demand for quality will increase.

Designing for six sigma is not a small thing, nor should it be a lighthearted undertaking. It is a very difficult road to follow, but the results are worthwhile.

The structure of this volume is straightforward and follows the pattern of the model of DFSS, which is Recognize, Define, Characterize, Optimize, and Verify (RDCOV). Specifically, with each stage of the model, we will explain some of the most important tools and methodologies.

Our introduction is the stage where we address the basic and fundamental characteristics of any DFSS program. It is our version of the Recognize step. Specifically, we address:

1. Partnering

2. Robust teams

3. Systems engineering

4. Advanced quality planning

We follow with the Define stage, where we discuss customer concerns by first explaining the notion of "function" and then continuing with three very important methodologies in the pursuit of satisfying the customer. Those methodologies are:

1. Kano model

2. Quality function deployment (QFD)

3. Conjoint analysis

We move into a discussion of "Best in class" by discussing benchmarking. We continue the discussion with advanced topics relating to design, specifically:

1. Monte Carlo

2. Finite element analysis

3. Excel's solver

4. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)

5. Reliability and R&M

6. DOE

7. Parameter design

8. Tolerance design

We continue with relatively short discussions of manufacturing topics, specifically:

1. Design for manufacturing/assembly (DFM/DFA)

2. Mistake proofing

Our discussion on miscellaneous topics is geared to enhance the overall design function and to sensitize readers to the fact that the pursuit of DFSS is a team orientation with many disciplines interwoven to produce the optimum design. Of course, we do not pretend to have exhaustively identified all methodologies and all tools, but we believe that we have identified the most critical ones. Specifically, we discuss:

1. Theory of constraints

2. Design review

3. Trade-off analysis

4. Cost of quality

5. Reengineering

6. GD&T

7. Metrology

We follow with a chapter on innovative methodologies in pursuing DFSS such as signal process flow, axiomatic designs, and TRIZ, and then we return to classic discussions on value analysis, project management, an overview of mathematical concepts for reliability, and Taylor's theorem and financial concepts.

We conclude our discussion of Design for Six Sigma and Beyond with a formal summary in a matrix format of all the tools used, following the model of DCOV:

1. Define

2. Characterize

3. Optimize

4. Verify

REFERENCES

Anon., Retailers Relearning Lesson of Customer's Always Right, The Sentinel Star , Jan. 17, 1982 , p. 4.

Blotnick, S., If It's American, It Must Be Bad, Forbes , Feb. 1, 1982 , p. 146.

Flint, J., Where's the Cars? You Can Make Money on Cars If You Really Want To, Ward's AUTOWORLD , Sept. 2001 , p .21.

Halloran, R., Chief of Army Assails Industry on Arms Flaw, The New York Times , Aug. 9, 1983 , p. 1.

Holusha, J., Why G.M. Needs Toyota: U.S. Striving for Efficiency, The New York Times , Feb. 16, 1983 , p. 1 (of business section).

Imai, M., From Taylor to Ford to Toyota: Kanban System ” Another Challenge from Japan, The Japan Economic Journal , Mar. 30, 1982 , p. 12.

Lewin, T., Japanese Bosses Ponder Mysterious U.S. Workers, The New York Times , Nov. 7, 1982 , p. 2 (of business section).

Lohr, S., Japan's Hard Look at Software, The New York Times , Jan. 9, 1983 , p. 3 (of business section).

Mayne, E., Bottoms Up! Fuel Economy Pressure Underscores Underbody Debate. Ward's AUTOWORLD , Sept. 2001 , p. 58.

Mayne, E. et al., Quality Crunch, Ward's AUTOWORLD , July 2001 , p. 14.

McElroy, J., Rendezvous captures consumer interest, Wards AUTOWORLD , Jan. 2001 , p. 12.

Morais, R., The End of Focus Groups, Quirk's Marketing Research Review , May 2001 , p. 154.

O'Connell, V., advertising column, Wall Street Journal , Nov. 27, 2000 , p. B21.

Ohmae, K., Quality Control Circles: They Work and Don't Work, The Wall Street Journal , Mar. 29, 1982 , p. 2.

Serrin, W., Study Says Work Ethic Is Alive But Neglected, The New York Times , Sept. 5, 1983 , p. 4.

Steel, J., Truth, Lies and Advertising , Wiley, New York, 1998 .

Visnic, B., Super Diesel! Anyone in the Industry Will Tell You: Forget Hybrids; Diesels Are Our One Stop Cure All, Ward's AUTOWORLD , Sept. 2001 , p. 34.

Wayne, L., Management Gospel Gone Wrong, The New York Times , May 30, 1982 , p. 1 (of business section).

Wight, O.W., Learning To Tell the Truth, Purchasing , May 13, 1982 , p. 5.

Winter, D., One last speed, Wards AUTOWORLD , July 2001 , p. 9.

Zachary, K., Toyota Strives To Retain Its Benchmark Status, Supplement to Ward's AUTOWORLD , Aug. 6 “10, 2001 , p. 11.