ISO 16355-5:2017

Applications of statistical and related methods to new technology and product development process - Part 5: Solution strategy

ISO 16355-5:2017 describes the process of developing a solution strategy for new products. Since organizations can address their new product development process by a customer-driven or a technology-driven set of solutions, this document explains both alternatives. It provides recommendations on the use of the applicable tools and methods, offering guidance on translating the voice of the customer (VOC) and voice of the stakeholder (VOS) into product, service, information, and process attributes, transferring the priorities of the customer and stakeholder needs into priorities for these attributes, and then developing technology, cost, and reliability plans for attributes. Users of this document include all organization functions necessary to ensure customer satisfaction, including business planning, marketing, sales, research and development (R&D), engineering, information technology (IT), manufacturing, procurement, quality, production, service, packaging and logistics, support, testing, regulatory, and other phases in hardware, software, service, and system organizations.

Application des méthodes statistiques et des méthodes liées aux nouvelles technologies et de développement de produit — Partie 5: Stratégie de solution

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 15-Feb-2017
• ICS: 03.120.30 - Application of statistical methods
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 69/SC 8 - Application of statistical and related methodology for new technology and product development
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 69/SC 8/WG 2 - Transformation
• Current Stage: 9093 - International Standard confirmed
• Start Date: 25-Aug-2022
• Completion Date: 13-Dec-2025

Overview

ISO 16355-5:2017 - Part 5 of the ISO 16355 series - provides guidance for developing a solution strategy in new product and technology development. It explains both customer‑driven and technology‑driven approaches and recommends methods to translate the voice of the customer (VOC) and voice of the stakeholder (VOS) into concrete product, service, information and process attributes. The document is descriptive (best‑practice guidance), not prescriptive, and is intended to help organizations make traceable, prioritized decisions about technology, cost and reliability during development.

Key topics and technical content

• Quality Function Deployment (QFD) fundamentals and modern evolutions (classical, comprehensive, blitz, matrix‑of‑matrices).
• Translating VOC/VOS into engineering and business attributes and transferring priorities across information sets.
• Translation tools: maximum value tables, effect‑to‑cause diagrams, L‑matrices and the House of Quality.
• Methods for quantification and prioritization transfer (relationship weighting, row/column weighting, distribution methods).
• Deployment planning by dimensions (quality, technology, cost, reliability, lifestyle/emotional quality) and by levels (function, concept, parts, manufacturing/process, project tasks).
• Design optimization techniques and practical guidance for connecting requirements to technology and cost/reliability plans.
• Informative annexes (e.g., TRIZ theory) and cross‑references (including JIS Q 9025), plus bibliographic resources.

Practical applications and who should use it

ISO 16355-5 is aimed at any function involved in ensuring customer satisfaction across hardware, software, services and systems:

• Business planning, marketing, sales, R&D, engineering, IT
• Manufacturing, procurement, quality, production, service, logistics
• Regulatory, testing, support and program/project teams

Practical benefits include:

• Converting customer/stakeholder needs into prioritized, measurable product attributes
• Enabling cross‑functional decision making with traceable rationale
• Reducing rework and time‑to‑market through early alignment of technology, cost and reliability plans
• Improving product launch outcomes and lifecycle cost management

Related standards

• Part of the ISO 16355 series (see ISO 16355-1:2015 for introductory material and other parts for complementary guidance).
• Cross‑reference to JIS Q 9025 (informative).

Keywords: ISO 16355-5, solution strategy, QFD, voice of the customer, VOC, product development, L-matrix, house of quality, technology deployment, cost deployment, reliability deployment.

Standards Content (Sample)

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 16355-5
First edition
2017-02
Applications of statistical and related
methods to new technology and
product development process —
Part 5:
Solution strategy
Application des méthodes statistiques et des méthodes liées aux
nouvelles technologies et de développement de produit —
Partie 5: Stratégie de solution
Reference number
©
ISO 2017
© ISO 2017, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .v
Introduction .vi
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Management summary . 1
4.1 Basic concepts of QFD . 1
4.2 Evolving classical QFD into modern QFD . 2
4.2.1 General. 2
4.2.2 Classical QFD . 2
4.2.3 Comprehensive QFD . 2
4.2.4 Matrix of matrices . 3 ®
4.2.5 Modern Blitz QFD . 3
4.2.6 German QFD Institute model . 3
5 Integration of QFD and product development methods . 4
5.1 QFD support for product development methods . 4
5.2 Flow of solution development with QFD . 4
5.2.1 Organization of the QFD flow . 4
5.2.2 Flow charts of strategy and translation of VOC into engineering solutions
and cost planning . 4
6 Types of QFD projects . 4
7 QFD team membership . 4
7.1 QFD uses cross-functional teams . 4
7.2 Core team membership . 4
7.3 Subject matter experts . 4
7.4 QFD team leadership . 5
8 Seven management and planning tools . 5
9 Translation of one information set into another . 5
9.1 General . 5
9.2 Maximum value table . 6
9.2.1 General. 6
9.2.2 Effect-to-cause diagram . 6
9.2.3 Steps to make a maximum value table . 7
9.2.4 Modern QFD .10
9.3 L-matrices .10
9.3.1 General.10
9.3.2 Entering information into L-matrices .11
9.3.3 Determining effect-to-cause relationships in a QFD L-matrix.11
9.3.4 Linking matrices.11
9.3.5 Comprehensive QFD .12
9.3.6 House of quality .12
9.3.7 Knowledge management .17
10 Transfer of prioritization and quantification from one information set into another .17
10.1 General .17
10.2 Transfer of prioritization .18
10.2.1 Quantify strength of relationships in the matrix .18
10.2.2 Weight the rows .19
10.2.3 Calculate the column weights .20
10.2.4 Distribution methods .21
10.3 Transfer of quantification .24
10.3.1 General.24
10.3.2 Quantify row information .24
10.3.3 Use relationship weights to connect row quantification to
column quantification .25
10.3.4 Quantify column information .25
10.4 Transferring deployment sets by dimensions and levels .37
10.4.1 Deployment sets .37
10.4.2 Quality deployment .39
10.4.3 Technology deployment .44
10.4.4 Cost deployment .64
10.4.5 Reliability deployment.67
10.4.6 Lifestyle and emotional quality deployment .79
10.5 Transferring deployment sets by levels .79
10.5.1 General.79
10.5.2 Function deployment .79
10.5.3 New concept engineering and deployment .79
10.5.4 Parts deployment .79
10.5.5 Manufacturing and process deployments .79
10.5.6 Project work or task management .80
11 Design optimization .80
Annex A (informative) Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) .81
Annex B (informative) Cross-reference between ISO 16355 and JIS Q 9025:2003(e) .99
Bibliography .123
iv © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www .iso .org/ directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www .iso .org/ patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity assessment,
as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following URL: www . i so .org/ iso/ foreword .html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 69, Applications of statistical methods,
Subcommittee SC 8, Application of statistical and related methodology for new technology and product
development.
A list of all parts in the ISO 16355 series can be found on the ISO website.
Introduction
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a method to ensure customer or stakeholder satisfaction and
value with new and existing products by designing in, from different levels and different perspectives,
the requirements that are most important to the customer or stakeholder. These requirements can be
well understood through the use of quantitative and non-quantitative tools and methods to improve
confidence of the design and development phases that they are working on the right things. In addition
to satisfaction with the product, QFD improves the process by which new products are developed.
Reported results of using QFD include improved customer satisfaction with products at time of launch,
improved cross-functional communication, systematic and traceable design decisions, efficient use of
resources, reduced rework, reduced time-to-market, lower life cycle cost, improved reputation of the
organization among its customers or stakeholders.
This document demonstrates the dynamic nature of a customer-driven approach. Since its inception
in 1966, QFD has broadened and deepened its methods and tools to respond to the changing business
conditions of QFD users, their management, their customers, and their products. Those who have used
older QFD models can find these improvements make QFD easier and faster to use. The methods and
tools shown and referenced in the standard represent decades of improvements to QFD; the list is
neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Users can consider the applicable methods and tools as suggestions,
not requirements.
This document is descriptive and discusses current best practice, it is not prescriptive by requiring
specific tools and methods.
vi © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 16355-5:2017(E)
Applications of statistical and related methods to new
technology and product development process —
Part 5:
Solution strategy
1 Scope
This document describes the process of developing a solution strategy for new products. Since
organizations can address their new product development process by a customer-driven or a technology-
driven set of solutions, this document explains both alternatives. It provides recommendations on the
use of the applicable tools and methods, offering guidance on translating the voice of the customer
(VOC) and voice of the stakeholder (VOS) into product, service, information, and process attributes,
transferring the priorities of the customer and stakeholder needs into priorities for these attributes,
and then developing technology, cost, and reliability plans for attributes.
Users of this document include all organization functions necessary to ensure customer satisfaction,
including business planning, marketing, sales, research and development (R&D), engineering,
information technology (IT), manufacturing, procurement, quality, production, service, packaging and
logistics, support, testing, regulatory, and other phases in hardware, software, service, and system
organizations.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO 16355-1:2015, Applications of statistical and related methods to new technology and product
development process
3 Terms and definitions
For the purpose of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 16355-1 apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— IEC Electropedia: available at http:// www .electropedia .org/
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http:// www .iso .org/ obp
4 Management summary
4.1 Basic concepts of QFD
The basic concepts of QFD are referenced in ISO 16355-1:2015, Clause 4.
4.2 Evolving classical QFD into modern QFD
4.2.1 General
[3]
QFD was first systematized in Japan in 1966 for applications in the automotive industry. As new
industries and applications emerged, the method, tools, and flow of information evolved to address the
unique factors of each company. In recent years, the methods in 4.2.2 to 4.2.6 are most commonly used.
4.2.2 Classical QFD
Automotive component suppliers created a simplified flow that translated original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) specifications into component specifications and process requirements using a
series of four matrices, as follows:
a) customer requirements into product requirements;
b) product requirements into component requirements;
c) component requirements into manufacturing requirements;
d) manufacturing requirements into process requirements.
[16]
NOTE 1 Classical QFD is also called 4-phase QFD because of the four matrices used. These four matrices
are highlighted in yellow in Figure 3.
NOTE 2 The 4-phase QFD charts in this document and ISO/TR 16355-8 use improved mathematics and tighter
definitions to guide the user, resulting in faster implementation and more confident results.
4.2.3 Comprehensive QFD
The 4-phase QFD was readily adopted around the world for its simplicity and easy implementation. As
QFD gained popularity, other industries, including finished goods, services, software and information
systems, and processes struggled to make it fit their products and business models. This led adding
more tools and flows to create a more comprehensive approach. Comprehensive QFD ensures the
quality of new products by including market research to understand customer needs as referred to
in ISO 16355-2 and ISO 16355-4, translating customer needs into design quality targets, and then
deploying to innovation, cost, and reliability phases. It enables greater flexibility in application to a broad
variety of industries including aerospace, architecture, construction, electronics, materials processing,
[1][24]
services, and software. The many tools and information flows enable the user to select which ones
are applicable to their project. In Figure 3, the vertical deployments are quality, technology, cost, and
reliability. The horizontal deployments are customer, product, function, components, and build. The
purpose of this document and ISO/TR 16355-8 is to guide users in harnessing the full capabilities of
comprehensive QFD.
4.2.3.1 Quality deployment
10.4.2 describes how product-independent customer needs are translated into functional requirements
of the product, service, process, or information technology. Additionally, customer priorities and
satisfaction targets are transferred into functional requirement priorities and performance targets,
independent of the enabling technology. This technology independence allows for greater freedom
of design in technology deployment. Functional requirements are then deployed to components,
processes, and quality assurance.
4.2.3.2 Technology deployment
Either in response to unachievable product function and performance, or in engineering-driven
innovation, technology deployment matches systems and subsystems to assess how well they achieve
the prioritized functions and performance targets. This can trigger additional innovation efforts,
refinement of technology concepts regarding user experience and interface, redirection of technologies
2 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

to more appropriate markets and customers, and establish criteria for technology assessment and
selection, including costs. This is detailed in 10.4.3.
4.2.3.3 Cost deployment
As technologies are explored, the costs to develop and produce them must align with market price and
business financial requirements such as revenues and profits. Selling price targets drive product cost
targets which flow down to system, subsystem, component, and build cost targets. This flow down is
managed through the tables and matrices in cost deployment. Since costs are absolute and not relative,
the calculations in cost deployment matrices are more precise and are detailed in 10.4.4.
4.2.3.4 Reliability deployment
New technology increases risks related to many unknowns in actual customer usage, interactions with
other systems provided by other suppliers, new materials, new software, and others. Risk of unknown
failures can be, to some degree, forecasted based on known failures. Reliability deployment is detailed
in 10.4.5.
NOTE 1 The comprehensive QFD charts in this document use improved mathematics and tighter definitions to
guide the user, resulting in faster implementation and more confident results.
NOTE 2 Additional tools and methods have been added to comprehensive QFD such as strategic planning
and market segmentation (referred to in ISO 16355-2), voice of customer translation into customer needs and
improved mathematics (referred to in ISO 16355-4), and innovation and costing methods referred to in this
document in 10.4.3.4 and 10.4.4, respectively.
NOTE 3 According to the scope of the project, a subset of these deployments and their associated tools can
be required. Management awareness that such deployments exist helps improve their directives to product
development teams, monitor their process, in order to increase their confidence in the results.
4.2.4 Matrix of matrices
A version of the comprehensive QFD models was developed to make the matrices easier to follow
[28]
thought a systematic re-drawing of the information flows. It is called the matrix of matrices and
displays the charts independent of each other. It is referenced in the standard when applicable.
1) ®
4.2.5 Modern Blitz QFD
As modern businesses work to improve efficiency in a highly competitive global marketplace, the need
for speed in new product development has emerged as an important constraint on QFD. The resources
and time required for the classical and comprehensive approaches is not always feasible, and so a faster ®
approach was developed by the U.S. QFD Institute called Blitz QFD as shown in Figure 2. The idea is to
get the benefits of comprehensive QFD more quickly by focusing on only a small number of the highest
priority customer needs. The emphasis on high priority customer needs requires additional analyses to
ensure greater confidence in the prioritization process. Identifying high priority customers, semantic
analysis, and situation analysis is explained in ISO 16355-2. Identifying high priority customer needs is
explained in ISO 16355-4. Detailed design work is explained here in 9.2.
4.2.6 German QFD Institute model
This model includes several of the tools for market research, innovation, cost reduction, and reliability
in the updated comprehensive QFD added to the classical 4-phase QFD. Many users find this a middle
[19]
way through the other models. ®
1) Blitz QFD is an example of a suitable product available commercially. This information is given for the
convenience of users of this document and does not constitute an endorsement by ISO of this product.
5 Integration of QFD and product development methods
5.1 QFD support for product development methods
QFD support for product development methods is referenced in ISO 16355-1:2015, 5.1.
5.2 Flow of solution development with QFD
5.2.1 Organization of the QFD flow
The flow of QFD methods and tools can vary according to the organization and project requirements.
Typically, they begin with broad concerns and through prioritization flow down to specifics. Figure 3
shows the flow of product development from quality to technology to cost to reliability deployments.
5.2.2 Flow charts of strategy and translation of VOC into engineering solutions and cost
planning
The detailed flow charts are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These flow charts represent how the
various tools in this document link together as a standard operating procedure that can be applied to
individual projects. Not all tools are required on all projects. Custom tailoring of appropriate tools and
sequence are recommended.
6 Types of QFD projects
QFD projects can encompass new developments as well as generational improvements to existing
products. The types of QFD projects are referenced in ISO 16355-1:2015, Clause 6 and ISO 16355-4:2017,
Clause 6, notes.
NOTE QFD tools and sequence have evolved since the first studies in the 1960s in the automobile parts
industry that used simple diagrams and matrices to identify design elements and downstream manufacturing
details. When end-user products, non-manufactured products such as service and software, and business
processes began using QFD, additional tools were added to address human tasks, information, and other
complexities (see Figure 3). In more recent years, organizational resource constraints have led to a quicker
approach that addresses both complexity and speed (see Figure 2). It is consistent with quality methods in
general and with customer-driven methods like QFD in particular that the methods and tools evolve and adapt to
the ever-changing business environment of its practitioners, in order for them to remain viable and practicable.
This evolution is demonstrated in the bibliography of case studies.
7 QFD team membership
7.1 QFD uses cross-functional teams
Cross-functional teams are referenced in ISO 16355-1:2015, 7.1.
7.2 Core team membership
Core team membership is referenced in ISO 16355-1:2015, 7.2.
7.3 Subject matter experts
Subject matter experts involvement is referenced in ISO 16355-1:2015, 7.3.
NOTE The matrix relationships and quantifications can be determined by the QFD team with representatives
of customer-facing and technology-facing departments, such as marketing and operations or engineering. It is
becoming more common with technology products for customers and stakeholders to be invited to participate,
[18][20] [54]
often in multiple meetings as the products are iterated. This is called continuous or collaborative QFD.
4 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

7.4 QFD team leadership
QFD team leaders or moderators can be trained in the QFD tools and methods in order to effective lead
the QFD project. Additional tools, as identified in the appendices can be useful. Basic team facilitation
and moderation skills are recommended.
NOTE 1 The QFD team leader can take a position of being function-agnostic so as to remain neutral to any
business department or activity.
NOTE 2 Team membership and responsibilities can be indicated according to the development process and
functional departments and human resources. This can be detailed in a process map, supplier-input-process-
output-customer (SIPOC) steps and inputs, or a cause-and-effect L-matrix.
EXAMPLE Table 1 indicates the product development process in the rows and which departments or
resources have what level of responsibility to the project.
Table 1 — QFD team responsibility L-matrix
8 Seven management and planning tools
The use and purpose of the seven management and planning tools are referenced in ISO 16355-2:2017, 8.2.
9 Translation of one information set into another
9.1 General
QFD flows information sets through the various development and commercialization functions of
the organization and design dimensions. These flows are called deployments and often require the
language of one information set to be translated into another information set, or a single information set
broken down into more detail. This translation can be visually displayed to check for completeness and
accuracy, and can be mathematically quantified for complex information sets. The first transformation
is often from customer needs into product functional requirements, quality characteristics and
capabilities, and specification values. There are two approaches to doing this,
a) maximum value table, and
b) L-matrices.
9.2 Maximum value table
9.2.1 General
The maximum value table is used to show everything on the project that is most important to the
customers and stakeholders. It identifies where to apply best efforts to the tasks that are essential to
delivering value to customers. By doing so, maximum value to customers results from minimum efforts
by the QFD team.
9.2.2 Effect-to-cause diagram
Early QFD studies used an effect-to-cause diagram to show the relationship between product
[39]
attributes and customer needs. Product attributes cause a customer need to be fulfilled. For each
customer need, the QFD team can determine what product attributes, from development through
commercialization are essential to delivering quality and satisfaction.
NOTE 1 The traditional cause-and-effect diagram (also known as Ishikawa diagram or fishbone diagram) is
adapted in QFD to uncover the root causes of success rather than failure. It has two formats: cause-to-effect,
which is explained in ISO 16355-4, and effect-to-cause. Note that the arrows point from one effect to many causal
factors.
NOTE 2 The customer need is the effect. The names of causal bones and sub-bones depend upon the product.
Technical staff with sufficient product knowledge can be invited to the QFD team to help identify them.
NOTE 3 Target values sufficient to meet the customer need can be determined by experimentation and testing
as soon as possible.
NOTE 4 Each customer and stakeholder need can have a separate effect-to-cause diagram. Do high priority
customer and stakeholder needs first. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) can be used by customers and
[48][17]
stakeholders to prioritize their needs.
EXAMPLE Figure 1 is adapted from the first published QFD case study by Bridgestone Tire in 1966. It shows
that the desired effect of smooth ride can be positively caused by proper design of the tire characteristics of tire
trueness and sidewall strength, proper setting of the moulding process characteristics of pressure, time, and
accurate fit of the mould halves, and proper raw material handling storage humidity and rotating the materials
so that the oldest polymers are used first.
NOTE 5 The “head” of the fishbone diagram in QFD is oriented on the left side to indicate the flow of
information from left-to-right as will be seen in the maximum value table in 9.2.3. This change in orientation
better demonstrates the QFD matrix construction as a set of effect-to-cause diagrams with the heads becoming
the rows of the matrix and bones becoming the columns.
6 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

Figure 1 — Effect-to-cause diagram
9.2.3 Steps to make a maximum value table
The effect-to-cause diagram can be presented in a spreadsheet by putting the information into the
columns. This is called the maximum value table.
— Enter information regarding the customer such as segment, application and use modes, problem,
and other contexts that help the QFD team determine appropriate target values.
— Enter high priority customer and stakeholder needs. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) can be
[17][48]
used by customers and stakeholders to prioritize their needs.
NOTE 1 The number of needs to include depend upon the priorities of the needs as well as the project schedule,
budget, and available resources. The guideline is to analyse only those needs for which the project can take
action. Many projects can have only three to five high-priority needs.
— Identify the necessary design dimensions necessary to address the project. Make these separate
column headers.
— For each high priority customer or stakeholder need, enter into the appropriate column any
information, target values, tests to be done, and other relevant information as it becomes known.
The maximum value table grows as the project progresses end-to-end throughout the development
and realization process
— Indicate any special tasks related to this acquiring or acting on this information. Special tasks can
be protected from de-scoping by the project manager in cases of budget or schedule conflict, as they
are critical to addressing the most important customer or stakeholder needs.
EXAMPLE In Table 2, the highest priority customer need is my employees appreciate the benefits I provide
[17]
to them. To fulfill this need and ensure that downstream service activities are performed sufficiently, the
following must take place:
a) contract should show savings to employee of using insurance;
b) provider network (doctors and hospitals) should show their Blue Cross network is superior to care offered
by competing provider networks;
c) to communicate this, the sales broker or representative should explain exactly how the claims
mechanism works;
d) system should collect user feedback to ensure it works as promised;
e) system level design should report employee savings and comparisons to street (uninsured) fees.
NOTE 2 Customer needs are transformed into product functional requirements which can include capabilities
(technology-independent functions), quality and performance characteristics, and specification targets. In this
example, which focuses on communication of information to the employees, only the capabilities of show savings,
explain richness of benefits, and show employees how much employer paid are presented.
NOTE 3 The effort to develop and realize a solution strategy for the highest priority needs can consume the
available budget, schedule, and human resources. The maximum value table helps ensure the highest value
customer and stakeholder needs are addressed first and best. If available resources are consumed, this is
possibly all the QFD the team can perform. All other customer and stakeholder needs can then receive standard
engineering attention.
NOTE 4 QFD teams needing to address a larger set of customer and stakeholder needs can use an L-matrix
to analyse two design dimensions at a time. The maximum value table is useful in determining which design
dimensions warrant the L-matrix analysis.
NOTE 5 The maximum value table can be done early in the QFD study to analyse the solution to the most
important customer or stakeholder needs. Even if other tools such as L-matrices are employed later, doing the
maximum value table first can give the QFD team a head start on the critical needs.
NOTE 6 Maximum value tables from similar products or generations of products can be aggregated into
comprehensive QFD L-matrices. This spreads the time and effort over several projects, eventually yielding the
benefits of the deeper analysis of comprehensive QFD.
8 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

Table 2 — Maximum value table for health insurance company
Solution Design Implementation
Contract Operations
Broker/
Customer
Representa- Feedback
Provider Member
need
Benefits Claims
tive
network service
My em- Show savings Explain to em- Explain how  Assure Employee savings report information Expand PHR to
ployees to employ- ployees how benefits mecha- benefits are include billing
appreciate ee of using Blue Card and nism works working as comparison to
the benefits insurance BCBSF provid- promised and street rate.
I provide er netrowrk is useful.
them. superior
Explain Employee Explain to em- Employees Provide customer advocate/ombudsman
richness of does not have ployees indus- know they
benefits of- to change try averages have a conduit
fered through “critical” if employer is for feedback
BCBSF MD (pedia, above average
OBGYN) to
conform to
plan
Show employ- Explain net- Network savings report info
ees how much work savings
the employer
paid for their
benefits
Report to summarize employer payments
Validate in PHR that decisions were good
decisions (by staying in network/gener-
ics/etc.) or alternatives that would offer
better outcomes/savings
Provide tools to employees that recom-
mend plans based on current provider
selections.
Provide tools to show employees what
their costs would be for various benefit
plans based on their experience.

9.2.4 Modern QFD ®
The maximum value table can be used with other modern Blitz QFD tools for analysing the voice of the
customer and voice of the stakeholder. Guidance for the semantic analysis and situation analysis phases
is explained in ISO 16355-2 and guidance for the goal analysis phase is explained in ISO 16355-4. The
[35][57]
maximum value table is in the project strategy phase at the right in Figure 2 and is positioned
between the prior steps and the L-matrices used in comprehensive QFD. ®
Figure 2 — Modern Blitz QFD flow
9.3 L-matrices
9.3.1 General
The seven management and planning tools include several types of matrices. The most common matrix
in QFD is the L-matrix which is used to examine two dimensions of information. L-matrices can be used
10 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved

to examine goals and the means to achieve them, responsibilities, and relationships. The most common
L-matrix in QFD is used to examine effect-to-cause relationships.
9.3.2 Entering information into L-matrices
When the row and column information sets are large, they can be organized with the affinity diagram
and hierarchy diagram. Most common are three to four levels of primary, secondary, tertiary, and
quaternary levels of abstraction. When building an L-matrix, the level of abstraction of the row can
match the level of detail of the column. If mixed, the weight calculations of the matrix can have errors
due to over- or under-counting relationships that are mismatched.
9.3.3 Determining effect-to-cause relationships in a QFD L-matrix
The QFD L-matrix is essentially a collection of effect-to-cause fishbone diagrams to show many effects
to causes relationships. Effects are commonly placed in the rows of the matrix and causes in the
columns. If this orientation is rotated, the effect-to-cause relationship can be preserved. The strength
or contribution of a causal relationship can be indicated with words, symbols, or numbers. If the
relationships between the effects and causes are subjective, then words and symbols are commonly
used to indicate the strength or level of the relationship, as follows:
a) classical QFD matrices use three levels of relationships described as weak (W), moderate (M),
strong (S); symbols or icons used are:
NOTE 1 Strengths of this approach: familiarity. Weaknesses of this approach: with only three levels, QFD
teams can struggle to agree on the appropriate level.
b) modern QFD matrices use five or nine levels of relationships described as weak (W), moderate (M),
strong (S), very strong (V), or extremely strong (X), as well as intervals such as weak-to-moderate
(W-M), and so forth. These levels align with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that are used
later to transfer priorities from the effects to the causes. Symbols or icons used are:
NOTE 2 Strengths of this approach: when the level of relationship requires a judgment, human short-term
memory capacity is best when there are 7 ± 2 (5 or 9) levels. This allows first a judgment of high, medium, low,
and then within each category another high, medium, low. This creates nine levels ranging from high-high to low-
low, giving QFD teams more relationship levels to select from, and thus improving agreement. Weaknesses of this
approach: unfamiliar but has a short learning curve, commercial QFD software cannot support these symbols.
NOTE 3 Certain symbol or icon patterns indicate the health of the matrix. For example, blank rows or columns
indicate missing information. Nearly identical rows or columns indic
...