Roger Farahralph lauren australia outlet joined inevitably will cause investors to thesugarpearl market for Tory Burch LLC guess, but Roger Farah and Tory Burch were overturned this possibility,ralph lauren australia sale they said at this stage the company's financial stability, quickmedicadequate cash, investors are in no hurry to cash in, polo ralph lauren australiaso I hope business can be organic growth without requiring accountable to the public.globalnoises Tory Burch LLC's investors include Tory timeandthehourBurch took over last January the hands of her ex-husbandCheap ralph lauren australia Chris Burch (28.3%) more than half of the equity investment firm BDT Capital Partners LLC and General Atlantic LLC, mdirishTory Burch LLC was approximately $ 3.3 billion valuation. Later, ralph lauren australiathe market news that Coach Inc. (NYSE: COH) COACH 2012 had hoped to spend $ 20-30 billion acquisition of Tory Burch LLC,Pandora Australia but the two sides did not negotiate.
Home > Design & Innovation > Waterfall Design (QFD): Looks Good but Watch Your Step

Waterfall Design (QFD): Looks Good but Watch Your Step

February 24th, 2013

Pretty but Watch Your Step

Waterfall design looks so good on paper.  You start by defining customer requirements and then each step naturally leads to the next until the service is offered, product produced or new process is launched.  A QFD is a waterfall design process and it expresses this natural progression as linked matrices.  Anyone who has ever seen a presentation for QFD sees and accepts the logic of the waterfall concept.  Why then is it that what seems like a smooth running machine usually ends up a painful and burdensome process?

The problem is that elements of a product or service are usually put through in phases to keep the whole work flow running.  If that weren't done, the Company would have the vast majority of the people in the process idle having either finished, or still waiting for their turn, to contribute to the final work.  Such massive underutilization is no way to run a company.  So we avoid the poor utilization by breaking things down into pieces and sending them through the process in components.  The pressure to maintain utilization and the resulting flow of components creates a tremendous problem in waterfall design processes.

The problem is the series of rework loops caused by gaining buy-in and responding to feedback from internal customers. As each segment flows through the maze of work, each functional area has valuable feedback and expects to be heard.    Once again, using the QFD process as an example, as the output of each matrix becomes an input to the next matrix, the new parties have comments.  And as such, the input to a particular matrix gets kicked back along with the new functional area’s thoughts and comments. The water is now flowing up the waterfall!

Now the problem starts to compound when you have more than two matrices in the process.  When its just two, the rework and new work cross and loop until their joint work product meets exit criteria.  They are just handing off to each other like two people having a catch with two balls.  Every now and then one player may have both hands full but the waste of his compatriots empty hands is short lived.

Download WP “Design Basics – QFD Overview”

But once past two players, problems arise quickly.  As a simple example, let’s imagine three matrices starting with product definition.  Product definition provides input to design which, in turn, provides input to Service Operation or Manufacturing, as the case may be.   Now imagine, just like when there were two matrices, that the output of the first matrix (i.e. product or service requirements) goes to a design team which provides feedback.  They remain in equilibrium until the design team’s output goes to a production or delivery team which has its input.  As Player 2 passes reworked Cycle 1 to Player 3, they are also receiving reworked Cycle 2 from Player 1.  It isn't long before a ball hits the ground.

Irrespective of how fast everyone can be, if you add enough matrices or steps, the process breaks down.    What usually happens is that Player 1 ends up with a stack of balls on the ground around him.  The system was designed for one set of requirements to flow smoothly.  When multiple rework loops occur, the perfectly designed machine collapses under its own weight.

There is no easy and universal problem for this breakdown.  Some possible solutions are for fully integrated teams representing all functional areas to work on components together through all phases.  A design “cell” if you will.  Another solution might be to design from the back to the front.  And yet another might be to simply accept underutilization as a cost.  But whatever the case, you should be aware and step outside the box before you drown in the waterfall.  If you have comments, please contact me.

zp8497586rq
  1. Mike Clayton
    February 25th, 2013 at 00:11 | #1

    Similar issue in software development with Waterfall vs Agile Scrum methods.
    Rapid prototyping on software projects has worked best in my experience.
    QBD equivalent of rapid prototyping might be to kick start a validation process for some basic findings that impact design heavily if wrong. Prioritize by most dangerous rather than most often found from interviews, etc. Get some results as early as possible.

  2. February 27th, 2013 at 02:23 | #2

    We are avid readers of your articles for which we thank you.

    I am Goldratt trained and we have adopted an integrated systems model approach, in which the overall ‘system constraint’ is identified, rather than local optima. It’s a bigger elephant to chew, but in our experience, when dealing with people as the constraint it produces better focus. The model we use has the following elements:1. McKinsey’s 7s; 2. Goldratt’s ToC; 3. LSS; and VSM wrapped in ISO. We simply change change the balance between 2. and 3.

    ToC applied to this QFD example may produce a different focus and process design.

    Put differently, it’s all about how you categorise and emphasise ‘waste’. We see it as the trade-off between ‘throughput capability’ vs ‘anorexia’ where there is too much emphasis on lean.

    We do work in Chem manuf where ‘anorexia’ has less impact than in the fast food sector [KFC] due to the difference in ‘planned production’ needs.

    Keep up the good work.

    Rgds, Pete

  3. March 1st, 2013 at 23:52 | #3

    Mike – Thanks for that thought. Absolutely in agreement to look at the end point and id big potential pitfalls. John

  4. March 1st, 2013 at 23:56 | #4

    Pete – I can’t tell you how much we appreciate the thoughts provided by our readers. It really enriches the conversation. I think your model has some really interesting combination of ideas and it has me rethinking some things we do. Thanks again. John

Comments are closed.