1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

1/10

Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87

1877-7058 2012 Elsevier B.V...Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Bin Nusantara University

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.10.010

International Conference on Advances Science and Contemporary Engineering 2012

(ICASCE 2012)

Improving Quality Product of A Motorcycle s Suspension at

An Automotive Company Using Quality Function

Deployment Value Analysis (QFDVA) (An Indonesian Case)

Jonnya and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia b*a, bFaculty of Engineering, Bina Nusantara Universty, Jl. KH Syahdan No. 9, Palmerah, Jakarta, 11410, Indonesia

Abstract

A Motorcycle s suspension is a part of motorcycle that contributes in handling, braking, and providing safety and

comfort by keeping the rider and passengers comfortably isolated from road noise, bumps and vibrations. In order to

serve these functions, the suspension needs several components to be assembled as a complete motorcycle unit.

Before implementing QFDVA, the company had over budgeted several related components used to isolate the unit

form noise, which is preceively top priority by customer, on IDR 217,569. After implementing QFDVA, the company

has found that in order to isolate the unit form noise, it shall lower its budget on those related components to IDR

194,817 or about 12% from its original budget.

2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Bina Nusantara

University.

Keywords: Voice of Customer, Quality Function Deployment and Value Added (QFDVA)

1. Introduction

In Indonesia, motorcycle plays an important role as transportation means. This is due to the lack of

other cheap transportation means. This has been proven by the increasing number of motorcycle sales [1].

Therefore, people nowadays have been demanding for both good quality and comfortable motorcycle as

their means of transportation. On the other side, the automotive industry for manufacturing motorcyclehas also seen decrease due to competition among the players.

In order to meeting consumer demands and overcoming the competition, an automotive company has

to be both innovative and cost effective [2]. Most company only uses Quality Function Deployment

(QFD) to produce good suspension but felt its cost-ineffectiveness due to the budget constraints. Budget

constraints are made in order to keep the price to be competitive [3]. This has made the company need to

analyze whether the output of QFD is also cost-effective using value analysis. Therefore, the company

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

2012 Elsevier B.V...Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Bin Nusantara University

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

2/10

79Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87

uses QFDVA in order to find what function really matters and how to distribute budget limit so the

company could maintain its competitiveness.

Figure 1. Suspension and motorcycle

1.1 Research problems

Based on the above background, there are several research problems described as follows:

1. What function of suspension demanded by customers in priority order?

2. How to allocate the limited budget to design all related components in manufacturing suspension tomaintain cost effectiveness?

1.2 Objectives

These research problems have led the company to set its objective of the improvement initiative as

follows:

1. To identify the function of suspension demanded by customers in priority order.

2. To allocate the limited budget in order to design all related components in forming suspension so that

the company could maintain its cost effectiveness.

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Problem Identification

The suspension is a motorcycle spare part which main function is isolating road noise, bumps and

vibrations. This part is formed from many components and the company needs to see whether these

components have been effectively matched with consumer needs. The part needs to be cost effective as

well. Therefore, the company has 2 problem set here such as the priori ty order of the functions and

whether the components are cost effective nor not.

2.2 Setting Objectives

After having the problem identified, the company has set its objectives based on using the QFDVA

method. The objectives are about determining the priority order of function based on customer needs and

the effective cost allocation for each component in forming the suspension.

2.3 Data Collection

An in-depth interview was made among two selected groups. The first group was formed from the

mechanical engineers from Product Research and Development (R&D) division of the company and theother was from Market Research Division to see whether the concept had marketability or not.

2.4 Data Processing

2.4.1 FAST Diagram

In forming a FAST Diagram, an observation was conducted in order to learn more about the function

of the suspension of a motorcycle through in-depth reviews based on the engineering manual book. In this

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

3/10

80 Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87

diagram, the function was divided into two parts which are primary and secondary function of the

suspension.

2.4.2 MUDGE Diagram

The result of FAST Diagram was then reviewed through an in-depth focus group discussion (FGD) by

the two selected groups which are engineers from Product R&D division and Market Research division.

The result is used for mapping the MUDGE Diagram in order to show the relative importance of thesuspension spare part for the motorcycle.

2.4.3 Resource Consumption Matrix

After FAST and MUDGE diagrams were formed, the next step is creating the resource consumption

matrix. This matrix was formed in order to match the components from a suspension with its function.

This was done by determining whether it was related to certain function or not. If the component has 2

related functions then the cost was divided by 2. By doing so to all components, then the company can

derive the conclusion how much percentage of resource (relative cost of components) was consumed by a

certain function of a suspension.

2.4.4 Comparison of Relative Function and Relative Cost

From MUDGE diagram, we can derive relative function of the suspension while from Resource

Consumption Matrix, we have relative cost. These patterns are compared in a compare graphic. By using

this graph, we can find out which function of the suspension spare part has higher cost than its neededfunction.

2.4.5 Integrating QFDVA

After gaining the patterns of relative function (RF), relative function (RC) and value index are gained,

we combined it to create QFDVA matrix [4][5]. This matrix helped us to understand the optimal cost of

each component compared to its function needed by the customers. In order to integrate QFDVA, we use

the following methodology:

Figure 2. Integrating QFD and VA

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

4/10


Figure 2 shows us how to integrate QFD and VA methods in QFDVA framework, while the QFD

framework is shown in figure 3. The figure shows us how to match the customer requirements and needs

to its engineering requirement in order to gain information about the priority order of the functions of the

product from customer analysis side and the priority components order from technical analysis side.

Figure 3. QFD diagram

In order to implement QFVA, there are several computation needed such as:

1. Computation of value index using the following formula:

(1)

where:

RC is relative cost (%) of the functionf,

RN is the relative need (%) of the functionf

2. Computation of customer requirement index using the following formula:

(2)

where:M is the relationship matrix

IR is the relative importance (%) of functionf(first column of consumer importance in Figure 8

PVis the sale point (Figure 8)

ff

n

f

RNRCABSIGV

1

1

iIRiPVjiMquirementn

j

i

1

,Re

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

5/10


This formula is used in order to make priority order to the function of the suspension, therefore,

the company may focus their cost allocation to what regarded as the most important part of it.

3. Computation of engineering cost using the following formula:

(3)

where:

M is the relationship matrix

IR is the relative importance of the cost for function f(second column of consumer importance

in Figure 8 and last row of relationship matrix)

2.5Analyzing Data

In this step, we analyzed all data gained from each step in order to find out what priority order of each

functions and how effective cost of each its component compared to the importance of its functions

demanded by the customers.

2.6 Conclusion

In this step, we concluded and summarized our finding after using this method. This findings led us topropose our recommendation for the company in order to meet both its customer requirements and cost

effectiveness.

3. Discussion

3.1FAST Diagram

The following figure showed the function of the suspension as a part of the motorcycle:

Figure 4. FAST Diagram

)(,1

iIRCjiMgCostEngineerin

n

ij

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

6/10


From the above diagram, we can conclude that there are 5 functions from the suspension that are

needed to be reviewed using QFDVA such as A) As shock breaker, B) To isolate unit from high

vibrations, C) To be equipped by dust seal, D) To isolate the unit from noise, E) To make unit looks good.

3.2 MUDGE Diagram

After creating the FAST Diagram, we used these five functions to hold an in-depth interview with

two groups which are from product R&D and market research divisions to form MUDGE Diagram asfollows:

Figure 5. MUDGE Diagram

From the above MUDGE Diagram, we create the graph of the relative function as follows:

Figure 6. Relative Importance Graph

From above figure, we can see that the priority order of the function of a suspension in a motorcycle

are: D) To isolate the unit from noise (31.6%), B) To isolate unit from high vibrations (28.1%), A) As

shockbreaker (24.6%), C) To be equipped by dust seal (10.5%), and E) To make unit looks good (5.2%).

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

7/10


3.3 Resource Consumption Matrix.

We use the cost of each component of the suspension to match it with the its functions. This resulted

in the following resource consumption matrix as follows:

Table 1. Resource Consumption Matrix

FunctionNo Components Cost (Rp)A B C D E

1 Pipe Comp, Front Fork 131.886 32.972 32.972 32.972 32.972

2 Case, Front Bottom 161.625 53.875 53.875 53.875

3 Spring, Front Fork 19.395 6.465 6.465 6.465

4 Pipe, Seat 36.204 9.051 9.051 9.051 9.051

5 Ring, Stopper 58.185 29.093 29.093

6 Seat B, Spring 19.395 9.698 9.698

7 O Ring 2.586 1.293 1.293

8 Seal, Dust 38.790 38.790

9 Ring, Oil Seal Stop 58.185 29.093 29.093

10Seal, Oil 8.663 4.332 4.332

11 Ring, Piston 58.185 29.093 29.093

12 Spring, Rebound 19.395 6.465 6.465 6.465

13 Washer. Special 5.819 5.819

14 Bolt, Socket 1.293 323 323 323 323

Total (Rp) 619.606 147.941 168.629 52.173 217.569 33.296

Percentage (%) 100 23,9 27,2 8,4 35,1 5,4

From above table, we can see that the resource consumption for each function are respectively:

35.1% for D, 27.2% for B, 23,9% for A, 8.4% for C, and 5.4% for E.

3.4 Comparison of relative function and relative cost.After gaining relative function and relative cost, we compare it with compare graph as follows:

Figure 7. Compare graph

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

8/10


From above figure, we can see that almost all functions are cost effective compared to its function

except for function D which the cost is still higher than its relative function which may cause ineffective

cost.

3.5 Integrating QFDVA

The following table shows the integrating QFDVA as follows:

Figure 8. QFDVA matrix

From the above figure, we can make the priority order of the functions of a suspension as follows:

Figure 9. Consumer s need graph

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

9/10


Figure 9 has shown that the priority of the functions of a suspension are D, A, B, C, and E.

Meanwhile the graphics of the engineering costs optimal relations is shown in following figure.

Figure 10. the engineering costs optimal relations

Figure 10 shows that the optimal cost should place pipe comp, front fork component as the most

portion of the suspension cost rather than the other components. This figure is used to make the

effective cost allocation among components as shown in the following table:

Table 2. Cost allocation among components

7/28/2019 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

10/10


The above table has shown that the cost of 7 components should be increased while the other 7

components should be decreased so the cost can still remain the same overall part cost.

4. Conclusion

After conducting this research, we have found that:1. The priority order of each function of suspension are as fol low: D) To isolate the unit from noise

(43.8%), A) As shock breaker (32.2%), B) To isolate unit from high vibrations (20.3%), C) To be

equipped by dust seal (2.9%), and E) To make unit looks good (0.7%).

2. The effective cost allocation is as shown in table 2 which has enable the company to focus more on

the component that required by customer. From that table we can conclude in order to focus on

function of D (to isolate unit from noise), the company could only need to budget IDR 194,817

instead of IDR 217,569 or over-budgeted about 12%.

For further study, we recommend using DEA (data envelopment analysis) as a decision support tool to

evaluate the degree to which each design alternative satisfies the customer requirements [6].

References

[1] Detik.com (2012). Penjualan Motor Meningkat di Awal 2012. Published 7 Feb 2012. Accessible from

http://oto.detik.com/read/2012/02/07/183049/1836681/1208/penjualan -motor-meningkat-di-awal-2012

[2] Bestefield, Dale. (2006). Total Quality Management. USA : Prentice Hall.

[3] Gerhardt, Don J. (2006). Managing Value Engineering in New Product Development : Ingersoll Rand.

[4] Ramos, F. L., Cavalca, K. L., & Dedini, F. G. (2004). Combined Application of QFD and VA Tools in The Product Design

Process. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , p.231-252.

[5] Mendoza, N., Ahuett, H., & Molina, A. (2003). Case Studies in the Integration of QFD, VE and DFMA during the Product

Design Stage. The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Concurrent Enterprising, Espoo, Finland, 16-18 June

2003.

[6] Cariaga, I.; El-Diraby, T.; and Osman, H. (2007). Integrating Value Analysis and Quality Function Deployment for

Evaluating Design Alternatives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, p.761-770

1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main