1-s2.0-S1877705812046607-main
-
Upload
trihandoyo-budi-cahyanto -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
81Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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
82 Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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
83Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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
84 Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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
85Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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
86 Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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
87Jonny and Ilham Zaelani Kurnia / Procedia Engineering 50 (2012) 78 87
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