Using IDEF and QFD to Develop an Organizational Decision Support Methodology for the Strategic Justification of Computer-Integrated Technologies

Home , IDEF, Project

UTTERWORTH lnternational JournalofProjectManagement Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 177-185, 1995 E I N E M A N N Elsevier Science Ltd S Printed in Great Britain 0263-7863/95 210.00+ 0.00

0263-7863 (94) 00008-5

Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology for the strategic justification of computer-integrated technologies

Joseph Sarkis Department of Information Systems and Management Sciences, Box 19437, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA Donald H Liles Automation and Robotics Research Institute, 7300 Jack Newell Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76118, USA

The paper presents some issues relevant to the strategic justification of computer-integrated enterprise technologies for small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. To address the issue of making a strategic justification or 'business case' for these technologies, an organizational decision-making methodology that incorporates the strategies of the firm is needed, among other requirements. A research and development approach that integrates Quality Function Deployment and IDEF0 functional modeling to determine the requirements and processes for the justification methodology is presented. This approach has implications for future research and development for similar organizational decision-support processes and business-process reengineering.

Keywords: quality-function deployment, IDEFO, strategic justification

Current and future directions in the US domestic industrial CIE technologies are necessary to help enterprises become economy point to further global competitive pressures on agile enough to form interorganizational ad hoc partner- manufacturing enterprises of all sizes. For organizations to ships that emphasize each enterprise's core competencies ~. be able to compete on this global level, there need to be Examples of some of these technologies are computer- national and industrial visions, as well as enterprise-level integrated manufacturing systems, flexible manufacturing visions. A recent industrial competitive paradigm that systems, computer-aided process planning, computer-aided serves as a focus for all these visions is the 'virtual drafting and design, electronic data interchange, manu- enterprise'. This vision requires that enterprises be able to facturing resource planning systems, and distributed database form and function across organizational boundaries in the systems. These technologies comprise three integral development, production, and distribution of various pro- elements: hardware, software and organizational ware (e.g. ducts, in a relatively short period of time. One requirement training requirements). is that the enterprise be 'agile' enough to function within Technology strategy is only one way of achieving a com- this environment. The computer-integrated enterprise (CIE) puter (or competitively) integrated enterprise. Organizational and computer-integrated enterprise technology appear to strategy and integration are another important dimension. provide a framework and tools (respectively) through A comprehensive definition for an integrated enterprise is which manufacturers can flourish in a competitive as follows. environment. However, being able to adopt and implement An enterprise is a collection of all internal and external these CIE technologies is a very difficult endeavor for most activities (routines) necessary to operate a business. enterprises. Integration consists of the linkage and coordination of these

177 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles activities so that they function as a whole. This includes the see' attitudes, fears of obsolescence, and lack of worker coordination of vision, strategy, guidelines, methodologies, acceptance of new technologies has made the justification resources, and tools to support and optimally achieve overall process even more difficult for these technologies. business goals. The guidelines and methodologies encom- • Inadequacies of costing methods: Traditional costing pass all enterprise activities and their coordination by the approaches need to be adjusted to take into consideration management of information, technologies and processes 2. the lessening impact of labor, and to focus more on In this paper, we focus on the development efforts and relating indirect costing approaches to manufacturing approach for a methodology to help in justifying, or making functions. Appropriate cost tracing systems will be a business case, for these strategic technologies. This required. approach helps to provide insights for project managers • Differing natures of operations: Methods of operations who focus their efforts on business-process improvement and controls that differ from traditional approaches and reengineering. A brief introduction and review of require new approaches for costing also. various issues related to the adoption, acquisition and • Analysis based on subsystems and suboptimization: justification of CIE technologies set the environmental Models are essentially single-criteria approaches with context of this development project. We describe how we narrow problem definition. Portions of the system are have used two organizational tools to develop this considered, and not the full system. methodology, and a brief review of the tools is included. The results of this project are described. Some general and These and other issues have made the call for strategic specific implications of using the defined approach are financial models and strategic justification even more summarized in the conclusions. pronounced. The response has been overwhelming and over 400 citations from before 1990 have focused on this issue 9. However, in this literature, there is little emphasis CIE technology justification background on the specific requirements of SMSEs when it comes to The benefits of CIE technologies have been defined in the justifying the acquisition of CIE technology. This is the literature. These benefits include increased customer purpose of the research and development approach responsiveness, flexibility of organizations, higher-quality presented below. products and services, shorter leadtimes, and improved process controls. For organizations to be competitive on a Small and medium-sized enterprise requirements global basis, these technologies have become a require- A major concern is the suitability of these justification ment. Unfortunately, studies and surveys have shown that models for SMSEs. Numerous issues relating to SMSEs the majority of organizations are slow to adopt these must be addressed that most models have not considered. strategic technologies. This adoption rate is even slower The traditional approaches are flexible enough to be used for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMSEs) 3. The by these organizations, but the lack of strategic focus literature provides a number of reasons for this slow provides just as many problems for SMSEs as for large adoption. enterprises. A look at specific issues facing SMSEs is necessary. Few practitioners and researchers have focused Issues in the adoption of CIE technology on the special needs of SMSEs. Much of this has to do with Some of the issues in the justification of CIM/CIE and other the variations in these organizations and the lack of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT) include the information pertaining to their needs. By focusing on a very following4 8: well defined segment, it will be easier to help develop the tools and techniques appropriate for these organizations. • High capital costs and risks: Capital costs are much The research approach presented below will help to both higher, and thus the paybaek period is much longer than identify the special needs of SMSEs, and define the tech- that for conventional systems. New technology poses nologies that will help them meet their goals. higher risks mainly because of unfamiliarity with the More than ever, these tools are needed to aid SMSEs in technology. making their decisions. SMSEs have many unique charac- • Myopic approaches to justification: Industry uses simple teristics that distinguish them from their larger counterparts. measurements and has short-sighted goals for returns on These unique characteristics, as well as CIE technology investments. characteristics, need to be considered in the development of • Inappropriate capital budgeting procedures: Tradition- justification tools. The characteristics include the require- ally, approaches have tended to be bottom-up procedures ment that strategic justification tools and methodology for generating new equipment proposals, with narrow should be available to SMSEs that (a) are low-cost, (b) levels of analysis. are easy to use with few technical-support requirements, • Quantification dilemma: The dilemma consists of the (c) take into consideration some of the unique financial difficulty of quantifying the indirect, intangible benefits, constraints that SMSEs have, (d) act as learning and and the lack of appropriate measurement methodologies training devices in relation to the types of CIE technology and approaches for accurate performance measurements. available for their environment, and (e) take into con- • Prediction of benefits over extended period of time: It is sideration the strategic and financial factors that are most difficult to determine what the benefits will be in the long dominant in SMSEs. They should also integrate the run. There are problems in the scheduling of invest- strategic planning and implementation stages of the business ments and the expected returns. process. • Technological uncertainties: The rapid evolution of new These and other requirements will be extracted from technologies has created a sizable knowledge gap among 'customers' using a quality-function deployment (QFD) manufacturing and financial professionals. 'Wait and approach as described below.

178 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles

Business-case project Along the top portion of the matrix are the design requirements for how to meet the customer's requirements (in this The process used for the development of strategic- paper, the design requirements are for a methodology, justification tools and methodology, to make a 'business instead of a product). The roof of the house consists of the case', is an approach that integrates QFD design tools with relationships among the various design requirements (the IDEF0 functional modeling. QFD has been used to determine roof was not used for this project). At the bottom of the the customer requirements for a strategic justification house are the importance measurements and target values methodology, and IDEF0 has been used to describe and of each of the design requirements. The right-hand side of document the methodology. Before we go into detail about the box shows the comparative evaluation of competing the research and development associated with this project, alternatives (for this project, competing alternatives were brief reviews of QFD and IDEF0 are presented. assumed not to exist). The central portion of the house is made up of a number of cells that relate the design Quality-function deployment review requirements to the customer requirements. If there is a QFD is a tool that is used to ensure in a systematic way that relationship between specific requirements, the 'strength' the development of product features, characteristics and of this relationship is signified within each cell. Examples specifications, as well as manufacturing and process require- of these elements are presented further below. ments, are driven by the demands (voice) of the customer. A second house is used to design the methodology. The It is a tool that has been used to relate customer require- design requirements of the first house acted as the whats of ments to the design and manufacture of products, and to the second house. The hows of the second house were link the marketing, engineering and manufacturing functions represented by various steps within the methodology. These of the enterprise. It has been used to implement such ideas are described below with the development methodology. A as concurrent engineering and design for manufacture in more in-depth review and description of the QFD process numerous organizations. can be found in References 10 and 11. Figure 1 shows the central element of a QFD analysis. It shows what has been called the 'house of quality '~°, and at IDEFO review the centre is the matrix-relationship diagram. In this matrix, The IDEF0 functional-modeling technique was developed the rows (along the left hand side) each represent what the for systems design and analysis for the US Air Force customer requires. Associated with each requirement is an Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing 0CAM) pro- importance value that has to be elicited from the customer. gram ]2. IDEF is an acronym for ICAM Definition. Since there are a number of tools within the IDEF family, they have been assigned numbers, and IDEF0is the functional- modeling technique. Within IDEF0, functions are represented by boxes, and Product Design Requirements interfaces are represented by arrows, as shown in Figure Importance.,~ 2a. The boxes represent functions such as activities, (HOWs) actions, processes and operations. Boxes are distinguished Customer Competitive by an active-verb phrase inside the box, for example the Relationship Evaluation Requirements Matrix Make Part box in Figure 2b. Arrows indicate data. In IDEF0, data can be information (such as 'current status'), or (WHATs) physical objects (such as 'raw materials'). Their names are noun phrases, such as Raw Materials or Tools. The position of the arrow indicates the type of information being conveyed. Target Values and The arrows entering and leaving the boxes on the left and Importance Weights right represent Inputs and Outputs, respectively. Inputs represent elements that are needed to perform the function. Outputs show the data that is produced as a result of the Figure 1 QFD house of quality function. The function transforms the inputs into the outputs.

Work Blueprint Order Schedule "CONTROL" Fabricated

.FUNCTIONn ~ UT'¢ Make PsM

I "MF_,CHANISM"

Tools a b Figure 2 IDEF0 modeling approach; (a) general elements, (b) specific elements

179 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles

Arrows which enter from the top indicate controls, or members and larger-enterprise divisional personnel. Because things which constrain or govern the function. Arrows they may be the largest suppliers of the capital necessary to entering the bottom of the boxes are mechanisms. Mech- invest in these technologies, the customer team also anisms can be thought of as the person or device which included financial institutions. We incorporated venture performs the function. capitalists and bankers into the customer team, because An IDE~ model is made up of several integrated diagrams. these are two of the primary sources of finance for tech- Each diagram contains more detail about a box from a more nology for small firms identified by the US Department of general diagram. The process of describing a box in more Commerce 15. detail is known as decomposing a function. The more A good mix of analysts and decision makers was sought, general diagram is called the parent of the detailed diagram. as well as SMSE and large-enterprise division managers. ]DEV0 models are read in a top-down fashion. The top level Four major discrete parts industries were targeted in our diagram, also called the context or A-0 diagram, sum- design matrix: the aircraft/auto, electronics, machine-tool, marizes the overall function of the system, which is and fabrication industries. Geographical categorization was represented by a single box. The A0 diagram represents the also used in the creation of three customer teams: there first decomposition of the system. The A0 diagram and all were three regional customer teams with approximately subsequent diagrams usually contain 3-6 numbered boxes. eight members per team. The customer teams defined the The numbers help to tie the diagrams together. For example, requirements for the QFD matrices. in Figure 3, box 2 of the A0 diagram is decomposed in The development team comprised three groups: staff and diagram A2. Box 3 of the A2 diagram is decomposed in faculty from the Automation Robotics and Research Institute, diagram A23, and so on. All the diagram names begin with USA, staff from the Industrial Technology Institute, USA, A, which stands for 'activity'. Each arrow entering or and industry members of the US National Center for leaving an upper box must also be shown entering and Manufacturing Sciences tactical action group. There was leaving the lower-level diagram. thus a good mix of academia and industry in the develop- For more information about the use and practice of ]DEr0 ment team. Similarly, the expert team consisted of and IDEV modeling techniques, see References 13 and 14. individuals who had carried out academic research in the justification field of study, or had addressed these issues in Development process of methodology a practitioner setting over many years. Expert-team members The major steps in the development of the business-case provided input to the QFD matrices and acted as reviewers methodology occurred in three phases: (a) the establish- for the IDEF0 kits. ment of the project teams, (b) the development of the first QFD matrix, and (c) the concurrent development of Building the product-planning matrix the second QFD matrix and the IDEFO definition of the The first step in the development process consists in build- methodology. ing the QFD matrices. The goal of this step is to elicit the requirements of the customer through the QFD process. Project teams For the purpose of this project, the QFD process was only For this project, the development process involved three concerned with the development of the first two matrices, teams: a customer team, a development team, and an expert as shown in Figure 4. Briefly, the customer requirements team. The customers, or end users, of the tool were defined are the input to the product-planning matrix, which helps as discrete parts manufacturers of durable goods who were to determine the design requirements that are the inputs into either SMSEs or stand-alone divisions of larger firms. the part-deployment matrix. The part characteristics of the Consequently, customer-team members included SMSE part-deployment matrix in Figure 4 comprise the functional processes of the methodology which are represented in IDEF0 format. The customer teams met in a series of five meetings to develop the product-planning matrix. Since the customer teams were geographically dispersed, their requirements and importance levels were developed from feedback for the design teams, and consensus was eventually reached More General after design-team categorization and definition. The definition phase was carried out by listening to the taped conversations

Desi.gn ,~~--___~qutrements j [I ".rent'of...diagram is the ~ is diagram. Cu m enTss] I E] I I Methodology ro uot Dll More Detailed Planning ~ [ Matrix " ' Part Deployment Matrix Figure 3 General decomposition of IDEF0 modeling approach Figure 4 Business-case methodology development process

180 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology." J Sarkis and D H Liles of the discussions associated with each of the requirements. by the design team: tool flexibility (these requirements These definitions were sent to and evaluated by the customer focus on the flexibility of the eventual tool that will use the teams, so that they could make sure that their requirements methodology), cost-analysis factors, transition character- were included. istics, organizational acceptance of the methodology and its The results of this study for the product-planning matrix results, and corporate and strategic factors. were 52 customer-team requirements. These requirements Consensus relative importance ratings were developed are shown in Figure 5 within the complete product-planning using the analytical hierarchy process technique ~6. All matrix for the business-case methodology. These require- three groups of teams (design, customer and expert) ments were grouped into five major requirements categories developed the design requirements as well as target values.

OltlIEC'r!ON OF IMPROV~[~ + @ + O O O @ 9 O O + O O O O + ~P + + ~ O O O 41' 'i' ~r' 4" O @ O 'F O O Idot ho¢olo~ )CF,>Nlelo~ ~i1~. Crllod* (Nl~/. C,~lts/ile~f #l il~eli~um

...... "-'" ...... | it l't- ] ) t t l;*)l!t ! tl , ltltl : t'.~*tl ill 1 ,I i , tltl|l"" t1 'lil ill I "' Itt I I ~ It t¢ i!l~il ~: lii ~ill i !

oo I' .... iIIIIHII iI|~ i, , ..~,. t..,,.~...~,, ~,,,,,,,,,,,t..t,..,~,, .,~ ,~. ,, .,,~..~.. miiuuiHi 5 Supp4~l up~ront ekmilaa-m~ldng on whene to invest iIHHUIIi 8 Short IOlutlon time ond ~ dora Qotherln9 • o ~iolimi| ]¢ 7 Emy to undllrllilmd le!lutl II luit!lutl 0 ~iHIIIi| 0 ,,li i Ue~ I~ dvfem~l i~i i fu~wti~ e mmm~ile eo i~ I i~ti, i/i/ ll~ lalir thni P ooe mimillim 10 [,ael¥ link wdoui kiwi ~ ormbli mnm~mia I1 ~l~ltim Ihoukt I I~ ore41 m~for~ab/ tmlnq mimiiiim mmmmmmmm mmmmmmme 14 Siltom pnemtee (mmmltme~t ~md oipem~&on ~OOiO immuum~m oo IS Enoou cmd aooomod=tee t~m k~ut ~t {mr~ ~eml ~0 0 m~mmmmmm o~ t 16 Tool ooitm ~ Ilttl " immmmmmm 17 Idordlfleo & Ipo~lleo poro~4~h |hilts ~o~y for bohofltl imimmmmm tl 18R ...... /lit!if bwl4t mll~l Irm Idll fur url kwlltmo nti mmm~mmmi O00 0 IS c~nllerl ~ommeM~ k~memctkm from ~ oyartome immm~mmm tO ~er~e eu~4wetome a~d mk~od p~k~f/m mimim~ia t II Well defined I~t(diatloh Imth vlh rlmOuml~e and timbre Ir~0 mmmmmmma iNN 0 ~2 SupPo~i a Oi cmikm mimm~ima mmm 0 ~1~1 t3 R ulllm rnlmlllluiMi to tllditllfloI fkilmlikll tolihhkluim m~mmmium mmm 14 Uill multl--odtlrll rnetltll (IRR,NP~,OCF_.) @00~ zmm~ium mum i5 Clmelterl {Ir~t & ~ C) O0 mimii~ma muu 16 Ov~momi tro~tkm~ uh~tatement af rl~k~ement mmmmmmma ~r~mm i t7 Qoontify Inton41~ble ooeto&boneflte: tirol, fleX, mid lllnitratkm, TOC mind.mum ,~,mm 18 k~tegrot~ qu(~lot)vi w~h u~tl~o dora eoi~o i~m~mm mmm |9 Clnlkklrl lllll~ltment in Inforff*~tkln t~h~kl~ Infmltrlilltum mmm~a ~NNDINLI imimmuum m,--ll II ~l lul e~feot oh th /* llffklulikllm / iI~ll to Ir~ltall mimii~ia mmm iim~mumm rill.l~ImU A 13 On--glln9 rlvllw It ourrlnt tloh~lllkll o mmmmmmmm m~m P¢lor ~--R ~llm~nt Ohd CIM hen Imalimkl miimmmmm imm o mmmmmmma mmm 0 mmmim~ma mmm I 57Sup,__._.~l eeneltk~y ~l~ll if or~k~ol liItlmotli o mmmimima mmm - 58 M~tlpl opk~ono o n e(mh ~w~lbm o o mmmmmmmm mmm iS Overt m~ ee w~l meaeunm IrNNtrn*nt elk C) C3 C) immmmmmm r~mll!Ymm kD C~etirm ~bNded rI(iOembmty tNt odt*rke. "molY~ eheok" o mmm~mmma !nmm $1 Tmnl nt tl plil811o if entorprlle.tl~ . or ox~endRurl mmmmimia mmm t~ Sha~ 4rata •lth othlr lem4i~ii tool mmmmmmma mmm k3 Amenobke to outomot~n on popuI4r pkltfo~ 0 I t~ AIkswl for whot M mimulltloni li 15 Fe*dbook ~ to ~ k~l~ment for k~wr~vement A F~h4mooomo at k~or d~e t? AIkm for Bermhrrmrt~ql oo~blllty ~ tale of bllillnl ~llull ND U~ee dlf/emnt opproo~h4m to dl~ilk)n ~v~lu~tlon &B Flexbkm weklhtlr,g ~hd r~r~e I~tk~o of d~il~ ~ter~ ~duee £X IO pl~h.~ee eto~u~lzod mp~tl ~l ouetom~ce~ ~portl 51 QHMR~ o~p~l f~ iibfl lkl~ in "r~al--workP' C, ~ 0 AA q: L~, i 52 ~ k~to 'kerr v~w' methodok~ ~, 0 A 8 t t li,' I | ltl AIISOLLm[ ~PORTANC£ (uelne rmde*d ndotlv* Im~ton~e rotl~e) iml~lmmM ~ ! 3 ~ 3 -i m[] a n L,I 3 [] m ~ melHHmHl~lmmHmH

• ,,,.,~,x w~ ~,s ]

~WNk A i ~min41 i'i

Figure 5 Product-planning matrix for development of business-case methodology for justification of integrated-enterprise technology

181 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles

The major design-requirements categories for the method- The design requirements from the product-planning ology were models, decision criteria, costs/benefits, and matrix were then used as the whats or rows of the parts- miscellaneous characteristics. deployment matrix. The development of the part-deployment The longest portion of this phase of the study was spent matrix required that the methodology-development approach, on determining the strength of the relationships between the i.e. the development of the ]DEF0 models, was used design and customer requirements. Since the matrix had 33 simultaneously. design requirements and 52 customer requirements, 1716 (33 × 52) relationships were addressed by each of the three Concurrent parts-deployment matrix and IDEFO customer teams. The categories of relationship considered methodology development were strong (indicated by a circle with a dot in middle), As mentioned above, the final product is a methodology for medium (circle), weak (triangle), and none (blank). The making a business case using strategic justification of QFD relationship scores recommended by the literature are integrated-enterprise technology documented using the 9 for a strong relationship, 3 for a medium relationship, and IDEF0 modeling technique. The results at the A0 level of 1 for a weak relationship. Other weight factors may have the final document are shown in the IDEF0 model in Figure been used, but it was felt that a strong relationship should 6. There are five major interrelated activities at the A0 stand out and not be dominated by a number of weak level: identify system impact (Al), identify transition impact relationships, and hence the use of the exponentially larger (A2), estimate costs and benefits (A3), perform decision weights for a strong relationship. analysis (A4), and audit decision (A5). Since the primary For example, in Figure 5, the first design requirement, purpose of this paper is to describe the development 'accounts for intangible strategic objectives', has a strong methodology, the detail associated with each of these relationship with the 'relates to, consistent with, and activities and their definitions is left to a subsequent paper. supports strategic objectives, goals and strategies' customer An abbreviated decomposition of these activities is as requirement for the methodology. The target for this design follows: requirement (shown at the bottom of Figure 5) is that 100% of the strategic objectives should be taken into consider- [A0] Perform strategic justification of IET ation by the methodology. The absolute importance values of [A1] Identify system impact the design criteria were calculated by a simple summation [A11 ] Review decision environment of the products of the relative-importance ratings of the [A111 ] Document and understand vision and customer requirements and the values of the relationship strategy strengths in the design-requirements column. This is a stand- [ A 112 ] Document and understand ard approach that has been used by most QFD practitioners. [ A 113 ] Document and understand

Vision, Strategies, C! C2 Decision Objectives, & Plans ] I Constmlnla

Decision & Audit Feedback lET System~JJ~~~I~Analysls Plan C(~flguralioNOala Identify 12 System Decision al ~-I) Impact Feedback Need~uimments A 1 4 I Analyals i. j / ~,.~ ~.j_.~ AnalysisPlan ~i~I~ Mat~ Identify Transition 14 -- P' Impact TramlitionPlan/Data ~ i A2 Ana~/als Matrix Estimate Audit Costs and Feedback 13 Benefits OperMional/Ma~etData A3 MIRC I Perform Decision Analysis ~O4 Estimated Costs A4 & Benefils (Populated Maffix) Audit ] Decision Actual DecisionResults " " >03 Decision Audit M3 NCMS Enteq~tes Model/MIRC

M2 Mt I~¢lalon Models/Tools Analym Team/OedCon Maker

Figure 6 High-level IDEF0 model of methodology for strategic justification of integrated-enterprise technology

182 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles

[ A 114] Document and understand used this for a 'product' that is really a set of processes, a [A115 ] Review audit/decision feedback similar approach can be used for a process-deployment [A12] Link system to enterprise matrix when developing production processes for a durable product. Additionally, it is potentially applicable to reengineering and business-process improvement methodologies. Many [AI5] Create analysis plan of these business-process improvement methodologies use [A151 ] Determine tasks the IDEF0 functional modeling technique to help reengineer [A152] Assess and assign resources or redesign business processes. The traditional approach to [ A 153 ] Develop timeline redesigning the processes usually incorporates as-is and to- [ A 154 ] Approve/maintain analysis plan be models of the processes that are to be reengineered. One [A2] Identify transition impact problem with this approach is the relatively large amount of time used to model an as-is system. To help shorten, or even eliminate, the as-is step, the QFD/IDEF0 linkage can be used to generate characteristics of the as-is and to-be [A3] Estimate costs and benefits models, where the 'customers' are individuals or mechanisms that utilize these activities. This is also an approach that helps to combine and compare the various functional views of the enterprise processes in a logical manner. Thus, [A4] Perform decision analysis a tool, QFD, that is usually used for concurrent engineering of products can be used for concurrent reengineering of processes through its linkage with IDEF0 modeling.

[A5] Audit decision Summary and conclusions The activities were decomposed to the AXXX level, or two The objectives of this paper were to provide insights into levels below these high-level definitions. The first-level a method that can be used by project managers to elicit activities (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) and their decomposed customer product requirements for a nondurable product activities were the methodology characteristics for five and to develop a process to deal with these requirements. separate parts-deployment matrices, one for each major We have demonstrated the need for an organizational activity. Figure 7 shows one of these part-deployment methodology for making a business case to invest in strategic matrices, and the relationships of the A1 activities and its integrated-enterprise technology. We were successful in associated decomposed activities with the design require- concurrently developing a methodology that met customers' ments from the product-planning matrix. As we can see in requirements, where the customers were the users and the Figure 7, the A111 activity 'document and understand beneficiaries of this business-case methodology. The vision and strategy' has a strong relationship with the success of this development approach for designing and design requirement of 'accounts for intangible strategic building a methodology has implications for business- objectives'. process improvements. The primary purpose of this matrix is to make sure that The approach defined in this paper is unique in that little activities meet the design requirements for the methodology. published work has shown and discussed the linkage This development approach does not focus on the level of between QFD and ]OEF0 tools, a linkage that seems to be attainment and goals for the methodology, that is, the a natural fit. A number of issues in enhancing this approach development of scores associated with each activity. Thus need to be addressed, including the following: we are not concerned with looking at interrelationships or target values for the parts-deployment matrix shown in • The competitive-evaluation parts of the quality houses Figure 7. (see Figure 1) can be used to evaluate as-is and to-be The process for completing these part-deployment matrices models of business processes without having to develop and the IDEF0 methodology development were concurrent. detailed models. Benchmarking data for business pro- That is, as the activities and their linkages were being cesses can also be integrated with the competitive- determined for the business-case methodology by the evaluation section. design team, readers (reviewers of the methodology, who • Benchmark data can also be used as target values of the were customer-team and expert-team members) would product-planning matrix for each of the activities. comment. Simultaneously with the readers' activities, the • The IDEF0 models are not only composed of activities. design team was making sure that the design requirements An issue that needs to be addressed is that of how to were being met by filling in the part-deployment matrix incorporate the inputs, outputs, controls and mechanisms relationships. associated with these models into the QFD development process. Business-process reengineering implications The next phase of this project is to pursue some form of The characteristics of this development approach show how automation of the IDEF0 procedure. This is more easily activities of the methodology, and any business process, accomplished, since much of the documentation of the can be separated to meet design requirements. This QFD/ approach is in IDEF0 form. IDEF0 fits in with a number of IDEF0 development approach has broader implications than other IDEF tools that exist to help in the automation of those associated with this project. Even though we have functional models ]7.

183 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles

au0,pu/®t;w~lO k"c;l~g

.=~,_~ .r,~ .=r~s ~ ~L~ =.~oN .=rJsm~ ImlOfBoo+l~ I~1~

~ooqP~J ~P~ .~ ~l l~i mmmmmmmmmmumummmmmmmmmmmuE=~ nmmmmmnnmm®mmmmmmmmmm®®mmumu~ nnunnnnunu®unnuuunnnu®®unnnnz lUUUUUUnUU®uumnuuuuuuuuuuHuz ~xquIS ~ .uof,~ ~ ~ lu=uoeO t.lt~ nnnnnnnunn®nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnHe (~.~. ~ ImHNNINNNNNNINNNNNNHNNNW

i!i!~iiii!

"6 !!

L i e-.,

t....-

~o-

184 Using IDEF and QFD to develop an organizational decision support methodology: J Sarkis and D H Liles

Acknowledgements 16 Saaty, T L The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation McGraw-Hill, USA (1980) The work described in this paper was supported by a 17 IDEFine Family: Integrated 1DEF Software Tools -- Version 1.6 grant from the US National Center for Manufacturing Wizdom Systems, Naperville, IL, USA (1992) Sciences.

Joseph Sarkis is an assistant professor References in the Department of Information Systems and Management Sciences at 1 21st Century Manufacturing Enwrprise Strategy -- Volumes 1 and 2 the University of Texas at Arlington, lacocca Institute, Lehigh University, USA (1991) USA. He received a PhD from the 2 CIE Executive Tutorials Computer Integrated Enterprise Program, State University of New York at CAM-I, Arlington, TX, USA (1991) Buffalo, USA. His teaching interests 3 '1993 capital spending survey" Production 1993 are primarily in the area of pro- 4 Finnie, J 'The role of financial appraisal in decisions to acquire advanced duction and operations management. manufacturing technology' Accounting & Business Research 1988 His research interests include enter- 18(70) 133-139 prise integration, strategic manu- 5 Gerwin, D'Do'sanddont'sofcomputerizedmanufacturing'Harvard facturing management, and justific- Business Review 1982 60 (2) 107-116 ation of advanced manufacturing 6 Gold, B 'CAM sets new rules for production' Harvard Business technology. He is a certified pro- Review 1983 61 (6) 88-94 duction and inventor), manager. 7 Kaplan, R S 'Must CIM be justified by faith alone'?' Harvard Business Review 1986 64 (2) 69-76 8 Suresh, N C and Meredith, J R 'Justifying multimachine systems: an integrated strategic approach' J Manufacturing Systems 1985 4 (2) Donald H Liles is a professor of ...... 117-133 industrial and manufacturing systems 9 Parsaei, H R, Ward, T L and Karwowski, W (eds) Justification engineering at the University of Texas Methods for Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems Elsevier, at Arlington, USA. He is also the Netherlands (1990) associate director of the Automation 10 Hauser, J R and Clausing, D 'The house of quality' Harvard Business and Robotics Research Institute, the Review 1988 66 (3) applied research arm of the University 11 Brossert, J L Quality Function Deployment: A Practitioner's of Texas at Arlington. He is the Approach ASQC Quality Press, USA (1991) technical lead of the Enterprise 12 Integrated Computer-Aided Manufacturing (1CAM). Part H: Function Integration Frameworks and Small Modeling Manual (IDEFO) (June 1981) (contract AFWAL-TR-81-4023) Integrated Manufacturing Enterprises 13 Colquhoun, G J, Baines, R W and Crossley, R 'A state of the art research groups at ARRI, He is a review of IDEF0" lnt J Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 1993 member of the board of directors of the 6 (4) 252-264 national IDEF users" group. His 14 Mayer, R J, Manzel, C P and Mayer, P S D "IDEF3 technical research interests are in enterprise report -- beta draft 1.1" Texas A&M University, USA (1990) integration and engineering, manufacturing systems design, and agile 15 Financing Technology United States Department of Commerce, USA manufacturing. (1992)

185