Article Not peer-reviewed version

Analysis and Application of DFSS—

Design for Six Sigma in the Product
Development Process

Gabriele Arcidiacono , Edoardo Risaliti , Francesco Del Pero *

Posted Date: 11 October 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

Keywords: QFD (Quality Function Deployment); VOC (Voice of the Customer); CTQ (Critical to Quality);
competitive benchmarking; project charter; DFSS (Design For Six Sigma)

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Article

Analysis and Application of DFSS—Design for Six

Sigma in the Product Development Process
Arcidiacono Gabriele *, Risaliti Edoardo and Del Pero Francesco
Università degli Studi “Guglielmo Marconi”
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The modern economic landscape, now more competitive than ever, compels companies
to create increasingly innovative, cutting-edge, and cost-effective products. In this regard, design
and development phases play a crucial role, since they closely determine the final satisfaction of the
customer. As a consequence, the need for a structured approach is evident, since it allows the
companies to identify product key characteristics. With the purpose of creating a new product with
an extended horizon to various markets, this work is based on the use of Design for Six Sigma (DFSS)
methodology for the identification and optimization of Critical-To-Quality (CTQ) features, aiming
at making the project as responsive as possible to customer needs. Two main themes are addressed.
The first one is the analysis of the integrated product development process with the Six Sigma
methodology for achieving design excellence; the second one is the application of the Identify phase
of the IDOV (Identify, Design, Optimize, Validate) approach through a DFSS case study.

Keywords: QFD (Quality Function Deployment); VOC (Voice of the Customer); CTQ (Critical to
Quality); competitive benchmarking; project charter; DFSS (Design For Six Sigma)

1. Introduction
The economic success of a product is intimately tied to the quality of thinking that generates it
[1]. More specifically, it strongly depends on the ability of the company to identify the key features
of the product itself, and to translate them into design parameters able to satisfy the customer needs
in the most convenient way from an economical point of view [2,3]. Product development is
composed of the entire set of activities between the identification of market opportunities,
production, sale, and final delivery [4].
The use of a structured methodology for product development represents the starting point for
continuous improvement. As a confirmation, many of the most advanced companies in the current
Italian economic landscape embrace this approach, namely “the recurring and targeted activity
aimed at increasing the overall performance of the system” [5]. Literature provides various methods
for the identification of design parameters for customer satisfaction in different contexts (such as
virtual video, fast method, fuzzy approach, and many others [6,7]). In this context, the traditional
product development process can be summarized in the following steps:
• Product planning. Often referred to as phase zero, it leads to the production of a portfolio of
potential developable projects, and it defines which of these have to be undertaken in the
short, medium, or long term;
• Conceptual design. It encompasses activities needed to drafting a product development plan.
The purpose of such a stage is selecting a concept (for example shape, function, and product
features) and combining it with a set of measurable specifications that describe product
requirements;
• Embodiment design. The goal is the preliminary design, often called “system-level design”. In
this step, engineering and architectural elaboration of the concept takes place, which must be
in harmony with the final specifications and economic analysis;

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

• Detail design. It consists in the collection of all documents, drawings and files needed to create
product technical dossier;
• Testing and refinement. This phase is necessary for the project technical validation, as well as
to ensure that the product effectively meets design requirements. In this context, realization of
prototypes and testing allows the achievement of the objectives defined;
• Production ramp-up. It is preliminary to actual production, in which the product is made
using the final process. The objectives are multiple, from training activities for production
personnel, to addressing issues raised by them.
Six Sigma (SS) aims at achieving high-quality product standards and low costs, maximizing the
“Total Customer Satisfaction”. Originated in the mid-1980s, it focuses on reducing management costs
and warranties, while enhancing customer satisfaction by shortening production times and
minimizing defects [8,9]. It is based on lowering production variability, improving quality and
reducing non-conformities, by using standard deviation as a measure of process performance [10–
12]. SS embodies a rigorous methodology, a statistical tool-oriented mindset for data analysis, a
customer-focused strategy for continuous improvement, and a drive for production excellence with
minimal non-conforming items [13].
Generally, the time required for product design and development depends significantly on the
complexity level of the project itself. For this reason, a Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) [14] project is
longer if compared to a SS project, which usually takes not more than 5/6 months [15,16]. DFSS also
implements an operating mode which allows designing for production, thus providing a
combination of customer requirements with process capability [17,18]. DFSS applied to the
development of new products consists of the following four phases, which represent the IDOV
(Identify, Design, Optimise, Validate) approach. In this context, the traditional product development
process can be summarized in the following steps:
• Identify: it involves defining a work team, identifying the Business Case, and drafting the Project
Plan. Subsequently, customer needs are collected and translated into CTQs, to identify those
critical for achieving the established objectives;
• Design: it aims at analyzing the CTQs and identifying the Functional Requirements (FRs) (e.g.,
the high-level functions of the system to be designed). A mapping of FRs into Design Elements
(DEs) is performed, generating and selecting the most suitable concept;
• Optimize: a detailed design is carried out to create a robust design, reducing the effects of
variability causes without necessarily eliminating them, thus ensuring more stable and
controllable design features;
• Verify: it provides project testing and validation. Prototypes are tested to ensure the required
quality standards and verify that the product meets project objectives.
In this context, various techniques have been devised over the past decades to efficiently address
engineering, managerial, and operational issues. DFSS encourages the use of these innovative and
powerful optimization methods throughout the overall design process, with the primary purpose of
limiting the use of trial-and-error approach, this latter being iterative and less effective [19,20]. When
considering the implementation to specific case studies, the knowledge of such methodologies is a
necessary condition, since it is not automatic that they adapt to all types of applications. Therefore, it
is the responsibility of the engineer/designer/manager to identify the appropriate tool for the specific
situation, and often the synergistic use of several tools can be the right choice for achieving the shared
goal [21].

Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

One of the key tools of DFSS is the QFD [22,23]. QFD aims at translating the voice of the customer
into measurable engineering parameters, establishing their priority, and ensuring communication
between departments involved in the production process [24]. This ensures that decisions are guided,
guaranteeing that the interests of all stakeholders are properly taken into consideration [25]. The QFD
metric consists of a graphical representation shaped like a house, comprising five main elements:
• house A, containing the list of previously collected VOCs, which are appropriately prioritized;
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

• house B, concerning the VOCs benchmarking table, providing a concise overview of the strategic
market objectives for new products;
• house C, containing the list of CTQs developed from the requirements, usually structured in a
tree diagram with two or three levels;
• house D, a prioritization matrix aimed at modelling the relationship between VOCs and CTQs.
Each cell represents a judgement expressed by the team on the strength of the relationship
between VOCs and CTQs;
• house E, containing the interaction matrix between CTQs;
• house F, holding the CTQs benchmarking table and an elaboration that allows prioritizing CTQs.
It also identifies CTQs targets needed to satisfy the customers and it appropriately calculates the
Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI), which represents the customers satisfaction level for the
considered solution.
To combine VOCs into VOP (Voice of the Process), a four-stage scale is used, where each step
takes the output from the previous one as its input. Each input is evaluated through the QFD, which
has the task of finding a relationship between input and output [26].
The advent of collaborative quality design in the supply chain for large complex products, as
elucidated by the integration of Fuzzy QFD (F-QFD) and grey decision-making approaches,
underscores the necessity for systematic frameworks that accommodate multi-objective decision-
making under uncertainty [27]. Concurrently, the application of QFD in construction companies to
analyze customer satisfaction reveals the critical role of service quality dimensions in aligning
product attributes with consumer expectations [28]. Furthermore, the incorporation of QFD, Value
Engineering, and lean approaches in prioritizing control tests for product designs exemplifies the
confluence of quality engineering and productivity enhancement in the manufacturing domain [29].
This is echoed in the realm of healthcare, where the algebraic operations of QFD house-of-quality are
leveraged to prioritize Industry 4.0 technologies integration in hospitals, thereby fostering a systemic
digital transformation [30].
In the context of technology transfer, the amalgamation of F-QFD with a Fuzzy Inference System
(FIS) offers a large framework for licensor selection, enhancing organizational capabilities and market
performance [31,32]. More specifically, the study on materials and composition analysis in casting
utilizing QFD and statistical plots illuminates the significance of comprehensive material analysis in
improving casting quality and process efficiency [33]. Moreover, the integration of an improved Kano
model into QFD, facilitated by a Multi-population Adaptive Genetic Algorithm, demonstrates the
potential for harmonizing customer satisfaction with enterprise objectives in product design,
particularly in the case of home elevators [34].
At the same time, the development of manufacturing information systems is critically explored
through a QFD-based requirements development process and a fusion of fuzzy mathematics with
QFD theory, respectively. These studies underscore the importance of systematic approaches in
ensuring the effectiveness, consistency, and completeness of system functions and internal controls
[35,36].
This paper provides a DFSS case study focusing primarily on the Identify phase of the IDOV
process. The chosen product is a bicycle, a new middle-class product platform with a distinctive
feature, that is a durable and cost-effective aluminum frame. This product is adaptable to various
usage needs and marketed globally, with a focus on EMEA (Europe, Middle-East and Africa) and
North America markets, where the company has a strong presence. To penetrate the East Asia
market, the product is sold through e-commerce channels. The adopted DFSS model is based on the
update and implementation of models presented in the introduction, as provided in Figure 1.
The work can be summarized in the following steps:
1. collection of VOC types: reactive, proactive, literature and industry journal analysis;
2. screening and prioritization of VOCs through the following tools: affinity diagram, market
segmentation, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise comparison;
3. translation of VOCs into CTQs and definition of relationships using QFD1 between: VOC and
CTQ; - CTQ and CTQ through the interaction matrix (roof matrix);
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

4. competitive benchmarking and definition of target objectives: VOC benchmarking from the
customers perspective and CTQ benchmarking;
5. prioritization of CTQs and selection of critical characteristics for target achievement.
Such an approach is used to improve the CSI, respecting constraints and objectives stated in the
project charter.

Figure 1. Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) design model used in the case study.

2. Materials and Methods

The development of the case study is described in the following paragraphs, according to the
following sequence of activities:
• drafting a simplified project charter;
• collection, analysis, and prioritization of the VOC;
• compilation of QFD House of Quality (HoQ) to prioritize CTQ factors based on both previously
calculated VOC weights and VOC-CTQ correlations;
• competitive benchmarking to compare the current state with hypothetical competitors.
The data used are extracted from literature, industry magazines, market surveys, and the
author's experience, to make the application as faithful to reality as possible

2.1. Project Charter

In the corporate context, the formal initiation of a project is formalized by the publication of a
project charter, representing the formal act by which all stakeholders involved in the project are
informed not only of the existence of the project, but also of all characteristics, tasks, responsibilities,
and roles involved in the project itself. Such a document includes general project information,
product purpose, company strategy, target markets, and available budget. For this case study, the
business case and the related project charter are based on a market analysis published by Price
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) [37], concerning the global bicycle market. The main elements of the
project scope are reported below:
• Vision statement. Conquer any terrain with RG0-TT bicycle model, the most versatile daily
bicycle on the market, designed for those who do not want to compromise fun for total safety;
• Business case. Market research shows that products offered by major competitors focus on: 1)
High-tech vehicles, with a high price range to satisfy a Highly Engaged customers (5% of the
market); 2) Low-tech vehicles, with a low price to satisfy predominantly travel-oriented
customers (30% of the market). RGBikes [38] aims at achieving market leadership by launching
a new middle-class product, conceptually new and attractive, with the primary goal of ensuring
the versatility of use. It is targeted at simultaneously satisfying three main categories of cyclists:
travel, leisure, and engagement (representing together about 95% of the market). The new
product must be highly customizable for both everyday use and more athletic use on any terrain.
The technical basis of the bike allows the choice of two different types of products: Mountain
Bike and Hybrid/Cross, which are the preferred segments by customers (about 50% of total sold);
• Objective and Constraints. The main targets and requirements of the product are: 1) New
product platform for Hybrid/Cross & Mountain Bikes; 2) Use of High-Grade Series 7000
aluminum frames; 3) High-end braking system for improved safety; 4) High customization
possibilities; 5) The base equipment does not include a rear shock absorber, which remains a
customizable option; 6) Price cap of 900€ for the base selling price.

2.2. VOC Collection

In this case study, a plan for collecting the VOC is developed, mainly divided into two parts.
The first one is planning for reactive VOC collection, focused on warranty analysis and
customer/dealer complaints. The second part is planning for proactive VOC collection, targeting the
internal needs of the company and those of all stakeholders listed in the project charter, as well as
external needs. The combined results lead to the collection of 42 VOCs, which are subsequently
analyzed, prioritized, and translated into CTQ characteristics.
• Reactive VOC Collection.
It involves two main activities. The first one is the estimation of product reliability from the
customer perspective, whose main purpose is calculating an index able to quickly establish the
reliability level of a bicycle, which is then compared with project objectives. The second main
activity is analyzing and evaluating market issues and complaints, which is essential for
continuous improvement of both existing and future products. Information is primarily
collected through analysis of components that have shown anomalies or failures in the market,
as well as customer care reports related to customer and/or dealer complaints.
• Proactive VOC Collection.
It is carried out to understand the product through the customer, aiming at discovering latent
needs, which are then categorized using the Kano Model [39–41]. Field tests and events with
representative customers are considered. These events are essential for direct interaction
between the company and the consumers, enhancing the brand prestige and attracting attention
from potential customers through word of mouth. Such an approach can be considered similar
to “going to gemba”, emphasizing direct observation. Literature studies, scientific articles, and
industry magazines can also provide valuable information for product improvement from the
customer perspective. In this regard, an investigation conducted by Ayachi, Dorey and
Guastavino on the perceived dynamic comfort of cyclists [42], is considered during the VOC
prioritization phase.

2.3. Prioritisation of VOC and Translation into CTQ

To construct the HoQ of QFD, the VOCs must be firstly prioritized and
subsequently translated into CTQs. Ideally, requirements should be prioritized
directly by customers through appropriate questionnaires. However, in practice,
this activity is often carried out by the internal team using techniques to assess the
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

consistency of results. The requirements are prioritized using the Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise comparison, an advanced Multiple Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) method [43]. The AHP technique involves the following
steps: 1) Decomposition of requirements into a hierarchy based on affinities; 2)
Creation of the requirements correlation matrix; 3) Comparison of requirements
through pairwise comparison only among those in the same category; 4)
Calculation of the importance value within the category and between categories; 5)
Evaluation of decision quality through the consistency parameter; 6) Iteration of
the process until an acceptable Consistency Ratio (CR) value is obtained (CR < 0.1).
The results of prioritizing the main categories of VOC are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Calculation of the importance and CR of the main VOC categories.

As shown, the most important categories are “safety” and “reliability”, closely followed by
“cost” and “services”. The importance of individual VOCs is then normalized to the importance of
the belonging category. Based on results of [42], the company decides to assign an additional
importance value (+1.5 %) to VOCs related to the handlebar, saddle, and riding position comfort. The
frame material is a project constraint for cost containment, and for this reason, it is made of
aluminum. For each VOC, one or more CTQs are identified to describe them in a technical, specific,
and measurable language. An example is provided in Table 1:

Table 1. Example for definition of CTQs.

VOC 1.1 CTQ 1.1 CTQ 1.5

Handlebar grips should not Mean Time to Failure Density of handlebar grips
wear out (MTTF) [hours] rubber [Shore A]

2.4. Quality Function Deployment 1

Following the prioritization of VOC and the translation into CTQ, the subsequent step of the
work is completing the HoQ of QFD1. For this task, the Qualica 19 software is used [44], which
supports a wide range of tools used in DFSS approach. The methodology involves evaluating the
correlations between the previously prioritized VOCs (42 elements) and the CTQ characteristics,
appropriately selected (79 elements). A total of 3318 comparisons are made, and for each one, an
attempt is made to answer the question “Which effect on meeting Need Y is caused by an
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

improvement in CTQ X?”. As provided in Figure 3, a logical sequence is then assigned to CTQs based
on their relative importance, in descending order: items with the highest values are those that must
be satisfied first in the design phase. Figure 3 also highlights correlations between the top six VOCs
and the top ten CTQs, using different colors.

Figure 3. Partial prioritization of VOC and CTQ with respective Pareto charts.

The power and effectiveness of QFD are demonstrated by the fact that there is no one-to-one
correspondence between CTQ and VOC based on the importance level. The tool allows the
identification of technical characteristics that contribute to maximizing customer satisfaction. Thanks
to the roof of the quality house, it is possible to analyze correlations between various CTQs, to assess
the existence of positive or negative interactions. For each cell of the roof matrix, an answer is found
to the question “What effect does a possible improvement in CTQ A have on CTQ B? Positive,
negative, or none? And if there is an effect, how strong is it?”. The total number of comparisons made
is 6162. The results of the analysis are reported in Figure 4.
The quadrants divide CTQs into four categories:
1. Passive: CTQs whose active and/or passive (positive or negative) relationships are weak;
2. Reactive: CTQs that have the majority of passive relationships, whether positive or negative;
3. Active: CTQs that have the majority of active relationships, whether positive or negative;
4. Critical: CTQs that have a large number of both active and passive relationships, whether
positive or negative.
Further investigation on the type of relationship, whether positive or negative, reveals that:
• the priority for improving CTQs 2.8, 8.1 and 8.2 needs to be increased;
• a detailed analysis of CTQs 3.10, 6.2, 7.3, and 8.5 is necessary: contradictions can be resolved
using the methodologies outlined in the introduction section.3.1. Subsection
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

Figure 4. CTQ Relationship Analysis.

2.5. Competitive Benchmarking and Discussion

In the process of developing a new product, a comparison of the current state with the main
competitors in the market is required. The goal is creating a clear and concise picture of strengths and
weaknesses from the customers perspective, to identify critical improvement areas. Competitive
benchmarking includes VOC benchmarking, where product performance is evaluated in terms of
satisfaction of customers needs, and CTQ benchmarking, which provides an assessment of product
based on CTQ metrics. Competitor evaluations are collected through field tests and online surveys
for better consistency. Products belonging to the same category are compared, with price ranges
consistent with the company strategy. From the final calculation of the CSI, a clear need of
improvement emerges for the product global evaluation. Products belonging to the same category
are compared, with price ranges consistent with the company strategy. From the final calculation of
the CSI, there is a clear need of improvement for the product’s global evaluation.
• CSI Baseline: 4.74;
• CSI Competitor 1: 4.64;
• CSI Competitor 2: 5.61;
• CSI Target: 6.55.
Although the baseline is in line with Competitor 1, it is distant from both the evaluation of
Competitor 2 and the target. For CTQ benchmarking, the technical performances of the two
competitors are collected through direct measurements, field tests, and the analysis of brochures and
technical data sheets. Target values for each CTQ are set based on results of VOC benchmarking and
measurements. Engineering difficulty levels are assigned on a (1 – 10) scale, to highlight CTQ
engineering bottlenecks, which are important but difficult to implement (Importance >5; Difficulty
>5). From the analysis of CTQs reported in Figure 5, it is evident that the CTQ engineering bottlenecks
are the following:
• C 8.2: Saddle height adjustment time;
• C 7.1: Brake System Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) / Mean Kilometer Between Failure
(MKBF);
• C 6.2: number of years of warranty;
• C 1.1: Handlebar grips Mean Time To Failures (MTTF).
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

Figure 5. CTQ Engineering bottlenecks.

Analysis of CTQ engineering bottlenecks and HoQ roofs suggests increasing the priority level
of CTQ 8.2 implementation and further investigating the relationships of CTQ 6.2 through detailed
analysis. While the remaining CTQs do not show critical relationships with other characteristics, their
improvement is challenging. The use of problem-solving techniques presented in the previous
sections can help to define and break down problems as well as to resolve contradictions.
As regards possible improvements in the DFSS research area, it can be observed that continuous
improvement provided by QFD naturally involves a reduction in material resources consumption
and waste production, with consequent beneficial effects from economic, environmental and social
viewpoints. An example in the context of the environmental protection can be made with respect to
the introduction of Aluminum for the construction of the bike frame. Indeed, a material change
involves multiple and interconnected effects on the sustainability profile of the entire bicycle LC. First
of all, a switch from traditional materials (such as conventional steel) to lightweight options (such as
Aluminum or Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) results in the vast majority of cases in an increased
impact for production stage. This is due on the one hand to the notably bigger damages (i.e. Global
Warming Potential, GWP) in the production of semi-finished products of Aluminum or carbon fibers
when compared to Steel, mainly due to the strongly higher energy intensity of extraction and refining
processes of minerals and base materials. On the other hand, also manufacturing of semi-finished
products into final components is often definitely environmentally detrimental when considering
innovative materials (especially composites), primarily due to the vastity of processes and
energy/material consumables which are required for production. Looking at the other LC phases,
CFRPs appear to be also not eco-friendly when considering the disposal at End-of-Life (EoL), due to
notable technical difficulties in the separation of different constituent materials. At the same time,
Aluminum can be easily separated and also conveniently recycled: as a confirmation, recycling of
Aluminum is characterized by a definitely high substitution factor (net quota of primary raw
materials whose extraction is avoided thanks to recycling), which is around 40 % [45], even bigger
than the one of Steel (30 %) [46,47]. On the other hand, lightweighting can offer significant advantages
in the use stage but only when the vehicle consumes energy for its propulsion. As a consequence, in
the present case study mass reduction can be considered an effective strategy for improving the
environmental profile only when improvement strategies identified by DFSS provide for
electrification of the bicycle. In such a case, lower vehicle mass means less effects associated with the
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

10

production of a reduced amount of energy required for traction; in this regard, it has to be taken in
mind that benefits in operation from lightweighting increase at bicycle LC distance growing. In the
light of previous considerations, it is clear that the effective environmental convenience of lightweight
solutions (and more in general of improvement solutions identified by QFD) strongly depends on the
balance of advantages and disadvantages which occur in production, operation and EoL, thus
requiring a proper evaluation based on a LC perspective. In addition to this, there is to consider that
the evaluation of product LC can be extended from environmental to economic and social spheres,
by applying respectively Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA)
methodologies. Obviously, the combined implementation of the three types of analyses requires a
very strong effort (both in terms of time and personnel) in data collection, due to the substantial
amount of necessary information.

3. Conclusions
Identifying critical success factors, such as customer satisfaction, cost monitoring, and quality
level enhancement, necessitates the use of a clear and structured strategy that aims at continuous
improvement.
The presented case study shows that DFSS methodologies and analysis tools must be
appropriately selected and adapted based on context, product type, and experience of practitioners.
That said, it is equally essential to avoid unnecessarily rigidifying processes (striving to use
inadequate tools for the specific situation), as well as to identify correctly leveraging tools,
procedures, and synergies, also utilizing dedicated software. At the same time, defining a universal
product development process capable of equally addressing all design problems is not possible, while
it is advisable to establish a structured guideline that allows identifying the most appropriate
problem-solving methodology for the specific situation. Results show that when the complexity level
increases, it is necessary to synergistically use all DFSS methods, leveraging their analytical
capabilities, strengths, and complementarity to achieve the maximum efficiency. In conclusion, in the
authors opinion, a combined DFSS approach, applicable to a broader and more general level, is the
best strategy for using seemingly distant methodologies and operational philosophies to enhance the
overall performance, while at the same time improving business processes and achieving production
excellence.
As regards possible improvements in the DFSS research area, it can be observed that continuous
improvement provided by Lean Six Sigma naturally involves a reduction in material resources
consumption and waste production, with consequent beneficial effects from economic,
environmental and social viewpoints. In the light of previous considerations, the combination of
DFSS with life-cycle analysis methodologies, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing
(LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) appears as a promising and viable way in which
concentrating future research efforts.

References
1. Raval, S.J.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Revealing research trends and themes in lean six sigma: from 2000 to 2016.
Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2018, 9, 399-443.
2. Gupta, V.; Jain, R.; Meena, M.L.; Dangayach, G.S. Six-sigma application in tire-manufacturing company: a
case study. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 2018, 13, 511-520.
3. Noori, B.; Latifi, M. Development of six sigma methodology to improve grinding processes. Int. J. Lean Six
Sigma 2018, 9, 50-63.
4. Morgan, J.; Liker, J. The Toyota product development system: integrating people, process, and technology; CRC
Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
5. UNI EN ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems – Requirements; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
6. Arcidiacono, G.; Berni, R.; Cantone, L.; Nikiforova, N.D.; Placidoli, P. Fast Method to Evaluate Payload
Effect on In-Train Forces of Freight Trains. Open Transp. J. 2018, 12, 77-87.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

11

7. Giorgetti, A.; Cavallini, C.; Arcidiacono, G.; Citti, P. A mixed C-Vikor fuzzy approach for material selection
during design phase: A case study in valve seats for high performance engine. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2017,
12, 3117-3129.
8. Arcidiacono, G.; De Luca, E.W.; Fallucchi, F.; Pieroni, A. The use of Lean Six Sigma methodology in Digital
Curation. In Proceedings of the CEUR Workshop, 2016; Vol. 1764.
9. Alexander, P.; Anthony, J.; Rodgers, B. Lean six sigma for small and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2019, 36, 378-397.
10. Rodgers, B.; Antony, J. Lean and Six Sigma practices in the public sector: a review. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.
2019, 36, 437-455.
11. Bhat, S.; Gijo, E.V.; Antony, J.; Cross, J. Strategies for successful deployment and sustainment of Lean Six
Sigma in healthcare sector in India: a multi-level perspective. TQM J. 2023, 35, 414-445.
12. Matt, D.T.; Arcidiacono, G.; Rauch, E. Applying Lean to Healthcare Delivery Processes - a Case-based
Research. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 123-133.
13. Sadhi, H.S.; Singh, D.; Singh, B.J. Developing a Lean Six Sigma conceptual model and to Implementation:
a case study. Ind. Eng. J. 2019, 12, 1-19.
14. Francisco, M.G.; et al. Design for six sigma integrated product development reference model through
systematic review. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2020, 11, 767-795.
15. Cudney, E.A.; Agustiady, K.T. Design for six sigma: a practical approach through innovation; CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
16. Nicolaescu, S.; Kifor, C.V. Design for Six Sigma applied on software development projects from automotive
industry. Acad. J. Manuf. Eng. 2014, 12.
17. Liverani, A.; et al. Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) for additive manufacturing applied to an innovative
multifunctional fan. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2019, 13, 309-330.
18. Filho, P.I.; Junior, O.C. A Discussion About the Interactions Between Product Development Process and
Services Sector. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Production Research, Springer Nature
Switzerland, November 2022; pp. 328-335.
19. Francisco, M.G.; et al. Roadmap for product development based on design for six sigma method. Int. J. Lean
Six Sigma 2023, 14, 989-1009.
20. Yang; et al. The development of the new process of design for six sigma (DFSS) and its application.
Sustainability 2022, 14.
21. Arcidiacono, G.; Pieroni, A. The revolution Lean Six Sigma 4.0. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 141.
22. Ginting, R.; et al. Product development with quality function deployment (QFD): a literature review. In
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2020; Vol. 1003.
23. Sivasankaran, P. Quality concepts in Industrial systems using QFD (Quality Function Deployment)–
Survey. SSRG Int. J. Ind. Eng. 2021, 8, 7-13.
24. Fonseca, L.; Fernandes, J.; Delgado, C. QFD as a tool to improve negotiation process, product quality, and
market success, in an automotive industry battery components supplier. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 51, 1403-
1409.
25. Oktora, A.; Amrina, U. Application of Quality Function Deployment for the Design & Development of
Consumer Cosmetic Packaging Bottle. Int. J. Eng. Res. Adv. Technol. 2023, 9.
26. Sachamanorom, W.; Senoo. Voice of the customer through customer cocreation: the case of Fuji Xerox
Japan. In Proceedings of the AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), 2016.
27. Wang, H.; Fang, Z.; Wang, D.; Liu, S. An integrated fuzzy QFD and grey decision-making approach for
supply chain collaborative quality design of large complex products. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 140.
28. Suhada; Dharma; Bambang, S. Analysis of Customer Satisfaction in Construction Companies Using QFD
Method. IPTEK J. Proc. Ser. 2021, 1, 341-348.
29. Gavareshki, M.H.K.; Abbasi, M.; Rostamkhani, R. Application of QFD & VE & lean approach for control
tests in a product design. Arch. Mater. Sci. 2017, 66.
30. Tortorella, G.L.; Fogliatto, F.S.; Sunder, M.V.; Vergara, A.M.C.; Vassolo, R. Assessment and prioritisation
of Healthcare 4.0 implementation in hospitals using Quality Function Deployment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022,
60, 3147-3169.
31. Sarfaraz, A.H.; Yazdi, A.K.; Hanne, T.; Hosseini, R.S. Decision support for technology transfer using fuzzy
quality function deployment and a fuzzy inference system. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2023, 44, 7995-8014.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 11 October 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202410.0894.v1

12

32. Bai, X. Exploring the sustainable development path of a green financial system in the context of carbon
neutrality and carbon peaking: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14.
33. Patil, C.K.; Hussain, M.; Halegowda, N.V. QFD for sustainability and improved product (spring) design.
In AIP Conference Proceedings, September 2018.
34. Le, L.; Song, W.; Wu, Z.; Xu, Z.; Zheng, M. Quantification and integration of an improved Kano model into
QFD based on multi-population adaptive genetic algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 114, 183-194.
35. Lu, S.; Cao, M. Research on internal control optimization of Financial Sharing Center Based on fuzzy
mathematics theory and quality function deployment theory. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2023, 44, 519-541.
36. Jeong, H.J.; Kang, C.W.; Kim, B.H. Requirements development process for manufacturing information
systems based on quality function deployment. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2018, 31, 164-174.
37. Global Bike & Bike Accessories Market. Available online: www.pwc.com (accessed on 2021).
38. RGbikes. Available online: https://rgbikes.com/ (accessed on 10 September 2024).
39. Tandiono, Y.; Rau, H. An Enhanced Model Using the Kano Model, QFDE, and TRIZ with a Component-
Based Approach for Sustainable and Innovative Product Design. Sustainability 2022, 15, 527.
40. Li, M.; Zhang, J. Integrating Kano model, AHP, and QFD methods for new product development based on
text mining, intuitionistic fuzzy sets, and customers satisfaction. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 1-17.
41. Xu, H.; Song, H. Key Factors Influencing Chinese Consumers' Demand for Naturally Dyed Garments: Data
Analysis through KJ Method and KANO Model. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1189.
42. Ayachi, F.S.; Dorey, J.; Gustavino, C. Identifying factors of bicycle comfort: An online survey with
enthusiast cyclists. Appl. Ergon. 2015, 46, 124-136.
43. Yu, D.; et al. Analysis of collaboration evolution in AHP research: 1982–2018. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.
2021, 20, 7-36.
44. Qualica 19. Available online: https://www.qualica.net/ (accessed on 10 September 2024).
45. Del Pero, F.; Delogu, M.; Kerschbaum, M. Design of a Lightweight Rear Crash Management System in a
Sustainable Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5243.
46. Del Pero, F.; Dattilo, C.A.; Giraldi, A.; Delogu, M. LCA approach for environmental impact assessment
within the maritime industry: Re-design case study of yacht's superstructure. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M
J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2024, 238, 153-170.
47. Antonacci, A.; Del Pero, F.; Baldanzini, N.; Delogu, M. Multi-objective Methodology for Design and
Environmental Analysis in the Automotive Field. SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf. 2022, 15.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.