Improvement in Product Development: Use of back-end data to support upstream efforts of Robust Design Methodology
In the area of Robust Design Methodology (RDM) less is done on how to use and work with data from the back-end of the product development process to support upstream improvement. The purpose of this paper is to suggest RDM practices for the use of customer claims data in early design phases as a basis for improvements. The back-end data, when systematically analyzed and fed back into the product development process, aids in closing the product development loop from claims to improvement in the design phase. This is proposed through a flow of claims data analysis tied to an existing tool, namely Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The systematic and integrated analysis of back-end data is suggested as an upstream effort of RDM to increase understanding of noise factors during product usage based on the feedback of claims data to FMEA and to address continuous improvement in product development.
Volume (Year): 16 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Majeske, Karl D. & Lynch-Caris, Terri & Herrin, Gary, 1997. "Evaluating product and process design changes with warranty data," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 79-89, June.
- Bersimis, Sotiris & Psarakis, Stelios & Panaretos, John, 2006. "Multivariate Statistical Process Control Charts: An Overview," MPRA Paper 6399, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Tari, Juan Jose & Sabater, Vicente, 2004. "Quality tools and techniques: Are they necessary for quality management?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 267-280, December.
- Gruner, Kjell E. & Homburg, Christian, 2000. "Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 1-14, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tuk:qipqip:v:16:y:2012:i:2:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matus Horvath)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.