PPT Slide
Here the Technology Element Objectives (TEO) are being prioritized with respect to the Sub-Area Goals. The exact output results of Matrix P1/A1 are flowed into Matrix P2/A2. Again the affordability and performance tracks have been combined. Note that the exact array of Sub-Area Goal’s weights, documented on the right side of this matrix, are those produced by Matrix A1/P1.
If the affordability TEOs output scores are summed, they represent 53% of the ability to satisfy the Sub-Area Goals. The 11 affordability TEOs include any TEO with the word ‘cost’ and two others; ‘30% Reduction in Aero Design Cycle Time’ and ‘70% Reduction in Control Related Accidents’. This is significant because the original split on the Aircraft Payoffs between affordability and performance was set at 50% / 50%.. Without any conscious effort, the emphasis between affordability and performance is being preserved through the FWV QFD flow.
30% of the Sub-Area Goal satisfaction can be attributed to the Aero TEOs, 24% to the Flight Control TEOs, 19% to the Sub-system TEOs and 29% to the Structures TEOs. The conclusion could be that the Flight Control and Sub-system TEOs do not make as significant a contribution as the other two areas until you notice that the #1 ranked TEO is a Flight Control TEO, ‘15% Reduction in Weight/Drag of Flight Control Systems’. The appropriate conclusion is to not over focus on the traditional groupings of Aero, Flight Controls, Sub-systems or Structures.
Notes: