Example Critical To Quality (CTQ) Verification Survey

This is the final survey in this DFSS demonstration project.

I hope you have found these surveys interesting. This is the last survey. It should not take too much of your time, but it is a bit more complex than the prior surveys. The Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) process flow is Define-Measure-Analyze-Design-Verify. This is the last of the Verification surveys. The point of this survey is to either verify that the design meets the Critical To Quality (CTQ) criteria or identify the gaps so that the design can be reworked.

If you have participated in the prior surveys you may recall that there are two primary themes in this design. 1) The use of white space and 2) the navigational pathway. The first set of questions are going to show you screen images and focus on the topic of white space. The final questions will ask you to think about how these screens are linked together to facilitate navigation. Again, I very much appreciate the time you are donating to this effort.


1. The screen shown below is from the prior design. It will be referenced in subsequent questions as the PRIOR DESIGN. Please provide feedback on the use of white space on this screen.
 There is too little white space and too much information
 The balance of white space to information is good
 There is too much white space and not enough information
A picture of an application screen

2. The PRIOR DESIGN required separate screens to enter data into the Portfolios table and the Programs table. The new design provides one screen to support updates to both Portfolios and Programs. Please look at the following screen image. Does this screen image make good use of white space?
 There is too little white space and too much information
 The balance of white space to information is good
 There is too much white space and not enough information
A picture of an application screen

3. In the prior survey it appears there are two equally desirable navigational choices. One way to get to the data is to walk the tree. Using the form shown above, you would select a Portfolio, then choose a Program and then click on the Projects button to launch the screen that is shown below. We will come back to navigation in a bit. For now, please provide an assessment on the use of white space on the screen shown below.
 There is too little white space and too much information
 The balance of white space to information is good
 There is too much white space and not enough information
A picture of an application screen

4. There is a trade off between the number of screens and the use of white space. The screen shown above combines the maintenance of Projects and Packages onto one screen. The screen before that combined the maintenance of Portfolios and Programs. That means fewer screens, but each screen is more complex. Is this a good trade off?
 Fewer screens is a good idea
 Having two screens to maintain four tables makes sense
 There should be a separate screen for each table
 The arrangement shown above is too complex

5. The final screen is the form that allows you to maintain the activities within the packages within a project. The image for that screen is shown below. Focus first on the use of white space.
 There is too little white space and too much information
 The balance of white space to information is good
 There is too much white space and not enough information
A picture of an application screen
 
Thank you for your assistance in assessing the use of white space. The remaining questions focus on navigation. There are two primary ways to get down to the Activity that you want to update. You can walk the tree from Portfolios to Programs to Projects to Package to Activity. Or you can use filtering to narrow the search. This new design allows both techniques. We will first focus on the tree walking approach. This might not be the way you like to work, but please answer the following question solely from the point of view of whether or not those that do like to navigate this way can do so with this product.

6. The following diagram shows that path way you can talk to walk the tree from Portfolios to Programs to Projects and the jump to Activities. Do you believe that the screens shown above make it possible to follow this path effectively?
 Yes I see that you can walk from Portfolios to Programs to Projects and jump to Activities
 I think I see how but I would need to try it out myself
 No I do not see how these screens support that approach
A picture of an application screen

7. The other way to navigate to the right Activity is to open the Projects form, use filters to quickly locate the right project and then click on the Activities button to bring up the related Activities. This work flow is illustrated in the diagram shown below. Do the screens shown above appear to allow effective navigation using this second approach?
 Yes I see that you can filter the Projects and jump to Activities
 I think I see how but I would need to try it out myself
 No I do not see how these screens support that approach
A picture of an application screen

8. Final question -- does it appear to you that it is easier to update the Activities in the new Activities form than it was in the PRIOR DESIGN? This question requires that you balance the navigational complexity in the new design with the white space utilization. One complaint about the PRIOR DESIGN was that too much of the screen was dedicated to navigation which left too little space for actual data entry. Does this new design do a better job of balancing navigation with white space?
 The new design seems too complicated
 The new design seems to balance navigational complexity with white space issues
 The new design is significantly better than the prior design

Thank you. I very much appreciate the time you have put into this effort. The results will be posted on my web site once I analyze them. Look in http://robertperrine.biz under Metrics for the Design for Six Sigma project.