3_analysis on laptop using qfd- the case of sony x138jcp

7/27/2019 3_Analysis on Laptop Using QFD- The Case of SONY X138JCP

1/14

College of Economics and

Analysis On Laptop Using QFD

The case of SONY X138JC/PMEMBERS:Tanglihua Sundan Shaoshasha


2/14


1 INTRODUCTION

2 CASE STUDY

3 CONCLUSION

CONTENTS

4 REFERENCES


3/14


1.INTRODUCTION

How to improve it


4/14


Lenovo Sony

5 4 3

5 3 5

5 4 5

2.CASE STUDY

5have a great influence4have influence3have little influence

*Summary sheet of customer investigation

processing

speed

machine

weight

memory

amount

perceptioncognitiveEnquired

item


5/14


attributes consumer focus on technological attribute

processing speed

machine weight

memory amount

*The congruent relationship between the indexescustomers care and technique index

2.CASE STUDY

hard disk

thickness

size

material

internal memory

basic frequency


6/14


Frequ-

encyMemory Material Weight Size

Thick-

ness

Hard

disk

Lenovo2.13 GHz 2GB Magnalium 1.44kg12.1

inch

17.9m

m250G

Sony 1.86 GHz 2GBMixed mode

carbon fiber

780g11.1

inch

13.9m

m128G

* The parameter comparison between SONY

and LENOVO

2.CASE STUDY


7/14College of Economics and

customer

demand Import-ancedegree

comparison

analysis Improvementtarget Maincustomerdemandanalysis

Lenovo SonyImpro-

ment

target

Improvem-ent rate

product

character

absolute

weight Weight%

processing

speed 5 4 3 1.67 12.5 41.7machine

weight 5 3 5 1 7.5 25memoryamount 5 4 3 1.67 10 33.3

total 30 100

* Key customer needs definded table

2.CASE STUDY



FunctionsUsed

Technical

requirementsTechnical index

frequency memory material size hard disk

Degree of

correspondenceSign Value

Strong 3Medium 2

Weak 1None Blank 0

*Technical Requirements Table

*Quality Table Relevancy

2.CASE STUDY



* Relationship Matrix

Basic

frequency

Internal

memoryMaterial Size

Thick

-ness

Hard

-disk

ProcessingSpeed Machineweight

Memory

amount

2.CASE STUDY



influence degree sign

stong positive positive

negative *

strong negative #

none

*Correlation Matrix

2.CASE STUDY



House of quality

3.CONCLUSION

Setting

Techniqu

e

analysis

Desired

valueQuality

character

design

Oppone

ntCompara

tive

analysis

mportance%I

241315

+--+=+21.7910.925.4516.3618.1927.29

Key

quality

charac

ter

setting

33.31.675345Capacity

25.01.005535Weight

41.71.675345Speed

Commodity

characteri-

stic point

Standard

increased

rate

Improv-

ement

goal

ElseEnterp-

rise

Weight

Improvement goalComparative

analysisImpor

t-ance

Key customer demand defined

Hard

disk

Thicknes

sSizeMaterialInternal

memory

Frequen

cy

*Technical

requirements

Customer

demand



3.CONCLUSION

*Key Quality Character Setting

,

LENOVO performs better, however, the difficulty for

improvement is relatively high. Therefore, it is better to

develop the attributes later rather than now

Technical

requirements

Key

qualitychara-cter

setting

Importance% 23.5 21.9 14.0 4.7 9.4 26.5

Compar-ativeanalysis

Opponent

+ = + - - +Techniqueanalysis 5 1 3 1 4 2

Qualitycharacterdesign

Desired

value

Setting

Frequency MaterialMemoryThick-ness

SizeHard-

disk

,

The amount of memory of SONY and LENOVO are

equal; correspondingly we can take several steps to target

a competitive advantage,

SONY has a patent for using light material and in contrast, LENOVO does not.

As a result, SONY has an advantage. However, there are also some

shortcomings, for instance: reliability. Therefore .we should learn from the

other competitors in order to improve our products.

,

When it comes to the size, SONY has some advantages, whereas size is

the attribute which is of the lowest technological difficulty. Hence in

order to beat the competitors in the market, SONY should strive for

continuous innovation in the technology field.

,

The thickness of SONY is among the best in the opening market;

however it is difficult for development. Consequently ir would better

be delayed the technological improvement

,The most important one is hard disk, there is much potential for

improvement and therefore a lot of attention should be paid to it.



4.REFERENCES

1. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality functiondeployment. Qual Prog19:3950

2. Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function

deployment: a literature review. Eur J OperRes 143:463497

3. Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment:

how to make QFDwork for you. Addison-

Wesley, New York

3_analysis on laptop using qfd- the case of sony x138jcp

Documents