ANALYSIS ON LAPTOP USING QFD ——— ——— A case Study on A case Study on Improving Lenovo ThinkPad Improving Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C. X201i 3249J4C.
ANALYSIS ON LAPTOP USING QFD
Feb 12, 2016
ANALYSIS ON LAPTOP USING QFD. ——— A case Study on Improving Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C. 1. 2. 4. 5. 3. CASE STUDY. INTRODUCTION. METHODOLOGY. CONCLUSION. REFERENCES. CONTENT. 1. INTRODUCTION. The purpose: ——Improve Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C laptop. Method: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ANALYSIS ON LAPTOP USING QFD
——————A case Study on A case Study on Improving Lenovo ThinkPad Improving Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C.X201i 3249J4C.
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION1
METHODOLOGY2
CASE STUDY3
CONCLUSION4
REFERENCES5
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose: ——Improve Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C laptop.
Method:——Quality function deployment (QFD) ——Comparing Lenovo and Sony
Summary sheet of customer investigation
Investigation project
Awareness
Perception
Lenovo Sony
Speed 5 4 3Weight 5 3 5
Capacity 5 4 3
(5 levels scale)1=don’t attention5=special focus
We need to improve the Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C laptop according to Customer needs .
The indexes customers care Technique index
(attractive quality )
(attractive quality )
The congruent relationship between the indexes customers care and technique index
Speed
Weight
Capacity
Frequency
Memory
Material
Size
Thickness
Hard disk
The parameter comparison between Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4 and Sony X138JC/P(pink)
Frequency Memory Material Weight Size Thickness Harddisk
Lenovo2.13GHz 2GB Magnalium 1.44kg 12.1 inch 17.9mm 250G
Sony 1.86GHz 2GB Mixed modecarbon fiber 780g 11.1
inch 13.9mm 128G
2. METHODOLOGY
QFD :
To help transform the customer needs into engineering characteristics for a product or service, prioritizing each product or service characteristic while simultaneously setting the development targets for the product or service.
The House Of Quality
3. CASE STUDY
Customer RequirementsCustomerrequirements Index level
Customer satisfaction
Speed
Weight
Capacity
Step 1
Planning Matrix
CustomerRequirem-ents
Import-ance
Comparative analysis Improvement goal
Key Customer needs rank
Enterprise Else Improve-ment goal
Standard increased rate
Commodity characteris-tic point
Absolute weight
Weight﹪
Speed 5 4 3 5 1.25 ◎ 9.375 31.9
Weight 5 3 5 5 1.67 ◎ 12.525 42.6
Capacity 5 4 3 5 1.25 ○ 7.5 25.5
Total 29.4 100
Step 2
Technical Requirements
Technical requirements
Technical index
Frequency Memory Material Size Thickness
Harddisk
Step 3
Relationship Matrix
Frequency memory Material Size Thickness Harddisk
Speed ⊙ ○Weight ⊙ ○ ○
Capacity ⊙
Technicalrequirements
Customer requirements
Step 4
Correlation Matrix Technicalrequirements Frequency Memory Material Size Thicknes
s Harddisk
Frequency
Memory
Material
Size *Thickness *
Hard disk
Step 5
Setting
Technique analysis
Desired value
Quality character design
Oppone-ntCompara
tive analysis
Importance （ % ）
124513
+---=+
14.316.016.023.911.917.9
Targets
25.5○1.255345⊙Capacity
42.6○1.675535○○⊙Weight
31.9◎1.255345⊙⊙Speed
Commodity characteri-stic point
Standard increased rate
Improv-ement goal
ElseEnterp-rise
Weight﹪
Improvement goalComparative analysis
Import-ance
Planning Matrix
HarddiskThicknessSize MaterialInternal
memoryFrequency
* Technicalrequirements
Customerrequirements
House of quality
Technicalrequirements
Frequency Memory Material Size Thickness Hard
disk
Targ-ets
Importance （ % ） 17.9 11.9 23.9 16.0 16.0 14.3
Comparative
analysis
Opponent + = - - - +
Technique analysis 3 1 5 4 2 1
Quality character design
Desired value
Setting
Technicalrequirements
Frequency Memory Material Size Thickness Hard
disk
Targ-ets
Importance （ % ） 17.9 11.9 23.9 16.0 16.0 14.3
Compar-ative
analysis
Opponent + = - - - +
Technique analysis 3 1 5 4 2 1
Quality character design
Desired value
Setting
Frequency
× ×× √√ √
MemoryMaterial Hard diskThicknessSize
The cost of frequency's advancement is relatively high.
It keeps at the same level as our rivals' and it will not make notable difference to laptop's
performance.Have additional value in the patent technology Hard to improve in a limited time.
Thickness and size has great influence on weight.
The expense on disk research is low and will boost customer's satisfaction.
4.CONCLUSION
Improving goals:
——A thinner and smaller laptop equipped with a bigger capacity.
5.REFERENCES
1. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality function deployment. Qual Prog19:39–502. Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 143:463–4973. Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment: how to make QFDwork for you. Addison-Wesley, New York
Related Documents
