Analysis On Laptop Using QFD
—The case of SONY X138JC/P
MEMBERS:Tanglihua Sundan Shaoshasha
College of Economics and
1 INTRODUCTION
2 CASE STUDY
CONTENTS
3 CONCLUSION
4 REFERENCES
College of Economics and
1.INTRODUCTION
How to improve it
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
*Summary sheet of customer investigation
perception
Enquired
item
cognitive
processing
speed
machine
weight
memory
amount
Lenovo
Sony
5
4
3
5
3
5
5
4
5
5—have a great influence
4—have influence
3—have little influence
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
*The congruent relationship between the indexes
customers care and technique index
attributes consumer focus on
processing speed
machine weight
memory amount
technological attribute
basic frequency
internal memory
material
size
thickness
hard disk
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
* The parameter comparison between
SONY and LENOVO
Frequency
Lenovo 2.13 GHz
Memory
Material
2GB
Magnalium
Weight Size
1.44kg
12.1 17.9m
250G
inch m
780g
11.1 13.9m
128G
inch m
Mixed mode
Sony 1.86 GHz
2GB
carbon fiber
Thick- Hard
ness disk
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
* Key customer needs definded table
customer Import comparison
demand -ance
analysis
degree
processing
speed
machine
weight
memory
amount
total
Improvement
target
Lenovo
Sony
Improment
target
5
5
5
4
3
4
3
5
3
Improvem- product
character
ent rate
1.67
1
1.67
Maincustomer
demand
analysis
absolute
weight
Weight%
12.5 41.7
7.5 25
10 33.3
30 100
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
Functions Used
*Technical Requirements Table
Technical
requirements
Technical index
frequency
memory
material
size
hard disk
*Quality Table Relevancy
Degree of
correspondence
Strong
Medium
Weak
None
Sign
Value
☉
3
○
△
2
Blank
1
0
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
* Relationship Matrix
Basic
Internal
Thick Hard
Material Size
frequency memory
-ness -disk
Processing
Speed
Machine
weight
Memory
amount
☉
○
☉ △ ○
☉
College of Economics and
2.CASE STUDY
*Correlation Matrix
influence degree
stong positive
sign
⊙
positive
negative
○
strong negative
#
*
none
College of Economics and
3.CONCLUSION
House of quality
*
Technical
requirements
Customer
demand
Key customer demand defined
Frequen
cy
⊙
Speed
Internal
memory
Material
Size
Thicknes
s
○
⊙
Weight
Δ
○
⊙
Capacity
mportance（%）I
Key
quality
charac
ter
setting
Compara
tive
analysis
Hard
disk
Oppone
nt
Techniqu
e
analysis
27.29
18.19
16.36
+
=
+
5
1
3
5.45
10.92
21.79
-
-
+
1
4
2
Comparative
analysis
Impor
t-ance EnterpElse
rise
Improvement goal
Improvement
goal
Standard Commodity
increased characterirate
stic point
Weight
﹪
5
4
3
5
1.67
◎
41.7
5
3
5
5
1.00
◎
25.0
5
4
3
5
1.67
○
33.3
Desired
value
Quality
character
design
Setting
College of Economics and
3.CONCLUSION
* Key Quality Character Setting
Technical
requirements
Frequency Memory Material
Comparative
analysis
Quality
character
design
Thick Hard-ness disk
23.5
21.9
14.0
4.7
9.4
26.5
Opponent
+
=
+
-
-
+
Technique
analysis
5
1
3
1
4
2
╳
√
√
√
╳
√
Importance（%）
Key
quality
character
setting
Size
Desired
value
Setting
of
memory
ofsize,
SONY
and
LENOVO
areLENOVO
LENOVO
SONY The
hasperforms
When
The
The
aamount
patent
most
thickness
it comes
for
better,
important
using
of
to
however,
SONY
the
light
one
material
isisthe
hard
SONY
among
difficulty
disk,
and
has
the
in
there
some
best
contrast,
for is
inadvantages,
much
the
opening
potential
whereas
market;
does
for not.
size is
equal;
can
steps
to
target
improvement
As a result,
the
improvement
however
SONY
iscorrespondingly
attribute
relatively
has
it isan
which
and
difficult
high.
advantage.
therefore
iswe
Therefore,
offor
thedevelopment.
However,
lowest
atake
lotitseveral
ofistechnological
attention
better
there
Consequently
toareshould
also
difficulty.
some
be ir
paid
would
Hence
to it.better
in
athe
competitive
advantage
develop
shortcomings,
order
be
attributes
delayed
fortoinstance:
beat
later
the
thetechnological
rather
competitors
reliability.
than now
Therefore
in
improvement
the market,
.we should
SONYlearn
should
from
strive
the for
other competitors
continuous
in order
innovation
to improve
in theour
technology
products. field.
,
College of Economics and
,,
,
,
,
4.REFERENCES
1. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality function
deployment. Qual Prog19:39–50
2. Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function
deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper
Res 143:463–497
3. Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment:
how to make QFDwork for you. AddisonWesley, New York
College of Economics and
College of Economics and