Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering (산업경영시스템학회지)

Society of Korea Industrial and System Engineering (한국산업경영시스템학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Determination of Priority for Improvement Using the Theory of Two-dimensional Quality

품질의 이원론을 이용한 개선의 우선순위 결정

  • Song, Hae Geun (Department of Systems Management Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • 송해근 (성균관대학교 시스템경영공학과)
  • Received : 2013.01.26
  • Accepted : 2013.02.14
  • Published : 2013.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The theory of two-dimensional quality, in particular, the Kano model that is developed by the analogy with the M-H theory, has been applied in various industry fields for more than three decades. Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) assumes that the degree of physical fulfilment of quality attributes and the satisfaction of that attribute is linear, and therefore, it is applicable to the traditional one-dimensional attribute, not other quality types defined in the Kano's model such as attractive or must-be attribute. To solve this problem, the current study suggests a new importance-satisfaction analysis using a modified IPA in accordance with the three quality types and a diagonal method introduced by Slack (1999) to determine improvement priority. For this, I investigated 19 smartphone's quality attributes and conducted a survey of 334 university students for the results of Kano's model, which adopted from Song and Park (2012)'s study, and the importance/satisfaction of the quality attributes and the results of the priority for improvement of the 19 quality attributes. The results show that the proposed I-S priority model is better than the conventional IPA based on the comparison results of determination coefficient from the regression analysis of the two models.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, E.W. and Mittal, V., Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research, 2000, Vol. 3, No. 2, p 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032001
  2. Bacon, D.R., A comparison of approaches to importanceperformance analysis. International Journal of Market Research, 2003, Vol. 45, No. 1, p 55-71.
  3. Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., and Walden, D., Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 1993, Vol. 2, No. 4, p 2-36.
  4. Cadotte, E.R. and Turgeon, N., Dissatisfiers and Satisfiers : Suggestions from Consumer Complaints and Compliments. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 1988, Vol. 1, p 74-79.
  5. Eskidsen, J.K. and Kristensen, K., Enhancing importance performance analysis, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2006, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 40-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400610635499
  6. Fong D., Using the self-stated importance questionnaire to interpret Kano questionnaire results. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 1996, Vol. 5, No. 3, p 21-23.
  7. Herzberg, F., One more time-How do you motivate employees?. Harvard Business Review, 1987, Vol, 65, No. 5, p 109-120.
  8. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B.M., and Snyderman, B.B., The motivation to work. John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1959.
  9. Högström, C., The theory of attractive quality and experience offerings. The TQM Journal, 2011, Vol. 23, No. 2, p 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731111110195
  10. Jang, H.Y., Song, H.G., and Park, Y.T., Determining the importance values of quality attributes using ASC. Journal of Korean Society of Quality Management, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 4, p 589-598. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2012.40.4.589
  11. Kano, N., Life cycle and creation of attractive quality, Proceedings of the 4th QMOD Conference, Linkoping, Sweden, 2001, p 18-36.
  12. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsjui, S., Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu, 1984, Vol. 14, No. 2, p 147-56.
  13. Khalifa, A.S., Customer value : a review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. Management Decision, 2004, Vol. 42, No. 5, p 645-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410538497
  14. Kim, T.O., Analysis of quality characteristics of smart phone using modified Kano model. Society of Korea industrial and systems engineering, 2012, Vol. 35, No. 4, p 57-65.
  15. Kuo, Y.-F., Chen, J.-Y., and Deng, W.-J., IPA-Kano model : A new tool for categorising and diagnosing service quality attributes, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. 2012, Vol. 23, No. 7/8, p 731-748. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.637811
  16. Levitt, T., The Marketing Imagination. The Free Press, 1986, New York.
  17. Lofgren, M. and Witell, L., Two decades of using Kano's theory of attractive quality : a literature review, Quality Management Journal, 2008, Vol. 15, No. 1, p 59-75, ASQ.
  18. Matilla, J.A. and James, J.C., Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 1977, Vol. 41, p 77-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495
  19. Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H., Renzl, B., and Pichler, J., The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction : a reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 2004a, Vol. 33, No. 4, p 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5
  20. Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., and Schubert, A.K, Employee satisfaction : does Kano's model apply?. Total Quality Management, 2004b, Vol. 15, No. 9-10, p 1179-1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478336042000255569
  21. Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H., Bailom, F., and Sauerwein, E., How to delight your customer. Journal of Product and Brand Man-agement, 1996, Vol. 5, No. 2, p 6-18.
  22. Mikulic, J. and Prebezac, D., A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Managing Service Quality, 2011, Vol. 21, No. 1, p 46-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111100243
  23. Nilsson-Witell, L. and Fundin, A., "Dynamics of service attributes : A test of Kano's theory of attractive quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 2005, Vol. 16, No. 2, p 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230510592289
  24. Oliver, R.L., Attribute Need Fulfillment in Product Usage Satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing, 1995, Vol. 12, No. 1, p 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220120102
  25. Sampson, S.E. and Showalter, M.J., "The Performance-Importance Response Function : Observations and Implications. The Service Industries Journal, 1999, Vol. 19, No. 3, p 1-25.
  26. Shahin, A., Integration of FMEA and the Kano model : An exploratory examination. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2004, Vol. 21, No. 7, p 731-746. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710410549082
  27. Slack, N., The Importance-Performance Matrix as a Determinant of Improvement Priority. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1994, Vol. 14, No. 5, p 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579410056803
  28. Song, H.G. and Park, Y.T., Wordings of the Kano modelʼs questionnaire. Journal of Korean Society of Quality Management, 2012, Vol. 40, No. 4, p 453-466. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2012.40.4.453
  29. Swan, J.E. and Combs, L.J., Product Performance and Consumer Satisfaction : A New Concept. Journal of Marketing, 1976, Vol. 40, No. 2, p 25-33.
  30. Tan, K.C. and T.A. Pawitra., Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD for service excellence development. Managing Service Quality, 2001, Vol. 11, No. 6, p 418-430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006520
  31. Tontini, G. and Silveira, A., Identification of satisfaction attributes using competitive analysis of the improvement gap. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 2007, Vol. 27, No. 5, p 482-500. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710742375
  32. Vargo, S.L., Nagao, K., He, Y., and Morgan. F.W., Satisfiers, Dissatisfiers, Criticals, and Neutrals : A Review of Their Relative Effects on Customer (Dis) Satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2007, Vol. 11, No. 2, p 1-13.
  33. Yang, C.-C., Establishment and applications of the integrated model of service quality measurement. Managing Service Quality, 2003, Vol. 13, No. 4, p 310-324. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520310484725

Cited by

  1. 품질 속성의 가중치 선정을 위한 APC에 관한 연구 vol.36, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.11627/jkise.2013.36.3.8
  2. Kano-QFD 통합모형에서의 고객 요구속성 중요도 산정 vol.37, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.11627/jkise.2014.37.1.68
  3. 중요도-만족도 격차분석을 이용한 품질 속성의 우선순위 결정 vol.43, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7469/jksqm.2015.43.2.127