한국산학기술학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society)

  • 제21권5호
  • /
  • Pages.28-38
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1975-4701(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-4688(eISSN)
한국산학기술학회 (The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

카노(Kano) 모델을 활용한 반도체 증착장비 분야 품질 만족 특성 분석: 복합제품시스템(CoPS) 관점에서의 시사점

An Analysis of the Quality Attributes of Semiconductor Deposition Equipment Using Kano Model: Implications from the Perspective of Complex Products and Systems (CoPS)

  • 이승환 (한국기술교육대학교 반도체디스플레이과학경영학과) ;
  • 김병근 (한국기술교육대학교 산업경영학부) ;
  • 지일용 (한국기술교육대학교 IT융합과학경영학과)
  • Lee, Seung Hwan (Department of Semiconductor and Display Science and Management, KOREATECH) ;
  • Kim, Byung-Keun (School of Industrial Management, KOREATECH) ;
  • Ji, Ilyong (Department of IT Convergence Science and Management, KOREATECH)
  • 투고 : 2020.03.18
  • 심사 : 2020.05.08
  • 발행 : 2020.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

반도체 증착장비는 일반적인 대량생산 제품과는 차별화되는 특징을 보이는 복합제품시스템(CoPS)의 주요 예시 중 하나로, 사용자 요구에 대한 충실한 이해가 필수적이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 Kano 모델을 활용하여 증착장비의 품질속성에 대한 사용자와 생산자의 만족 특성을 비교분석하고자 하였다. 사용자 및 생산자 기업의 엔지니어와 관리자들을 대상으로 Kano 설문을 수행하고 분석한 결과, 사용자 측과 생산자 측의 품질 만족 특성이 다르게 나타났다. 총 22개의 소분류 품질속성 가운데, 제조사 측은 22개 모두에 대해 매력적(A) 품질속성으로 평가한 반면, 사용자 측에서는 A 6개, 무관심(I) 10개, 당연적(M) 2개, 기타 경계치값 2개 등으로 평가하여 큰 차이를 보였다. 특히 제조사 측에서는 생산성능, 신뢰성, 편의성, 가격 및 원가 모두에 대해 매력적(A) 품질속성으로 평가한 반면, 사용자 측에서는 신뢰성에 대해서만 매력적 또는 당연적(M)으로 평가하고 나머지는 무관심(I)으로 평가하는 경우가 많았다. 이러한 결과는 이 분야 사용자와 생산자 간 품질속성에 대한 인식이 다르게 나타나고 있으며, 이에 대한 개선 및 전략적 활용의 필요성이 있음을 시사한다. 또한 상기의 결과는 CoPS는 규모의 경제와 비용절감보다는 제품 자체의 성능이 중요함을 시사한다. 따라서 증착장비 제조사들은 복합제품시스템의 특징을 반영한 혁신전략을 마련할 필요가 있다.

Semiconductor deposition equipment is an important example of Complex Products and Systems (CoPS) and requires in-depth understanding of user requirements. For this reason, we analyzed and compared users' and producers' perspectives on the quality attributes of semiconductor deposition equipment using the Kano model. The results show that the patterns of users' perspectives were different from those of producers. Out of 22 level-2 quality attributes, producers evaluated all 22 attributes as attractive qualities, but users evaluated only 6 as "attractive," 10 as "indifferent," 2 as "must have," and 4 as "other." Although all quality attributes were attractive for producers, only those related to reliability were attractive or must-have qualities, and all others were "indifferent." This result implies that the perspectives on quality attributes may be different between users and producers, and producers should revise their perspectives and strategies. In addition, the results support the characteristics of CoPS suggested by literature implying that performance is more important than economies of scale and cost reduction. It is suggested that producers of semiconductor deposition equipment strategize their approaches to users by considering the characteristics of CoPS.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. M. Hobday, "Product Complexity, Innovation and Industrial Organisation", Research Policy, Vol. 26, No.6, pp.689-710, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00044-9
  2. S-T. Kim, H. S. Kim, "A Study on the Classification of the Quality of E-Government Service Using the Kano Model: Focusing on Civil Servants and Citizens", Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, Vol.25, No.3, pp.235-258, 2015.
  3. T. Hughes, Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.
  4. W. Walker, M. Graham, B. Haror, "From Components to Integrated Systems: Technological Diversity and Integration between the Military and Civilian Sector," in P. Gummett, and J. Reppy, (eds.), The Relations between Defense and Civil Technologies, Kluwer Academic, 1998, pp.17-37.
  5. R. Miller, M. Hobday, T. Leroux-Demers, X. Olleros, "Innovation in Complex Systems Industries: The Case of Flight Simulation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.4, No.2, pp.363-400, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/4.2.363
  6. K. Pavitt, "Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory", Research Policy, Vol.13, No.6: 343-373, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0
  7. R. W. Rycroft, D. E. Kash, The Complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21st Century, Thompson Learning, 1999.
  8. V. Acha, A. Davies, M. Hobday, A. Salter, "Exploring the Capital Goods Economy: Complex Product Systems in the UK," Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.13, No.3, pp.505-529, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth020
  9. T-Y. Park, I. Ji, "From Mass Production to Complex Production: Case of the Korean Telecom Equipment Sector", Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol.22, No.1, pp.78-102, 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2015.1010271
  10. A. Prencipe, "Breadth and Depth of Technological Capabilities in CoPS: The Case of the Aircraft Engine Control System," Research Policy, Vol.29, No.7-8, pp.895-911, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00111-6
  11. A. Davies, M. Hobday, The Business of Projects: Managing Innovation in Complex Products and Systems, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  12. M. Hobday, H. Rush, "Technology Management in Complex Product Systems (CoPS): Ten Questions Answered," International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.17, No.6, pp.618-639, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1999.002739
  13. T. Abrell, A. Benker, M. Pihlajamaa, "User Knowledge Utilization in Innovation of Complex Products and Systems: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective," Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol.27, No.2, pp.169-182, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12244
  14. M. Hobday, "The Project-based Organisation: an Ideal Form for Managing Complex Products and Systems?," Research Policy, Vol.29, No.7-8, pp.871-893, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00110-4
  15. Commercialization Promotion Agency for R&D Outcome, Semiconductor Equipment Technology and Market Trend, S&T Market Report Vol.50, 2017.
  16. Chosun BIZ, ASML Monopolizing the EUV: Samsung and TSMC Relies on [cited 2019 April 29], Available from https://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/04/26/2019042602611.html (accessed Febryary 12, 2020).
  17. Digital Daily, SK's Vertical Integration of Semiconductor Business - an Action in Advance [cited 2017 January 23], Available from http://www.ddaily.co.kr/news/article/?no=152095 (accessed February 12, 2020).
  18. B-C. Lee, H-S. Seong, "Methods for Semiconductor Deposition and Equipment Technology", The Magazine of the IEEE, Vol.40, No.12, pp.31-45., 2013.
  19. K-J. Son, K. C. Kwon, T-H. Shin, S. Kang, J. C. Kim, J. K. Ko, Semiconductor Fabrication Equipment Technology for Semiconductor Scaling Down, KEIT PD Issue Report, KEIT, 2017.
  20. G. H. Park, Semiconductor Equipment, Industry Theme Report, Korea Investor Relations Service, 2019.
  21. J. Lee, D-H. Ham, "User-Centered Analysis of Functional Requirements of Navigation Systems Based on the Kano Model", Journal of Integrated Design Research, Vol.14, No.3, pp.9-18, 2015. https://doi.org/10.21195/jidr.2015.14.3.001
  22. J. W. Lee, M-S. Lee, "A study on the classification of medical tourism service quality elements for Chinese tourists", International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol.32, No.1, pp.125-139, 2018. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21298/IJTHR.2018.01.32.1.125
  23. K. Kim, "A Study on Service Quality Using Kano Model and PCSI Index: Focusing on buffet restaurants", Journal of Tourism Management Research, Voo.23, No.4, pp.331-348, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18604/tmro.2019.23.4.16
  24. J. Kim, Y. Jung, J. Choi, J, Jung, "A Study on the Regional Organizations Operating Advanced System of Government Funded Research Institutes (GRIs): From the R&D Service Point of View Quality Using the Kano Model", Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, Vol.20, No.2, pp.406-429, 2017.
  25. S. Kim, H-S. Seo, "A study on Service the Quality of Defence Quality Assurance Activites using Kano Model by Company Size", Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management, Vol.46, No.3, pp.397-410, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2018.46.3.397
  26. H. Kim, I. Ji, "A Study on the Service Quality of Smart Factory Support Policy Using Kano Model and PCSI", Journal of The Korea Convergence Society, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.9-18, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.3.009
  27. N. Kano, N. Seraku, F. Takashi & S. Tsuji, "Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality", The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, Vol.14, No.2, pp.39-48, 1984.
  28. S-U. Lim, Y. Park, "Potential Customer Satisfaction Improvement Index based on Kano Model", Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management, Vol.38, No.2, pp.248-260, 2010.
  29. M. Timko, "An Experiment in Continuous Analysis," The Center for Quality of Management, Vol.2, No.4, pp.17-20, 1993.
  30. I. Kang, The Study on the Customer Perception of the Technology and the Function about the Semiconductor Wafer Inspection based on Kano Model, Master's Capstone Report, KOREATECH, Cheonan, Korea, pp.44-47, 2016.
  31. C. Christensen, "Patterns in the Evolution of Product Competition," European Management Journal, Vol.15, No.2, pp.117-127, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00081-3