检查常见错误,以便成功地利用Kano模型并提出改进建议

IF 2.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
P. Koomsap, Balasooriya Rallage Yasara Dharmerathne, Duangthida Hussadintorn Na Ayutthaya
{"title":"检查常见错误,以便成功地利用Kano模型并提出改进建议","authors":"P. Koomsap, Balasooriya Rallage Yasara Dharmerathne, Duangthida Hussadintorn Na Ayutthaya","doi":"10.1080/09544828.2023.2245533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Kano model has been recognised for almost forty years as an effective tool for revealing implicit customer ideas that are often unclear and difficult to describe by relating the fulfilment of offering quality attributes to customer satisfaction. So has the Kano methodology for realising the model in practice in product design and development, strategic thinking, business planning, etc. Despite their success, it has long been reported that the Kano classification of customer requirements needs to reflect the level of customer satisfaction accurately. Researchers have focused on increasing the model’s accuracy throughout the years, especially by introducing much more quantitative approaches to the Kano categorisation. Still, the traditional one remains well-accepted in practice as it is the most straightforward logical procedure that non-experts can follow. Rather than introducing complexity, this research focuses on improving the traditional Kano model without altering its procedure by creating awareness of common mistakes when implementing the model and suggesting incorporating a couple of steps to avoid them. It is crucial to understand the selection of the five answer choices and their compatibility with the Kano evaluation table. Few case studies are available to illustrate how sensitive to common mistakes the outcomes are.","PeriodicalId":50207,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Design","volume":"34 1","pages":"591 - 615"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examination of common mistakes for successful leveraging the Kano model and proposal for enhancement\",\"authors\":\"P. Koomsap, Balasooriya Rallage Yasara Dharmerathne, Duangthida Hussadintorn Na Ayutthaya\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09544828.2023.2245533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Kano model has been recognised for almost forty years as an effective tool for revealing implicit customer ideas that are often unclear and difficult to describe by relating the fulfilment of offering quality attributes to customer satisfaction. So has the Kano methodology for realising the model in practice in product design and development, strategic thinking, business planning, etc. Despite their success, it has long been reported that the Kano classification of customer requirements needs to reflect the level of customer satisfaction accurately. Researchers have focused on increasing the model’s accuracy throughout the years, especially by introducing much more quantitative approaches to the Kano categorisation. Still, the traditional one remains well-accepted in practice as it is the most straightforward logical procedure that non-experts can follow. Rather than introducing complexity, this research focuses on improving the traditional Kano model without altering its procedure by creating awareness of common mistakes when implementing the model and suggesting incorporating a couple of steps to avoid them. It is crucial to understand the selection of the five answer choices and their compatibility with the Kano evaluation table. Few case studies are available to illustrate how sensitive to common mistakes the outcomes are.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Engineering Design\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"591 - 615\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Engineering Design\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2023.2245533\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2023.2245533","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

近四十年来,卡诺模型一直被认为是一种有效的工具,可以通过将产品质量属性的实现与客户满意度联系起来,揭示隐含的客户想法,这些想法往往不明确,难以描述。在产品设计和开发、战略思维、业务规划等实践中实现该模型的卡诺方法论也是如此。尽管它们取得了成功,但长期以来一直有报道称,客户需求的卡诺分类需要准确反映客户满意度。多年来,研究人员一直致力于提高模型的准确性,特别是通过引入更多的定量方法来进行卡诺分类。尽管如此,传统的程序在实践中仍然被广泛接受,因为它是非专家可以遵循的最直接的逻辑程序。这项研究的重点不是引入复杂性,而是在不改变其程序的情况下改进传统卡诺模型,方法是在实施模型时提高对常见错误的认识,并建议结合几个步骤来避免这些错误。了解五个答案的选择及其与卡诺评估表的兼容性至关重要。很少有案例研究可以说明结果对常见错误的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examination of common mistakes for successful leveraging the Kano model and proposal for enhancement
The Kano model has been recognised for almost forty years as an effective tool for revealing implicit customer ideas that are often unclear and difficult to describe by relating the fulfilment of offering quality attributes to customer satisfaction. So has the Kano methodology for realising the model in practice in product design and development, strategic thinking, business planning, etc. Despite their success, it has long been reported that the Kano classification of customer requirements needs to reflect the level of customer satisfaction accurately. Researchers have focused on increasing the model’s accuracy throughout the years, especially by introducing much more quantitative approaches to the Kano categorisation. Still, the traditional one remains well-accepted in practice as it is the most straightforward logical procedure that non-experts can follow. Rather than introducing complexity, this research focuses on improving the traditional Kano model without altering its procedure by creating awareness of common mistakes when implementing the model and suggesting incorporating a couple of steps to avoid them. It is crucial to understand the selection of the five answer choices and their compatibility with the Kano evaluation table. Few case studies are available to illustrate how sensitive to common mistakes the outcomes are.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Design
Journal of Engineering Design 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
33.30%
发文量
18
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Design is a leading international publication that provides an essential forum for dialogue on important issues across all disciplines and aspects of the design of engineered products and systems. The Journal publishes pioneering, contemporary, best industrial practice as well as authoritative research, studies and review papers on the underlying principles of design, its management, practice, techniques and methodologies, rather than specific domain applications. We welcome papers that examine the following topics: Engineering design aesthetics, style and form- Big data analytics in engineering design- Collaborative design in engineering- Engineering concept design- Creativity and innovation in engineering- Engineering design architectures- Design costing in engineering Design education and pedagogy in engineering- Engineering design for X, e.g. manufacturability, assembly, environment, sustainability- Engineering design management- Design risk and uncertainty in engineering- Engineering design theory and methodology- Designing product platforms, modularity and reuse in engineering- Emotive design, e.g. Kansei engineering- Ergonomics, styling and the design process- Evolutionary design activity in engineering (product improvement & refinement)- Global and distributed engineering design- Inclusive design and assistive engineering technology- Engineering industrial design and total design- Integrated engineering design development- Knowledge and information management in engineering- Engineering maintainability, sustainability, safety and standards- Multi, inter and trans disciplinary engineering design- New engineering product design and development- Engineering product introduction process[...]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信