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
Enquired item processing speed machine weight memory amount perception cognitive
Lenovo Sony

5 5 5

4 3 4

3 5 5

5have a great influence 4have influence 3have 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

technological attribute
basic frequency internal memory material size thickness hard disk

machine weight memory amount

College of Economics and

2.CASE STUDY
* The parameter comparison between SONY and LENOVO
Frequency Lenovo 2.13 GHz Memory Material Weight Size Thick- Hard ness disk

2GB

Magnalium

1.44kg

12.1 17.9m 250G inch m

Mixed mode
Sony 1.86 GHz 2GB carbon fiber 780g

11.1 13.9m 128G inch m

College of Economics and

2.CASE STUDY
* Key customer needs definded table
customer Import comparison demand -ance analysis degree
Lenovo processing speed machine weight memory amount total Sony
Improment target

Improvement target
Improvem- product character ent rate

Maincustomer demand analysis

absolute weight Weight%

5 5 5

4 3 4

3 5 3

1.67 1 1.67

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
frequency

Technical index
memory material size hard disk

*Quality Table Relevancy

Degree of correspondence Strong Medium Weak None Sign
Blank

Value
3 2 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 positive negative strong negative none

sign

*
#

College of Economics and

3.CONCLUSION
House of quality

*
Technical requirements
Customer demand Key customer demand defined Frequen cy Thicknes s Hard disk Comparative analysis Impor t-ance EnterpElse rise Improvement goal Improvement goal Standard Commodity increased characterirate stic point Weight Internal memory Material Size

Speed Weight Capacity mportance%I Compara tive analysis Oppone nt Techniqu e analysis

5 5 5

4 3 4

3 5 3

5 5 5

1.67 1.00 1.67

41.7 25.0 33.3

27.29

18.19

16.36

5.45

10.92

21.79

+
5

=
1

+
3

+
2

Key quality charac ter setting

Desired value
Quality character design

Setting

College of Economics and

3.CONCLUSION
* Key Quality Character Setting
Technical requirements
Importance% Frequency Memory Material Size Thick Hard-ness disk

23.5

21.9

14.0

4.7

9.4

26.5

Key quality character setting

Comparative analysis
Quality character design

Opponent Technique analysis Desired value Setting

+
5

=
1

+
3

+
2

amount of memory of SONY and LENOVO are LENOVO SONY The has performs When The The a patent most thickness it comes for better, important using of to however, SONY the light one size, material is is the hard SONY among difficulty disk, and has the in there some best contrast, for is in advantages, much the LENOVO opening potential whereas market; does for not. size is equal; correspondingly we can take steps to target improvement As a result, the improvement however SONY is attribute relatively has it is an which and difficult high. advantage. therefore is Therefore, of for the development. However, lowest a lotitseveral of istechnological attention better there Consequently to are should also difficulty. some be ir paid would Hence to it. better in athe competitive advantage develop shortcomings, order be attributes delayed for toinstance: beat later the the technological 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 the our technology products. field.
, ,, , , ,

College of Economics and

4.REFERENCES
1. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality function deployment. Qual Prog19:3950 2. Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 143:463497 3. Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment: how to make QFDwork for you. AddisonWesley, New York

College of Economics and

College of Economics and