an integration of affective engineering in...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA
AN INTEGRATION OF AFFECTIVE ENGINEERING IN
PRODUCT DESIGN ANALYSIS
[The Using of Kano Model with Kansei Engineering for
Evaluating the Design Product: Case Study]
This report submitted in accordance with requirement of the University Teknikal
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for the Bachelor Degree of Manufacturing Engineering
(Manufacturing Management) with Honours.
by
MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN ARZMI
B050010262
890919-14-5983
FACULTY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
2013
SULIT
TERHAD
TIDAK TERHAD
(Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan Malaysia yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)
Alamat Tetap: NO 70, JALAN SS7/48 Taman Kelana Indah, Kelana Jaya, 47301, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Tarikh: 3 June 2013
Disahkan oleh:
Cop Rasmi: XV:sihmobi
Tarikh: _______________________
** Jika Laporan PSM ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD.
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS LAPORAN PROJEK SARJANA MUDA
UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA
TAJUK: AN INTEGRATION OF AFFECTIVE ENGINEERING IN PRODUCT DESIGN ANALYSIS [The Using of Kano Model with Kansei Engineering for Evaluating the Design Product: Case Study]
SESI PENGAJIAN: 2012/2013 Semester 2 Saya MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN ARZMI, mengaku membenarkan Laporan PSM ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
1. Laporan PSM adalah hak milik Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Supervisor, dan penulis.
2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan pengajian sahaja dengan izin penulis.
3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan laporan PSM ini sebagai bahan
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this report entitled “ An Integration of Affective Engineering
in Product Design Analysis” is the result of my own research except as cited in the
references.
Signature :
Author’s Name : Muhammad Hazwan Bin Arzmi
Date : 3 June 2013
APPROVAL
This report is submitted to the Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering of UTeM as a
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Manufacturing
Engineering (Manufacturing Management) with Honors. The members of the
supervisory committee are as follow:
…………………………………………
H.H.IP [XV:sihmobi ]
(PSM Supervisor)
i
ABSTRAK
Untuk mewujudkan sebuah produk yang memenuhi permintaan pelanggan adalah
sering rumit dan mengelirukan. Ini adalah kerana kepuasan tersebut datang dari
perasaan berkenaan produk. Kajian ini adalah mengenai analisis terhadap reka
bentuk dan pencirian produk yang berkaitan dengan ciri-ciri afektif atau emosi
produk. Dalam kajian ini, kaedah yang digunakan adalah Kansei Kejuruteraan dalam
bentuk Perbezaan Semantik untuk menterjemahkan perasaan pengguna dan Model
Kano untuk menentukan sifat keutamaan yang diperlukan oleh pelanggan. Dengan
menggabungkan kedua-dua kaedah, kesemua ciri-ciri produk boleh diberikan
keutamaan untuk memenuhi permintaan pelanggan. Tinjauan yang dijalankan dalam
kajian ini adalah berdasarkan temubual dan soal selidik. Kajian ini mendapati
bahawa perkataan Kansei yang berkaitan dengan reka bentuk produk (reka bentuk
pen) adalah "Irritating-Convenience" (IC), "Ugly-Beautiful" (UB), "Simple-Stylish"
(SS), "Boring-Attractive" (BA), "Miserable-Comfortable" (MC) dan "Slippery-Firm"
(SF). Berdasarkan kaji selidik yang dijalankan terhadap 700 pelajar di Melaka, reka
bentuk No.7adalah rekaan yang paling digemari mereka. Perkataan Kansei yang
paling memberi kesan terhadap reka bentuk yang diberikan adalah “Miserable-
Comfortable" (MC) dan "Irritating-Convenience" (IC). Di dalam analisa melalui
kaedah Kano, kesemua faktor mempunyai atribut Indiffrent (I). Keputusan pilihan
yang digunakan dalam kajian ini adalah dengan menggunakan Proses Hierarki
Analisis (AHP) dan Fuzzy Proses Hierarki Analisis (FAHP). Analisis yang
dijalankan dalam kajian ini adalah dengan menggunakan SPSS dan perisian Expert
Choice, manakala analisis ujian pos dijalankan untuk mengesahkan keputusan
sebelumnya. Kajian ini mendapati bahawa ciri-ciri reka bentuk yang diputuskan oleh
kebanyakan responden adalah pen yang telah klik atas, poket dipotong, dan tanpa
genggaman jari.
ii
ABSTRACT
Through the creating of a product that highly fulfills the demand of the customer is
often complicated and confusing. This is due to customer demand for the
satisfactions state is coming from the feelings toward the product. This study
analyzes the design and characterization of the product related to the affective or
emotional characteristic of products. In this study, the method used are Kansei
Engineering applied in the Semantic Differential in order to translate consumers’
feelings and Kano Model to determine the priority attribute required by the
customers. By combining these two methods, all features of the products can be
prioritized based on the importance for fulfilling the customer demands. The surveys
conducted in this study were based on interview and questionnaires distributed. This
study found that the Kansei words related to the product design (pen design) were
“Irritating-Convenience” (IC), “Ugly-Beautiful” (UB), “Simple-Stylish” (SS),
“Boring-Attractive” (BA), “Miserable-Comfortable” (MC) and “Slippery-Firm”
(SF). Based on the survey carried to 700 respondents in Melaka, specifically the
students, the proposed design no.7 was as the most preference design by them. The
most respondents articulated the design to their quality feeling as Miserable -
Comfortable” (MC) and “Irritating - Convenience” (IC). While towards Kano
method, they justified as Indifferent (I) of quality attribute. The preference decision
used in this study is by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP). The analysis carried out in this study is by
using SPSS and Expert choice software, while the post test analysis is conducted to
validate the previous results. This study found that the design characteristics decided
by most of respondents is the pen that have clicked top, pocket clipped, and without
finger grips.
iii
DEDICATION
For my beloved parent who were always supported me,
Arzmi Bin Mansor
Safiah Binti Abd. Aziz
For my supervisor,
H.H.IP [XV:sihmobi] @ Haeryip Sihombing
For my families and my friend, thanks for their loves and care
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah and Thank to Allah S.W.T. with all gracious and merciful for giving
me strength and the ability to accomplish this project research successfully. I would
like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this
thesis. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor H.H.IP [XV:sihmobi] @ Haeryip
Sihombing whose help, stimulating suggestions, encouragement and guidance helped
me in all the time of research for and writing of this thesis.
Finally, I would like to thanks to all my colleagues. I want to thank them for all their
help, support, interest and valuable hints in completing this thesis. Especially, I
would like to give my special thanks to my family whose always provides me with
love and keep encouraging me all the time in order for me to complete this work.
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstark i
Abstract ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Content v
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xii
List of Abbreviations xiv
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Objectives 6
1.4 Scope of project 7
1.5 Framework of study 7
1.6 Summary 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Kansei Engineering
2.1.1 History of Kansei Engineering
2.1.2 Basic of Kansei Engineering
2.1.3 The principal of Knasei Engineering
2.1.3.1 Kansei Engineering type
2.1.4 Application of Kansei Engineering
10
11
12
14
15
17
vi
2.1.5 Advantages of Kansei Engineering 20
2.2 Kano Model
2.2.1 History of Kano Model
2.2.2 Kano’s categories
2.2.3 Traditional Kano’s Model
2.2.4 Fuzzy Kano Model
2.2.5 Kano Model integrated into QFD
2.2.6 Advantages of Kano Method
21
21
22
24
27
27
28
2.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
2.3.1 Decompositon
2.3.2 Comparative judgement
2.3.3 Logical consistency
2.3.4 Procedure
2.3.4.1 Structuring a decision problem and selection on criteria
2.3.4.2 Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison
(weighing)
2.3.4.3 Pairwise comparison of options on each criterion
(scoring)
2.3.4.4 Obtaining an overall relative score for each option
2.3.5 Approaches
2.3.6 Advantages of AHP
2.3.7 Disadvantages of AHP
29
33
34
34
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
2.4 Summary of Literature Review
2.4.1 Kansei Engineering
2.4.2 Kano Method
2.4.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
39
40
53
62
2.5 Summary 68
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 69
3.2 Project overview
3.2.1 Data collection phase
3.2.2 Analyzing phase
69
71
71
vii
3.2.3 Result phase 72
3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Constructing survey
3.3.1.1 Interview
3.3.1.2 Observation
3.3.1.3 Questionnaire
3.3.2 Data collection and analyze data
3.3.2.1 Analysis of Semantic Differential (SD)
3.3.2.2 Constructing the kansei questionnaire
3.3.2.3 Analysis by Using Kano Model
3.3.2.4 Constructing the Kano questionnaire
3.3.2.5 Evaluation and interpretation
72
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
77
3.4 Gantt Chart 77
3.5 Expected result 77
3.6 Summary 78
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction 79
4.2 Demography
4.2.1 Sample Size of Respondent Involved
4.2.2 Analysis of Respondent Background
79
79
81
4.3 Kansei Word 88
4.4 Kano Model 92
4.5 Kansei Engineering
4.5.1 Kansei Word Analysis
4.5.2 Analysis by Design
4.5.3 Analysis by Preference
4.5.4 Final Design
4.5.5 Expert Choice Result
4.5.6 Post Test
93
93
104
105
109
112
113
4.6 Correlation Analysis
4.6.1 Kano vs Design
4.6.2 “Miserable - Comfortable” (MC) vs Demography
115
115
116
viii
4.6.3 “Irritating - Convenience” (IC) vs Demography 117
4.7 Summary 119
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction 122
5.2 Conclusion 122
5.3 Recommendation 124
REFFERENCES 126
APPENDICES
A Demography and Kano section of questionnaire 138
B Post Test questionnaire 139
C Kansei section of questionnaire 140
D Gantt Chart PSM 1 141
E Gantt Chart PSM 2 142
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
1.1 Framework Of Study 8
2.1 The Process of Kansei 13
2.2 The Principal of Kansei Engineering 15
2.3 Kano’s Model of Customer Satisfaction 24
2.4 Process of Kano Classification 26
2.5 Framework for Requirement Rating With Fuzzy Kano 27
2.6 Structure of AHP process 32
3.1 Framework of Study 70
3.2 Framework for Kansei Engineering 73
4.1 Sample size on Sample Size Calculator 81
4.2 Percentage of Gender 82
4.3 Percentage of tendency to buy a new pen 83
4.4 Percentage of left handed and right handed 84
4.5 Percentage of color and quantity 85
4.6 Percentage of consideration in buying a new pen 86
4.7 Percentage of respondent action when didn’t bring a pen 87
4.8 Percentage of place pen kept 88
4.9 Flow of obtaining Kansei Words 88
4.10 Picture of pen for interview 90
x
4.11 Average Miserable vs. Comfortable (MC) 94
4.12 AHP Miserable vs Comfortable (MC) 95
4.13 Tendency of choosing between Miserable and Comfortable (MC) 95
4.14 Average Boring vs Attractive (BA) 96
4.15 AHP Boring vs Attractive (BA) 96
4.16 Tendency of choosing between Boring and Attractive (BA) 97
4.17 Average Irritating vs Convenience (IC) 97
4.18 AHP Irritating vs Convenience (IC) 98
4.19 Tendency of choosing between Irritating and Convenience (IC) 98
4.20 Average Slippery vs Firm (SF) 99
4.21 AHP Slippery vs Firm (SF) 99
4.22 Tendency of choosing between Slippery and Firm (SF) 100
4.23 Average Simple vs. Stylish (SS) 101
4.24 AHP Simple vs. Stylish (SS) 101
4.25 Tendency of choosing between Simple and Stylish (SS) 102
4.26 Average Ugly vs. Beautiful (UB) 102
4.27 AHP Ugly vs. Beautiful (UB) 103
4.28 Tendency of choosing between Simple and Stylish Ugly and Beautiful
(UB)
103
4.29 Average Design 1 106
4.30 Average Design 2 106
4.31 Average Design 3 106
4.32 Average Design 4 106
4.33 Average Design 5 106
4.34 Average Design 6 106
4.35 Average Design 7 107
4.36 Average Design 8 107
4.37 Average Design 9 107
4.38 AHP Design 1 107
4.39 AHP Design 2 107
4.40 AHP Design 3 107
4.41 AHP Design 4 108
4.42 AHP Design 5 108
xi
4.43 AHP Design 6 108
4.44 AHP Design 7 108
4.45 AHP Design 8 108
4.46 AHP Design 9 108
4.47 Average preference 109
4.48 AHP preference 109
4.49 Final design 110
4.50 Final design web chart (fuzzy) 110
4.51 Fuzzy Matlab 111
4.52 Final result (design) 111
4.53 Dynamic sensitivity graph 112
4.54 Final goal result 113
4.55 Design 7 post test 114
4.56 Design 9 post test 114
xii
LIST OF TABLE
2.1 Summary Kansei Engineering 40
2.2 Summary Kano Method 53
2.3 Summary Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) 62
3.1 Kano Evaluation Table 76
4.1 Respondent counts 80
4.2 Statistic frequency of gender 81
4.3 Statistic frequency tendency buying a new pen 82
4.4 Statistic frequency of writing hand 83
4.5 Statistic frequency of pen color and quantity 84
4.6 Statistic frequency of consideration of buying a new pen 85
4.7 Statistic frequency of respondent action when didn’t bring a pen 86
4.8 Statistic frequency of the place pen kept 87
4.9 48 Kansei Word 89
4.10 Kansei Word from respondent 89
4.11 Results of word grouping based on pairwise questions 91
4.12 Kansei Word reliability test 91
4.13 Kano analysis 92
4.14 Average result of analysis by design 104
4.15 AHP result of analysis by design 105
4.16 Post test final result 115
xiii
4.17 Kano vs Design 116
4.18 “Miserable - Comfortable” (MC) vs Demography Correlation 116
4.19 MC8 vs Demography (Keep Pen) Crosstabulation 116
4.20 MC9 vs Demography (Color & Quantity) Crosstabulation 117
4.21 “Irritating - Convenience” (IC) vs Demography Correlation 118
4.22 IC2 vs Demography (Color & Quantity) Crosstabulation 118
4.23 IC5 vs Demography (Color & Quantity) Crosstabulation 119
4.24 IC9 vs Demography (Keep Pen) Crosstabulation 119
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVATION
A - Attractive
AHP - Analytical Hierarchy Process
CR - Customer Requirement
CS - Satisfaction
DS - Dissatisfaction
FA - Factor Analysis
GRA - Grey Relational Analysis
I - Indifferent
KE - Kansei Engineering
KES - Kansei Engineering System
KW - Kansei Word
M - Must-be
O - One Dimensional
Q - Questionable
QFD - Quality Function Development
R - Reverse
SD - Semantic Differential
VOC - Voice of Customer
