품질의 이원론을 이용한 개선의 우선순위 결정
Determination of Priority for Improvement Using the Theory of Two-dimensional Quality
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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.
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.
참고문헌 (33)
- Anderson, E.W., "Strengthening the satisfaction- profit chain", Journal of Service Research, 3(2), pp.107~120 (2000)
- Bacon, D. R., "A comparison of approaches to importanceperformance analysis", International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), pp.55~71 (2003)
- Berger, C., "Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality", Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), pp.2~36 (1993)
- Cadotte, E.R., "Dissatisfiers and Satisfiers : Suggestions from Consumer Complaints and Compliments", Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 1, pp.74~79 (1988)
- Eskidsen, J.K., "Enhancing importance performance analysis", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(1), pp.40~60 (2006)
- Fong D., "Using the self-stated importance questionnaire to interpret Kano questionnaire results", Center for Quality of Management Journal, 5(3), pp.21~23 (1996)
- Herzberg, F., "One more time-How do you motivate employees?", Harvard Business Review, 65(5), pp.109~120 (1987)
- Herzberg, F., "The motivation to work" (1959), John Wiley and Sons
- Högström, C., "The theory of attractive quality and experience offerings", The TQM Journal, 23(2), pp.111~127 (2011)
- 장흥엽, "ASC를 이용한 품질특성의 중요도 결정", 품질경영학회지, 40(4), pp.589~598 (2012), 한국품질경영학회[DOI]
- Kano, N., "Life cycle and creation of attractive quality", Proceedings of the 4thQMOD Conference, pp.18~36 (2001)
- Kano, N., "Attractive quality and must-be quality", Hinshitsu, 14(2), pp.147~156 (1984)
- Khalifa, A. S., "Customer value : a review of recent literature and an integrative configuration", Management Decision, 42(5), pp.645~666 (2004)
- 김태운, "수정된 Kano 모델을 이용한 스마트 폰의 품질특성 평가", 산업경영시스템학회지, 35(1), pp.57~65 (2012), 한국산업경영시스템학회
- Kuo, Y. -F., "IPA–Kano model : A new tool for categorising and diagnosing service quality attributes", Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 23(7), pp.731~748 (2012)
- Levitt, T., "The Marketing Imagination" (1986), The Free Press
- Löfgren, M., "Two decades of using Kano’s theory of attractive quality : a literature review", Quality Management Journal, 15(1), pp.59~75 (2008)
- Matilla, J.A., "Importance-performance analysis", Journal of Marketing, 41, pp.77~79 (1977)
- Matzler, K., "The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satis faction : a reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis", Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), pp.271~277 (2004)
- Matzler, K., "Employee satisfaction : does Kano’s model apply?", Total Quality Management, 15(9), pp.1179~1198 (2004)
- Matzler, K., "How to delight your customer", Journal of Product and Brand Man-agement, 5(2), pp.6~18 (1996)
- Mikulic, J., "A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model", Managing Service Quality, 21(1), pp.46~66 (2011)
- Nilsson-Witell, L., "Dynamics of service attributes : A test of Kano’s theory of attractive quality", International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), pp.152~168 (2005)
- Oliver, R. L., "Attribute Need Fulfillment in Product Usage Satisfaction", Psychology and Marketing, 12(1), pp.1~17 (1995)
- Sampson, S.E., "The Performance- Importance Response Function : Observations and Implications", The Service Industries Journal, 19(3), pp.1~25 (1999)
- Shahin, A., "Integration of FMEA and the Kano model : An exploratory examination", International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 21(7), pp.731~746 (2004)
- Slack, N., "The Importance-Performance Matrix as a Determinant of Improvement Priority", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(5), pp.59~75 (1994)
- 송해근, "Kano 모델의 설문 워딩에 관한 연구", 품질경영학회지, 40(4), pp.453~466 (2012), 한국품질경영학회[DOI]
- Swan, J.E., "Product Performance and Consumer Satisfaction : A New Concept", Journal of Marketing, 40(2), pp.25~33 (1976)
- Tan, K.C., "Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD for service excellence development", Managing Service Quality, 11(6), pp.418~430 (2001)
- Tontini, G., "Identification of satisfaction attributes using competitive analysis of the improvement gap", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(5), pp.482~500 (2007)
- Vargo, S. L., "Satisfiers, Dissatisfiers, Criticals, and Neutrals : A Review of Their Relative Effects on Customer (Dis) Satisfaction", Academy of Marketing Science Review, 11(2), pp.1~13 (2007)
- Yang, C. -C., "Establishment and applications of the integrated model of service quality measurement", Managing Service Quality, 13(4), pp.310~324 (2003)