An Integration Of Affective Engineering In Product Design Analysis - [The Using Of Kano Model With Kansei Engineering For Evaluating The Design Product) - Case Study] (Product - Pen).
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
UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS LAPORAN PROJEK SARJANA MUDA
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 Semest er 2
Saya MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN ARZMI,
mengaku membenarkan Laporan PSM ini disimpan di Perpust akaan Universit i
Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) dengan syarat -syarat kegunaan sepert i berikut :
1. Laporan PSM adalah hak milik Universit i Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Supervisor,
dan penulis.
2. Perpust akaan Universit i Teknikal Malaysia Melaka dibenarkan membuat salinan
unt uk t uj uan pengaj ian sahaj a dengan izin penulis.
3. Perpust akaan dibenarkan membuat salinan laporan PSM ini sebagai bahan
SULIT
TERHAD
(Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarj ah keselamat an
at au kepent ingan Malaysia yang t ermakt ub di dalam
AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang t elah dit ent ukan
oleh organisasi/ badan di mana penyelidikan dij alankan)
TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh:
Alamat Tet ap:
NO 70, JALAN SS7/ 48
Taman Kelana Indah, Kelana Jaya,
47301, Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Cop Rasmi: XV:sihmobi
Tarikh:
Tarikh: _______________________
3 June 2013
** Jika Laporan PSM ini SULIT at au TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa/ organisasi
berkenaan dengan menyat akan sekali sebab dan t empoh t esis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT at au
TERHAD.
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
:
Date
:
Muhammad Hazwan Bin Arzmi
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)
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 “MiserableComfortable" (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.
i
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.
ii
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
iii
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.
iv
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
10
2.1.1 History of Kansei Engineering
11
2.1.2 Basic of Kansei Engineering
12
2.1.3 The principal of Knasei Engineering
14
2.1.3.1 Kansei Engineering type
2.1.4 Application of Kansei Engineering
15
17
v
2.1.5 Advantages of Kansei Engineering
20
21
2.2 Kano Model
2.2.1 History of Kano Model
21
2.2.2 Kano’s categories
22
2.2.3 Traditional Kano’s Model
24
2.2.4 Fuzzy Kano Model
27
2.2.5 Kano Model integrated into QFD
27
2.2.6 Advantages of Kano Method
28
2.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
29
2.3.1 Decompositon
33
2.3.2 Comparative judgement
34
2.3.3 Logical consistency
34
2.3.4 Procedure
36
2.3.4.1 Structuring a decision problem and selection on criteria
36
2.3.4.2 Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison
36
(weighing)
2.3.4.3 Pairwise comparison of options on each criterion
37
(scoring)
2.3.4.4 Obtaining an overall relative score for each option
37
2.3.5 Approaches
38
2.3.6 Advantages of AHP
38
2.3.7 Disadvantages of AHP
39
2.4 Summary of Literature Review
39
2.4.1 Kansei Engineering
40
2.4.2 Kano Method
53
2.4.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
62
2.5 Summary
68
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
69
3.2 Project overview
69
3.2.1 Data collection phase
71
3.2.2 Analyzing phase
71
vi
3.2.3 Result phase
3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Constructing survey
72
72
74
3.3.1.1 Interview
74
3.3.1.2 Observation
74
3.3.1.3 Questionnaire
74
3.3.2 Data collection and analyze data
75
3.3.2.1 Analysis of Semantic Differential (SD)
75
3.3.2.2 Constructing the kansei questionnaire
75
3.3.2.3 Analysis by Using Kano Model
76
3.3.2.4 Constructing the Kano questionnaire
76
3.3.2.5 Evaluation and interpretation
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
79
4.2.1 Sample Size of Respondent Involved
79
4.2.2 Analysis of Respondent Background
81
4.3 Kansei Word
88
4.4 Kano Model
92
4.5 Kansei Engineering
93
4.5.1 Kansei Word Analysis
93
4.5.2 Analysis by Design
104
4.5.3 Analysis by Preference
105
4.5.4 Final Design
109
4.5.5 Expert Choice Result
112
4.5.6 Post Test
113
4.6 Correlation Analysis
115
4.6.1 Kano vs Design
115
4.6.2 “Miserable - Comfortable” (MC) vs Demography
116
vii
4.6.3 “Irritating - Convenience” (IC) vs Demography
4.7 Summary
117
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
viii
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
ix
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 103
(UB)
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
x
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
xi
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
xii
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
xiii
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
xiv
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
UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS LAPORAN PROJEK SARJANA MUDA
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 Semest er 2
Saya MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN ARZMI,
mengaku membenarkan Laporan PSM ini disimpan di Perpust akaan Universit i
Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) dengan syarat -syarat kegunaan sepert i berikut :
1. Laporan PSM adalah hak milik Universit i Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Supervisor,
dan penulis.
2. Perpust akaan Universit i Teknikal Malaysia Melaka dibenarkan membuat salinan
unt uk t uj uan pengaj ian sahaj a dengan izin penulis.
3. Perpust akaan dibenarkan membuat salinan laporan PSM ini sebagai bahan
SULIT
TERHAD
(Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarj ah keselamat an
at au kepent ingan Malaysia yang t ermakt ub di dalam
AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang t elah dit ent ukan
oleh organisasi/ badan di mana penyelidikan dij alankan)
TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh:
Alamat Tet ap:
NO 70, JALAN SS7/ 48
Taman Kelana Indah, Kelana Jaya,
47301, Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Cop Rasmi: XV:sihmobi
Tarikh:
Tarikh: _______________________
3 June 2013
** Jika Laporan PSM ini SULIT at au TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa/ organisasi
berkenaan dengan menyat akan sekali sebab dan t empoh t esis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT at au
TERHAD.
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
:
Date
:
Muhammad Hazwan Bin Arzmi
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)
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 “MiserableComfortable" (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.
i
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.
ii
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
iii
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.
iv
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
10
2.1.1 History of Kansei Engineering
11
2.1.2 Basic of Kansei Engineering
12
2.1.3 The principal of Knasei Engineering
14
2.1.3.1 Kansei Engineering type
2.1.4 Application of Kansei Engineering
15
17
v
2.1.5 Advantages of Kansei Engineering
20
21
2.2 Kano Model
2.2.1 History of Kano Model
21
2.2.2 Kano’s categories
22
2.2.3 Traditional Kano’s Model
24
2.2.4 Fuzzy Kano Model
27
2.2.5 Kano Model integrated into QFD
27
2.2.6 Advantages of Kano Method
28
2.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
29
2.3.1 Decompositon
33
2.3.2 Comparative judgement
34
2.3.3 Logical consistency
34
2.3.4 Procedure
36
2.3.4.1 Structuring a decision problem and selection on criteria
36
2.3.4.2 Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison
36
(weighing)
2.3.4.3 Pairwise comparison of options on each criterion
37
(scoring)
2.3.4.4 Obtaining an overall relative score for each option
37
2.3.5 Approaches
38
2.3.6 Advantages of AHP
38
2.3.7 Disadvantages of AHP
39
2.4 Summary of Literature Review
39
2.4.1 Kansei Engineering
40
2.4.2 Kano Method
53
2.4.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
62
2.5 Summary
68
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
69
3.2 Project overview
69
3.2.1 Data collection phase
71
3.2.2 Analyzing phase
71
vi
3.2.3 Result phase
3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Constructing survey
72
72
74
3.3.1.1 Interview
74
3.3.1.2 Observation
74
3.3.1.3 Questionnaire
74
3.3.2 Data collection and analyze data
75
3.3.2.1 Analysis of Semantic Differential (SD)
75
3.3.2.2 Constructing the kansei questionnaire
75
3.3.2.3 Analysis by Using Kano Model
76
3.3.2.4 Constructing the Kano questionnaire
76
3.3.2.5 Evaluation and interpretation
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
79
4.2.1 Sample Size of Respondent Involved
79
4.2.2 Analysis of Respondent Background
81
4.3 Kansei Word
88
4.4 Kano Model
92
4.5 Kansei Engineering
93
4.5.1 Kansei Word Analysis
93
4.5.2 Analysis by Design
104
4.5.3 Analysis by Preference
105
4.5.4 Final Design
109
4.5.5 Expert Choice Result
112
4.5.6 Post Test
113
4.6 Correlation Analysis
115
4.6.1 Kano vs Design
115
4.6.2 “Miserable - Comfortable” (MC) vs Demography
116
vii
4.6.3 “Irritating - Convenience” (IC) vs Demography
4.7 Summary
117
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
viii
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
ix
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 103
(UB)
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
x
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
xi
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
xii
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
xiii
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
xiv