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
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: _______________________ 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
SayaMUHAMMAD 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.
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 :
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 ]
ABSTRAK
ABSTRACT
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
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.
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
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
3.2.3 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
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
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
4.11 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
4.43 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
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
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
