• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

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).

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "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)."

Copied!
24
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

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

(2)

SULIT

TERHAD

TIDAK TERHAD

(Mengandungi makl umat yang berdarj ah kesel amat an at au kepent ingan Mal aysia yang t ermakt ub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)

(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang t elah dit ent ukan oleh organisasi/ badan di mana penyel idikan dij al ankan)

Al amat Tet ap:

NO 70, JALAN SS7/ 48

Taman Kelana Indah, Kelana Jaya, 47301, Pet aling Jaya, Selangor

Tarikh: 3 June 2013

Disahkan ol eh:

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 Semest er 2

Saya MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN ARZMI,

mengaku membenarkan Laporan PSM ini disimpan di Perpust akaan Universit i Teknikal Mal aysia Mel aka (UTeM) dengan syarat -syarat kegunaan sepert i berikut : 1. Laporan PSM adal ah hak mil ik Universit i Teknikal Mal aysia Mel aka, 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)

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 :

(4)

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 ]

(5)

ABSTRAK

(6)

ABSTRACT

(7)

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

(8)

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.

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Abbreviations xiv

1. INTRODUCTION

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)

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 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 2.4 Summary of Literature Review

2.4.1 Kansei Engineering 2.4.2 Kano Method

2.4.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

39

3.2.1 Data collection phase

(11)

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

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 4.6 Correlation Analysis

4.6.1 Kano vs Design

4.6.2 “Miserable - Comfortable” (MC) vs Demography

(12)

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

(13)

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

(14)

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

(15)

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

(16)

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

(17)
(18)

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

(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Besar biaya yang diperlukan untuk melaksanakan penelitian PREVALENSI KARIES INTERPROKSIMAL DITINJAU DENGAN RADIOGRAFI BITEWING DI SEKOLAH DASAR LETJEND DJAMIN GINTING

mendapatkan pemeliharaan secara rutin. Kurangnya dilakukan evaluasi secara rutin dengan melibatkan masyarakat terhadap pengelolaan penerangan jalan umum sehingga

Berdasarkan Penetapan Pemenang Seleksi Sederhana Metoda Pagu Anggaran Satu Sampul Kegiatan Pengawasan Pembinaan Dan Pengembangan Perikanan Kabupaten Bengkulu Selatan Sumber Dana

[r]

 Pemain melompat menggunakan kaki yang berlawanan dengan tangan yang memegang bola dengan segera merubah pemindahan berat badan dari kaki belakang ke kaki depan.

[r]

[r]

Dari hasil analisa data dengan menggunakan uji Mann Whitney diperoleh nilai signifikansi 0.010<0,05 dimana pelatihan bersyukur efektif meningkatkan resiliensi pada