محصول بازار محور و خدمات طراحی: پرکردن شکاف بین نیازهای مشتری، مدیریت کیفیت و رضایت مشتری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|4332||2000||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10468 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 66, Issue 1, 5 June 2000, Pages 77–96
Bridging the gap between a firm's internal quality improvements and external measures of customer needs and satisfaction is an important yet complex translation process. The process has traditionally been studied within two very different domains. An external focus on customers has been the domain of marketers. Manufacturing and engineering-based approaches to quality management and improvement have traditionally taken a more internal, process improvement focus. Both areas have recognized the need to broaden thier focus and bridge the gap between internal quality and external customers needs and satisfaction. This paper offers a framework to integrate these two domains. A case study is presented to demonstrate the usefulness of an integrated approach.
The significance of product and service quality as a major competitive success factor is undisputed. There is no alternative to hard-fought buyers’ markets made up of critical, demanding customers to consistent quality orientation. Recently, however, the design of product quality has come to be seen not merely as the task of a single functional unit, but as a central challenge for any company. This altered perspective was brought about by the realization that superior products are available in many branches of industry, in terms of both price/cost and quality. This was accompanied by the recognition that the outstanding performance of Japanese manufacturers in particular cannot be entirely attributed to a higher, culturally founded level of employee commitment combined with a lower level of the quality function deployment concept (QFD) — which embraces all operational functions that is responsible for their market success  and . QFD can be described as an approach to product quality design, which attempts to translate the voice of the customer into the language of the engineer. The customer's wants are often called the “whats”, or what QFD is ultimately supposed to improve  and . Furthermore it is necessary to determine the “hows” or the design requirements that will determine how the “whats” are to be fulfilled. The design requirements should be expressed in measurable terms (such as the amount of pressure required to close a door system from the outside). The core principle of this concept is a systematic transformation of customer requirements and expectations into measurable product and process parameters. From the methodical point of view, it would appear useful to subdivide a quality planning process derived from customers’ expressed wishes into four separate phases  and . The House of Quality, which represents the first phase of the QFD concept, is concerned with translating the purchase-decision-relevant attributes of a product that have been established ,  and , for example, within the framework of a conjoint study into design features (see Fig. 1). It is important to point out that these design requirements are not design solutions, which do not appear until the second house (part deployment). These design features are subsequently transformed into part features during the parts development phase. The aim of the work preparation phase is then to define crucial operating procedures on the basis of the specified part features. The crucial operating procedures in turn serve to determine the production requirements in greater detail .This approach suggests that the attributes of a product are crucial to a consumer's assessment of its usefulness . However, it is not only the intrinsic (physical, chemical or technical) product attributes that determine the quality judgement [12, in particular pp. 222–232]. On the contrary, the value attached to a product is dependent on extrinsic (immaterial or non-functional) attributes, such as the brand name and aesthetic aspects. Table 1 gives somes examples for extrinsic and intrinsic attributes of a car door. Moreover, behavioural science studies have documented that the perception of product attributes by consumers — which is not necessarily identical to objective reality — controls purchasing patterns. The (perceived) attributes thus represent the most suitable determinants for conceiving marketing activities In addition, it seems reasonable to state that consumers do not consider a product (e.g. a car) as a package of attributes (e.g. quality of tires, miles per gallon, engine size), but rather as a complex of utility (benefit) components  and . The benefit components of a product (e.g. a car) reflect its ability to fulfill customers’ needs, such as demonstrating class membership, conveying prestige, impressing others, enjoying safety. The intrinsic and extrinsic attributes describe the material and immaterial characteristics of a product, whereas the utility components denote its usefulness for problem solving (see Table 2) . This idea appears plausible, as buyers are only rarely aware of all the beneficial attributes of a product. In many cases it is also true to say that different attributes provide a concrete utility and that one attribute can affect different utility areas. Nevertheless, there is not normally a “one-to-one” relationship between the features and the utility components. This supposition illustrates one of the dilemmas of marketing policy: when a company develops a product, it is only able to decide the levels of this product's intrinsic attributes. A consumer, on the other hand, bases his or her purchase decision on the utility conceptions derived from a perception of the product's attributes.There is, however, cause to doubt that the utility expectations of the buyer do in fact constitute the ultimate explanation of purchasing behaviour. On the contrary, the motives for individual actions can be better accounted for by stimulating forces, such as a set of values and the formation of an intention ,  and ). Nevertheless, very little attention is paid to these hypothetical constructs when specifying a product's performance. There are two reasons for this: firstly, numerous studies have documented the unsatisfactory association between these variables and purchasing behaviour. It is an undisputed fact that specific behavioural patterns cannot be predicted, for example, on the basis of specific motives . Secondly, there is no theory in existence at the present time which describes the interaction between the hypothetical constructs and the relevant utility components and product attributes. Consequently, no evidence is available to support the notion that marketing activities are conceived according to the stimulating forces of purchasing behaviour. We contend that the various problems which are raised in this connection can be solved by extending the quality function deployment approach from the point of view of marketing theory (see Fig. 2).First of all, the means–end theory is used to integrate the set of values of a consumer with the utility components or the attributes of a product. Those attributes which are relevant to purchasing behaviour can then be transformed into design features and part features, as well as operating procedures and production requirements with the aid of the “traditional” quality function deployment approach. Finally, an analysis of customer satisfaction provides information regarding the extent to which the product, which has been developed on the basis of the extended quality function deployment concept, corresponds to the consumer's utility expectations and to his set of values.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Bridging the gap between a firm's internal quality improvements and external measures of customer needs and satisfaction is an important yet complex translation process. The translation runs all the way from customer needs, to product and service attributes, through design, to production and service maintenance processes, and to customer satisfaction. This process has traditionally been studied within two very different domains. An external focus on customers has been the domain of marketers. Manufacturing and engineering-based approaches to quality management and improvement have traditionally taken a more internal, process improvement focus. Both areas have recognized the need to broaden their focus and bridge the gap between internal quality and external customer needs and satisfaction. Engineers have become increasingly customer focused and strive to incorporate the voice of the customer into quality improvement models and methods, as evidenced by the growing use of quality function deployment and its house of quality. Similarly, externally focused market and consumer researchers have become more internally focused as they strive to translate customer needs and satisfaction into action implications. Simply put, both engineers and marketers are learning to wear multiple hats in a cooperative effort to increase business performance. Bridging the gap between customer needs, product quality, and customer satisfaction requires a broad-based view in which external measures are translated into internal means of accomplishment. Existing translation tools and methods capture some, but not all, of this translation process. The framework developed here links a popular engineering-based translation method, quality function deployment, with a popular market-based approach, customer needs and satisfaction modeling. Together these approaches describe the breadth of activities involved in the translation process. Integration of the two approaches into a single framework, as described in Fig. 2, highlights several important phases in the translation process.