ANALYSIS ON LAPTOP

USING QFD

———A case Study on Improving

Lenovo ThinkPad X201i 3249J4C.
 CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION

2 METHODOLOGY

3 CASE STUDY

4 CONCLUSION

5 REFERENCES
 1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose:
——Improve Lenovo ThinkPad X201i
3249J4C laptop.

Method:
——Quality function deployment (QFD)
——Comparing Lenovo and Sony
 We need to improve the Lenovo ThinkPad X201i
3249J4C laptop according to Customer needs .
Summary sheet of
customer investigation

Perception
Investigation Awareness
project Lenovo Sony

Speed 5 4 3

Weight 5 3 5

Capacity 5 4 3

(5 levels scale)
1=don’t attention
5=special focus
 The congruent relationship between the
indexes customers care and technique index

The indexes
Technique index
customers care

Speed Frequency
(attractive quality ) Memory
Material
Weight
Size
(attractive quality )
Thickness
Capacity Hard disk
  The parameter comparison between Lenovo
ThinkPad X201i 3249J4 and Sony X138JC/P(pink)

Hard
Frequency Memory Material Weight Size Thickness
disk

12.1
Lenovo 2.13GHz 2GB Magnalium 1.44kg 17.9mm 250G
inch

Mixed mode 11.1

Sony 1.86GHz 2GB 780g 13.9mm 128G
carbon fiber inch
 2. METHODOLOGY

QFD :
To help transform the customer needs into
engineering characteristics for a product or
service, prioritizing each product or service
characteristic while simultaneously setting
the development targets for the product or
service.
The House Of Quality
3. CASE STUDY
Step 1

Customer Requirements

Customer
Index level
requirements

Speed

Customer satisfaction Weight

Capacity
Step 2
Planning Matrix

Key Customer needs

Comparative rank
Improvement goal
analysis
Customer
Import-
Requirem- ance
ents Commodity
Standard
Improve- characteris- Absolute Weigh
Enterprise Else increased
ment goal weight t﹪
rate tic point

Speed 5 4 3 5 1.25 ◎ 9.375 31.9

Weight 5 3 5 5 1.67 ◎ 12.525 42.6

Capacity 5 4 3 5 1.25 ○ 7.5 25.5

Total 29.4 100

Step 3

Technical Requirements

Technical index
Technical Hard
requirements Frequency Memory Material Size Thickness disk
Step 4
Relationship Matrix

Technical
requirements Hard
Frequency memory Material Size Thickness
Customer disk
requirements

Speed ⊙ ○

Weight ⊙ ○ ○

Capacity ⊙
Step 5
Correlation Matrix
Hard
Technical
Frequency Memory Material Size Thickness disk
requirements

Frequency

Memory

Material

Size
*
Thickness
*
Hard disk
House of quality

*
Planning Matrix
Technical
requirements Comparative Improvement goal
Internal Hard
Frequency Material Size Thickness analysis
Customer memory disk Import
Weight
-ance Enterp- Improv- Standard Commodity
requirements Else ement increased characteri- ﹪
rise
goal rate stic point

Speed ⊙ ⊙ 5 4 3 5 1.25 ◎ 31.9

Weight ⊙ ○ ○ 5 3 5 5 1.67 ○ 42.6
Capacity ⊙ 5 4 3 5 1.25 ○ 25.5

Importance（%） 17.9 11.9 23.9 16.0 16.0 14.3

=
Oppone-
Compara
tive
nt + - - - +
analysis Technique
analysis 3 1 5 4 2 1
Targets
Desired
value
Quality
character
design
Setting
 Technical Hard
Frequency Memory Material Size Thickness
requirements disk

Importance（%） 17.9 11.9 23.9 16.0 16.0 14.3

Opponent + = - - - +
Compara
tive
analysis
Targ- Technique
3 1 5 4 2 1
analysis
ets

Desired
Quality value
character
design
Setting
 Technical Hard
Frequency MemoryMaterial
Frequency Memory Material Size
Size Thickness
Thickness Hard disk
requirements disk

Importance（%） 17.9 11.9 23.9 16.0 16.0 14.3

Opponent + = - - - +
Compar-
ative
analysis
Targ- Technique
analysis 3 1 5 4 2 1
ets

Desired
Quality value
character
design
Setting
× × × √ √ √
It keeps
The cost atof
the
The same
Thickness
expense level
frequency's onas
and ourhas
size
disk rivals'
research
advancement and
great is it andon
influence
low
is will
Have additional
will not value
make notable
boostindifference
the patent
customer's totechnology
weight. laptop's
satisfaction.
Hard to improve relatively
in a limited
performance.
high.
time.
 4.CONCLUSION

Improving goals:

——A thinner and smaller laptop equipped with a

bigger capacity.
 5.REFERENCES

1. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality function deployment.

Qual Prog19:39–50
2. Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function
deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res
143:463–497
3. Cohen L (1995) Quality function deployment:
how to make QFDwork for you. Addison-Wesley,
New York