1. Introduction
To survive global competition, companies must enhance their capacity to precisely and continuously identify customer requirements and fulfil them. A previous study showed that the voice of the customer (VOC) is the most frequently used tool in market research [
1]. The fulfilment of customer requirements is related to customer satisfaction, which is an undeniable factor for business success. Customers with a high satisfaction level will have a high loyalty level. The profit of a business can be increased by 100% with only a 5% increase in customer loyalty [
2]. However, this is not easy to achieve, due to the different impacts of the fulfilment of customer requirements on customer satisfaction. Therefore, companies need tools to accurately identify customer requirements.
In recent years, environmental problems have also become a critical issue for companies. Customers are becoming more aware of environmental problems, which have led many countries to implement and enforce ‘green’ environmental laws and regulations, such as ‘green material’, to reduce the negative effects of the product life cycle on the environment [
3]. This growing pressure from the stakeholders has left companies with no choice but to adjust their environmental policies [
4]. Many studies have discussed and proposed tools and methods for merging environmental aspects into the product development area. This approach, widely known as eco-design, is intended to avoid the repercussions of product development across the product life cycle [
5,
6,
7].
Having knowledge of customer and environmental requirements is critical, but failure to transform the known knowledge into product specifications can be as harmful as not having the knowledge. It is important for companies to precisely identify the requirements and to incorporate them into product specifications [
8]. In addition to fulfilment of the right requirements, companies that can transform the requirements into innovative products and offer value-added qualities will excel in market competition [
9,
10]. Companies need good problem-solving and decision-making tools.
In brief, in order to gain a sustainable competitive advantage, companies need to possess five important capabilities (C1–C5): to identify important customer requirements (C1), to identify environmental requirements (C2), to transform the requirements into product specifications (C3), to support idea creation and create innovative solutions (C4), and to evaluate and choose the best solutions (C5).
Furthermore, the previous research was mostly performed on a macrosystem basis to arrive at solutions. Either in the idea generation process or in the solution analysis, they mostly started from an overall system overview before studying more detailed areas. The application of a system approach in product development—especially in generating solution idea processes—can produce groundbreaking results; however, it heavily relies on the designer’s skills or knowledge. By doing so, no matter what methodologies are used, it will rarely produce a robust result. Another potential drawback of this approach is the possibility that the initial conceptualizations in the overall system lead to an incorrect approach regarding the core details. In an era where competition is very tight, companies cannot rely on something so vague for their business. An improper product design can cause consumer dissatisfaction and loss of customers. Redesign is not always a practical option, because it costs a business time and money, which are always critical.
Therefore, this study proposes a new method that is able to incorporate C1–C5 and is applicable in today’s product design processes. To do so, this study combines the Kano model, QFDE, and TRIZ with a component-based approach to systematically produce a sustainable and innovative product design.
3. Methodology
Our methodology consisted of five steps, as shown in
Figure 1.
Step 1: Identifying customer and environmental requirements
This methodology uses a Kano questionnaire with the addition of a standardized set VOE and EM based on the work of Masui et al. [
15]. The purpose of combining VOC with VOE in the questionnaire is to perceive both customer and environmental requirements.
Due to the different nature of each market segment, it is difficult to know whether the fulfilment of a certain product feature can actually increase satisfaction or merely prevent dissatisfaction. This is why it is important to know the influence of a given product’s requirements on customer satisfaction. The customer satisfaction (S) and dissatisfaction (DS) coefficients [
60] can indicate the strength of the effect of requirements’ fulfilment or non-fulfilment on customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The satisfaction coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, and the dissatisfaction coefficient ranges from −1 to 0—the closer the value to 0, the less the impact on customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Step 2: Identifying product specifications and improvement targets
The second step is to deploy the VOC/VOE items obtained from the previous step into product specification requirements (i.e., the product’s EMs and components). QFDE phase I is improved in this study by utilizing the Kano model’s results to determine customer weight
cwj, as shown in Equation (3):
where
J is the number of VOC/VOE items. This equation lets the degree of influence of a particular requirement on customer satisfaction be reflected in the customer weight value. ‘M’ uses a DS value because it affects the dissatisfaction level if it is not fulfilled and it has no effect on the satisfaction level if it is fulfilled. This methodology utilizes the S/DS value as a customer weight; thus, the negative sign is trivial and can be omitted. The customer weight for ‘O’ is determined by the highest value of S or DS, because customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels are proportionally affected by the level of fulfilment and non-fulfilment. ‘A’ always affects satisfaction levels and never causes dissatisfaction to the customer; therefore, the S value is chosen for its weight value. ‘R’ is the opposite of a one-dimensional profile. Therefore, this requirement uses the minimum value of S or DS. ‘I’ and ‘Q’ have no effect on customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction; thus, they can be omitted from further analysis.
Figure 2 shows the customer weight (
cwj) values for each Kano requirement based on their fulfilment effects.
The correlation table for VOC/VOE items, EM items, and components is introduced in QFDE phase I and II. This correlation table’s elements are denoted as rsj,k (j;k|1 ≤ j;k ≤ J;K) and rsk,l (k;l|1 ≤ k;l ≤ K;L), where rsj,k is the relational strength of VOC/VOE item j for EM item k, rsk,l is the relational strength of EM item k for component l, J is the number of VOC/VOE items, K is the number of EM items, and L is the number of components. The values of rsj,k and rsk,l are given by the designers, and the 9-3-1-0 scoring system is used to represent the relational strength value, where ‘9’ indicates the strongest relation and ‘0’ indicates no relation. The results from QFDE phases I and II are relative weight values to determine the importance level of each EM item and component.
Product designers use important EM items and components to generate design targets to improve the product’s overall qualities. This study proposes an improved QFDE phase III with a component-based approach. This improvement aims to determine the right components and the right parameters to be included in the product’s design targets. This methodology has two alternatives to propose the design targets: The first alternative is based on the EM items (QFDE phase I). To start with, the designers eliminate EM items with relative weight values below the average value. Then, the rsk,l value is used to determine the components chosen. Components with relational strength values of ‘1’ or ‘0’ are omitted. The second alternative is based on the components (QFDE phase II) and uses the same evaluation method used for the EM items. These two alternatives are subsequently analyzed in QFDE phase IV by multiplying the irj value and the cwj value to obtain the improvement effect (IE) for each VOC/VOE item. The results from this improved QFDE methodology are the product’s design targets.
Step 3: Generating general solutions
Contradiction problems occur when an increase in a desirable parameter (DP) causes an increase in another undesirable parameter (UP). TRIZ contradiction matrices can solve these conflicting situations [
16]. This methodology thoroughly analyzes each selected component’s targets and their contradiction problems. By introducing a table whose element is determined by Equations (4) and (5), the most prominent TRIZ inventive principles (TIPs) for each design target can be determined:
where
ipwl′,n is the total weight of selected component
l′ for TIP
n,
L′ is the number of selected components,
rsl′,k is the relational strength of selected component
l′ for EM item
k, and
pvl′,n,k is the point value of selected component
l′ of TIP
n and EM item
k. The higher the
ipwl′n value, the more relevant the TIP to generate better solutions.
Step 4: Generating specific solutions
The TIPs obtained from the previous step serve as general solutions that need to be converted into specific solutions. These specific solutions are proposed to satisfy customer and environmental requirements; hence, they need to be evaluated based on their significance to the fulfilment of VOC/VOE. The solution significance rate
srp can be calculated by using Equation (6):
where
P is the number of solutions,
J is the number of VOC/VOE items,
cwj is the customer weight of VOC/VOE item
j, and
svp,j is the significance value of solution
p for VOC/VOE item
j. The
svp,j value uses the 9-3-1-0 scoring system, where ‘9’ is very significant and ‘0′ is not significant. The results from step four are specific solutions with significance rate values.
Step 5: Developing final solution(s)
Each specific solution obtained from the previous step is designed to work only for the designated component. By combining solutions from each component, product designers can amplify the significance of these solutions to the product’s overall qualities. Not all combinations can work; thus, product designers need to filter out infeasible combinations. The remaining combinations are evaluated by using the combination significance rate value, which is obtained by summing each srp value from the combined solutions. The higher the combination’s srp value, the more capable it is of improving the product’s overall qualities.
4. Results and Discussion
To further explain the proposed methodology, we carried out a case study of a desk lamp product. The desk lamp was selected because this product’s structure is relatively simple to understand.
Figure 3 shows the information of the product used in this case study.
A total sample set of 85 people was taken in step 1.
Table 2 shows the results obtained from the Kano questionnaire analysis.
Based on these results, two alternatives of product design targets were obtained and evaluated in step 2.
Figure 4 shows the improved QFDE process.
In step 3, each target from the previous step was further analyzed for possible contradiction problems. For the sake of simplicity, only components with
ipwl′n values above average were used, and only the calculation for CO7 is shown, as can be seen in
Table 3. The complete analysis in step 3 identified the following TIPs used, where # denotes the TIP number: Segmentation (#1), cheap short-life instead of costly long-life (#27), use of copies (#26), composite materials (#40), extraction (#2), change of physical and chemical parameters (#35), pneumatic and hydraulic structures (#29), nesting (#7), feedback (#23), prior action (#10), changing color (#32), and periodic action (#19). This methodology utilizes the suggestions from TRIZ’s 40 inventive principles to produce solutions needed for product improvement [
16]. TRIZ tools have been proven to possess a wide range of strategies to create innovative solutions for product development and eco-design. However, some studies have utilized certain TRIZ-related strategies in specific areas, such as material substitution [
61], and can serve as a reference for solving the specific problem.
Step 4 produced specific solutions for each component, as shown in
Table 4. These specific solutions were further evaluated based on their significance rate
srp to the VOC/VOE, as can be seen in
Table 5. Higher
srp values indicate a more significant solution.
Step 5 transformed these 19 specific solutions at the component level to a total of 384 possible combinations at the product level. From a thorough analysis, 180 combinations were found to be infeasible, for several reasons. For example, solution no. 1 cannot be combined with no. 4 because the designs are incompatible with one another. The combination
srp value for the remaining 204 combinations served to rank the combinations, as shown in
Table 6.
The solution with the highest combination srp value (86.66) proposes a modular design base (1), composite material post and goose neck (6 and 7), wireless design (8), inflatable design head/shade (12), adding sensors or using better insulation lamp sockets (14 or 15), and a bulb with a smart sensor (19). Compared with the standard desk lamp design, this solution offers better qualities, such as the following:
Safer operation: A rubber material provides a better insulator.
Less energy usage: The smart sensor can automatically adjust the brightness to save electricity usage.
Longer bulb lifetime: Heat is one of the main factors that affect bulb lifetime. This new design can monitor and control the heat; thus, it can extend the lifetime of the bulb, which also reduces the cost needed to replace the bulb. This can lead to an increase in customer satisfaction.
Less weight: Modular, wireless, and inflatable designs can reduce the overall weight significantly.
Environmentally friendly: Composite materials with a modular/inflatable design are easy to recycle and dispose of in the end-of-life phase of the product.
Furthermore, this study tested customer acceptance of the proposed solution. The same 85 respondents were asked to rank their satisfaction with the proposed solution based on their VOC/VOE using a scale from 1 to 5, in order of satisfaction. This study used a probability value (
p-value) for hypothesis testing with a 95% confidence level to measure the respondents’ satisfaction with the proposed solutions. The null hypothesis (H
0) was ‘Respondent not satisfied with the proposed solutions’, and the alternative hypothesis (H
1) was ‘Respondent satisfied with the proposed solutions’. We would reject H
0 if the
p-value from the hypothesis test was less than 5%. The statistical significance test results can be seen in
Figure 5. The proposed solutions are statistically significant because they successfully reject H
0 in all of the VOC/VOE items. This means that the proposed solutions comply with the VOC/VOE.
This case study revealed that our methodology accurately incorporates VOC/VOE into product design and can help product designers to create a sustainable and innovative design concept. This methodology can effectively assist designers in accurately identifying VOC/VOE by utilizing the Kano model. Each VOC/VOE is well distinguished by its effect on customer satisfaction. These VOCs/VOEs were meticulously translated into product specifications with the improved QFDE method, thereby preventing harmful side effects from misdirected VOCs/VOEs. TRIZ can help designers to solve the innovation problems resulting from the product specifications. These three tools, combined with the component-based approach, can provide a good synergy between the inputs and the outputs.
Next, we should explain the superiority of the proposed methodology compared to previous research. Our literature survey showed that no existing research satisfies all of C1–C5 simultaneously. The absence of one or more of these capabilities will lead to several problems, such as the following:
Lack of concrete methods to achieve the improvements.
Inaccurate VOC/VOE identification.
Inaccurate transformation of VOC/VOE to product specifications.
Neglecting environmental issues.
The results from this case study demonstrate the proposed methodology’s capability of incorporating C1–C5 simultaneously, which solves all of the problems mentioned above, proving its superiority to existing research.
In addition to the capability of simultaneously incorporating C1–C5,
Figure 5 also shows that the proposed methodology is superior in creating solutions. The sheer quantity difference shows that the proposed methodology has a clear superiority in term of solution quantity compared to other methodologies. This case study shows that the proposed methodology is able to provide product designers with many improvement options, either at the component level (19 solutions) or the product level (204 solutions). This can be achieved by using a component-based approach that focuses on each main component. Previous studies used a product-based approach, limiting their ability to produce solutions. Product-based approaches need to analyze a broad area and are heavily reliant on the designer’s skills or knowledge. Component-based approaches target more specific areas. This can help designers to focus on specific problem and simplify the analysis process. Therefore, designers can produce more solutions, giving them the flexibility to choose solutions that best suit their requirements.
A large number of solutions without a way to determine the effectiveness of each solution can overwhelm the designers. The component-based approach in this methodology provides a decent evaluation method to suggest the most prominent solution(s) in a more efficient way. The evidence can be seen from step three in the case study. By using the provided evaluation method, designers do not need thoroughly analyze all possible TIPs, though they are still able to identify the significance rank of each principle. Therefore, this methodology is able to provide designers with a lot of solutions, while at the same time also giving them a method to analyze the effectiveness of each solution.
This proposed methodology, with its superiority compared to previous research, has real potential to be applicable to product design processes and improve their overall quality. Aside from the limitations of the original Kano model, QFDE, and TRIZ, there are no limitations on the applicability of the proposed methodology. Rather, this methodology enhances the performance of each tool by combining it with other tools to overcome its limitations. The added capabilities can identify environmental requirements and incorporate them into product specification targets, helping companies to resolve the critical issue of environmental problems in the product development area. This methodology is consistent with the purpose of eco-design or the circular economy, but its main goal is to minimize negative environmental impacts.
5. Conclusions
To excel in business competition today, companies need to possess five important capabilities (C1–C5). Although there have been many related studies, no previous study was able to simultaneously incorporate these five important capabilities. This study proposes a new methodology that combines the Kano model, QFDE, and TRIZ with a component-based approach. This methodology addresses the challenge of incorporating these five important capabilities simultaneously. Step one identifies VOCs/VOEs with specific characteristics for each requirement. Step two transforms this essential information into a detailed design target for the selected component(s). Step three generates general solutions, and step four transforms these general solutions into specific solutions. Step five combines these specific solutions to improve the solutions’ significance to the product’s overall qualities.
The key aspects of this methodology can be summarized as follows:
It has a more precise customer weight value in QFDE phase I, because the value reflects the degree of influence of that particular requirement on customer satisfaction.
It uses the component-based approach to determine the right components to be included in the product’s design target, as well as which parameter (EM) needs to be improved for that particular component.
It offers a way to thoroughly analyze the contradiction problems from the product design targets and determine the most prominent TIP to create general solutions.
It allows the evaluation of the specific solution’s significance to the fulfilment of customer and environmental requirements.
It can amplify the significance of the specific solutions to the product’s overall qualities by combining each component’s solutions and determining the most prominent combination.
In summary, this methodology has three advantages compared to the previous studies: it simultaneously incorporates the five important capabilities; it produces a great number of solutions to provide designers with the flexibility to pick the most suitable solution(s); and it helps designers generate specific solutions with minimal dependence on designers’ subjectivity by reducing the complexity of the process to a more specific component level.
Regardless of the proposed methodology’s superiority, this study still has limitations. This study demonstrates the methodology’s ability to fulfil the VOC/VOE. However, the proposed methodology still neglects other stakeholders’ requirements. The requirements of other stakeholders throughout the product’s life cycle are equally important to develop a well-balanced product. It is necessary to consider as many aspects and interests as possible during the early phase of the product development process. In addition, this study was also limited in terms of its data collection method. This study utilized a survey method for collecting initial VOCs/VOEs as well as for evaluating the proposed design. The scope of this survey method is limited to the subjectivity of the customer concerns only. In future studies, we could extend our concerns to other stakeholder requirements such as carbon emissions, circular economy, social issues, etc. It is also highly recommended to develop a software system for the implementation of this methodology.