A Use of Subjective Clustering to Support Affinity Diagram Results in Customer Needs Analysis

Abstract

Analysis of customer needs is a critical first step in successful product development. Customer needs analysis typically consists of interviewing potential customers to understand their needs, grouping similar needs to identify representative needs, and asking customers to evaluate relative importance of the representative needs. Using the importance data, customers may be grouped according to the priorities they place on representative needs. This article compares two approaches for identifying representative needs — affinity diagram (AD) and subjective clustering (SC) — and presents a use of SC to support grouping results obtained from AD. The application of both AD and SC in identifying representative needs is demonstrated using the customer need analysis of the next generation particle accelerator.

Keywords

customer needs affinity diagram subjective clustering importance rating segmentation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. ( 2008). Product Design and Development, Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Otto, K.N. and Wood, K.L. ( 2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Jiao, J. and Chen C. -H. (2006). Customer Requirement Management in Product Development: A Review or Research Issues, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 14(3): 173-185.

Hauser, J. and Clausing, D. ( 1988). The House of Quality, Harvard Business Review, 66(3): 63-73.

Akao, Y. ( 1990). Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Clausing, D. ( 1993). Total Quality Development: A Step-by-step Guide to World-class Concurrent Engineering, New York, NY: ASME Press.

McAdams, D.A. , and Wood, K.L. (2002). A Quantitative Similarity Metric for Design-by-analogy, Journal of Mechanical Design , 124(2): 173-182.

McAdams, D.A. , Stone, R.B. and Wood, K. (1999). Functional Interdependence and Product Similarity based on Customer Needs, Research in Engineering Design, 11(1): 1-19.

Otto, K.N. and Wood, K.L. ( 1998). Product Evolution: A Reverse Engineering and Redesign Methodology, Research in Engineering Design, 10(4): 226-243.

10.

Huang, Y.M. (1999). On the General Evaluation of Customer Requirements During Conceptual Design, Journal of Mechanical Design, 121(1): 92-97.

11.

Donaldson, K.M. , Ishii, K. and Sheppard, S.D. (2006). Customer Value Chain Analysis, Research in Engineering Design, 16(4): 174-183.

12.

Calder, B.J. (1977). Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing Research , 14(3): 353-364.

13.

Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1993). The Voice of the Customer , Marketing Science, 12(1): 1-27.

14.

Duhovnik, J. , Kusar, J. , Tomazevic, R. and Starbek, M. (2006). Development Process with Regard to Customer Requirement, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 14(1): 67-82.

15.

King, R. ( 1987). Better Design in Half the Time: Implementing Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in America, Metheun, MA: GOAL/QPC.

16.

Lin, M.-C. , Wang, C.-C. and Chen T. -C. (2006). A Strategy for Managing Customer-Oriented Product Design, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 14(3): 231-244.

17.

Green, P.E. , Carmone, F.J. and Fox, L.B. (1969). Television Programme Similarities: An Application of Subjective Clustering, Journal of the Market Research Society, 11(1): 70-90.

18.

Green, P. and McNennamin, J. ( 1973). Market Position Analysis. In: Britt, S.H. and Guess, N.F. (eds.), The Dartnell Marketing Manager’s Handbook, Chicago, IL: Dartnell Press.

19.

Johnson, S.C. (1967). Hierarchical Clustering Schemes, Psychometrika, 32: 241-254.

20.

Mardia, K.V. , Kent, J.T. and Bibby, J.M. ( 2000). Multivariate Analysis, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

21.

Goodman, L.A. and Kruskal, W.H. (1954). Measure of Association for Cross Classifications, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268): 732-764.