here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A validation Study of House of Quality key performance indicators for members to understand the possibilities and what can be expected. From this perspective an adjusted R2 of 24,3% in this case is acceptable. 4.3 Establishing the House of Quality; translating “What” into “How” In section 4.2 the dataset of items established from the perception and expectation ratings was statistically tested. Factor analysis examined the structure of the dimensions whereas a regression analysis was conducted to test the unique effects of the established dimensions on member’s overall rating of the online union. In this section we will integrate the data gathered by substracting the expectations from the perceptions plus the data from the Kano related part of the survey into the first matrix of Quality Function Deployment; the House of Quality. Section 4.3.1 discusses the gap analysis between the expectations and perceptions. Section 4.3.2 will present the Kano analysis. Involvement of the management team as experts in the data collection for the QFD process is described in section 4.3.3. The compositition of the House of Quality will be presented in section 4.3.4. 4.3.1 Gap analysis Based on the SERVQUAL method, the first part of the survey measured the quality of the services provided by the online union. As discussed in section 2.4 gaps occur when there are differences between customer’s expectation and the actual perception of the service provided; the wider the gap, the larger the difference. Positive scores means that the perceptions of a service exceeds the expactations whereas a score of zero indicates satisfactory quality. Negative scores on the other hand submit to an underperformance in relation to the customer’s expactations. Each item is measured by two questions. In our survey the first question measures the expectations of a member by asking to indicate on a five-point Likert scale how a specific situation in general should be. The second question measures the same situation but than specifically in the case of the online union. For example; the first announcement will be “A trade union organization should have good online facilities”, followed by “The online union has good online facilities”. All items in the survey measured negative gaps. An overview of the gap scores is presented in Figure - 11. A possible explanation for the negative gaps might be the fact that people have the intention to respond more extremly when they are asked to indicate an ideal situation. Therefore the focus should be on the variation of the gaps instead of the negative values (Teas, 1993b). The measured gaps can be very valuable to the organization as it clearly indicates on which service aspects the organization is underperforming. This study focusses on the process of improvement, therefore the gaps are valuable as input for the House of Quality but not as single indicators. 62
A validation Study of House of Quality key performance indicators The highest negative gapscore can be seen for the attribute “influence of the online union”. This score indicates that members expect a union to have sufficient influence on for example collective bargainings, whereas they perceive the online union to have less influence. The member population of the online union is relative small compared to other unions. As presented in Table 6 the memberpopulation is also divided over many different worksectors. The representation in number of members in a specifc sector is therefore low which persuades the influence of the online union. The second highest negative gap is found on the attribute “offering effective support”. This attribute indicates that members expect a union to provide effective support when needed, which can be stated to be an important aspect of an online union. The smallest negative gap is represented by the attribute “custommade services”. Further analysis of the gaps will be done after a combined integration with the Kano scores into the House of Quality. -1,60 -1,40 -1,20 -1,00 -0,80 -0,60 -0,40 -0,20 0,00 -1,43 -1,07 -1,04 -1,01 -0,95 -0,91 -0,90 -0,84 -0,77 -0,75 -0,72 -0,72 -0,72 -0,66 -0,63 -0,62 -0,60 -0,55 -0,52 -0,49 -0,32 -0,22 Figure - 11 Overview gap scores 63 Influence of online union Offering effective support Good representation of interests Intelligibility objectives and services Offering relevant information Up-to-date information Perception of solidarity Opportunity of physical meetings Member involvement on development Reliability of information Accessibility of information Recognizing the needs of members Professional presentation Interaction between union and members Good online facilities Reliability and quality of services Perception of safety and protection Interaction between members Opportunity of virtual meetings Involvement third parties Members in the same position Custom-made services
Page 1 and 2:
A validation Study of House of Qual
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: A validation Study of House of Qual
Page 61: A validation Study of House of Qual
show all

here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?