About balance between innovator and consumer expectations

The company, developing innovative products, often invests significant financial resources in an advertising campaign urging consumers that its products it lacks. At the same time, consumers, despite advertising and diversity surrounding the choice of similar products, can not find what they want, and compromise between their expectations and the products offered. In the article the method of achieving a balance between consumer expectations and innovators opportunities, based on Quality function deployment (QFD) and the logic of antonyms. Proves the necessity of nonaverage performance in the application of the QFD

Keywords: innovation, consumer expectations, experts’ assessment, quality function deployment, logic of antonyms, engineering characteristic

References

1.   Vinogradov L.V., Lyubaeva V.A., Burylov V.S. (2015). Obespechenie optimal'nogo urovnya kachestva produktsii. Innovatsii. 3(197) , 105-107

2.   Murav'eva O.S. (2015). Konkurentosposobnost' inzhiniringovykh proektov i ikh rol' v sozdanii innovatsiy. Innovatsii. 2(196) , 97-102.

3.   Kopaneva, I. N. Monitoring i upravlenie kachestvom protsessa proizvodstva s primeneniem logiki antonimov. Dis. kand. tekhn. nauk. SPb, 2002 . 161 s.

4.   Tisenko, V.N. [i dr.] Instrumental'nye sredstva menedzhmenta na osnove standartov v mashinostroenii. Tol'yatti: ZAO «ONIKS», 2012.

5.   Bart, T.V. Upravlenie kachestvom. Moskva: MIEMP, 2010.

6.   Khoyzer, Dzh. R., Klozing D. (1992). Dom kachestva. Kurs na kachestvo, 1, 85-102.

7.   Adler Yu.P. (1999). Kachestvo i rynok: ili kak organizatsiya nastraivaetsya na obespechenie trebovaniya potrebitelya. Metody menedzhmenta kachestva. 8, 12.

8.   Pletneva N.P. (2011). Uroki loyal'nosti. Metody menedzhmenta ka-chestva. 5, 37-39.

9.   M.I. Rozno (2011). QFD: analiziruem trebovaniya potrebiteley. Metody menedzhmenta kachestva. 7, 4-10.

10. Miller, G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus-or-minus two or some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 63, 81–97.

Authors