Sustainability assessment of an automotive organisation using fuzzy Kano's model

Figures & data

Figure 1 Kano's model and five categories of quality attribute (Kano et al. 1984).

Table 1 Questionnaire for the decision-makers.

S. No.	Criteria	Questionnaire with respect to the criteria
1	Financial health	Does the organisation have good profitability, liquidity and solvency or not?
2	Economic performance	Whether the organisation equally contribute to gross domestic product (GDP) or not?
3	Potential financial benefits	Is the organisation receiving any kind of subsidy or not?
4	Trading opportunities	Does the organisation hold good trading opportunities?
5	Air resources	Are there any air emission control devices installed, if so rate its level of utilisation?
6	Water resources	Have specific in-plant water efficiency or water re-use/ re-cycling or filtration measures been implemented?
7	Land resources	Does the organisation follow any waste management techniques?
8	Mineral and energy resources	Does the organisation follow any environmental policy?
9	Internal human resources	Does the organisation care about the employees' health and safety?
10	External population	Whether social cohesion is experienced outside the organisation?
11	Stakeholder participation	Does the stakeholder have enough empowerment?
12	Macro social performance	Does the organisation managing its housing and service?

Table 2 Evaluation table for financial health criterion.

		Traditional Kano's Questionnaire (TKQ)
Financial health		Like	Must-be	Neutral	Live-with	Dislike
Interviewee I	Functional	0.30	0.30	0.20	0.00	0.00
	Dysfunctional	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.60	0.40
Interviewee II	Functional	0.80	0.00	0.20	0.00	0.00
	Dysfunctional	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.78
Interviewee III	Functional	0.30	0.30	0.00	0.40	0.00
	Dysfunctional	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.78	0.33
Interviewee IV	Functional	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Dysfunctional	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.30	0.70
Interviewee V	Functional	0.20	0.30	0.00	0.50	0.00
	Dysfunctional	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.20	0.80

Table 3 Kano evaluation table.

	Dysfunctional
Functional	Like	Must-be	Neutral	Live-with	Dislike
Like	Q	A	A	A	O
Must-be	R	I	I	I	M
Neutral	R	I	I	I	M
Live-with	R	I	I	I	M
Dislike	R	R	R	R	Q

Table 4 Evaluation table for financial health criteria by Interviewee 1.

M	O	A	I	R	Q
0.2	0.12	0.18	0.3	0	0

Table 5 Total level of quality attribute of five interviewees.

	M	O	A	I	R	Q
I	0.2	0.12	0.18	0.3	0	0
II	0.1554	0.6216	0.2664	0.0666	0	0
III	0.2331	0.0999	0.2331	0.5439	0	0
IV	0.35	0.35	0.15	0.15	0	0
V	0.64	0.16	0.04	0.16	0	0

Table 6 Classification of five interviewee's common consensus for threshold value of 0.2 of financial health criterion.

Interviewee	M	O	A	I	R	Q
I	1	0	0	1	0	0
II	0	1	1	0	0	0
III	1	0	1	1	0	0
IV	1	1	0	0	0	0
V	1	0	0	0	0	0
Frequency	4	2	2	2	0	0

Table 7 Classification of five interviewee's common consensus for threshold value of 0.3 of financial health criterion.

Interviewee	M	O	A	I	R	Q
I	0	0	0	0	0	0
II	0	1	0	0	0	0
III	0	0	0	1	0	0
IV	1	1	0	0	0	0
V	1	0	0	0	0	0
Frequency	2	2	0	1	0	0

Table 8 Frequency data of all criteria for threshold value of 0.2.

		Frequency level
Sustainability enablers	Sustainability criteria	M	O	A	I	R	Q
Economic sustainability	Financial health	4	2	2	2	0	0
	Economic performance	2	2	2	3	0	0
	Potential financial benefits	2	2	3	3	0	0
	Trading opportunities	1	2	1	0	2	1
Environmental sustainability	Air resources	2	3	2	2	1	0
	Water resources	1	2	3	3	0	1
	Land resources	2	3	4	2	1	1
	Mineral and energy resources	3	4	3	3	1	1
Social sustainability	Internal human resources	2	4	2	1	0	2
	External population	2	4	2	2	0	0
	Stakeholder participation	3	2	3	4	0	0
	Macro social performance	2	1	3	3	0	1

Figure 2 Frequency level chart for threshold value 0.2.

Figure 3 Frequency level chart for threshold value 0.3.

Figure 4 Comparison of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for threshold value of 0.2 for all criteria.

Figure 5 Comparison of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for threshold value of 0.3 for all criteria.