质量管理大作业QFD案例分析

.质量管理学QFD案例分析..目录3 知识篇一、QFD ........................................3 .................................................. 定义3 .................................................. 简介3 .............................................. QFD作用3 QFD益处 ..............................................4 QFD的四个阶段 ........................................4 QFD步骤 ..............................................4 QFD成功的要素 ........................................5 .......................................... QFD法的优势5 .......................................... QFD法的局限6二、案例篇 ............................................6 .......................... QFD（一）、在ERP销售中的应用6 .............................................. 背景简介7 ............................................ 构建质量屋10 ........................................... 分析和反馈11 ........... 基于)QFD的质量屋技术在冰箱设计中的应用(二11 ........................................... 构建质量屋14 ............................. 对质量屋中存在问题的分析14 ........................................... 总结与展望二、结课总结 (15)..QFD一、知识篇定义是把顾客或市场的要求QFD(Quality Function Deployment)质量功能展开转化为设计要求、零部件特性、工艺要求、生产要求的多层次演绎分析方法。

#+质量管理学QFD案例分析目录一、QFD知识篇 (3)定义 (3)简介 (3)QFD作用 (3)QFD益处 (3)QFD的四个阶段 (4)QFD步骤 (4)QFD成功的要素 (4)QFD法的优势 (5)QFD法的局限 (5)二、案例篇 (6)（一）、QFD在ERP销售中的应用 (6)背景简介 (6)构建质量屋 (7)分析和反馈.......................................... 1 0（二）基于QFD的质量屋技术在冰箱设计中的应用..... 1 1构建质量屋.......................................... 1 1对质量屋中存在问题的分析............................ 1 4总结与展望.......................................... 1 4二、结课总结........................................ 1 5QFD 知识篇定义质量功能展开QFD(Quality Function Deployment) 是把顾客或市场的要求转化为设计要求、零部件特性、工艺要求、生产要求的多层次演绎分析方法。

简介它体现了以市场为导向，以顾客要求为产品开发唯一依据的指导思想。

在健壮设计的方法体系中，质量功能展开技术占有举足轻重的地位，它是开展质量策划的先导步骤，可以确定产品研制的关键环节、关键的零部件和关键工艺，从而为稳定性优化设计的具体实施指出了方向，确定了对象。

它使产品的全部研制活动与满足顾客的要求紧密联系，从而增强了产品的市场竞争能力，保证产品开发一次成功。

质量功能展开是一种结构化的方法, 用这种方法把顾客要求转化为产品开发和生产的每一阶段适当要求，在TS标准的6.2.2.1 产品设计技能,7.3.3.1 产品设计输出,改进中的"策划措施, 解决问题"均不同程度提到或涉及质量功能展开。

现代质量管理学大作业QFD案例分析与体会通信工程学院信息工程学号：********姓名：***QFD法案例分析[QFD法在家具新产品开发中的运用QFD法的具体运用过程1.收集客户需求家具企业已经很重视通过各种渠道获取客户对家具的需求，它们与客户建立良好的关系，举办各种活动与客户进行交流。

耐心倾听客户对家具的抱怨，从客户实际使用家具的反馈信息获得对家具的评价；或直接询问客户对家具的需求信息；或观察客户购买家具时的行为。

甚至家装公司与客户面对面的交流也是获取客户需求的良好途径通过种种途径，家具企业将获得准确的、直接的需求信息。

2.需求排序客户对衣橱的需求因人而异，获取这众多需求信息之后，需要对它们进行相对重要性排序。

通过排序，家具企业列出客户认为最重要的和最不重要的需求，获得最有价值的需求信息同时避免根据自己的偏好，如设计师对新技术的偏好，销售部门对畅销商品特性的偏好，进行新产品开发。

相对重要性排序的本质是一个定量分析的过程，借助科学的层次分析法，计算需求相对重要性的权重，再根据权重值进行排序，用数字去反映客户对衣橱需求的迫切程度，最重要的需求是1，按重要程度依次为2，3，4，……。

使用层次分析法进行衣橱需求重要性权重的计算步骤具体如下:(l)确定衣橱需求的评价指标。

将评价目标“储物空间”分为挂衣空间、叠放毛衣空间、内衣空间、收鞋空间、熨衣板空间、领带裙裤空间、被褥空间、日用品空间八个分目标；(2)对分目标层建立判断矩阵及计算。

经过对客户和专家的需求调查，按照Seaty标度原则(见表)将分目标在总目标的前提下两两比较:“挂衣空间”与“被褥空间”相比，指标“挂衣空间”相对重要程度“略为重要”，取a71 = 3；而“被褥空间”与“挂衣空间”相比，“被褥空间“相对重要程度取值a71= 1 / 3，以此类推，得出八个分目标的判断矩阵(见表)。

Seaty标度原则目标的判断矩阵然后进行具体的权重计算得出权重值W1 = 0.3180,W2 = 0.0781,W3 =0.1200,W4 = 0.0328,W5 = 0.0183,W6 = 0.2362,W7 = 0.1630,W8 = 0.0335。

质量管理大作业Q F D案例分析(总23页)本页仅作为文档封面，使用时可以删除This document is for reference only-rar21year.March质量管理学QFD案例分析目录一、QFD知识篇 (4)定义 (4)简介 (4)QFD作用 (4)QFD益处 (4)QFD的四个阶段 (5)QFD步骤 (5)QFD成功的要素 (6)QFD法的优势 (6)QFD法的局限 (6)二、案例篇 (7)（一）、QFD在ERP销售中的应用 (7)背景简介 (7)构建质量屋 (8)分析和反馈 (11)(二)基于QFD的质量屋技术在冰箱设计中的应用 (13)构建质量屋 (13)对质量屋中存在问题的分析 (15)总结与展望 (16)二、结课总结 (16)一、QFD知识篇定义质量功能展开QFD(Quality Function Deployment)是把顾客或市场的要求转化为设计要求、零部件特性、工艺要求、生产要求的多层次演绎分析方法。

简介它体现了以市场为导向，以顾客要求为产品开发唯一依据的指导思想。

在健壮设计的方法体系中，质量功能展开技术占有举足轻重的地位，它是开展质量策划的先导步骤，可以确定产品研制的关键环节、关键的零部件和关键工艺，从而为稳定性优化设计的具体实施指出了方向，确定了对象。

它使产品的全部研制活动与满足顾客的要求紧密联系，从而增强了产品的市场竞争能力，保证产品开发一次成功。

质量功能展开是一种结构化的方法,用这种方法把顾客要求转化为产品开发和生产的每一阶段适当要求，在TS标准的6.2.2.1产品设计技能,7.3.3.1产品设计输出,改进中的"策划措施,解决问题"均不同程度提到或涉及质量功能展开。

对于特定产品,QFD技术可以用作质量策划过程的一个组成部分,特别是QFD 第一阶段--产品策划将根据顾客要求(即顾客呼声)转化为相应的控制特性或设计要求,QFD提供了将通用的顾客要求转化为规定的最终产品和过程控制特性的方法QFD作用质量展开--将顾客要求转化为产品设计要求功能展开--将设计要求转化为合适的部件,过程,和生产要求QFD益处增加满足顾客的呼声的保证减少由于工程知识引起的更改数量识别相冲突的设计要求将各种公司的活动集中于以顾客为主的目标上缩短产品开发周期减少工程,制造和服务的成本QFD的四个阶段QFD最早被日本提出的时候有27个阶段，被美国引进后简化为四个阶段。

1 / 952 / 95§5.1 质量效用展开的起源与发展质 量 功 能 展 开 (Quality Function Deployment, QFD)是一种立足于在产品开发过程中最大限度地满足顾客需求的系统化、用户驱动式质量保证方法。

质量效用配置 (863); 质量效用部署质量效用展开于七十年代初起源于日本, 进入八十年代以后逐步得到欧美各发达国家的重视并得到广泛应用。

目前,QFD已成为先进生产模式及并行工程(Concurrent Engineering, CE)环境下质量保证最热门的研究领域。

它强调从产品设计开始就同时考虑质量保证的要求及实施质量保证的措施 ,是CE环境下面向质量设计(D e s i g n For Quality, DFQ)的最有力工具,对企业提高产品质量、缩短开发周期、降低生产成本和增加顾客的满意程度有极大的帮助。

3 / 95丰田公司于70年代采用了QFD以后,取得了巨大的经济效益,其新产品:开发成本下降了61%,开发周期缩短了1/3,4 / 95产品质量也得到了相应的改进。

5 / 95世界上著名的公司如:福特公司、通用汽车公司、克莱思勒公司、惠普公司、麦道公司、施乐公司、6 / 95电报电话7 / 95从QFD的产生到现在二十年来,其应用已涉及汽车、家用电器、服装、集成电路、合成橡胶、建筑设备、农业机械、船舶、自动购货系统、软件开发、教育、医疗等各个领域。

开发周期30—60%成本20—40%设计更改变动次数40—60%8 / 95技术开发1:1000产品设计1:100工艺设计1:10质量生提高产故过障成程质本量下1:1 降返修9 / 95§5.2 质量效用展开原理目前尚一个没有统一的QFD定义。

但对QFD的一些认识是配合的。

10 / 95一、QFD的定义1.QFD的最显著的特点是要求企业不断地倾听顾客的意见和需求,并通过合适的方法、采取适当的措施在产品形成的全过程中予以体现这些需求。

关于QFD的成功案例及我的感受质量功能展开QFD(Quality Function Deployment)是把顾客或市场的要求转化为设计要求、零部件特性、工艺要求、生产要求的多层次演绎分析方法。

公司在引进一项对于公司的生存和发展至关紧要的新产品或新服务时，是否面临战略性的选择问题?可以设想有一种方法，在您尝试之前就能告诉您该项目的潜在功能，能够帮助你降低从开发设计到正式生产的30%时间，而且能够提高产品质量和降低项目投入成本。

这种方法就叫做Quality(质量)、Function(功能)与Deployment(展开)，简称QFD。

QFD的大概步骤具体而言，QFD包括以下典型步骤：1、确定目标顾客。

2、调查顾客要求，确定各项要求的重要性。

3、根据顾客的要求，确定最终产品应具备的特性。

4、分析产品的每一特性与满足顾客各项要求之间的关联程度，如通过回答“有更好的解决办法吗”等问题确保找出那些与顾客要求有密切关系的特性。

5、评估产品的市场竞争力。

可以向顾客询问“这家公司的产品好在哪里”，据此可以了解产品在市场的优势、劣势及需要改进的地方，并请顾客就本公司产品及竞争对手产品对其要求的满足程度作出评价。

6、确定各产品特性的改进方向。

7、选定需要确保的产品特性，并确定其目标值。

首先举几个关于QFD的成功案例吧。

案例一：制药企业质量控制该项目与HZMSD制药有限公司（以下简称H公司）合作，通过质量功能展开(QFD)的运用，分析探寻该方法在制药行业供应链管理方面的适用性及其应用的意义，旨在改进H公司在供应链中的质量控制体系，同时也为我国其他制药企该项目与HZMSD制药有限公司（以下简称H公司）合作，通过质量功能展开(QFD)的运用，分析探寻该方法在制药行业供应链管理方面的适用性及其应用的意义，旨在改进H公司在供应链中的质量控制体系，同时也为我国其他制药企业完善供应链的质量控制提供有益的参考。

通过本项目，首先可以看出，QFD适用于供应链模式下H公司的质量管理，同时它为H公司的产品和服务的质量改进提供了有益的帮助。

Case 1/6 QFD 仙鹤铅笔质量屋Case 1/6 QFD案例分析要求1、分工总经理：资源（含人员）、进度安排；产品设计说明书的起草。

营销部经理：顾客需求调查；各项顾客需求对顾客重要度的调查与测评；协助总工程师把顾客需求“翻译”为产品要求（即技术规X）；实施新产品的市场竞争性评价。

总工程师：把顾客需求“翻译”为产品要求（即技术规X）；满意度方向的确定；关系矩阵的确定；技术重要度的计算；目标特征值的确定；产品技术性评价；技术要求间相互关系的确定。

建筑师：负责质量屋的绘制及美化；制作powerpoint.ppt。

2、产品选择建议开发一种结构简单的产品。

3、产品设计说明书的具体内容产品设计说明书包括：设计思想及过程；产品推介。

4、对设计服务项目的要求如果开发的是一种简单的服务项目，要求同时使用服务蓝图并进行质量控制点的分解。

5、提交的成果（1）质量屋（2）产品设计说明书（3）powerpoint.ppt演示文件6、报告时间及要求（1）初步定于第六次课的后两节进行汇报。

（2）每组报告时间连同回答问题控制在20分钟以内，每超时5分钟扣1分。

7、其它要求尽可能多地运用所学的知识：包括理念、技术、方法等等。

Case 2/6 BSB, INC.: The Pizza Wars e to CampusRenee Kershaw, manager of food services at a medium-sized private university in the Southeast, has just had the wind taken out of her sails. She had decided that, owing to the success of her year-old pizza service, the time had e to expand pizza-making operations on campus. However, yesterday the university president announced plans to begin construction of a student center on campus that would house, among other facilities, a new food court. In a departure from past university policy, this new facility would permit and acmodate food-service operations from three private organizations: Dunkin’Donuts, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. Until now, all food service on campus had been contracted out to BSB, Inc.CAMPUS FOOD SERVICEBSB, Inc., is a large, nationally operated food-services pany serving client organizations. The level of service provided varies, depending on the type of market being served and the particular contract specifications. The pany is organized into three market-oriented divisions: corporate, airline, and university or college. Kershaw, of course, is employed in the university or college division.At this particular university, BSB, Inc., is under contract to provide food servicesfor the entire campus of 6,000 students and 3,000 faculty, staff, and support personnel. Located in a city of approximately 200,000 people, the campus was built on land donated by a wealthy industrialist. Because the campus is somewhat isolated from the rest of the town, students wanting to shop or dine off campus have to drive into town.The campus itself is a “walking”campus, with dormitories, classrooms, and supporting amenities such as a bookstore, sundry shop, barber shop, branch bank, and food-service facilities—all within close proximity. Access to the campus by car is limited, with peripheral parking lots provided. The university also provides space, at a nominal rent, for three food-service facilities. The primary facility, a large cafeteria housed on the ground floor of the main administration building, is located in the center of campus. This cafeteria is open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner daily.A second location, called the Dogwood Room, on the second floor of the administration building, serves an upscale luncheon buffet on weekdays only. The third facility is a small grill located in the corner of a recreational building near the dormitories. The grill is open from 11 A.M. to 10 P.M. daily and until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. Kershaw is responsible for all three operations.THE PIZZA DECISIONBSB, Inc., has been operating the campus food services for the past 10 years—ever since the university decided that its mission and core petencies should focus on education, not on food service. Kershaw has been at this university for 18 months.Previously, she had been assistant manager of food services at a small university in the Northeast. After 3 to 4 months of getting oriented to the new position, she had begun to conduct surveys to determine customer needs and market trends.An analysis of the survey data indicated that students were not as satisfied with the food service as Kershaw had hoped. A large amount of the food being consumed by students, broken down as follows, was not being purchased at the BSB facilities:Percent of food prepared in dorm rooms 20Percent of food delivered from off campus 36Percent of food consumed off campus 44The reasons most monly given by students were (1) lack of variety in food offerings and (2) tight, erratic schedules that didn’t always fit with cafeteria serving hours. Three other findings from the survey were of concern to Kershaw: (1) the large percentage of students with cars, (2) the large percentage of students with refrigerators and microwave ovens in their rooms, and (3) the number of times students ordered food delivered from off campus.Percent of students with cars on campus 84Percent of students having refrigerators or microwaves in their rooms 62 Percent of food that students consume outside BSB, Inc., facilities 43In response to the market survey, Kershaw decided to expand the menu at the grill to include pizza. Along with expanding the menu, she also started a delivery service that covered the entire campus. Now students would have not only greater variety but also the convenience of having food delivered quickly to their rooms. To acmodate these changes, a pizza oven was installed in the grill and space was allocated to store pizza ingredients, to make cut-and-box pizzas, and to stage pre-made pizzas that were ready to cook. Existing personnel were hired to deliver them by bicycle. In an attempt to keep costs down and provide fast delivery, Kershaw limited the binations of topping available. That way a limited number of “standard pizzas”could be preassembled and ready to cook as soon as an order was received.THE SUCCESSKershaw believed that her decision to offer pizza service in the grill was the right one. Sales over the past 10 months have steadily increased, along with profits. Follow-up customer surveys indicated a high level of satisfaction with the reasonably priced and speedily delivered pizzas. However, Kershaw realized that success brought with it other challenges.The demand for pizzas had put a strain on the grill’s facilities. Initially, space was taken from other grill activities to acmodate the pizza oven, preparation, and staging areas. As the demand for pizzas grew, so did the need for space andequipment. The capacities of existing equipment and space allocated for making and cooking pizzas now were insufficient to meet demand, and deliveries were being delayed. To add to the problem, groups were beginning to order pizzas in volume for various on-campus functions.Finally, a closer look at the sales data showed that pizza sales were beginning to level off. Kershaw wondered whether the capacity problem and resulting increase in delivery times were the reasons. However, something else had been bothering her. In a recent conversation, Mack Kenzie, the grill’s supervisor, had told Kershaw that over the past couple of months requests for pizza toppings and binations not on the menu had steadily increased. She wondered whether her on-campus market was being affected by the “pizza wars”off campus and the proliferation of specialty pizzas.THE NEW CHALLENGEAs she sat in her office, Kershaw thought about yesterday’s announcement concerning the new food court. It would increase petition from other types of snack foods (Dunkin’Donuts) and fast foods (Taco Bell). Of more concern, Pizza Hut was going to put in a facility offering a limited menu and providing a limited selection of pizzas on a “walk-up-and-order”basis. Phone orders would not be accepted nor would delivery service be available.Kershaw pondered several crucial questions: Why had demand for pizzas leveled off? What impact would the new food court have on her operations?Should she expand her pizza operations? If so, how?Questions1. How would you describe the mission of BSB, Inc., on this campus? Does BSB, Inc., enjoy any petitive advantages or core petencies?2. Initially, how did Renee Kershaw choose to use her pizza operations to pete with off-campus eateries? What were her petitive priorities?3. What impact will the new food court have on Kershaw’s pizza operations? What petitive priorities might she choose to focus on now?4. If she were to change the petitive priorities for the pizza operation, how might that affect her operating processes and capacity decisions?5. What would be a good flow strategy for Kershaw’s operations on campus to meet the food court petition?—Source: This case was prepared by Dr. Brooke Saladin, WakeForestUniversity, as a basis for classroom discussion.Case 3/6CRANSTON NISSAN (selective)Steve Jackson, General Manager of Cranston Nissan, slowly sifted through his usual Monday morning stack of mail. The following letter was one he would not soon forget.Dear Mr. Jackson:I am writing this letter so that you will be aware of a nightmare I experiencedrecently regarding the repair of my 300ZX in your body shop and subsequently in your service department. I will detail the events in chronological order.AUGUST 28I dropped the car off for repair of rust damage in the following areas:Roof—along the top of the windshield areaLeft rocker panel—under driver’s doorLeft quarter panel—near end of bumperRear body panel—under license plateI was told it would take three or four days.SEPTEMBER1I called to inquire about the status of the car, since this was the fifth day the car was in the shop. I was told that I could pick up the car anytime after 2 P.M. My wife and I arrived at 5 P. M. The car was still not ready. In the meantime I paid the bill of $443.17 and waited. At 6 P.M. the car was driven up dripping wet (presumably from a wash to make it look good). I got into the car and noticed the courtesy light in the driver’s door would not turn off when the door was closed. I asked for help, and Jim Boyd, body shop manager, could not figure out what was wrong. His solution was to remove the bulb and have me return after the Labor Day holiday to have themechanic look at it. I agreed and began to drive off. However, the voice warning, “Left door is open,”repeatedly sounded. Without leaving the premises I returned to Mr. Boyd, advising him to retain the car until it was fixed—there was no way I could drive the car with that repeated recording. Mr. Boyd then suggested I call back the next day (Saturday) to see if the mechanic could find the problem. I must emphasize, I brought the car to the body shop on August 28 in perfect mechanical working condition—the repair work was for body rust. This point will bee important as the story unfolds.SEPTEMBER 2I called Jim Boyd at 10:30 A.M. and was told that the car had not been looked at yet. He promised to call back before the shop closed for the holiday, but he never did. I later learned that he did not call because “there was nothing to report.”The car sat in the shop Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.SEPTEMBER 5I called Jim Boyd to check on the status of the car. It was 4 P.M., and Mr. Boyd told me nothing had been done, but that it should be ready by the next day. At this point it was being obvious that my car did not have priority in the service department.SEPTEMBER 6I called Jim Boyd again (about 4 P.M.) and was told that work had halted on the car because the service department needed authorization and they did not know how much it would run. At the hint that I would have to pay for this mess I became very upset and demanded that the car be brought immediately to the mechanical condition it was in when it was dropped off on August 28. At this point T ed Simon, service department manager, was summoned, and he assured me that if the problem was caused by some action of the body shop, I would not be financially responsible. I had not driven the car since I dropped it off, and I could not fathom the evidence anyone could produce to prove otherwise.SEPTEMBER 7Again late in the day, I called Mr. Simon, who said that Larry (in the service department) knew about the problem and switched me over to him. Larry said that they had narrowed it down to a wire that passed several spots where body work was performed. He said the work was very time-consuming and that the car should be ready sometime tomorrow.SEPTEMBER 8I called Mr. Simon to check on the status of the car once more. He told me that the wiring problem was fixed, but now the speedometer did not work. The short in the wires was caused by the body work. Larry got on the phone and said I could pick up the car, but they would send the car out to a subcontractor on Monday to repair thespeedometer. He said that when the mechanic test-drove the car he noticed the speedometer pinned itself at the top end, and Larry thought that someone must have done something while searching for the other problem. I asked him if there would be charges for this and he said there would not. My wife and I arrived to pick up the car at 5 P.M. I clarified the next steps with Larry and was again assured that the speedometer would be repaired at no charge to me.The car was brought to me, and as I walked up to it I noticed that the rubber molding beneath the driver’s door was hanging down. I asked for some help, and Mr. Simon came out to look at it. He said it must have been left that way after the search process for the bad wire. He took the car back into the shop to screw it on. When it finally came out again, he said that he would replace the molding because it was actually damaged.When I arrived home, I discovered that the antitheft light on the dash would not stop blinking when the doors were closed. Attempting to activate the security system did not help. The only way I could get the light to stop flashing was to remove the fuse. In other words, now my security system was damaged. Needless to say, I was very upset.SEPTEMBER 11On Sunday evening I dropped off the car and left a note with my keys in the “early bird”slot. The note listed the two items that needed to be done from the agreement of last Friday—the molding and the speedometer. In addition, Imentioned the security system problem and suggested that “somebody must have forgotten to hook something back up while looking for the wire problem. On Monday I received a call from someone in the service department (I think this name was John), who said that the problem in the security system was in two places—the hatchback lock and “some wires in the driver’s door.”The lock would cost me $76, and the cost for the rest was unknown. The verbal estimate was for a total of $110. I asked him why he did not consider this problem a derivative of the other problems. He said that both the body shop and the mechanic who worked on the wire problem said they could see no way that they could have caused this to happen.I told the fellow on the phone to forget fixing the security system because I was not going to pay for it. At this point, I just wanted the car back home, thinking I could address the problem later with someone such as yourself. I told him to have the speedometer fixed and again asked about charges for it. I was assured there would be none.SEPTEMBER 13The service department called to say I could pick up the car anytime before 8 P.M. He also said that the molding had to be ordered because it was not in stock. The need for the part was known on September 8, and NOW the part must be ordered. This will cause me another trip to the shop.When I went to the service department to pick up the car, I was presented a bill for $126. I asked what the bill was for, and I was shown an itemized list thatincluded speedometer repair and searching for the security problem. I said my understanding was that there would be no charges. Somebody at the service desk was apprised of the problem and released the car to me with the understanding that the service manager would review the situation the next day.My car was bought around to me by the same person who brought it to me September 8. As I got into the driver’s seat, I noticed there was no rearview mirror —it was lying in the passenger’s seat, broken off from its mounting. I was too shocked to even get mad. I got out of the car and asked how something like this could happen without anyone noticing. Jim Boyd said someone probably did want to own up to it. He requisitioned a part and repaired the mirror mounting.Mr. Jackson, I realize this is a long letter, but I have been so frustrated and upset over the past three weeks that I had to be sure that you understood the basis for that frustration. I am hoping you can look into this matter and let me know what you think.Sincerely,Sam Monahan555 South Main, TurnervilleQuestionsAnswer the following questions from the perspective of TQM.1.Categorize the quality problems in this case.2.What are the probable causes of so many mishaps?3.Prepare a cause-and-effect chart for “failure to remedy repair problem tocustomer satisfaction.”4.What specific actions should Jackson take immediately? What should some ofhis longer-term goals be?Case 4/6 Wuhan Iron & Steel Group Co., DHCR本案例是由科技大学管理学院马风才，在某钢铁公司提供企业素材并且现场调查访问的基础上编写的。