Consumers use quality surveys to reduce risk in purchasing a car. The J. D. Power's initial quality survey of automobile buyers reports the number of problems found in the first 90 days of ownership. It is important that this information be clear and concise for the public to understand. In 2006, the surveys were changed to combine two measures of quality, number of defects and design problems, into a single number. In prior years, only the number of defects was used. The survey design change combined with issues related to the methodology in aggregating values leads to confusion and inconsistencies over time as the difference between cars becomes insignificant. The conclusion recommends changes to correct these problems. INTRODUCTION Quality survey companies follow the basic information system's process of collecting the data from the assessment documents, creating a database of the information, analyzing the data, and disseminating the probability of a defect or the number of problems per product (O'Brien & Marakas, 2009). This paper examines the information process of a survey company and identifies specific problems that may lead to incorrect conclusions. These issues result from the design of survey, computational errors, and lack of continuity in the values over time. The example used in this analysis is taken from the automobile industry. Each year, numerous automobile quality surveys are reported by several information services. Driven by the results of these studies, car manufactures have substantially improved vehicle quality. The results from the J. D. Power's Initial Quality Surveys (Tews & Perryman, 2008) provide consumers with information on the awards for best car in a segment. These awards are used extensively in advertising and influence purchasing decisions. Before purchasing a car, consumers review the available literature on the quality of a product to minimize their risk of purchasing a defective car. Collecting all this information reduces the risk of making a decision with partial or imperfect information (Heiser & Render, 2008). The analysis of the survey process focuses on correctly calculating values and the consistency in the final results. First, the J.D. Power's methodology that is used to aggregate the results of individual models into nameplates, manufacturers and country is examined. Next, with the number of problems becoming statistically insignificant, a qualitative measure is added to the number of defects, a quantitative measure, resulting in a confusing and inconsistent set of values for the new surveys. Throughout the paper, suggestions for improvement are made. The conclusion recommends changes in the survey, a new methodology for aggregating data, and separate surveys for qualitative and quantitative measures to improve the information content
Read full abstract