Revision as of 15:46, 24 September 2017

One of the main goals when starting developing a product or service is to satisfy the customer, but how do you know which features to include and what the customer expect. In order to create competitive product it is of advantage to surprise the customer with not expected features. When starting a product or commissioning a product as a product manager, you have to find out what features should be included. There is a tool to figure it out and to measure satisfaction, it is called Kano model. This Article provides an overview, how to use it to find out the requirements, gives an example and represents advantages and disadvantages.

The Kano model is a method to scale the layers of quality and to achieve consumer satisfaction in a project or for a product. The Model was published in 1978 by Noriaki Kano (*1940), a Professor of the Tokyo University of Science. ^[1] The theory is proposed to understand the relationship between customer satisfaction and quantitative measures. The requirement and the performance of the product or service derive from the different types, the model provides. The model gather the needs of the customers to include them in the development of a product or service. ^[2] In a product development project it is recommended to use the kano model to meet customer's needs and to determine requirements in an early project phase. The article provides the explanation of the kano model, the application and how to make projects successful by involving it.

Figure 5: Kano model

Origin

The model certainly represents a transfer and expansion of the two-factor theory (also known as dual-factor theory or Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory) of Herzberg (1959). Herzberg's theory figured the job satisfaction at the workplace out. The basic features (Kano) correspond in their definition to the hygiene factors (Herzberg), the performance characteristics and enthusiasm features according to Kano are comparable with the motivation factors (Herzberg). ^[3]

The five quality elements

The Kano model is a two dimensional chart with the functionality on the x-axis and the satisfaction on the y-axis, it distinguishes five typs of quality elements as followed (see Figure 6):

Must-be Quality Elements

Are essential and assumed for the customer. If the product does not fulfill these requirements, the customer will be dissatisfied but if it is fulfilled, the customer will not show up satisfaction. The must-be curves flatten towards to the end, it means a bit of investment does not make the customer dissatisfied, but even more invest can not give the customer satisfaction. It is important to know as soon as a element has reached the must-be category, there is no need for invest anymore.

Figure 1: Must-be curve

One-dimension Quality Elements

(also called Linear or Performance in the literature) Are conscious to the customer, eliminate dissatisfaction or achieve satisfaction depending on the degree of fulfillment, the higher the better. Every enhancement in the product or service regarding the performance gives the customer more satisfaction, but adding of functionality means adding of investment. Between the performance and the price a customer is willing to pay, is tight knit. ^[4]

Figure 2: One-dimension curve

Attractive Quality Elements

Are not usually expected by the customer and do not disappoint them when not fulfilled. These attributes deliver satisfaction or enthusiasm and are the main elements for reaching a competitive advantage. The best effect shows a feature the customer not even knows before. ^[5]

Figure 3: Attractive curve

Indifferent Quality Elements

Are not noticed by the customer, they cannot give either satisfaction or dissatisfaction when fulfilled or not.

Figure 4: Indifferent curve

Reverse Quality Elements

Cause satisfaction when absent and dissatisfaction when present. ^[6]

Figure 5: Reverse curve

From Attractive to Must-be over the time

It is important to understand, that the categories are not static, they adapt step by step. The quality elements are moving slightly over the time. Todays Must-be, have been Attractive for some years and the one-dimesion elements decrease steadily over the time. A habituation effect occurs. Relating to the car examples below (see Examples), a man bought his first car, a BMW 120d and is planing to use it for 10 years. The car has 190 hp (one-dimension category), which is a lot for the young man and he is excited. After 10 years, the men decide to buy a new car, but he became accustomed to the power of the engine and will not be enthusiastic if the new car has 190 hp as well. The man choose the car, because it also has seat heater, navigation and Bluetooth connection (attractive category), which convinced him. After a certain time a related observation can be made. The features change for the man from ataractic to must-be. He will be dissatisfied, if his next car comes without this features. ^[1]

Application of the Kano model

Now that we have a basic understanding of how the Kano model works, it’s time to go over what it means to use it with multiple users and features. A relatively simple approach to applying the Kano Model Analysis is to ask customers two simple questions for each attribute:
1. Rate your satisfaction if the product has this attribute? or
2. Rate your satisfaction if the product did not have this attribute?
Customers should be asked to answer with one of the following responses:
A) Satisfied;
B) Neutral (Its normally that way);
C) Dissatisfied;
D) Don’t care. ^[7]

Kano model for a successful project

1. Define your users’ needs in light of the Kano model. What are the basic expectations that they simply expect to be there and where would the absence of these features lead to frustration?
2. Map your products and features against the Kano model. Which features are meeting basic expectations? Only invest in developing or maintaining those to the extent that you need to satisfy the customer.
3. Which features are your delighters? Focus your efforts here and make sure you’re constantly developing new ones.
4. Monitor your customer satisfaction and competition to ensure that features you think delight users haven’t slid into basic expectations and no longer help your customer satisfaction.
5. Find and focus on sustainable delighters that truly differentiate your product and continue to deliver customer satisfaction over time. ^[8]

Advantages of the Kano method

In a product or service development it is important to find and to classify customer's needs. The Kano model helps to find and to understand them and to generate the requirements. Better understanding of requirements:

1. The most influenced product criteria on the customer satisfaction can be identified. Dividing product requirements into one-dimension, must-be and attractive dimensions is helpful to decide where to set the focus in the development. For example it is advisable to improve the one-dimension and attractive elements instead of the must-be, which are on a satisfied level. This has more influence on the appreciable product quality and the satisfaction of the customer.

2. The Kano model can be used in tradeoff situations, when two or more product requirements cannot fulfilled at the same time, because of a technical or financial issues. The feature with the higher impact on the customer's satisfaction can be chosen.

3. The requirements vary in customer segments, because of the different expectation to a product. It is possible to work on tailored solution, which provide a high satisfaction level in every segment. ^[9]

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Kano, N.; Seraku, N.; Takahashi, F.; Tsuji (1984), Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality; Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control
2. ↑ Hans-Joachim Lenz, Peter-Theodor Wilrich, Wolfgang Schmid (2010), Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control 9. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-7908-2379-0
3. ↑ Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The motivation to work, Wiley, New York, NY
4. ↑ Ullman, David G. (1997), The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill, Inc., U.S.A., pp. 105-108 ISBN 0-07-065756-4
5. ↑ Brandt, D. R. (1988), How service marketers can ident- ify value-enhancing service elements. Journal of Services Marketing 2, 35–41.
6. ↑ D. Randall Brandt, (1988) "How service marketers can identify value‐enhancing service elements", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 2 Issue: 3, pp.35-41, https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024732
7. ↑ Jacobs, Randy,(1999) Evaluating Satisfaction with Media Products and Services: An Attribute Based Approach, European Media Management Review
8. ↑ Martin Eriksson (2013), Using The Kano Model To Prioritize Product Development, https://www.mindtheproduct.com/2013/07/using-the-kano-model-to-prioritize-product-development/
9. ↑ Hinterhuber, H.H., Matzler, K., (1998) How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment, Elsevier Science Ltd