Kano model

The Kano model is a model for the analysis of customer requirements. From the analysis of customer requirements led Noriaki Kano ( born 1940 ), professor at the University of Tokyo, in 1978, that may be the customer requirements of different types. Named after him Kano model allows to capture the requirements ( expectations ) of customers and to take into account in product development.

Kano Model

The Kano model distinguishes five levels of quality:

Basic features that are so fundamental and of course, that they are aware of the customer only for non-compliance (implicit expectations). If the basic requirements are not met, dissatisfaction arises, they will be met, but there is no satisfaction! The benefits increase compared to differentiate the competitors is very low. The example of cars: safety, protection against rust.
Performance characteristics are aware of the customer, they eliminate dissatisfaction or create customer satisfaction depends on the degree of fulfillment. The example of cars: driving, acceleration, durability, fuel consumption.
Rapture features are, however, benefit -creating characteristics with which the customer expects not necessarily. You draw the product of over the competition and give rise to enthusiasm. A small increase in performance can lead to a disproportionate benefit. The variations over the competition may be low, but the benefits enormous. The example of cars: special equipment, special design, hybrid technology.
Significant characteristics both in the presence as well as in the absence of no importance for the customer. Therefore, you can not donate satisfaction, but also do not lead to dissatisfaction. The example of cars this could be for a particular customer group be: Automatic, Sunroof.
Reject Features: Run at presence dissatisfaction; in the absence but not to satisfaction. The example of cars: rust stains, expired MOT.

The model represents a ' transfer and extension of the two-factor theory ( Herzberg ) ( a work motivational theory ) represents the basic characteristics ( Kano ) correspond in their definition of the hygiene factors ( Herzberg ), the performance characteristics or even Rapture features to Kano are comparable to the motivational factors ( Herzberg ). The expectation with respect to a product feature is not the same for all individuals. For example, while Person A classifies a product as feature Rapture feature the same circumstance for person B is a basic feature, and for person C may be reject feature.

Also differentiated to see is the fact that the assessment of product properties is always in connection with the product price. It is therefore recommended to the reservation price (or reservation price ) to rise for individual product characteristics empirically.

Seen Over time, change the properties as a habituation effect. A Rapture feature can become a performance and later to a basic feature. Using the example of the car: While airbags, brake and power steering, ABS, etc. formerly were features that could trigger satisfaction, they are now being provided by an increasing number of customers, they might belong from a customer perspective already one of the basic features.

Empirical measurement

The measurement of the expectations of customers can be both a structured interview and in the form of a written survey. Prof. Kano has developed a bipolar survey for this purpose. Respondents answer in terms of the measured product property twice:

Functional ( positively formulated ), for example: What would you say if the product has about ... / / What would you say if there were more ...
Dysfunctional (negative formulated ), for example: What would you say if the product has NOT about ... / / What would you say if it would be less ...

As possible answers for both questions:

That would be very happy
I presume
I do not mind either way
I am just back
That would bother me very

The combination of the answers to the functional and dysfunctional question the typing is derivable; eg

Functional: I presume Dysfunctional: That would make me very disturbing → basic feature
Functional: That would make me very happy Dysfunctional: That would make me very disturbing → Performance feature
Functional: That would make me very happy Dysfunctional: I do not care → Rapture feature
Functional: I do not care Dysfunctional: I do not care → insignificant feature
Functional: That would make me very disturbing Dysfunctional: I presume → Reject feature

Illogical answers are not included in the analysis; eg functional Dysfunctional: That would be very happy.

It is helpful in any case, the collection of relevant demographic characteristics in order to determine in the evaluation contexts (correlation ) between a feature - typing and demographic characteristics can. The example of cars: Male people aged between 40 and 60 years of age seen in an 8- cylinder gasoline engine a buzz factor, while 20 to 30 women classify this as a reject feature.

Areas of application

Satisfaction measurement

Starting from the assumption satisfaction caused by two factors, namely,

Expectations
Perceived quality / performance

Is the Kano model can be used (along with others) to determine the expectation as an element for satisfaction measurement. If, in addition to the bipolar questions still questions asked after an assessment, it is possible to determine a level of satisfaction.

This axiomatic features the Kano characteristics are assumed, which describe the relationship between assessment and satisfaction value (here, for example, as a linear function ):

Basic features: Poor judgment = lowest satisfaction rating (eg -1 ) to best assess = indifference value ( eg 0 )
Performance characteristics: Worst assessment = lowest satisfaction score to best assess satisfaction = Best value ( eg 1)
Rapture features: Worst assessment = indifference value ( 0) to best rating = Best satisfaction ( eg 1)
Insignificant Features: The assessment does not affect the satisfaction level

From the combinations of answers per respondent satisfaction values can be calculated for the total or partial quantities in the weighted average.

As mentioned above, move the expectations over time. This means that satisfaction decreases, although the performance stays the same or even increases - namely when customers today, however, view the investigated product features earlier than Rapture features than basic features. The example of cars: While previously a Driver donated satisfaction, a new car today needs more of them, and even then it does not generate satisfaction ( it merely prevents dissatisfaction ).

The mere performance survey (eg How do you evaluate ... ) alone, reflects the habituation effect is not (or only poorly ).

Target Costing

Also in the Target Costing (target costing ) the Kano model can be used to determine the significance of individual product features. The usually classified as difficult and comprehensive approach " Market -into- Company" can be performed by means of a Kano analysis with reasonable use.

462939