1. Six Sigma Kano Template Definition Science
2. Six Sigma Kano Template Definition Biology

A tool to help understand the set of reasons why a project is necessary. List of “consequences if the problem is not fixed” and ‘benefits of making the change”.

The Kano model is a theory for product development and customer satisfaction developed in the 1980s by Professor Noriaki Kano, which classifies customer preferences into five categories.

• 1Categories

Categories[edit]

These categories have been translated into English using various names (delighters/exciters, satisfiers, dissatisfiers, etc.), but all refer to the original articles written by Kano.

Must-be Quality

Simply stated, these are the requirements that the customers expect and are taken for granted. When done well, customers are just neutral, but when done poorly, customers are very dissatisfied. Kano originally called these “Must-be’s” because they are the requirements that must be included and are the price of entry into a market.

Examples: In a hotel, providing a clean room is a basic necessity. In a call center, greeting customers is a basic necessity.

One-dimensional Quality

These attributes result in satisfaction when fulfilled and dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. These are attributes that are spoken and the ones in which companies compete. An example of this would be a milk package that is said to have ten percent more milk for the same price will result in customer satisfaction, but if it only contains six percent then the customer will feel misled and it will lead to dissatisfaction.

Examples: Time taken to resolve a customer's issue in a call center. Waiting service at a hotel.

Attractive Quality

These attributes provide satisfaction when achieved fully, but do not cause dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. These are attributes that are not normally expected, for example, a thermometer on a package of milk showing the temperature of the milk. Since these types of attributes of quality unexpectedly delight customers, they are often unspoken.

Examples: In a callcenter, providing special offers and compensations to customers or the proactive escalation and instant resolution of their issue is an attractive feature. In a hotel, providing free food is an attractive feature.

Indifferent Quality

These attributes refer to aspects that are neither good nor bad, and they do not result in either customer satisfaction or customer dissatisfaction. For example, thickness of the wax coating on a milk carton. This might be key to the design and manufacturing of the carton, but consumers are not even aware of the distinction. It is interesting to identify these attributes in the product in order to suppress them and therefore diminish production costs.

Examples: In a callcenter, highly polite speaking and very prompt responses might not be necessary to satisfy customers and might not be appreciated by them. The same applies to hotels.

Reverse Quality

These attributes refer to a high degree of achievement resulting in dissatisfaction and to the fact that not all customers are alike. For example, some customers prefer high-tech products, while others prefer the basic model of a product and will be dissatisfied if a product has too many extra features.^[1]

Examples: In a callcenter, using a lot of jargon, using excessive pleasantries, or using excessive scripts while talking to customers might be off-putting for them. In a hotel, producing elaborate photographs of the facilities that set high expectations which are then not satisfied upon visiting can dissatisfy the customers.

Must-be Quality[edit]

One of the main points of assessment in the Kano model is the threshold attributes. These are basically the features that the product must have in order to meet customer demands. If this attribute is overlooked, the product is simply incomplete. If a new product is not examined using the threshold aspects, it may not be possible to enter the market. This is the first and most important characteristic of the Kano model.^[12] The product is being manufactured for some type of consumer base, and therefore this must be a crucial part of product innovation. Threshold attributes are simple components to a product. However, if they are not available, the product will soon leave the market due to dissatisfaction. The attribute is either there or not. An example of a threshold attribute would be a steering wheel in a car. The car is no good if it is not able to be steered.^[13]

The threshold attributes are most often seen as a price of entry. Many products have threshold attributes that are overlooked. Since this component of the product is a necessary guideline, many consumers do not judge how advanced a particular feature is. Therefore, many times companies will want to improve the other attributes because consumers remain neutral to changes in the threshold section.^[14]

One-dimensional Quality[edit]

A performance attribute is defined as a skill, knowledge, ability, or behavioural characteristic that is associated with job performance. Performance attributes are metrics on which a company bases its business aspirations. They have an explicit purpose. Companies prioritise their investments, decisions, and efforts and explain their strategies using performance attributes. These strategies can sometimes be recognised through the company's slogans. For example Lexus's slogan is 'The Pursuit of Perfection' (Quality) and Walmart; 'Always low prices. Always' (Cost). In retail the focus is generally on assuring availability of products at best cost.

Performance attributes are those for which more is better, and a better performance attribute will improve customer satisfaction. Conversely, a weak performance attribute reduces customer satisfaction. When customers discuss their needs, these needs will fall into the performance attributes category. Then these attributes will form the weighted needs against the product concepts that are being evaluated. The price a customer is willing to pay for a product is closely tied to performance attributes. So the higher the performance attribute, the higher the customers will be willing to pay for the product.

Performance attributes also often require a trade-off analysis against cost. As customers start to rate attributes as more and more important, the company has to ask itself, 'how much extra they would be willing to pay for this attribute?' And 'will the increase in the price for the product for this attribute deter customers from purchasing it.' Prioritization matrices can be useful in determining which attributes would provide the greatest returns on customer satisfaction.^[15] Movie soundtrack download free.

Attractive Quality[edit]

Not only does the Kano model feature performance attributes, but additionally incorporates an 'excitement' attribute as well. Excitement attributes are for the most part unforeseen by the client but may yield paramount satisfaction. Having excitement attributes can only help you, but in some scenarios it is okay to not have them included. The beauty behind an excitement attribute is to spur a potential consumer's imagination, these attributes are used to help the customer discover needs that they've never thought about before.^[16] The key behind the Kano model is for the engineer to discover this 'unknown need' and enlighten the consumer, to sort of engage that 'awe effect.' Having concurrent excitement attributes within a product can provide a significant competitive advantage over a rival. In a diverse product assortment, the excitement attributes act as the WOW factors and trigger impulsive wants and needs in the mind of the customer. The more the customer thinks about these amazing new ideas, the more they want it.^[17] Out of all the attributes introduced in the Kano model, the excitement ones are the most powerful and have the potential to lead to the highest gross profit margins. Innovation is undisputedly the catalyst in delivering these attributes to customers; you need to be able to distinguish what is an excitement today, because tomorrow it becomes a known feature and the day after it is used throughout the whole world.^[18]

Attributes' place on the model changes over time[edit]

An attribute will drift over time from Exciting to performance and then to essential. The drift is driven by customer expectations and by the level of performance from competing products.

For example mobile phone batteries were originally large and bulky with only a few hours of charge. Over time we have come to expect 12+ hours of battery life on slim lightweight phones. The battery attributes have had to change to keep up with customer expectations.

Uses[edit]

Quality function deployment (QFD) makes use of the Kano model in terms of the structuring of the comprehensive QFD matrices. Mixing Kano types in QFD matrices can lead to distortions in the customer weighting of product characteristics. For instance, mixing Must-Be product characteristics—such as cost, reliability, workmanship, safety, and technologies used in the product—in the initial House of Quality will usually result in completely filled rows and columns with high correlation values. Other Comprehensive QFD techniques using additional matrices are used to avoid such issues. Kano's model provides the insights into the dynamics of customer preferences to understand these methodology dynamics.

The Kano model offers some insight into the product attributes which are perceived to be important to customers. The purpose of the tool is to support product specification and discussion through better development of team understanding. Kano's model focuses on differentiating product features, as opposed to focusing initially on customer needs. Kano also produced a methodology for mapping consumer responses to questionnaires onto his model.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 8 July 2012. Retrieved 29 April 2010.Cite uses deprecated parameter deadurl= (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
2. ^Bartikowski, B., Llosa, S. (2003). Identifying Satisfiers, Dissatisfiers, Criticals and Neutrals in Customer Satisfaction. Working Paper n° 05-2003, Mai 2003. Euromed - Ecole de Management. Marseille.
3. ^Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, B.; Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. ISBN978-0-471-37390-2.
4. ^Kano, Noriaki; Nobuhiku Seraku; Fumio Takahashi; Shinichi Tsuji (April 1984). 'Attractive quality and must-be quality'. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control (in Japanese). 14 (2): 39–48. ISSN0386-8230. Archived from the original on 13 August 2011.Cite uses deprecated parameter deadurl= (help)
5. ^Cadotte, Ernest R.; Turgeon, Normand (1988). Dissatisfiers and satisfiers: suggestions from consumer complaints and compliments(PDF). Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior. 1. pp. 74–79. ISBN978-0-922279-01-2. ISSN0899-8620. Archived from the original(PDF) on 25 July 2011.Cite uses deprecated parameter deadurl= (help)
6. ^Brandt, D. Randall (1988). 'How service marketers can identify value-enhancing service elements'. Journal of Services Marketing. 2 (3): 35–41. doi:10.1108/eb024732. ISSN0887-6045.
7. ^Venkitaraman, R.K, Jaworski, C. (1993), Restructuring customer satisfaction measurement for better resource allocation decisions: an integrated approach, Fourth Annual Advanced Research Techniques Forum of the American Marketing Association, June.
8. ^Brandt, D.R., Scharioth, J. (1998), Attribute life cycle analysis. Alternatives to the Kanomethod, in 51. ESOMAR-Congress, pp. 413-429.
9. ^Llosa, S. (1997). 'L'analyse de la contribution des éléments du service à la satisfaction: Un modèle tétraclasse'. Décisions Marketing. 10 (3): 81–88. ISSN1253-0476.
10. ^Llosa, S. (1999), Contributions to the study of satisfaction in services, AMA SERVSIG Service Research Conference 10–12 April, New Orleans, pp.121-123
11. ^Chitturi, Ravindra; Raghunathan, Rajagopal; Mahajan, Vijay (2008). 'Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic versus Utilitarian Benefits'. Journal of Marketing. 72 (3): 48–63. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.3.048. ISSN0022-2429.
12. ^Jacobs, Randy (1999). 'Evaluating Satisfaction with Media Products and Services: An Attribute Based Approach'. European Media Management Review.
13. ^Ullman, David G. (1997). The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw-Hill. pp. 105–108. ISBN978-0-07-065756-4.
14. ^Bonacorsi, Steven. 'Kano Model and Critical To Quality Tree.' Six Sigma and Lean Resources - Home. Web. 26 April 2010.
15. ^http://www.scortalk.com/talks/2008/01/15/performance-attributes/
16. ^B.V., ©2008 12manage. 'Kano's Customer Satisfaction Model - Knowledge Center'.
17. ^The Kano Model Illustrated Report
18. ^Malcolm, Eric (6 July 2015). 'FAQs about the Kano Model Customer Satisfaction Tool'.

Further reading[edit]

• Cohen, Lou (1995). Quality function deployment : How to make QFD work for you. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN978-0-201-63330-6.
• ReVelle, Jack B.; John W Moran; Charles A Cox (1998). The QFD handbook. New York: Wiley. ISBN978-0-471-17381-6.

What Is a Kano Analysis?

Dr. Noriaki Kano, author of the 2006 book Guide to TQM in Service Industries, developed the Kano Analysis to help those improve, prioritize, and meet customer needs at optimal levels. It also focuses on a way to determine wants and needs based on customer satisfaction tools. The screenshot to the left shows a Kano Model Analysis (click to enlarge).

A Kano Analysis is useful in many service industries to help improve customer satisfaction and analyze established processes.

The Purpose of a Kano Analysis

Six Sigma Master Black Belt E. George Woodley offers up three steps to a Kano Analysis:

Six Sigma Kano Template Definition Science

• Must Be – Quality is key here or you may lose the customer to a competitor.
• Performance – How well you meet the needs of the customer.
• Delighter – Offering up the unexpected (or bonuses) to the customer.

So, if we utilize these three elements, let’s look first at what the Kano chart reveals.

As you can see from the screenshot above, the Kano Model is essentially an easy-to-visualize x-y chart: The x-axis deals with improving customer satisfaction. The y-axis marks the level of customer satisfaction.

As far as the color lines go on the chart, the red line represents the “must be' level or how well your quality of service is for the customer. The blue line shows how the customer perceives your quality and “performance,' and finally, the green line represents things that come unexpectedly to the customer—or the “delighter.'

Once you implement a Kano Analysis, you can track your data via the chart to see where your weaknesses (or strengths) lie.

An Example of a Kano Analysis

In our Kano Analysis, let’s use an auto repair center to show how this model can help gain top customer satisfaction. Keep in mind a Kano Analysis essentially utilizes Total Quality Management.

Must Be

Think of the must be part of a Kano Model as elements a customer expects. For example, because we have an auto repair center, certainly an absolute “must be' is to have qualified technicians, tools, and parts to service vehicles. If a customer walked in and saw no automotive repair lifts, technicians or tools, he would not use our auto repair center.

Every service industry does indeed offer a service and would require tools or elements to make that service possible. On a funny note, when I moved from one state to another and didn’t want to cook dinner, I drove to the local Arby’s where I was told right off that they were “out of beef.' This essentially led me to another fast food restaurant—meaning their “must be' element was nil.

Because your auto service center does indeed have the qualities a customer expects to see, you would be high on the scale of the must be.

Performance

Beyond how well your service center repairs the vehicle or how fast the customer is attended to upon arrival reflects your performance levels. If you constantly have ill repairs that cause customers to return to the auto repair center, you are missing the mark on quality and lasting repairs.

On the other hand, if you can fix vehicles fast and correctly and receive constant referrals, then you are doing a good job on the Kano performance scale.

Delighters

The delighter scale is perhaps the most essential scale to enhance the must be and the performance in your Kano Analysis.

When a customer returns to pick up the repaired vehicle, do you hand her a bill, collect her money and just let her drive away? Or, do you offer up great smiles and a free lube-oil-filter and thank them for being a valued customer?

The latter is your better option, especially if your goal is to “delight' the customers to guarantee their return. Here, the free lube-oil-filter is unexpected or the delighter.

Using the Kano Analysis

Six Sigma Kano Template Definition Biology

Charting the must bes, performance and delighters is the only way to ensure total quality and success. Further, if your Kano Analysis shows high marks initially, it’s not time to drop the ball and say all is well. The Kano Model should be reviewed constantly because, as we all know, the human element in the service industry is what can make or break customer satisfaction. The goal of Kano chart tracking is to keep customer satisfaction at the highest of levels.

References

Woodley, George E. (2009) The Kano Model: Critical to Quality Characteristics & Kano Model Screenshot – retrieved at: https://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/methodologies-statistical-analysis-and-tools/articles/the-kano-model-critical-to-quality-characteristics/