GAP ANALYSIS OF IT SERVICES BY USING KANO MODEL WITH

SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CENVEO SOLUTIONS

Introduction

The Kano model has emerged into one of the most popular quality models nowadays. It has grabbed
the attention of many marketing practitioners and researchers who are involved in product or service
development projects and who are trying to identify those product/service features that represent key
drivers of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. One of the major assumptions of the Kano model
is that certain product/service attributes (quality elements) primarily have an impact on creating
satisfaction, while others primarily have an impact on creating dissatisfaction. In the marketing
literature, which is not based on the Kano model, this is often referred to as asymmetric impact on
overall customer satisfaction (OCS). This project attempts to compare the classification of quality
attributes using Kanos method and the service gaps method. The purpose of this project is to
combine the information from existing literature on service quality and Kanos model to furnish
additional data on service gaps for empirical evidence of the relationship between service
performance and customers perception of that performance. The Kano model was developed in
1984 by Noriaki Kano .It aims to connect the requirements fulfilled by products or services with
customer satisfaction and identifies three types of requirements that influence ultimate customer
satisfaction.

Objectives

To study the service gap in IT services.

To study the relationship between service gap and customer satisfaction.
To identify the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.
To study :
the attractive quality factors which influence IT services.

the one-dimensional quality factors which influence customer satisfaction.

the Must-Be Quality attributes which otherwise may lead to customer dissatisfaction.
the reverse quality attributes which influence IT services.
the Indifferent Quality elements which neither cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
the questionable factors with respect to the customer.

Literature Review
Various Models of customer satisfaction
There is no universally accepted definition of customer satisfaction (McCollough, 2000). One
ongoing debate in consumer satisfaction circles is the extent to which it is a cognitive process or an
emotional state. Howard and Sheth (1969) define satisfaction as the buyers cognitive state of being
adequately or inadequately rewarded for the sacrifice he has undergone. Engel and Blackwood
(1982) see it as an evaluation (cognitive) that the chosen alternative is consistent with prior beliefs
with respect to that alternative. It is probably a complex human process involving extensive
cognitive, affective and other undiscovered psychological and physiological dynamics (Oh and
Parks, 1997).

Tse & Wilton (Fandy Tjiptono, 1997: 24) customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a response to the
evaluation of the perceived discrepancy between expectations and service performance. Customer
satisfaction is a function of expectations and service quality performance. Engel (Fandy Tjiptono,
1997: 24) explains that customer satisfaction as the evaluation of alternative purnabeli selected and
provide results of equal or exceed customer expectations. Dissatisfaction arises when the results do
not meet customer expectations.
Kotler (2003: 61) explains that satisfaction is the feeling of someone who described feeling happy or
disappointed that the result of comparing the perceived performance of a product with the expected
product performance. If performance fails to meet what is expected, then the customer will feel
disappointed or dissatisfied. If the performance is able to meet what is expected, then the customer

will feel satisfied. If the performance can exceed what is expected, then the customer will feel very
satisfied.
The paradigm of disconfirmation expectation approach, ie assessing customer satisfaction with a
product through a comparison of expectations with the perceived performance of customer service.

Expected
Performance

Perceived
Performance
Comparison

P>E

P-E

P<E

Positive
Disconfirmat

Confirmat
ion

Negative
Disconfirmat

Satisfaction

Neutral

Dissatisfacti
on

The Disconfirmation Model of Consumer Satisfaction

Source : Walker, 1995 : 7
Positive disconfirmation will occur if the perceived performance of customer service is better
than what was expected to create satisfaction, confirmation occurs when the service performance as
perceived by customers expected to create a feeling neutral, negative disconfirmation occurs when
the performance of services that are not perceived better than expected, leading to customer
dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1997: 104).
The concept of satisfaction and the quality is often equated even though these two concepts have a
different understanding. In general, satisfaction is considered to have a broader concept than service
quality assessment, which specifically focuses only on the service dimension. Quality of service is
the focus of the assessment that reflects the customer's perception of the five specific dimensions of
service. Conversely, satisfaction is more inclusive, that is, satisfaction is determined by the
perception of service quality, product quality, price, situation factors, and personal factors (Zeithaml
& Bitner, 2001: 74).

Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance

Service
Quality

Situational
Factors

Empathy
Tangibles

Product
Quality

Price

Customer
Satisfaction

Personal
Factors

Customer Satisfaction Model

Source : Zeithaml & Bitner, 2001 : 75
Quality of service is a comparison between perceived service and expected service. Dimensions used
to measure the quality of services provided airlines on the domestic service industry, commercial
regular flights in Indonesia are as follows: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, emphaty, and
tangibles (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & et.al in Bitner, 2000; 82-83 ).
In the company engaged in the service, the service is the products sold by the company. But for
service company, not all service companies simply selling a service only. In some other service
providers, such as; hotels, then the bias in addition to services are also offered to goods. such as;
food and beverages. Studies conducted in various service industries addressed the importance of the
goods factor in influencing customer satisfaction (Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000: Barsky, 1993,
Zeithaml, 1996). Quality of goods offered in conjunction with services will affect customer
perceptions of service. The better the quality of goods will increase customer satisfaction for services
received. Instead of less-quality goods would damage the overall customer satisfaction.
Customers consider price as an indicator of the quality of a service, especially for services whose
quality is difficult to detect prior to services in consumption. This is related to the fact that the nature
of the services that have a risk level is high enough compared to the product form of goods and

services to be purchased, the customer tends to use price as the basis for expected quality of a
product/service. Customers usually tends to assume that higher prices would reflect the high quality
(Barsky & Solomon, in Dwi Suhartanto, 2001).
Environmental or situation factors affecting the level of personal satisfaction with the services
consumed. Situation factors, such as; conditions and circumstances will lead the consumer
experience to come to a service provider, this will affect the expectations or the expectations of the
goods or services to be consumed. The same effect occurs because the influence of personal factors
such as emotional consumer (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2001: 59-60).
Customer satisfaction occupies a strategic position for the company's existence, because a lot of
benefits to be gained: First, many researchers agree that a satisfied customer tends to be loyal
(Anderson, et al., 1994; Fornell, et al., 1996). Satisfied customer will also tends to buy back into the
same manufacturer. The desire to buy back as a result of this satisfaction is the desire to repeat the
good experience and avoid a bad experience. Second, satisfaction is a factor that would encourage
communication by word of mouth communication are positive.
Form of communication through word of mouth delivered by people who are satisfied this could be
recommendation to other potential customers, encouraging colleagues to do business with the
provider where the customer was satisfied and said things good about the service provider where he
was satisfied. Third, the effect of customer satisfaction tends to consider the content providers are
able to satisfy the first consideration if you want to buy products or similar services (Solomon, in
Dwi Suhartanto, 2001).
According to expectancy-value theory customers often make some judgment about a product, its
benefits, and the likely outcomes of using the product. People will learn to perform behavior that
they expect will lead to positive outcomes (Tokman, 1932). Their overall attitude is a function of
beliefs about an objects attributes and the strength of these beliefs. The impact of attribute
importance on consumer decision making is also widely recognized (Heeler et al, 1979).
The relationship has been summarized as follows:
Q = Ii (Pi Ei) (Carmen 1990), where
Q is the overall quality; I is the importance of service attribute I; the sum is over the number of
service attributes; P is the perception; E is expectation.

There remains a need to provide a direct link between satisfaction and purchase (Barsky, 1990).
Some models indicate a link between satisfaction and repeat purchase intention but not yet to actual
purchase
The two-dimensional matrix analysis of importance and performance, quality attributes are divided
into four categories according to their importance and performance, which are respectively: (1)
Concentrate here: The customers think the importance level of the product and service quality
attribute is high, but the organizational performance is low; (2) Keep up the good work: The
customers think the importance level of the product and service quality attribute is high, and the
organizational performance is high, as well; (3) Low priority: The performance of the organizational
product or service quality attribute is low, and the importance level of Integrating Kanos Model and
Gap Analysis to Identify and Improve Order-Winners customer cognition is also low. (4) Possible
overkill: The performance level of the organizational product and service quality attribute is high,
but the importance level of customer cognition is low (Lee et al., 2008c). Since Martilla and James
(1977) first used the IPA method to develop an organizations market strategy, this method has been
broadly applied in various industries (Lee et al., 2008d; 2008c). The dynamic model of IPA
proposed by Sampson and Showalter (1999) proved that the change of organization performance
will, at the same time, affect the importance of customer cognition to change. This is mainly because
the correlation coefficient of importance and performance is not zero. According to this argument,
when the organization performance has improved, the gap of importance and performance will
quickly reduce. The study of Matzler and Sauerwein (2002) showed that the importance of quality
attributes will reduce along with the improvement of performance. Therefore, the problem created by
the dynamic evolution of importance and performance, and their mutual relations and impact level is
indeed an important research topic.
In the non-linear impact study of quality attributes on satisfaction level, the most famous model is
the two-dimensional quality model proposed by Kano et al., (1984), which divides quality attributes
into five categories according to their level and customer satisfaction level; they are respectively
Attractive Quality, Must-Be Quality, One-Dimensional Quality, Reversal Quality and Indifferent
Quality. The study of Kano et al. (1984) is the two-dimensional quality model, it is used as the
categorized method for the product quality attributes, and the different product attributes are used to

satisfy customer demands and expectations (Kano et al., 1984). This model can effectively evaluate
current products or develop new products (Matzler and Hinterhuber, 1998) to ensure that customer
demand and expectation can be satisfied to achieve the organizational goal (Lee., 2008a; Lee et al.,
2008b; Lee et al., 2009). Matzler . (1996) Hsiu-Yuan Hu, Tieh-Min Yen, Jin-Lan Chiou, ChingChanCheng summarized that Kanos Model has the following advantages: (1) Provides
better method to understand customer demands; (2) Provides clear priority order for improvement;
(3) Assists in providing valuable contingency model in the developing and manufacturing system
stage; (4) Provides market segmentation method; (5) Provides market differentiation method.
Therefore, the basic concept of Kanos Model has been broadly applied in many regions and studies
(Matzler and Hinterhuber, 1998; Anderson and Mittal, 2000; Fuchs, 2002; Zhang and von Dran,
2002; Matzler., 2004; Kuo, 2004), and has been verified as a very useful tool for quality attribute
categorization, customer satisfaction analysis, and the continuous improvement of quality attributes
(Lee., 2008 ; Lee., 2009; Hu l., 2009a). Therefore, the study used the two-dimensional quality model
proposed by Kano et al. (1984) to identify the cognized quality attributes of these order winners and
qualifiers in the customers mind, and used the enhanced satisfaction quantitative analysis as the
evaluation method of importance. The concept of gap analysis mainly comes from the relevant
studies of service quality. Gronroos (1984) proposed the service quality gap
concept. He thinks that service quality is the comparison result of customers expectation and
cognition for service, and proposed the service quality model in 1984. He thinks that the service
quality model is formed by the three functions: Technical Quality, Functional Quality, and Corporate
Image. Technical Quality refers to the integrated result between the customer and service company,
which often can be objectively measured; Functional Quality refers to the cognition of a customer
regarding service and includes the service process, which is often subjectively identified (Gronroos,
1984). Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982) pointed out that service quality is created by the interaction
between customers and the service provider, and they divided service quality into the process and
result for observation. Garvin (1983) pointed out that Integrating Kanos Model and Gap Analysis to
Identify and Improve Order-Winners service quality is user-oriented, which means that quality being
good or bad is subjectively identified by the customer, not objectively evaluated.
Parasuraman (1985) proposed the conceptual model of service quality gap analysis. Parasuraman
(1988) proposed the SERVQUAL scale to evaluate service quality. The evaluation method compares

the service expectation and service feeling to evaluate the service quality by calculating the gap
between the two, which is Q (service quality) = P (sensitivity quality) - E (expectation quality).
SERVQUAL is quite popular in the follow-up service quality study applications. It brought up the
empirical studies of relevant industries (Ladhari, 2008), and at the same time attracted the comments
of many scholars (Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Llosa., 1998; Ladhari, 2008). The PZB
model has been completely developed through many scholars studies, and at the same time, due to
the easy usage of gap analysis, this method has been broadly applied in various field, but just in the
area of service industries.

Kano Model Analysis

Kano model is aimed at a better understanding of how customers evolve, evaluate and perceive
quality attributes and focused the attention on the attributes considered more important by customers
in order to improve them. Kano model explains how the differences that separate the degree called
sufficient by that of excellent when considering the customers satisfaction. The theory of attractive
quality considers that quality attributes are dynamic, which means that over time, a feature may
change from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. Studies in the literature led to the conclusion that the
application of Kano model is wide in case of IT services:
Designing products and services;
Manufacturing / delivering of services;
Analyzing the characteristics of the product / service;
Determining customer satisfaction;
Continuous improvement of quality.

There are many instruments and methods quality elements the presence or the absence of which will
designed to help organizations understand the customer not influence the satisfaction or
dissatisfaction of requirements. Among these methods, Kano Model is an instrument that has been
widely used to perceive the voice of customer in order to influence the customer satisfaction. Kano
et al developed a model to classify the attributes of services or products which studies the
relationship between customer satisfaction and the function of product or services. Kano model
classifies the customer requirements into 6 categories, based on the extent to which they have been
able to satisfy customers. The first class includes attractive quality elements and includes some
attributes of services or products the presence of which leads to customer satisfaction; however the
absence of them will not result in dissatisfaction. These are the attributes of products or services that
will distinguish the organization from its rivals. The second class includes one-dimensional quality
elements that have a positive and linear relationship with customer satisfaction. So, the more these
attributes are realized, the more satisfied the customers will be and vice versa, the lesser these
attributes are realized, the lesser satisfied the customer will be. The third category is the must-be
quality elements. These attributes are the basic criteria for a product or service the lack of which will

make the customers quite dissatisfied. However, the fulfillment of these attributes will not increase
the customer satisfaction. Another class belongs to the indifferent quality elements the presence or
the absence of which will not influence the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of customers. The fifth
class in Kano Model is the reverse quality elements the presence of which causes the dissatisfaction
of customers and the absence of which causes their satisfaction. There is another class in Kanos
classification, other than these elements, that is called questionable elements. This is when customer
has not perceived the question or the information provided by the question is not sufficient, or in
other words, the customer is doubtful about this criterion.

The classification of quality attributes in Kano Model will be possible by Kanos two-dimensional
questionnaire. In this questionnaire, any one of these customer requirements is analyzed by a pair of
functional (positive) question and dysfunctional (negative) question. There are 5 points or answers
for every question: Very satisfied, somewhat satisifed, neutral, somewhat unsatisfied and very
unsatisfied. Then, the answers of customer are combined into two categories of functional and
dysfunctional questions and so the customer requirements are classified into 6 categories. In Kano
Model, an indicator that is marked as mode or the most frequent, based on customers answers is
used as the final classification of customer requirements

Five categories of quality elements Quality Definition

elements
Attractive quality elements

When fulfilled, they provide satisfaction,

but when not delivered, they do not cause
dissatisfaction,

because

they

are

not

expected by the customer (asymmetric

impact on OCS). An increase in fulfilment
(performance/positive

disconfirmation)

results in an over-proportional increase of

satisfaction (nonlinear impact on OCS).

One-dimensional quality elements

Quality elements that result in satisfaction

when fulfilled and in dissatisfaction when
not fulfilled (symmetric impact on OCS).
An

increase

in

(performance/positive

fulfilment
disconfirmation)

results in a proportional increase of

satisfaction,

whereas

decrease

in

fulfilment results in a proportional decrease

of

satisfaction

(or

increase

of

result

in

dissatisfaction).
Must-be quality elements

Quality

elements

that

dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (or not

delivered at a satisfactory level), because
the customer takes them for granted. But
when fulfilled (delivered at a satisfactory or
higher level) they do not result in
satisfaction

(asymmetric

impact).

decrease in fulfilment results in an overproportional increase of dissatisfaction (or

decrease of satisfaction) (nonlinear impact
on OCS).
Indifferent quality elements

Quality elements that result neither in

satisfaction nor dissatisfaction, whether
fulfilled or not.

Reverse quality elements

Quality

elements

that

dissatisfaction when fulfilled

Customer Loyalty

result

in

Loyalty is more aimed at non-random behavior shown by the purchase routine. Behavior or nonrandom events that is if customers know the benefits of certain goods or services and in accordance
with the requirements, then the customer will tends to be loyal (Griffin 1995:4). The characteristics
of loyal customers are: (1) Undertake regular re-purchase, (2) Buying outside the line of products /
services available, (3) To recommend the products / services to others dokomsumsi, (4) Showing no
resistance so the power perpengaruh attraction similar products from competitors (Griffin, 1995: 31).
Match between the quality of service delivery and service value is expected to increase
customer loyalty. Hill (1996; 6) defines customer loyalty as a behavior that is intended to purchase
based on the routine decision-making units. Benefits for companies to have loyal customers are: (1)
reducing marketing costs, (2) reducing transaction costs, (3) reducing the cost of replacing the
consumer, (4) increasing sales, (5) information from positive mouth to mouth, and (6 ) reducing the
cost of failure.
Oliver (1997; 392-394) divided the levels of loyalty based on the quality and quantity of re-purchase
and resistance power of competitors product or service.

Cognitive
Loyality

Affectiv
e

Conati
ve

Action
Loyalit

Olivers Four Stage Loyalty Model

Source : Oliver (Sivadas and Prewitt, 2000).
Based on figure, the level of customer loyalty divided in some stages, ie starting from the cognitive,
affective, conative and action loyalties. Cognitive and affective loyalties are still to be oriented
relative and functional benefits, while the conative and action loyalties are more permanent and
more oriented to emotional benefits.

Questionnaire
Attractive quality elements
1. How satisfied are you for the companys response to frequent client updates?
a. Very satisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied

2. How does additional features provided free of cost by the company affect customer
satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
3. How do you evaluate the companys additional charges on content management services?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
4. How do you evaluate optimization services offered by the company after the launch of the
application and website?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied

5. How do you consider the companys suggestions in choosing the most suitable platform for
your website or application development?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied
unsatisfied

One-dimensional quality elements

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

6. How do you feel about the device compatibility of the developed website or application ?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
7. How do you evaluate the design attractiveness of the companys products?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
8. How do you perceive the Speed of loading of application or website developed by the
company?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
9. How satisfactory do you receive prompt responses from the companys executives?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
10. How do you evaluate transaction security as a factor in e-commerce applications developed
by the company?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
Must-be quality elements
11. How do you consider the companys upto date technology influence customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
12. How do you consider companys possible delays in project completion?
a. Very satisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
13. Do you find any relationship between the companys service influence the website or
application traffic?

a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
14. How do you perceive quality of service professionals influence your relationship with the
company?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
15. How do you evaluate the companys database security is related to customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied

Indifferent quality elements

16. How do you consider corporate image as a factor for choosing companies for a project?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
17. How do you consider after launch Content management service facility as an indicator of
quality on your web pages?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
18. How do you consider the free initial Search Engine Optimization programs offered by the
company?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
19. Do you consider the coding quality significant in developing an application influene
customer satisfaction?

a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
20. How do you consider the content development services done by representatives of the
company on nominal cost?
a. Very satisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied

Reverse quality elements

21. How will the adherence to contractual statements will affect customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
22. How do you rate relationship between price and customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
23. How do you consider over adherence to quality standards more important than client
requirements?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
24. Do you consider it very expensive to provide all the content for the website as the company
policy doesnt permit copying of content from Internet sources?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied c. Neutral
d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
25. How do you evaluate purchasing credentials for shipping and payment by the client?
a. Very satisfied

b. somewhat satisfied

unsatisfied
Questionable elements

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

26. How do you consider it when the email responses from the company include any technical
Jargons?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
27. Do you find it satisfactory when the company demands clients to choose the coding
platform?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
28. Do you find it satisfactory to provide the shipping gateway and payment credentials for
ecommerce applications?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied
29. Does the client find it satisfactory to maintain communications from the company through
email only?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied

30. How does the client evaluate relationship between effectiveness of software testing and
customer satisfaction?
a. Very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied

c. Neutral

d. Somewhat unsatisfied

d.Very

unsatisfied

Customer Loyalty
31. Do you consider customer satisfaction has direct influence on customer loyalty?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly disagree
32. Does the after launch services influence customer loyalty?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly disagree
33. How do you consider customer loyalty has influence on frequent client communications by
representatives of the company?

a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly disagree
34. Does the customer loyalty is influenced by the timely completion of project?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly disagree
35. Does price have any relationship with customer loyalty?
a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly disagree