The Reformed analytical Kano model
Yu-Cheng Lee and Ya-Li Wang
Institute of Technology Management
Chung-Hua University
Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC
ycl@chu.edu.tw & ader6@ms45.hinet.net
Abstract—The traditional Kano’s model is widely used by
industries and researchers, but some controversy still exists
surrounding the classification of quality attributes. Furthermore,
the resultant Kano category is not a true quantitative measure.
Although the analytical Kano model is proposed to manage these
issues, the model still has room for improvements regarding the
complex process in practical applications. Additionally, the
scoring scheme of the analytical Kano model is against the basic
assumption of prospect theory. Consequently, this study attempts
to reform the analytical Kano model, and then accurately
suggests the priority of improvements. First, this study revises
the indicators of the vertical axis and the horizontal axis of the
analytical Kano model. Second, regression analysis with dummy
variables is used to estimate the impact of attribute performance
on overall satisfaction and then to determine the categories of
quality attributes. Then, this study considers the results of the
categorizing the quality attributes, the attribute performance,
and the asymmetric impact of attribute performance on overall
satisfaction before suggesting definite priorities for improvement.
Finally, the reformed analytical Kano model is illustrated in a
case study.
Keywords-the Kano’s model; the analytical Kano model;
implicit importance; quality attribute; customer satisfaction
I. INTRODUCTION
Reference [1] developed a model to categorize the quality
attributes of a product or service based on how well they are
able to satisfy customer needs. It concerns relationships
between customer satisfaction and performance of a product or
service. The model identifies five different categories to
understand how meeting or exceeding customer expectations
affect satisfaction [2], respectively: 1) Attractive quality
attributes, 2) One-dimensional quality attributes, 3) Must-be
quality attributes, 4) Indifferent quality attributes, and 5)
Reverse quality attributes.
The Kano’s model is an excellent tool for industries to
analyze vital quality attributes to ensure better decisions
regarding quality strategies. Over the past two decades, this
theory has gained exposure and acceptance through articles in
various marketing, quality, and operations management
journals [3]. Kano’s model can be easily used to define the
category of quality attributes that influence customer
satisfaction. However, the classification of quality attributes by
the traditional Kano’s model still encounters some controversy
[4]. Furthermore, the traditional Kano’s model focuses on the
978-1-4577-2025-3/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE
Shao-Bin Lin
Department of Finance
Shih Chien University
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
100161@mail.usc.edu.tw
qualitative descriptions of various relationship curves; thus,
only limited quantitative analysis or measurement of the
relationships is discussed [5].
To summarize the preceding research, the Kano diagram is
found to provide a rough sketch of customer satisfaction
regarding the level of attribute performance. A convenient way
to incorporate quantitative measures is to assign some scales in
terms of the levels of customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction [6].
However, the resulting Kano category is still qualitative in
nature, which does not precisely reflect the extent to which
customers are satisfied [7]. Hence, [8] proposed an analytical
Kano model based on the Kano principles to incorporate
quantitative measures into customer satisfaction. The
classification of a quality attribute can be defined based on the
corresponding location of the value pair (dysfunctional and
functional) in the diagram, as shown in Fig. 1.
From the customer’s perspective, the characteristics K of a
quality attribute can be represented as a vector r , the
magnitude of the vector denotes the overall importance of
quality attribute to customers, and the angle α determines the
relative level of satisfaction
K and dissatisfaction. Therefore, the
magnitude of the vector r is called the importance index; and
the angle α is called the satisfaction index. Both 0 ≤ r ≤ 2
and 0 ≤ α ≤ π 2 are collectively called the Kano indices [8].
According to [8], the Kano indices are as follows.
K G
ri = X i2 + Y i 2 , 0 ≤ ri ≤ 2 (1)
where X i , Yi is the average level of satisfaction of the quality
element i for the dysfunctional/functional form question.
α i = tan −1 (Yi X i ) , 0 ≤ α i ≤ π 2 (2)
when αi = 0 means that quality element i is an ideal must-be
attribute. Conversely, αi = π 2 means that quality element i is
an ideal attractive attribute.
1
Attractive
One-dimensional
γ
Indifferent
Must-be
α r0
0 1
Figure 1. the analytical Kano model
 Based on the above formulation, the quality attributes can
be classified into four categories, i.e., indifferent, must-be,
attractive and one-dimensional (see Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, a
threshold value of the importance index r0 is used to
differentiate important quality attributes from less important
ones. If the radius is smaller than r0 , it would be considered as
the indifferent region. Hence r0 is called an indifference
threshold [8].
Although [8] proposed new and improved model to
overcome the disputes and limitations of the traditional Kano’s
model, the model still has room for improvements regarding
practical applications due to of its relative complexity. For
practical applications, two separate questionnaires must be
designed to facilitate the survey, complicating the process. The
two questionnaire topics include the importance of quality
attributes and the categorization of attributes according to the
Kano’s model. In addition, [8] adopts a scoring scheme that
defines customer’s satisfaction and dissatisfaction as shown in
Table I. The scale is designed to be asymmetric because [8]
argued that positive answers are considered to be stronger
responses than negative ones. In other words, the scaling has
the effect of diminishing the influence of negative evaluations.
This Argument of [8] is, however, against the prospect theory
by [9]. Therefore, the revision of the scoring scheme used to
evaluate customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction by [8] is
necessary. Otherwise, it would influence the precision of the
Kano indices.
To simplify the analytical Kano model in practical
applications, and to overcome the scoring scheme of the
analytical Kano model disagrees with the basic assumption of
prospect theory, this study attempts to reform the analytical
Kano model, and then accurately suggests the priority of
improvements.
TABLE I. SCORES FOR FUNCTIONAL/DYSFUNCTIONAL FEATURES
Functional form Dysfunctional form
Answers to the Kano question
of the question of the question
I like it that way (like) 1 -0.5
It must be that way (must-be) 0.5 -0.25
I am neutral (neutral) 0 0
I can live with it that way (live with) -0.25 0.5
I dislike it that way (dislike) -0.5 1
II. METHODOLOGY
Reference [10] believe that when using some form of self-
stated importance, customers may not consider the current
level of attribute satisfaction, whereas a regression analysis
determines the weight of importance at the current level of
performance. Reference [11] further confirmed the asymmetric
relationship between attribute performance and overall
satisfaction using regression analysis with dummy variables.
Additionally, through the results of regression analysis, they
identified the asymmetric impact of attribute performance on
overall satisfaction, and subsequently selected the category of
quality attributes.
Reference [11] suggested that if the impact on overall
satisfaction with quality attributes is high when the
performance is low, but satisfaction when performance is high
is not affected, then these can be classified as must-be quality
attributes. If quality attributes have a higher impact on overall
satisfaction when performance is high, but do not affect
satisfaction when performance is low, then these can be
classified as attractive quality attributes. If the impact of
attribute performance (whether high or low) on overall
satisfaction is high, they can be classified as one-dimensional
quality attributes. Consequently, the determination method of
[11] on the category of quality attributes is used to integrate the
concepts of importance and performance into the classification
of quality attributes. Simultaneously, regression analysis with
dummy variables is used to estimate the impact of attribute
performance on overall satisfaction to substitute the indicators
of the vertical axis (functional) and the horizontal axis
(dysfunctional) of the analytical Kano model. Finally, the
results of the categorizing the quality attributes, the attribute
performance, and the asymmetric impact of attribute
performance on overall satisfaction are combined to suggest
the priority of improvements. The classification of quality
attributes of the reformed analytical Kano model is shown in
Fig. 2.
In Fig. 2, the I + refers to the impact on overall satisfaction
−
when attribute performance is high, and the I denotes the
impact on overall satisfaction when attribute performance is
low. The asymmetric impact of attribute performance on
K
overall satisfaction can be represented as a vector I , and the
magnitude of the vector denotes the overall impact of the
quality attribute on customer satisfaction. Therefore, the
K
magnitude of the vector I can be considered the importance
index. I 0 is an indifference threshold that is used to
differentiate the important quality attributes from the less
important ones. If the radius is smaller than I 0 , it is considered
an indifferent attribute.
1
Attractive
One-dimensional
I+
K
I Must-be
Indifferent
I−
0 1
I0
Figure 2. A reformed analytical Kano model
The methodology steps of the reformed analytical Kano
model are as follows:
1) Design a performance questionnaire. Performance with
single quality elements as well as overall satisfaction with the
service is evaluated using a 10-point scale, and each question clerk, Q3 professional knowledge of the service center clerk,
is closed. Q4 online service provided by the telecommunications
2) Collect data through questionnaires and acquire company, Q5 service provided in the shop, Q6 quality of the
+ − mobile phone signal, Q7 correctness of the mobile phone bill,
the I and I of each quality element using regression
Q8 e-bill service, Q9 premium programs for mobile phones,
analysis with dummy variables.
Q10 value-added service for mobile phones, Q11 internet
y = β 0 + I i+ dummy 1 + I i− dummy 2 + ε
(3) connection service for mobile phones, Q12 3G visual service
where y = Overall satisfaction for mobile phones, and Q13 service rate for mobile phones.
dummy 1 = Dummy set indicating the highest The questionnaire was distributed to 1800 customers
performance level randomly, and 203 valid questionnaires were returned.
According to (3)~(5), the results of the questionnaire were
dummy 2 = Dummy set indicating the lowest calculated, and shown in Table II. The results of Tables II
performance level depict the reformed analytical Kano model, as shown in Fig. 3.
Additionally, the quality attribute categories are listed in the
I i+ = Impact of the ith quality attribute on the sixth column of Table II.
overall satisfaction associated with a
high performance level (i = 1, 2,…, n) TABLE II. SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF SERVICE QUALITY ELEMENTS IN
THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY
I i− = Impact of the ith quality attribute on the
K Category in the
Attribute
overall satisfaction associated with a Item
performance
I− I+ Ii reformed analytical
low performance level (i = 1, 2,…, n) Kano model
ε = Random error K
Q1
Q2
7.374
7.172
-0.585***
-0.474***
0.350***
0.415***
0.682
0.630
one-dimensional
one-dimensional
3) Calculate the magnitude of I i . The overall impact of Q3 6.631 -0.627*** 0.257*** 0.678 must-be
Q4 7.158 -0.509*** 0.144** 0.529 must-be
the ith quality attributeK on customer satisfactionK can K be Q5 6.483 -0.393*** 0.437*** 0.588 one-dimensional
represented as a vector I i , and the magnitude of I i is I i . Q6 7.167 -0.704*** 0.141** 0.718 must-be
Q7 7.956 -0.387*** 0.445*** 0.590 one-dimensional
The formula is as follows: Q8 7.399 -0.460*** 0.262*** 0.529 one-dimensional
Q9 6.217 -0.411*** 0.449*** 0.609 one-dimensional
K 2 2 K Q10 6.394 -0.499*** 0.390*** 0.633 one-dimensional
I i = I i+ + I i− , 0 ≤ I i ≤ 2 (4) Q11 5.980 -0.419*** 0.373*** 0.561 one-dimensional
Q12 4.483 -0.155** 0.484*** 0.508 attractive
4) Calculate the I 0 . I 0 is an indifference threshold that is Q13 6.212 -0.493*** 0.253*** 0.554 one-dimensional
used to differentiate the important quality attributes fromK the P = 6.664 I 0 = 0.404
less important ones. This study believes that if the I i is ** p < .05 ; *** p < .001
+ −
smaller than the average of the I and I , the ith quality I +
attribute is not significant. The formula is as follows:
n
1
∑
0.6
I0 = I i+ + I i− (5)
2n Q12
i =1 Q7 Q9
Q5 Q2
5) Calculate P and plot the reformed analytical Kano 0.4 Q10
Q11 Q1
model. P is the mean of the performance of quality attributes.
+ − Q8 Q13
According to the I , I , and I 0 , plot the reformed Q3
analytical Kano model. 0.2
Q4 Q6
6) Summarize and categorize the results according to the
reformed analytical Kano model.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 I−
III. Case Study
Figure 3. The display of the reformed analytical Kano model
The subject for this case study is the mobile
telecommunication company CT, one of the three largest
mobile telecommunication companies in Taiwan. This study
refers to the definition by [12] of the telecommunication IV. DISCUSSION
industry’s service quality elements the basis for Step1. There Regarding analysis based on Tables II and Fig. 3, the
were 13 questions regarding service quality elements and 1 reformed analytical Kano model is described below. From the
question regarding overall satisfaction shown in the results shown in Table II and Fig. 3, Q3: professional
questionnaire used in this study. They include: Q1 successful knowledge of the service center clerk, Q4: online service
connection to service center, Q2 attitude of the service center provided by the telecommunications company, and Q6: quality
of the mobile phone signal are must-be quality attributes. Q1:
successful connection to service center, Q2: attitude of the
service center clerk, Q5: service provided in the shop, Q7:
correctness of the mobile phone bill, Q8: e-bill service, Q9:
premium programs for mobile phones, Q10: value-added
service for mobile phones, Q11: internet connection service for
mobile phones, and Q13: service rate for mobile phones are
one-dimensional quality attributes. Q12: 3G visual service for
mobile phones is an attractive quality attribute.
By contrast, regarding performance, Q1: successful
connection to service center, Q2: attitude of the service center
clerk, Q4: online service provided by the telecommunications
company, Q6: quality of the mobile phone signal, Q7:
correctness of the mobile phone bill, and Q8: e-bill service are
the quality elements with a performance greater than
the P (6.664) ; thus, Q1, Q2, Q4, Q6, Q7, and Q8 are
considered high performance. Q3: professional knowledge of
the service center clerk, Q5: service provided in the shop, Q9:
premium programs for mobile phones, Q10: value-added
service for mobile phones, Q11: internet connection service for
mobile phones, Q12: 3G visual service for mobile phones, and
Q13: service rate for mobile phones are the quality elements
with a performance below the P ; thus, Q3, Q5, Q9, Q10, Q11,
Q12, and Q13 are considered low performance and should be
improved.
Finally, using Table II and Fig. 3, the order for improving
the quality elements can be identified. According to [7], the
impact of the quality attribute category on the products or
services is: M (Must-be) ＞ O (One-dimensional) ＞ A
(Attractive)＞I (Indifferent). Thus, Q3: professional knowledge
of the service center clerk, must be improved first, followed by
Q5: service provided in the shop, Q9: premium programs for
mobile phones, Q10: value-added service for mobile phones,
Q11: internet connection service for mobile phones, and Q13:
service rate for mobile phones. The final improvement is Q12:
3G visual service for mobile phones. Additionally, using the
K K K K K K
judgment of I i , we can determine that I10 > I 9 > I 5 > I11 > I13 ;
thus, the order for improvement is Q10≻Q9≻Q5≻Q11≻Q13.
Therefore, the order for improvement of the quality elements is
Q3≻Q10≻Q9≻Q5≻Q11≻Q13≻Q12.
V. CONCLUSION
The analytical Kano model has a complex process in
practical applications, and the scoring scheme of the analytical
Kano model disagrees with the basic assumption of prospect
theory. Additionally, the analytical Kano model didn’t discuss
improvement effect and priority of quality attributes.
According to the reformed analytical Kano model, the issues
related to the analytical Kano model are improved. In addition,
the concept of “importance” and “performance” is integrated
into the Kano’s model, resulting in the reformed analytical
Kano model, which can be used to directly discuss
improvement effects and prioritize quality attributes.
In the preceding case, the order of improvements was
prioritized more precisely using the reformed analytical Kano
model. Compared to the analytical Kano model, the reformed
analytical Kano model is significantly simpler for practical
applications, and enables greater amounts of valuable
information for improvement to be obtained. Business
management typically focuses on improvements to quality
elements that customers consider unsatisfactory. However,
according to the reformed analytical Kano model, this is not the
only consideration. The reformed analytical Kano model is not
only a useful practical tool for industries, but is also a
theoretical model for academic research.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Kano, K. Seraku, F. Takahashi, and S. Tsuji, “Attractive quality and
must-be quality Hinshitsu Quality,” The Journal of the Japanese Society
for Quality Control, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 39–48, 1984.
[2] K. C. Tan, and X. X. Shen, “Integrating Kano's model in the planning
matrix of quality function deployment,” Total quality management, vol.
11, no. 8, pp. 1141–1152, 2000.
[3] M. Löfgren, and L. Witell, “Kano’s theory of attractive quality and
packaging,” Quality Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 7–20,
2005.
[4] Y. C. Lee, S. B. Lin, and Y. L. Wang, “A new Kano's evaluation sheet,”
The TQM Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 179–195, 2011.
[5] T. Wang, and P. Ji, “Understanding customer needs through quantitative
analysis of Kano’s model,” International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 173–184, 2010.
[6] K. Matzler, and H. H. Hinterhuber, “How to make product development
projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer
satisfaction into quality function deployment,” Technovation, vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 25–38, 1998.
[7] C. Berger, et al, “Kano’s method for understanding customer-defined
quality,” Center for Quality of Management Journal, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 3–
35, 1993.
[8] Q. Xu, R. J. Jiao, X. Yang, and M. Helander, “An analytical Kano model
for customer need analysis,” Design Studies, vol. 30, pp. 87–110, 2009.
[9] D. Kahneman, and A. Tversky, “Prospect theory: An analysis of
decision under risk,” Econometrica, vol. 47, pp. 263–291, 1979.
[10] K. Matzler, and E. Sauerwein, “The Factor Structure of customer
satisfaction: An empirical test of importance grid and the penalty-
reward-contrast analysis,” International Journal of Service Industry
Management, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 314–332, 2002.
[11] K. Matzler, F. Bailom, H. H. Hinterhuber, B. Renzl, and J. Pichler, “The
asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall
customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-performance
analysis,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 271–
277, 2004.
[12] Y. C. Lee, Y. F. Hsieh, and C. W. Huang, “Using Gap Analysis and
Implicit Importance to Modify SIPA,” Proceedings 2010 IEEE 17th
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, China: Xiamen, pp. 175–179, 2010.