UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR ASSIGNMENT

INDEX
INTRODUCTION...................................................1-2

ATTRIBUTES............................................................2-3

ORIGINS...................................................................4-5

EXAMPLES................................................................6

CONCLUSION............................................................7
Acknowledgment :-

I am very thankful to the Prof. Uma Nehare for providing necessary information regarding the project
and also for her/his support in completing this project.

Introduction

It is now well understood that retaining old customers is more profitable than attracting new customers.
Several studies have shown that customer loyalty is dependent on the customer’s perception of the
quality of the goods or services provided (Gorst et al., 1998; Sirohi et al., 1998). The customer loyalty-
customer satisfaction association is one of the most vital relationships for marketing theory and practice
(Anderson et al. 2004; Bolton and Lemon 1999; Fornell 1992; Reichheld and Sasser 1990). The extant
literature posits customer satisfaction as the primary driver of customer loyalty (Reinartz and Kumar
2003). The challenge than for the businesses is to deal with customer satisfaction. The businesses have
to answer questions like what products and services can be offered to the customer to provide a high
level of customer satisfaction? Which features and attributes of the offerings are likely to provide or
drive greater satisfaction to the customers? Among the methods used to answer these questions and
analyze the CNs, the Kano model has been widely considered by the industries as an effective tool owing
to its convenience in classifying CNs based on survey data (Kano et al., 1984).
The Kano Model of Customer (Consumer) Satisfaction

The Kano Model of Customer Satisfaction classifies product attributes based on how they are perceived
by customers and their effect on customer satisfaction. These classifications are useful for guiding design
decisions in that they indicate when good is good enough, and when more is better. The Kano Model is
also known as “Kano Analysis” was created by Japan’s Dr. Noriaki Kano in 1984 and to this day it remains
to be a useful tool in Product and Service Development. The model brings out the nonlinear relationship
between the product performance and customer satisfaction.

The Kano Model describes the connection between customer satisfaction and the realization of
customer requirements. Noriaki Kano, professor (emeritus) of Tokyo University of Science, developed a
model for customer satisfacton in 1978, known today as the Kano Model. He determined 5
characteristics of customer requirements:

Threshold attributes (Must-be qualities). These attributes are taken for granted when fulfilled but result
in dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. Customers expect these attributes and view them as basic; it is
unlikely that they are going to tell the company about them when asked about quality attributes.

Performance attributes (One-dimensional qualities). 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. If they are excelled customer satisfaction increases accordingly.

Excitement attributes (Attractive qualities). These attributes provide satisfaction when achieved but do
not cause dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. They are not normally expected and thus often unspoken.

Indifferent qualities. These aspects are neither good or bad and have no effect, positive or negative, on
customer satisfaction.

Reverse qualities. If these aspects exist they lead to dissatisfaction; if they do not exist they do not lead
to satisfaction.

It is not possible to deduce an overall satisfaction level from the Kano Model.

The origins of the Kano Model

The Kano Model originates from the two-factor theory by Frederick Herzberg. It states that there are
certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors causes
dissatisfaction. The two-factor theory distinguishes between motivators and hygiene factors; according
to Herzberg, hygiene factors are what cause dissatisfaction among employees in a workplace. In order to
remove dissatisfaction in a work environment, these hygiene factors must be eliminated. Eliminating
dissatisfaction is only one half of the task of the two factor theory. The other half is to increase
satisfaction in the workplace. This can be done by improving on motivating factors.
The must-be qualities of Kano correspond to the hygiene factors of Herzberg. The one-dimensional and
attractive qualities correspond to the motivating factors.

Examples for the Kano Model

Customer expectations for characteristics and features of products, systems, solutions and software vary
greatly. One feature may excite a customer while another person may take it for granted or even reject a
product because of it. Thus, examples are not generally accepted.

Excitement attributes: Online access via TV, paying via smartphone

Performance attributes: Display resolution, battery life of smart phones

Threshold attributes: Customizable ring tones, TV channel search

Indifferent qualities: Adding emoticons to instant messaging apps, Capacity of more than 1000 stations
in TVs

Reverse qualities: Displaying apps when changing channels, rust on motorcycle wheel rims.

Threshold Attributes: These are the attributes that are expected by the customers and therefore are the
“musts” of a product or service. These are the points of parity and do not provide an opportunity for
product differentiation. Improving the performance of these attributes do not guarantee increased
customer satisfaction and may only add to the cost of product. What is important is the absence or even
poor performance of these attributes would cause great dissatisfaction. Threshold attributes are not
typically captured in Quality Function Deployment (QFDs). For example, a threshold attribute can be four
wheels in a car.

Performance Attributes: Performance attributes are those for which more is merrier. The better
fulfillment leads to linear increment of customer satisfaction and absence or poor performance of these
attributes will diminish the customer satisfaction. Most data from Voice of the Customer (VOC) will
reflect these attributes. The price for which customer is willing to pay for a product is closely tied to
performance attributes. For example, customers would be willing to pay more for a car that provides
them with better fuel economy.

Excitement Attributes: These attributes are not expressed by the customers explicitly and are generally
unexpected by the customers. The presence of these attributes delights the customer and results in high
satisfaction. The absence of these attributes however does not cause dissatisfaction. The excitement
attributes are seen to meet the latent needs of the customers. The marketers can build on these
attributes to delight the customers and gain competitive advantage. A point to be noted here is that
today’s excitement attribute would evolve into performance attribute in near future and finally could
end up as a threshold attribute. An example could be power steering in a car.

Indifferent Attributes: There are some attributes of products that do not exactly fall into any of the above
three categories discussed above. This is because of their little or no importance to the customer. They
do influence the decision making. Take the example of a plate listing part numbers which can be found
under the hood on many vehicles for use by repairpersons. Similar attributes are termed as ‘Indifferent
Attributes’.

An ideal product should have all the basic attributes, maximize the performance attributes and
incorporate as many “excitement” attributes as possible at a price that is affordable.

Uses

The model is a useful tool for manufacturing and service sectors alike in analyzing the attributes of a
product or a service in order to make better product decisions. Some researchers have also looked into
the degree of importance attached to the attributes by the customers. The argument is that the degree
of importance is a critical dimension at the evaluation stage by the customers. On this basis they have
developed a refined model. According to these researchers, the refined Kano’s model is not only a useful
practical tool for industries, but is also a theoretical model for academic research. A discussion on the
refined model is out of scope of this article.

Conclusion

In the present times, there is an increasing demand on the firms to come out with newer products more
quickly and more frequently. The time gap between the conception of an idea and the final product is
under severe pressure. This phenomenon has caused a shift from post production quality control to
design based quality control where the defects in the first place are prevented rather than repairing.
Companies are now gaining by adopting Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) combined with Quality Function
Deployment (QFD). The information obtained from the Kano Model Analysis, specifically regarding
performance and ex

citement attributes, provides valuable input for the Quality Function Deployment process (Model.doc).
Further, the Kano Model becomes an essential tool when working on a Six Sigma project focusing on
customer satisfaction.

Bibliography

Anderson, E. W. (2004). Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value. Journal of Marketing , 68 (4), 172-
185.

Bolton, R. N. (1999). A Dynamic Model of Customers’ Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and
Consequence of Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research , 36 (2), 17-186.
Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience. ournal of
Marketing , 56 (1), 6-21.

Gorst, J. e. (1998). Providing customer satisfaction. Total Quality Management , 9 (4&5), 100-103.

Kano, N. S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality,. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality
Control , 14 (2), 39-48.

Model.doc, K. (n.d.). Kano Model Analysis.

Reichheld, F. F. (1990). Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services. Harvard Business Review , 68 (4), 105-
111.

Reinartz, W. J. (2003). The Impact of Customer Relationship Characteristics on Profitable Lifetime

Duration. Journal of Marketing , 67 (1), 77-99.

Sirohi, N. e. (1998). A model of customer perception and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket
retailer. Journal of Retailing, , 74, 223-245.