Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Engineering Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aei

Full length article

Revealing the dual importance and Kano type of attributes through

customer review analytics
Seoyoon Lee, Sohyun Park, Minjung Kwak *
Department of Industrial and Information Systems Engineering, Soongsil University, 369 Sangdo-Ro, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul 06978, Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Identifying which attributes of a product are important to customers and clarifying how the attributes affect
Online review customer satisfaction are critical for a firm to survive and succeed in the market. To assist in characterizing the
Analytics impacts of various attributes and prioritizing the attributes for design and marketing purposes, this paper pro­
Sentiment analysis
poses a novel review-analytics framework, called importance-Kano (I-Kano) analysis. I-Kano analysis holistically
Kano model
assesses the impacts of various attributes from three different perspectives that potentially may conflict with each
Conjoint analysis
Hospitality industry other, i.e., appearance (stated importance), significance (derived importance), and Kano type. By fusing term-
frequency and sentiment analyses of online reviews with conjoint analysis, the I-Kano analysis simultaneously
identifies the dual importance (appearance and significance) and Kano type of an attribute. As the final deliv­
erable of the I-Kano analysis, a new visualization scheme, called the I-Kano matrix, is proposed, which is the first
attempt to integrate the dual importance and Kano type of multiple attributes in a single chart. The I-Kano matrix
facilitates an intuitive interpretation of the multidimensional impacts of various attributes and supports the
aggregation and comparison of the results from different market segments. Through the I-Kano analysis, the
attributes of great importance in a market segment, which are useful for developing products and planning
marketing promotions, can be identified. In addition, the I-Kano analysis can identify the segments of the market
in which a certain attribute has greater relative importance, which is helpful in the design differentiation, tar­
geting, and differentiated marketing of products. To demonstrate and validate the I-Kano analysis, an illustrative
case study is described with an example of online hotel reviews.

1. Introduction satisfaction and to understand and predict customer needs [12–21].

With the emergence of online customer reviews as a new powerful
means for understanding the voice of the customer (VOC), customer
review analytics has become an essential tool for product development
and marketing in various manufacturing and service industries (e.g.,
electronics, automotive, hospitality, and entertainment). Review ana­
lytics is a process of analyzing a corpus of unstructured customer re­
views using natural language processing techniques to extract and
summarize customers’ sentiments and opinions toward a product (either
a tangible good or an intangible service) [1–4]. Because of the efficiency
and effectiveness of the automated process, review analytics has
attracted increasing attention as an alternative or complement to
traditional consumer research methods based on conventional surveys
[5–11].
A major focus of review-analytics research is to characterize the
impact of product attributes on customer preferences and customer
Recently, numerous approaches at an attribute level have been proposed
to identify, rank, and improve the attributes that are the most interesting
and important to customers. Text mining to extract the keywords asso­
ciated with product attributes based on customer reviews and sentiment
analysis (also referred to as opinion mining) to interpret the sentiments
toward each attribute (e.g., whether positive, neutral, or negative) have
been proposed as the core processes of such approaches.
To characterize the impact of attributes, previous review-analytics
approaches employed various measures of attribute impact. The mea­
sures can be classified into three representative types, i.e., appearance,
significance, and Kano type, and each highlights different perspectives
of attribute impact. Appearance represents the term frequency of each
attribute in customer reviews and implies the “stated importance” of the
attribute [6,14,22–27]; significance represents the effect of an attribute
on overall customer satisfaction (i.e., star rating) [28–30] and indicates
the “derived importance” of the attribute; Kano type represents the type

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: leesymiu@soongsil.ac.kr (S. Lee), sohyunpark@soongsil.ac.kr (S. Park), mkwak@ssu.ac.kr (M. Kwak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101533
Received 11 August 2021; Received in revised form 10 December 2021; Accepted 11 January 2022
Available online 22 January 2022
1474-0346/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 1. An overview of I-Kano analysis.
of relationship between an attribute and customer satisfaction [31–33],
that categorizes individual attributes according to the impact of their
quality (the degree of fulfilment) on customer satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.
Previous studies have demonstrated that the appearance, signifi­
cance, and Kano types are effective means of attribute characterization
and prioritization and can provide useful insights regarding the devel­
opment and marketing of products. One concern of this study is that the
three measures highlight different perspectives of attribute impact, and
their implications are not always consistent. For example, frequent
appearance does not necessarily correspond to a high significance, and
vice versa; the attributes that have the same Kano type can differ in
terms of importance, and vice versa [30,34,35]. For a better under­
standing of customers, an integrated approach is required that can
analyze and compare the three measures simultaneously. However, to
date, such a multidimensional integrated approach has not been
developed, and the aim of this study is to fill this research gap. Thus, this
study addresses the following specific research questions (RQ).
• RQ1: How can the appearance, significance, and Kano type of an
attribute be extracted simultaneously from the same set of customer
reviews?
• RQ2: How can the appearance, significance, and Kano type of mul­
tiple attributes be displayed and compared in a single chart for a
holistic assessment of their relative impacts?
• RQ3: How can similarities and differences among multiple market
segments be identified with respect to an attribute’s impact?
This paper proposes importance-Kano (I-Kano) analysis as a novel
review-analytics tool for characterizing the multidimensional attribute
impact on customer preferences and satisfaction. Fig. 1 shows an over­
view of the proposed I-Kano analysis comprising five steps: frequency
analysis, sentiment analysis, conjoint analysis, Kano classification, and I-
Kano matrix analysis. Given a predefined lexicon of attributes, the I-
Kano analysis reveals the attributes’ dual importance and Kano type
simultaneously. By fusing term-frequency and sentiment analyses of
online reviews with conjoint analysis, I-Kano analysis identifies the
2
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
appearance (stated importance), significance (derived importance), and
Kano type of an attribute in a market segment in sequence.
The purpose of the I-Kano analysis is to characterize and prioritize
attributes to provide useful implications for the development and mar­
keting of products. The I-Kano matrix is the final deliverable of the I-
Kano analysis for this purpose. It allows holistic assessment of attribute
impact by visualizing the dual importance and Kano type of multiple
product attributes in a single chart. Two versions of the I-Kano matrix
are proposed: one for the comparison of multiple product attributes for a
market segment (or for a market) and the other for the comparison of
different market segments as for a single attribute. The I-Kano matrices
enable recognition of similarities and differences among the market
segments in terms of attribute impact and enhance understanding of
customer preference and satisfaction across the entire market.
The main contribution of the proposed I-Kano analysis is that it
provides an integrated analysis framework for assessing the appearance,
significance, and Kano type of attributes simultaneously, unlike previ­
ous approaches that focus on either one or two of the three impact
measures. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the I-Kano analysis is
the first attempt to combine all three viewpoints into a single analysis.
The I-Kano matrices also contribute to the literature as a new visuali­
zation scheme that facilitates a holistic and intuitive interpretation of
attribute impact and that supports the aggregation and comparison of
the results from different market segments.
To demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed I-
Kano analysis, an illustrative case study is described with an example of
online hotel reviews. Online customer reviews posted on the travel
website Tripadvisor.com from September 2010 to June 2020 on 5-star, 4-
star, and 3-star hotels in Seoul, Busan, and Jeju, Korea, were collected.
After preprocessing, approximately 33,000 reviews remained valid for
analysis. Depending on the hotel star level (5, 4, and 3) and the customer
type (solo, business, couple, family, and friend), a total of 15 market
segments were defined, and reviews for each market segment were
analyzed using the I-Kano analysis. The results from each segment were
aggregated and compared using the I-Kano matrices. To validate the
usefulness of the I-Kano analysis, this paper presents several key results
of the case study and discusses their managerial insights.
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Table 1
Summary of the related works and a comparison with the current study.
1
Group Reference Sentiment analysis Importance analysis Kano analysis Case product
4
I Rai (2012) [14] – AP – Camcorder
Li et al. (2013) [40] – AP – Hotel service
Choi et al. (2018) [22] – AP – Hotel service
Sun et al. (2020) [27] ML2 AP – Vehicle
Jiang et al. (2017) [6] ML AP – Electric iron
Park et al. (2019) [37] LEX 3 AP – Hotel service
Yoo et al. (2017) [26] LEX AP – Smartphone
Nam and Lee (2019) [25] ML AP – Airport service
Jeong et al. (2019) [23] ML AP – Smartphone
Kim et al. (2020) [24] Unspecified AP – Sports utility vehicle
Yu et al. (2011) [41] ML S 5(AP) – Consumer electronics
Bi et al. (2019) [28] ML S – Hotel service
Liu and Zhang (2020) [42] LEX S – Hotel service
Joung and Kim (2021) [29] ML S – Smartphone
Kar (2021) [43] LEX S – Mobile payment
Kar et al. (2021) [44] ML S – Tourism
6
II Xiao et al. (2016) [9] – (S) A,M,O,R,(IN,D) Mobile phone
Qi et al. (2016) [35] LEX (S) A,M,O,I,R Mobile phone
Wu et al. (2018) [38] LEX (S) A,M,O Smartphone
Bigorra et al. (2019) [46] LEX (AP) A,M,O Consumer electronics
Chen et al. (2019) [34] ML (AP,S) A,M,O,I Coffee machine
Hou et al. (2019) [47] LEX (S) A,M,O,I,R,Q E-reader
Bi et al. (2019) [12] ML (S) A,M,O,I,R Mobile phone
Wang et al. (2020) [39] LEX (S) A,M,O,I Automobiles
Li et al. (2020) [48] ML (S) A,M,O,I,R,Q Theme park
This paper LEX AP,S A,M,O,I,R Hotel service
1
(): The parentheses in this column indicates that the measure in the parentheses was calculated to some extent but not explicitly analyzed, compared, or ranked from
the attribute importance perspective—that is, it was utilized as a mediator for deriving other measures, i.e., attribute significance or Kano type; 2 ML: Machine learning-
based sentiment analysis (including deep learning-based sentiment analysis); 3 LEX: Lexicon-based sentiment analysis; 4 AP: Appearance; 5 S: Significance; 6 IN and D:
‘Innovated-needed’ and ‘Divergent’, respectively, which are specific to the corresponding study.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 pre­
sents a survey of the related studies. Section 3 describes the 5-step
procedure of the proposed I-Kano analysis framework, followed by an
illustrative case study in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes the
paper with future research directions.
2. Literature review
The literature review is divided into the four sections: (1) Measure­
ment of attribute impact in review-analytics research; (2) Review ana­
lytics for identifying attribute importance; (3) Review analytics for
classifying Kano type; and (4) Research gap and the contributions of this
paper.
2.1. Measurement of attribute impact in review-analytics research
Numerous review-analytics approaches have been developed in the
last decade to understand customer needs and preferences and to
explore product and marketing opportunities. Relative to the purposes
of the related research, there have been three different research focuses:
1) a focus on assessing the performance level of a specific product (e.g.,
[13,23,36]), 2) a focus on understanding attributes’ impacts on
customer preferences and satisfaction in a market (e.g., [9,24,37]), and
3) considering both product performance and attribute impact together
(e.g., [25,28,38,39]). In this paper, the latter two dealing with attribute
impact are the main interest, and Table 1 summarizes previous works
that addressed the topics of interest in this paper. It is notable that only
those that extracted aggregate customer preferences in terms of attribute
importance and/or the Kano type are included.
As shown in Table 1, previous approaches have primarily employed
three measures of attribute impact: appearance, significance, and Kano
type. Here, appearance represents the term frequency of each product
attribute, that is, the percentage of review states regarding the attribute
[6,14,22–27]. The primary purpose of online reviews is to share
opinions and experiences with the public and help others make a better
choice while buying a product. Thus, customers tend to review only the
attributes that they consider important when making a buying decision.
In this regard, the appearance frequency of an attribute reflects the
relative importance of that attribute to customers; the more times an
attribute appears in customer reviews, the more important it is in the
market. In other words, appearance represents the “stated importance”
of the attribute.
Significance is another measure of an attribute’s relative importance,
representing. Although the degree of overall satisfaction is explicitly
revealed through the star rating, the weights (part-worth utilities) of
attributes are implicit and hidden in the reviews. Additional approaches
such as conjoint analysis, decision tree classification, and artificial
neural networks are required to derive the relative weights of attributes
[30]. In this regard, significance is referred to as the “derived impor­
tance” of an attribute.
Kano types, first developed by Kano et al. [31], classify the individual
attributes on the basis of the relationship between perceived quality (the
degree of fulfillment) of an attribute and customer satisfaction/dissat­
isfaction [31–33]. Although the Kano type itself does not indicate a
certain level of attribute importance [32], it helps prioritize attributes
according to the impact of their quality on customer satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. In general, product attributes are classified into five
Kano types: attractive (A), one-dimensional (O), must-be (M), indif­
ferent (I), and reverse (R) (see Fig. 2). The attractive category, A, in­
dicates an attribute that exponentially increases customer satisfaction
when fulfilled but does not cause dissatisfaction if not fulfilled. The one-
dimensional category, O, represents an attribute that is positively
associated with customer satisfaction; if fulfilled, it increases customer
satisfaction, but if not, it results in dissatisfaction. The must-be category,
M, represents an attribute that customers take for granted when it is
fulfilled; however, if it is not fulfilled, it leads to customer dissatisfac­
tion. This is opposite to the attractive category. The indifferent category
represents an attribute toward which customers are indifferent or an

3
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 2. Attribute classification in the Kano model [31].
attribute whose quality customers only marginally care about. Regard­
less of its fulfillment, no significant change is observed in customer
satisfaction. The reverse category refers to an attribute which, if ful­
filled, leads to consumer dissatisfaction, which is the opposite of the case
of the one-dimensional category.
In terms of the measure of attribute impact, previous studies can be
divided into two groups, i.e., Group I: review analytics for identifying
the attribute importance (either appearance or significance) and Group
II: review analytics for classifying the Kano type. The following Sections
2.2 and 2.3 review Group I and Group II, respectively.
2.2. Review analytics for identifying attribute importance
Review-analytics studies have attempted to rank product attributes
by considering the relative importance of an attribute for customers or
the weight that customers place on each product attribute. The
appearance frequency of an attribute as a percentage (i.e., the ratio of
the number of reviews that mention the attribute relative to the total
number of reviews) has been the most used as a measure of the relative
importance of an attribute. Rai [14] presented a text-mining-based
approach to extract key product attributes and their importance. To
determine the importance of an attribute, three metrics based on attri­
bute appearance were used: term frequency, review appearance rate,
and local global normalization measure. Li et al. [40] conducted a study
on the determinants of customer satisfaction in the hotel industry. Text
mining was applied to online hotel reviews, and the terms with frequent
appearances were distilled. Choi et al. [22] analyzed the key attributes
of hotel service quality in Korea. Considering the city, hotel star level,
and customer type, a total of 40 market segments were defined first, and
the appearance frequency of service attributes was analyzed for each
segment. The differences in attribute importance among different cities,
hotel star levels, and customer types were examined.
Numerous studies in this group of research have considered an at­
tribute’s appearance frequency (importance) along with its sentiment
score (i.e., performance). They adopted various methods for sentiment
4
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
analysis, which can be mainly divided into two groups: lexicon-based
approaches and machine learning-based approaches [23,49,50].
Considering attribute importance along with performance allows an
analysis called importance-performance analysis (IPA) [51]. IPA is a tool
for characterizing and prioritizing product attributes to establish prod­
uct and marketing strategies. It reveals the attributes that are the most
important in the market but do not satisfy customers through the current
products [26].
Sun et al. [27] proposed a method for analyzing changes in the at­
titudes of customers and manufacturers toward product attributes over
time. Attribute importance was determined from the perspectives of
users and the manufacturer based on attribute appearance in online
reviews and the product’s official website, respectively. Jiang et al. [6]
conducted an IPA study in which the appearance frequency was used as
an indicator of attribute importance. To prioritize the attributes for
design, a fuzzy inference method was applied based on fuzzy rules
generated by experts, such as “if frequency is high and sentiment score is
low, then the attribute should have a very high priority in design. Park
et al. [37] conducted a sentiment analysis for online hotel reviews and
explored the strengths and weaknesses of the subject hotel by consid­
ering both the appearance frequency and sentiment score. Yoo et al. [26]
conducted an IPA on a mobile phone market in Korea. Both text analysis
and network analysis were applied to identify the importance of attri­
butes, and three appearance-related metrics were used: simple term
frequency, degree centrality, and eigenvector centrality. Nam and Lee
[25] proposed an IPA method combined with a topic modeling tech­
nique called latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA). The product attributes
were defined based on the topics obtained from the LDA, and the
appearance probability of attribute-related words was used to calculate
the attribute importance. Jeong et al. [23] proposed an IPA method for
product-opportunity mining. LDA-based topic modeling and deep-
learning-based sentiment analyses were performed. The importance of
each topic was assessed based on the appearance of the topic. Kim et al.
[24] also presented an IPA method for multifunctional products where
the appearance frequency and sentiment score of individual attributes
were used as indices for attribute importance and performance,
respectively. The relationship between the sentiment score and the
performance specification was also examined to establish a method for
setting up the performance target.
Few studies have highlighted the importance of attributes from a
different perspective, that is, significance. The impact of an attribute on
overall customer satisfaction is important in this stream of studies. Yu
et al. [41] proposed an algorithm to determine the importance rank of
multiple aspects. The final output variable of the aspect-ranking algo­
rithm was the significance (influence of aspect-level sentiments on the
overall opinion); however, the appearance (aspect frequency) was also
used as a parameter for estimating the significance. Bi, Liu, Fan, and
Zhang [28] proposed a review-based IPA method, in which the impor­
tance of attributes was determined through an ensemble neural network
model (ENNM). In ENNM, the sentiment scores for attributes and the
overall star rating were used as the input and the output variables,
respectively. Liu and Zhang [42] also conducted a review-based IPA
using online hotel reviews. The derived importance of each attribute was
obtained from a partial correlation analysis between the sentiment
scores of the attributes and the star rating of the review. Joung and Kim
[29] determined the significance of smartphone attributes based on
deep neural network. To derive the significance with a lower variance,
estimates from multiple optimal neural networks with high accuracy
S. Lee et al.
were combined. Kar [43] and Kar et al. [44] combined social media
analytics with multiple regression analysis to identify the determinants
of usage satisfaction of mobile payment and the customer service
experience in tourism in India, respectively. Theoretical models were
constructed and validated based on a statistical inferential analysis of
social media data [45].
2.3. Review analytics for classifying Kano type
Conventional Kano analysis is a survey-based method that is costly
and time-consuming. Accordingly, Kano analysis based on online
customer reviews has attracted increasing attention. A review-based
Kano analysis usually performs a sentiment analysis first and utilizes
the results as a mediator for classifying the Kano type.
Xiao et al. [9] proposed a modified ordered choice model and a
marginal effect-based Kano model to extract consumer preferences from
online product reviews. The individual heterogeneity of the reviewers’
rating behavior was incorporated into the model, and semi-structured
reviews comprising two separate sections for the pros and cons were
used as the input. Qi et al. [35] developed a review-analytics model for
product improvement. They conducted a lexicon-based sentiment
analysis and a classical conjoint analysis to perform a Kano analysis. Wu
et al. [38] presented a dynamic IPA method for identifying product/
service improvement priorities. The Kano type of an attribute was used
as an index for the attribute importance in IPA. A lexicon-based senti­
ment analysis and the C4.5 algorithm were applied to conduct a Kano
analysis. Bigorra et al. [46] suggested a rule-based classification of at­
tributes into three Kano types: must-be, one-dimensional, and attractive.
The Kano type was determined by three criteria: the relative frequency
of an attribute, the proportion of product brands that majorly mention
the attribute, and the number of reviews that positively/negatively
mention the attribute. Although the appearance of attribute terms was
used in the proposed method, it was employed for Kano classification
only, and attribute importance was not discussed. Chen et al. [34]
proposed an intelligent Kano classification framework that integrates
multiple artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques,
including sentiment analysis and anomaly detection. A Kano classifica­
tion scheme in a 3-D space was newly proposed, which involves the
sentiment magnitude in determining the Kano type. Hou et al. [47]
analyzed online customer reviews posted on two successive generations
of products to capture changes in customer expectations over time. A
conjoint analysis based on ordered logit regression was conducted to
identify the significance of attributes, and the results were represented
using the Kano model. Bi, Liu, Fan, and Cambria [12] proposed a review-
based Kano analysis using multiple machine learning techniques, i.e.,
LDA for attribute extraction, support vector machine (SVM) for senti­
ment analysis, and an ensemble neural network for significance analysis.
Wang et al. [39] developed a Kano-based IPA model that addressed the
issue of inconsistencies between product star ratings and review texts.
The attributes were classified into four Kano types, and product
improvement strategies were established for each Kano type. Li et al.
[48] proposed a Kano-based IPA model that extracts the customer
satisfaction level and Kano type of attributes from online customer re­
views. In IPA, Kano type was used as the indicator of attribute
importance.
5
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
2.4. Research gap and the contributions of this paper
Attribute appearance, significance, and Kano type highlight the
attribute impact characteristics from three different perspectives, and
they can lead to different implications for the priorities of attributes;
examples of inconsistencies can be found in references [30,34,35]. To
better understand customer needs and preferences, a multidimensional
integrated approach that allows assessment and comparison of the three
measures simultaneously is required. However, to date, there has been
very little focus on the development of such approaches. The previous
works in Group I focused on measuring the importance of various at­
tributes (either appearance or significance) for prioritization, but they
did not reflect the Kano types of attributes. A possible non-linear rela­
tionship between an attribute and customer satisfaction was not incor­
porated in Group I. In contrast, previous works in Group II focused on
classifying the Kano type of each attribute. They calculated the attribute
appearance or significance to some extent and used it for the Kano
classification; however, they did not explicitly examine the importance
values, nor did they compare or rank them. The I-Kano analysis pre­
sented here contributes to the literature by providing an integrated
analysis of multidimensional attribute impact. It simultaneously assesses
the dual importance (appearance and significance) and Kano type of
product attributes and represents the three measures on a single chart in
an integrated manner to enable easy and clear derivation of useful in­
sights for product development and marketing.
3. Method
This section provides the details of the steps of the I-Kano analysis. As
depicted in Fig. 1, the I-Kano analysis consists of five steps: 1) frequency
analysis, 2) sentiment analysis, 3) conjoint analysis, 4) Kano classifica­
tion, and 5) I-Kano matrix analysis. It should be noted that the processes
of collecting online reviews and building the attribute and sentiment
lexicons are not addressed in this paper. I-Kano analysis assumes that the
corpus of product reviews is available and given at the beginning; in
other words, the access to the review database or the web crawling of
online reviews is available and allowed. Notably, the I-Kano analysis
deals with typical online reviews composed of two parts: a numerical
star rating from 1 to 5 and a textual review. Each review data contains
the reviewing date, target product, customer type, star rating, and tex­
tual review. The I-Kano analysis also assumes that the lexicons of
product attributes and sentiment words are given at the beginning.
Various methods exist for detecting existing and emerging attribute
keywords and building lexicons, including those based on domain expert
knowledge, term frequency, term frequency-inverse document fre­
quency (TF-IDF), LDA, and latent semantic analysis. Methods for fore­
casting dynamic customer requirements and discovering emerging
attributes also exist (e.g., [17,52]). Any of the available methods can be
chosen for the I-Kano analysis. More details regarding the available
methods can be found in the references [4,17,20,21,52–56].
3.1. Step 1: Frequency analysis
The I-Kano analysis begins with frequency analysis to examine the
appearance of product attributes in a target corpus of reviews. Given a
lexicon of product attributes, the appearance frequency of each attribute
is obtained as shown in Eq. (1), where fik is the appearance frequency of
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 3. Rule for lexicon-based sentiment analysis.
attribute i in market segment k and is given as a ratio (i.e., percentage of
reviews from segment k that have mentioned attribute i),Nk denotes the
total number of reviews obtained from segment k, and Nik denotes the
number of reviews from segment k in which attribute i appears at least
once. Notably, neither the number of times attribute i appears in a re­
view, the sentiment polarity, nor the sentiment intensity is reflected in
Nik ; it only reflects whether a review mentioned attribute i (i.e., presence
or absence).
fik = Nik /Nk (1)
The appearance frequency fik is an indicator of the relative impor­
tance of attribute i in the market segment k. It can theoretically range
from 0 to 1, which indicate that none or all of the reviews of segment k
have stated attribute i, respectively.
Eq. (2) normalizes fik considering the minimum and maximum levels
of appearance frequency in market k. Although fik in the current form is
suitable for attribute ranking in segment k, it cannot be directly used to
compare multiple market segments [24,37]. For comparison across
multiple market segments, the I-Kano analysis uses the normalized
appearance frequency fik . The values of fik lie in the range of 0 to 1
′ ′
(inclusive). If fik equals 0, it means that attribute i is the least-stated
′
attribute in segment k among the attributes in the set I (i ∈ I). In
contrast, if fik equals 1, it means that attribute i is the most-stated
′
attribute in segment k among the attributes in I. Therefore, the com­
parison of fik across market segments enables to discover how the rela­
′
tive importance of the same attribute can vary from segment to segment.
fik − minfik
(2)
′ i∈I
fik =
maxfik − minfik
i∈I i∈I
3.2. Step 2: Sentiment analysis
The next step is sentiment analysis to extract a review’s sentiment
toward product attributes. In this study, a lexicon-based sentiment
analysis at the attribute level was conducted using a sentiment lexicon
that provides a list of sentiment words, each of which is tagged with the
6
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
corresponding sentiment category (positive or negative). Sentiment
analysis examines individual reviews and identifies the polarity of the
sentiment for each attribute i. Note that the intensity of sentiment (i.e.,
how strong the sentiment is) is not considered in this study.
The sentiment polarity of attribute i is determined based on the
categories of sentiment words that are associated with attribute i in a
neg
review. For each review j, two binary variables—Xijpos and Xij —are used
to represent the sentiment polarity toward attribute i, where Xijpos de­
notes whether attribute i was ever positively mentioned in the review
neg
j(= 1) or not ( = 0), and Xij denotes whether attribute i was ever
negatively mentioned in review j(= 1) or not ( = 0). In other words,Xijpos
neg
and Xij indicate if attribute i was fulfilled and not fulfilled, respectively
[8,57]. Fig. 3 shows the detailed rules of determining Xijpos and Xij .
neg
Please note that an attribute can have two-sided polarities in a review,
neg
that is,{Xijpos ,Xij } = {1,1}, in case both pros and cons appear together in
the review. This implies that the attribute was fulfilled in some aspects
(or sub-attributes) but not fulfilled in other aspects. If attribute i was not
neg
mentioned at all, a neutral sentiment is assumed and {Xijpos , Xij } = {0,
0}.
Notably, regarding the method for sentiment analysis, the lexicon-
based approach can be replaced with different techniques, such as ma­
chine learning-based techniques (e.g., SVM and random forest), or any
neg
other method, as long as the output form is the same as {Xijpos ,Xij } ∈ {{0,
0}, {0, 1}, {1, 0}, {1, 1}}. Please refer to [2,30,58] for more details on
sentiment analysis.
3.3. Step 3: Conjoint analysis using ordinal logistic regression
In Step 3, a conjoint analysis is conducted to identify the effect
(significance) of each attribute on the overall customer satisfaction.
Conjoint analysis is used to determine the relative importance or the
part-worth utility of each product attribute [59–61]. No standardized
method exists for conjoint analysis [62]; however, one of the most
common methods is multivariate regression (e.g., [9,35,47]). In this
study, ordinal logistic regression was used for conjoint analysis.
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Table 2 ∑n
Example of structured input data for the conjoint analysis (market segment k). exp(ε1 + (βpos Xikpos + βneg
i=1 ik
neg
ik Xik ))
Pr(Y = 5|Xikpos , Xikneg ) = ∑ n pos pos neg neg
Review Attribute 1 Attribute 2 … Attribute i Star rating R 1 + exp(ε1 + (β Xik + βik Xik ))
i=1 ik

Xpos neg
X1k Xpos neg
X2k … Xpos neg
Xik
∑n
1k 2k ik exp(ε2 + (βpos Xikpos + βneg
i=1 ik
neg
ik Xik ))
Pr(Y⩾4|Xikpos , Xikneg ) = ∑ n
1 1 0 0 0 … 0 1 4 1 + exp(ε2 + pos pos neg neg
(β Xik + βik Xik ))
i=1 ik
2 1 0 1 0 … 0 0 5
∑n
… … … … … … … … … exp(ε3 + (βpos Xikpos + βneg neg
ik Xik ))
(3)
Nk 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 i=1 ik
… Pr(Y⩾3|Xikpos , Xikneg ) = ∑ n
1 + exp(ε3 + (βpos Xikpos + βneg
i=1 ik
neg
ik Xik ))
∑n
exp(ε4 + (βpos Xikpos + βneg neg
ik Xik ))
Table 2 shows an example of the input data for conjoint analysis Pr(Y⩾2|Xikpos , Xikneg ) = ∑i=1 ik
n
pos neg
obtained from Step 2. The data comprise two parts: the Xik and Xik (βpos Xikpos + βneg neg
1 + exp(ε4 + i=1 ik ik Xik ))

values for all attributes (representing fulfillment and unfulfillment of

attribute i in segment k, respectively; independent variables) and the
star rating (Y) of the review (representing the overall customer satis­
faction for the product; dependent variable). The star rating (Y ∈ {1, 2,
3, 4, 5}) is an ordinal variable that indicates different levels of customer
satisfaction from “fully dissatisfied” (=1), through “slightly dissatisfied”
(=2), “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (=3), “slightly satisfied” (=4),
to “fully satisfied” (=5). Thus, ordinal logistic regression (OLR) was
chosen for conjoint analysis, as shown in Eq. (3) [47,63,64].
Pr(Y⩾1|Xikpos , Xikneg ) = 1
The OLR attempts to derive two regression coefficients per attribute,
neg neg
that is,βpos pos
ik for Xik , and βik for Xik , which shows how the cases of an
attribute being fulfilled and an attribute not being fulfilled affect the
overall customer satisfaction. In the I-Kano analysis, the coefficients βpos
ik
and βneg
ik are used in two ways. First, the gap between the two coefficients
per attribute is used to quantify the relative importance of the attribute,
or the attribute significance. The greater the gap, the more important is

Fig. 4. Rule-based Kano classification in the I-Kano analysis.

7
S. Lee et al.
(a) I-Kano matrix as to market segment k
Fig. 5. Two versions of the I-Kano matrix.
neg
the attribute. Second, the coefficients βpos
ik and βik serve as criteria for
classifying the Kano type of an attribute, which will be discussed later in
Step 4.
Considering that the regression coefficients determine two di­
mensions of I-Kano analysis (i.e., significance and Kano type), the ac­
curacy of OLR and the quality of coefficients must be improved. Thus,
the OLR in this study includes several steps. First, the variation inflation
factor (VIF) of the independent variables was calculated to detect
whether multicollinearity occurred. Multicollinearity exists when two or
more independent variables are highly correlated with each other in a
regression model. VIF is the most widely employed diagnostic tool for
multicollinearity. If the VIF of an independent variable is close to 1,
there is no strong correlation between the variable and others [65].
However, if the VIF exceeds 5 or 10, it indicates high multicollinearity
between the variable and others, and this multicollinearity should be
fixed using an additional method. (How to fix multicollinearity is
beyond the scope of this paper and is not discussed further.) The OLR
also adopts a variable selection and filtering process. The backward
elimination method is used to find the model with the best performance,
and the subset with the smallest Akaike information criterion value is
chosen. Statistically insignificant or inconclusive coefficients were also
addressed in this study. If the p-value is greater than 0.05 or if the 95%
confidence interval includes zero, the corresponding coefficient is
determined to be 0.
Eq. (4) measures the significance of attribute i in market segment k
neg
based on the gap (gik ) between βpos
ik and βik , or, the absolute value of the
neg
difference between βpos
ik and βik . The gap gik allows to rank different
attributes in terms of the significance and helps identify attributes that
have a greater influence on customer satisfaction in the market segment.
Eq. (5) normalizes gik to enable comparison across multiple market
segments. Min-max scaling is applied to convert gik to gik , which ranges
′
from 0 to 1. If gik equals 0, it means that attribute i is the least-important
′ The second branching point compares the magnitudes of βpos
attribute in segment k; if gik equals 1, it means that attribute i is the most-
′ βik . If βik is greater than βpos
important attribute in segment k. Therefore, by tracing how the gik value
′
of an attribute varies from segment to segment, one can understand how
the attribute’s relative importance changes across market segments.
8
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
(b) I-Kano matrix as to attribute i
With respect to attribute ranks, how similar or different a market
segment is from the other segments can also be clarified.
gik = |βpos neg
ik − βik | (4)
gik − mingik
(5)
′ i∈I
gik =
maxgik − mingik
i∈I i∈I
3.4. Step 4: Kano classification
neg
The regression coefficients βposik and βik provide a clue for under­
standing the relationship between the fulfillment/unfulfillment of
attribute i and the overall customer satisfaction. Such a relationship
between a product attribute and customer satisfaction reminds of the
Kano model, which classifies product attributes into five categories: A,
M, O, I, and R [31]. Reflecting the concept of the original Kano model,
this study proposes a rule-based Kano classification as shown in Fig. 4.
The Kano type of each attribute i is determined based on the relationship
neg
revealed by the two coefficients βpos ik and βik .
The proposed Kano classification includes four branching points,
depicted as white boxes in Fig. 4. The first branching point considers
whether a significant difference exists between βpos
neg
ik and βik . If they are
very close to each other (in other words, if the gap gik is very small), the
attribute merely changes the customer satisfaction regardless of its
perceived quality; thus, the attribute is assigned to Kano type I (indif­
ferent). The threshold of closeness γ is determined by the user. In this
study, if the odds ratio of increasing customer satisfaction of an attribute
lies in the range of 0.95–1.05, the attribute is considered insignificant.
Thus, reflecting the absolute value of ln(1.05) and ln(0.95), the
threshold γ is set to 0.05.
ik and
neg neg
ik , the attribute’s perceived quality is
negatively associated with overall customer satisfaction. Accordingly,
this attribute is assigned to Kano type R (reverse category). The third
neg
branching point examines the signs of βpos ik and βik . After passing
through the first and second branching points, the only possible case in
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Table 3 highly affected by the attribute’s fulfillment level (or, perceived qual­
Attribute lexicon used for I-Kano analysis (translated from Korean into English). ity). In contrast to the points in Q1, points in Q3 imply the opposite
Attribute Corresponding words (examples) cases, in which the attributes are considered to be relatively less
important to customers in terms of both appearance and significance.
Room condition (RC) Cleanliness, soundproofing, temperature, view
Service and staff (SS) Staff, receptionist, concierge, internet access The attributes are less frequently mentioned in reviews, and their impact
Facilities and conveniences Atmosphere, lounge, parking, pool, spa & sauna, gym, on customer satisfaction seems less substantial in the segment.
(FC) banquet hall If attribute i in segment k is positioned either in Q2 or Q4, there is a
Location and surroundings Location, approach, public transportation, landmark discrepancy between the two types of attribute importance. An
(LS)
Dining and food (DF) Meal, room service
attribute-segment pair in Q2 indicates a relatively high appearance but
Bathroom condition (BC) Bathroom, toiletries low significance of the attribute in the market segment. This implies that
Furniture and appliances Furniture, bed, curtain, appliance, electronics customers make numerous remarks regarding the attribute, but the at­
(FA) tribute’s impact on customer satisfaction is relatively less significant.
Conversely, an attribute-segment pair in Q4 corresponds to a relatively
low appearance but high significance. The attribute is less frequently
Table 4 mentioned in the reviews written by the market segment; however, it
Sentiment-word lexicon used for I-Kano analysis (translated from Korean into seems to significantly affect customer satisfaction in the segment.
English). The Kano-type label of each point indicates the type of relationship
Sentiment Corresponding words (examples) Number of between the attribute’s fulfillment level and customer satisfaction. This
polarity words label is especially useful when prioritizing attributes for future in­
Positive Satisfying, comfortable, nice, kind, friendly, 130 vestments. If the quadrant to which an attribute belongs is the primary
pleased criterion for attribute prioritization, the Kano-type label can serve as the
Negative Uncomfortable, noisy, old, unkind, dirty, 121 secondary criterion for further differentiating the points in the same
poor, awful
quadrant.
The I-Kano matrix provides a new visualization scheme for attribute
which the coefficients have different signs is βpos
neg characterization and prioritization. In this study, two versions of the I-
ik > 0 and βik < 0.
Hence, this attribute is assigned to Kano type O (one-dimensional). Kano matrices are introduced: one for comprising multiple product at­
neg tributes for a market segment—most existing studies have taken this
The last branching point considers whether the sum of βpos
ik and βik is
neg approach in common—, and the other for comparing different market
positive or negative. If the sum is positive, then βpos ik > 0 and βik ⩾0. segments as for a single attribute. The former is useful in identifying
Therefore, this attribute is assigned to Kano type A (attractive). In important attributes in a particular market segment, which can provide
neg
contrast, if the sum is negative, this implies that βpos
ik ⩽0 and βik < 0, and useful insights for new product design, product improvement, marketing
the attribute is classified as Kano type M (must-be). promotion, and so on. The latter is useful for understanding which
The accuracy of the proposed Kano classification is affected by three market segments a certain product attribute has greater relative
factors: 1) the accuracy of sentiment analysis, 2) the accuracy of OLR for importance in, which is valuable for establishing marketing strategies
conjoint analysis, and 3) the threshold,γ. Since the classification rule such as targeting, market positioning, and differentiated marketing by
itself is not tied to a specific method for sentiment analysis or conjoint segment.
analysis, it can use other methods if better ones exist to improve the The I-Kano matrix also supports a comparative study of different
accuracy of the Kano classification. The user also can adjust the value of market segments. Because the I-Kano matrix uses normalized values, it
γ to make the rule more consistent with her/his domain knowledge and can combine the full or partial results of multiple segments into a single
experiences. chart. Such integration can be performed in various ways depending on
the user’s requirements and the purpose of the analysis. Through a single
I-Kano matrix, users can efficiently and effectively recognize the simi­
3.5. Step 5: I-Kano matrix analysis
larities and differences among the market segments and can grasp the
idea of the entire market. The integration capability is a merit of the I-
Step 5 involves creating an I-Kano matrix by combining the results
Kano matrix. To demonstrate this point, several examples are provided
from previous steps. The three dimensions of product attribute charac­
in Section 4.
teristics (appearance, significance, and Kano type) are visualized in the
form of a scatter chart, as shown in Fig. 5. The I-Kano matrix has two
4. Illustrative case
value axes representing different aspects of an attribute’s relative
importance. The horizontal axis represents the normalized significance
4.1. Data description
gik , and the vertical axis represents the normalized appearance fik . For
′ ′

attribute i in segment k, the chart displays a point at (gik , fik ) and shows
′ ′
To validate the I-Kano analysis and demonstrate its effectiveness, this
the Kano type as a data label. section presents a case study using online customer reviews of hotels in
The horizontal and vertical center lines denote the mean of gik and fik Korea. Reviews were crawled from Tripadvisor (https://www.tripad
′ ′

for all points in the chart, respectively. They provide a reference value
for interpreting the magnitude of an attribute’s relative importance and
assist in attribute characterization and prioritization. The two center
lines divide the chart into four regions (quadrants), called as Q1–Q4
counterclockwise, starting from the upper right quadrant.
If attribute i in segment k is positioned in Q1, attribute i is considered
as relatively more important to customers in segment k, from both the
appearance and the significance perspectives. In other words, the stated
importance and the derived importance are relatively greater. Cus­
tomers pay attention to the attribute and mention it more frequently;
thus, highly likely to influence product reputation and purchase de­
cisions in the market. Simultaneously, the customer satisfaction level is
visor.com) focusing on 5-star, 4-star, and 3-star hotels in Seoul, Busan,
and Jeju areas in Korea, using the Python BeautifulSoup and Selenium
libraries. A total of 33,597 Korean reviews posted from September 2010
to June 2020 were identified as valid data for analysis.
The review data were divided by market segment and were analyzed
segment-by-segment. In this study, a total of 15 market segments were
defined, considering the combinations of three hotel star levels (5-star,
4-star, and 3-star) and five customer types (solo [SOL], business [BIZ],
couple [CPL], family [FAM], and friend [FRD]). Each market segment
was named by combining the abbreviation representing customer type
and the number representing the hotel star level (e.g., SOL5, BIZ4,
FRD3). Details of data are presented in Table A.1. in the Appendix A.

9
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Table 5
Appearance frequency (fik ) of hotel attributes.
SOL5 BIZ5 CPL5 FAM5 FRD5 SOL4 BIZ4 CPL4 FAM4 FRD4 SOL3 BIZ3 CPL3 FAM3 FRD3

RC 75% 72% 79% 76% 75% 75% 71% 78% 76% 77% 77% 71% 78% 74% 76%
SS 71% 67% 70% 67% 71% 62% 57% 59% 56% 60% 60% 54% 52% 52% 58%
FC 60% 59% 62% 62% 59% 47% 49% 47% 51% 47% 43% 47% 48% 48% 45%
LS 42% 48% 41% 44% 40% 55% 58% 49% 58% 57% 66% 66% 63% 68% 65%
DF 41% 40% 45% 46% 46% 31% 31% 27% 34% 36% 32% 30% 29% 37% 29%
BC 24% 23% 23% 25% 25% 27% 25% 28% 27% 27% 28% 26% 30% 30% 32%
FA 15% 12% 15% 18% 17% 22% 20% 25% 21% 25% 22% 21% 24% 24% 24%

Table 6
Normalized appearance frequency (fik ) of hotel attributes.
′

SOL5 BIZ5 CPL5 FAM5 FRD5 SOL4 BIZ4 CPL4 FAM4 FRD4 SOL3 BIZ3 CPL3 FAM3 FRD3

RC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SS 0.94 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.76 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.66 0.52 0.56 0.65
FC 0.76 0.79 0.73 0.76 0.72 0.47 0.57 0.42 0.55 0.43 0.39 0.52 0.45 0.49 0.39
LS 0.45 0.61 0.40 0.45 0.39 0.63 0.74 0.44 0.68 0.61 0.80 0.90 0.72 0.89 0.79
DF 0.44 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.17 0.21 0.04 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.10 0.25 0.09
BC 0.15 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.14
FA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(a) 5-star hotel (b) 4-star hotel (c) 3-star hotel

Fig. 6. Difference in market segments in the normalized appearance frequency of attributes.

A Korean morphological analyzer called RHINO was used to process
the review data (morphology analysis, and part-of-speech tagging) [66].
Similar to the part-of-speech tagger in the Python’s Natural Language
Toolkit (NLTK) library [67], RHINO parses Korean words by morpheme
and part-of-speech. It tokenizes sentences into words and assigns a part-
of-speech to each token.
The lexicons of product attributes and sentiment words were adopted
and modified from the studies of [22,36]. Table 3 shows the attribute
lexicon used for the I-Kano analysis. (The attribute lexicon comprises
240 words in total, but only a part of it is presented because of space
limitations.) The attribute lexicon groups words related to various as­
pects (or features) of hotel services into clusters and refers to each
cluster as an attribute. The corresponding words for each attribute are
then defined. They encompass the words inside the cluster, as well as
their synonyms. There are seven attributes in this study: room condition
(RC), service and staff (SS), facilities and conveniences (FC), location
and surroundings (LS), dining and food (DF), bathroom condition (BC),
and furniture and appliances (FA).
Table 4 represents a part of the sentiment-word lexicon used for the I-
Kano analysis. It consists of 130 positive words and 121 negative words.
They were selected from the “KNU (Kunsan National University) Korean
Sentiment Lexicon [68]” considering the frequency of their appearance
in hotel reviews.
4.2. Step 1: Frequency analysis
To measure the relative importance of attributes in each market
segment from the appearance perspective, a frequency analysis (Section
3.1) was conducted segment-by-segment for each of the seven attrib­
utes—RC, SS, FC, LS, DF, BC, and FA. The appearance frequency of an
attribute is determined based on the frequency of the appearance of its
corresponding words. If any of the corresponding words appeared in a
review, the review was considered as one that mentioned the attribute.
For instance, if a review contained a remark on furniture, FA appeared in
the review.
Table 5 shows the appearance frequency fik values obtained from

10
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Table 7 highest appearance frequency and FA has the lowest appearance fre­
Accuracy of the sentiment analysis. quency. However, there were substantial differences in the other attri­
butes. For example, the fik of attribute SS ranges from 0.52 (in CPL3) to
′
Attribute Precision Recall F1-score Accuracy

Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. 0.94 (in SOL5); in case of DF, it ranges from 0.04 (CPL4) to 0.50 (FRD5).
Notably, the differences seem to be largely affected by star level rather
RC 0.98 0.73 0.92 0.72 0.95 0.77 86%
than by customer type. Fig. 6 shows how fik values change with star level
′
SS 0.94 0.65 0.96 0.73 0.96 0.69 89%
FC 0.96 0.61 0.92 0.70 0.94 0.65 82% and customer type. This shows that there exists a specific pattern in the
LS 1.00 0.18 0.94 0.67 0.97 0.29 88% fik values depending on the star level. Customers of 5-star hotels seem to
′

DF 0.95 0.56 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.67 84%

BC 0.90 0.74 1.00 0.78 0.95 0.76 86%
focus on RC, SS, and FC in sequence, whereas relatively less attention is
FA 0.96 0.69 0.92 0.69 0.94 0.69 87% given to other attributes. In contrast, the customers of 4-star hotels tend
to mention LS more frequently, they have a lower interest in SS and FC.
This tendency becomes more significant in the case of 3-star hotels, and
LC has the second highest appearance frequency in this case. In contrast
each segment, representing the percentage of reviews that mentioned to the large difference among the star levels, the difference in customer
the attributes in the segment. The results show that the appearance type seems relatively small. This implies that, for a certain star level,
frequency in a segment considerably varies from attribute to attribute. customers have a similar idea regarding what attributes are relatively
Taking segment SOL5 as an example, the appearance frequency varies more important in making a buying decision, irrespective of the
from 15% (FA) to 75% (RC), implying attribute differences in relative customer type.
importance. Such differences in the appearance frequency were
observed for every segment. 4.3. Step 2: Sentiment analysis
Table 6 lists the normalized values of the appearance frequency fik . It
′

rescales fik values of each segment in the range of 0–1, enabling com­ A lexicon-based sentiment analysis (Section 3.2) was performed to
parison of multiple market segments in terms of an attribute’s relative identify the sentiment toward each attribute in a review. Similar to the
importance. For all segments, it is commonly observed that RC has the frequency analysis, the sentiment of an attribute can be determined

Table 8
Significance (gik ) of hotel attributes.
SOL5 BIZ5 CPL5 FAM5 FRD5 SOL4 BIZ4 CPL4 FAM4 FRD4 SOL3 BIZ3 CPL3 FAM3 FRD3

RC 0.95 1.50 1.23 1.37 0.93 1.79 1.54 1.91 1.49 1.46 2.07 1.45 1.51 1.51 1.46
SS 2.17 2.71 2.41 2.04 2.21 2.46 2.24 2.33 2.36 2.20 2.00 2.51 2.35 2.33 3.09
FC 1.11 0.73 0.84 0.68 1.04 0.00 0.64 0.69 0.98 1.09 1.41 1.13 0.67 1.31 0.82
LS 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71
DF 1.87 1.06 0.74 0.99 1.30 0.54 0.92 1.16 1.27 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.32 0.44 1.51
BC 1.30 0.86 0.92 1.04 0.68 0.98 0.00 0.45 0.69 0.78 0.62 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00
FA 1.94 0.00 1.37 0.88 1.37 1.29 1.12 1.00 1.24 1.47 0.00 1.98 0.68 1.67 1.95

Table 9
Normalized significance (gik ) of hotel attributes.
′

SOL5 BIZ5 CPL5 FAM5 FRD5 SOL4 BIZ4 CPL4 FAM4 FRD4 SOL3 BIZ3 CPL3 FAM3 FRD3

RC 0.00 0.55 0.51 0.60 0.42 0.73 0.69 0.82 0.50 0.66 1.00 0.58 0.64 0.65 0.47
SS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FC 0.14 0.27 0.35 0.19 0.47 0.00 0.29 0.30 0.22 0.49 0.68 0.45 0.28 0.56 0.26
LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.23
DF 0.76 0.39 0.31 0.38 0.59 0.22 0.41 0.50 0.38 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.13 0.19 0.49
BC 0.29 0.32 0.38 0.40 0.31 0.40 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.35 0.30 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
FA 0.81 0.00 0.57 0.31 0.62 0.52 0.50 0.43 0.37 0.67 0.00 0.79 0.29 0.72 0.63

Table 10
Kano type of hotel attributes.
SOL5 BIZ5 CPL5 FAM5 FRD5 SOL4 BIZ4 CPL4 FAM4 FRD4 SOL3 BIZ3 CPL3 FAM3 FRD3

RC M O M O O O O O O O O O O O M
SS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
FC O M O O O I M M O O O M M O M
LS M I I M I I I I O I I I I M M
DF O M O O O M M O O M A A A A O
BC M M O O M M I M M M M I M I I
FA M I O M O M O O O O I O M O O

11
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

package {rms}. An OLR model was derived for each market segment.
The detailed results are shown in Table B.1 in Appendix B.
Table 8 lists the gap gik values extracted from each market segment.
This value indicates an attribute’s relative importance in terms of sig­
nificance. A larger gik value indicates that the attribute has a greater
influence on customer satisfaction in the segment. For example, the most
influential attribute in segment SOL5 was SS, followed by FA and DF in
sequence. The normalized significance gik in Table 9 reveal the simi­
′

larities and differences across multiple segments more clearly. SS is the

Fig. 7. I-Kano matrix for 5-star hotels: results of SOL5, BIZ5, CPL5, FAM5,
and FRD5.
most influential attribute in almost all segments (except in SOL3, where
RC takes the first place); LS is the least influential attribute in most
segments, except in FAM3 and FRD3. However, the other attributes
show vast differences from segment to segment. For example, RC is the
least important in SOL5 but the most important in SOL3; FA is the sec­
ond most-important attribute in SOL5 but the least important in BIZ5.
Table 9 demonstrates the controversy between attribute appearance
and significance. In terms of appearance, RC was the most-important
attribute, LS had a medium level of importance, and FA was the least-
important attribute. From a significance viewpoint, however, RC and
FA correspond to a medium level of importance in general, whereas LS
has the least importance (except in FAM3 and FRD3). Such a discrep­
ancy suggests the need to examine both measures while determining the
relative importance of attributes.

based on the sentiment of the corresponding words. If any of the cor­

responding words ever received positive comments, a positive sentiment
was acknowledged for the attribute; in contrast, if any of the corre­
sponding words were negatively mentioned, a negative sentiment was
acknowledged for the attribute. Table 11
The accuracy of the applied sentiment analysis is listed in Table 7. An I-Kano analysis results for 5-star hotels.
accuracy test was conducted for 100 randomly selected reviews, and by Q1(more Q2(higher Q3(less Q4(higher
comparing the sentiment analysis results with the authors’ manual important) appearance) important) significance)
judgment, the precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy were derived for SOL5 SS (O) RC (M), FC (O) LS (M), BC (M) DF (O), FA (M)
each attribute and sentiment. The overall accuracy was 82%–89%, and BIZ5 SS (O), RC FC (M), LS (I), BC (M), FA (I) –
the average was 86%. (O) DF(M)
CPL5 SS (O), RC FC (O) LS (I), DF (O), BC FA (O)
(M) (O)
FAM5 SS (O), RC FC (O) LS (M), DF (O),
4.4. Step 3: Conjoint analysis –
(O) BC (O), FA (M)
FRD5 SS (O), FC (O) RC (O) LS (I), BC (M) DF (O), FA (O)
Conjoint analysis based on OLR was conducted to quantify the effect
of an attribute’s positive/negative sentiment on the overall satisfaction
level. The conjoint analysis was performed using the “lrm” function of R

(a) FC (facilities and conveniences) (b) DF (dining and food)

Fig. 8. I-Kano matrix for single attributes.

12
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 9. I-Kano matrix integrating the results of 5-star, 4-star, and 3-star hotels.
Each point represents the average of five types of customers; the Kano type was
listed in order of frequency among the five customer types where ‘/’ represents
equal frequency.
Fig. 10. I-Kano matrix for observing the dynamic change of attribute impact
between the early 2010s and the late 2010s.
4.5. Step 4: Kano classification
Although gik values can show the magnitude of the effect of an
attribute on overall customer satisfaction, it does not differentiate the
functional relationship between an attribute’s degree of fulfillment and
the satisfaction level. The rule-based Kano classification (Section 3.4)
13
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
was conducted for each market segment to identify the type of func­
tional relationship between an attribute and customer satisfaction.
Table 10 shows the Kano classification results. It provides a clear
idea regarding how an attribute affects customer satisfaction, which is
useful while characterizing and prioritizing attributes. For example, SS
is assigned to a one-dimensional category in all the segments. The results
imply that customer satisfaction is positively correlated with the
perceived quality of SS. Similar to SS, RC is also one-dimensional in most
segments, except in SOL5, CPL5, and FRD3. The Kano type of FC is
revealed as a must-be category for all BIZ segments. This means that
customers traveling with business purposes felt dissatisfied if the FA was
not well equipped; however, even if the FA was well equipped, the
customers were not satisfied as much because they took it for granted. LS
is designated as an indifferent category in more than half segments,
which means that customer satisfaction in those segments is not affected
by the perceived quality of LS. DF is assigned to the attractive category
in SOL3, BIZ3, CPL3, and FAM3. Customers in these segments have no
requirements or expectations regarding DF, and thus, they are not
dissatisfied if the quality of DF is low. However, if the quality of DF
increases, it leads to considerably excitement and can significantly in­
crease customer satisfaction. BC is considered a must-be in 9 out of 15
segments; meeting the basic requirements on BC is critical in the seg­
ments, but there is no need to achieve excessive quality. Finally, FA is
considered to be one-dimensional in more than half of the segments. In
particular, it seems important in 4-star hotels; improving FA can in­
crease satisfaction of almost all customer types.
4.6. Step 5: I-Kano matrix analysis
The results obtained in the previous steps can be merged into I-Kano
matrices for attribute characterization and prioritization. Figs. 7 and 8
provide examples of the two versions of I-Kano matrices: one comparing
multiple attributes for the same market segment(s) and the other for
comparing market segments for a single attribute.
Fig. 7 shows an I-Kano matrix drawn for 5-star hotels. Targeting
managers of 5-star hotels as the main audience (user), the I-Kano matrix
represents the results from the SOL5, BIZ5, CPL5, FAM5, and FRD5
segments in a single chart. Managers may be interested in the attributes
that are more important to their customers and how the customer
satisfaction level is determined. The I-Kano matrix provides an answer,
as shown in Table 11.
Attributes in the Q1 quadrant are considered to be more important
than others from the perspectives of both appearance and significance.
They are frequently mentioned in reviews and considerably affect
customer satisfaction. Regardless of the customer type, SS is revealed as
one of the most-important attributes. RC is also an important attribute
for CPL, BIZ, and FAM customers, while FC is an important attribute for
FRD customers. Their Kano type (O) shows that improving the perceived
quality of these attributes is critical for customer satisfaction. These
attributes should be prioritized when establishing design and marketing
strategies and improving services.
In contrast, attributes in Q3 are considered less important than
others from the perspectives of both the appearance and significance. BC
provides a representative example. An interesting point is that numerous
attributes with a Kano type M belong to this group; thus, it is unnec­
essary to put extra effort into these attributes as long as they meet the
minimum requirements.
The attributes in Q2 are characterized by a higher level of
S. Lee et al.
appearance, but a lower level of significance. RC in SOL5 and FRD5, LS
in BIZ5 segments, and FC in all segments but FRD5 are examples. The
actual effect of these attributes on customer satisfaction may not be
substantial. However, they are important in that their effects on word-
of-mouth, brand image and reputation, and purchase intention of
future customers can be considerable. Conversely, the attributes in Q4
are less mentioned in reviews, but are featured with higher significance.
DF for SOL and FRD customers, and FA for SOL, CPL, and FRD customers
are examples. A firm must manage the quality of its attributes to satisfy
its customers and facilitate repurchase.
Fig. 7 and Table 11 show that the I-Kano matrix is useful for iden­
tifying important market attributes, which can provide useful insights
for new product design, product improvement, marketing promotion,
and so on. (Results for 4-star and 3-star hotels are also provided in Ap­
pendix C.) Fig. 8 shows that the I-Kano matrix can also be used in
another context to identify the market segments in which a certain
product attribute has high relative importance. Suppose a firm with a
specialty in certain attributes is considering launching a new hotel. To
establish marketing strategies such as targeting and market positioning,
the firm may want to know which market segment would be a perfect fit
for them. The second version of the I-Kano matrix, which compares
different market segments to a single attribute, can serve the purpose.
Fig. 8 compares the relative importance and Kano types of FC and DF
attributes in various market segments. Fig. 8(a) shows that CPL5 and
FRND5 are segments that attach greater importance to FC. A hotel with
high-quality FC can target these segments and plan marketing strategies
accordingly. Fig. 8(b) shows that SOL5, FRND5, BIZ5, and FAM5 are
segments that emphasize DF. A hotel with a competitive advantage in DF
can target these customers for marketing and promotions.
5. Discussion
As a novel tool for revealing multidimensional attribute impact, the
proposed I-Kano analysis provides an answer to the three research
questions, i.e., RQ1–RQ3, in sequence.
The answer of the first research question (RQ1) was explained in
Sections 3.1 through 3.4 and was demonstrated in Sections 4.2 through
4.5. By fusing term-frequency and sentiment analyses of online reviews
with conjoint analysis, the I-Kano analysis extracts the dual importance
(appearance and significance) and Kano type of an attribute simulta­
neously from the same set of customer reviews. As also pointed out by
other studies [29,30,34,35], attribute appearance, significance, and
Kano type highlight the attribute impact characteristics from three
different perspectives, and they sometimes provide different and con­
flicting implications regarding an attribute’s impact and priority. The
case study also demonstrated this point. Frequent appearance does not
necessarily correspond to high significance and vice versa. Moreover,
the attributes with the same Kano type can differ in terms of importance
and vice versa. This implies that a wrong decision can be made if the
decision maker (e.g., a design or marketing professional) considers only
one or two of the three measures. This highlights the value of the I-Kano
analysis as a multidimensional integrated approach that supports a ho­
listic analysis of the three measures.
The I-Kano matrix provides an answer to the second and third
research questions, i.e., RQ2 and RQ3. As described in Sections 3.5 and
4.6, the I-Kano analysis combines and visualizes the analysis results
using two versions of I-Kano matrices: one for comprising multiple
product attributes for a market segment and the other for comparing
different market segments as for a single attribute. The former version
answers to RQ2 by facilitating the comparison of multiple attributes in
terms of their relative impacts. One can identify important product at­
tributes in a market (or in a particular market segment) and gain useful
insights regarding the design of new products, the improvement of
existing products, marketing promotion, and so on.
The latter version answers to RQ3 by showing the market segments
in which a certain product attribute has greater relative importance,
14
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
which clarifies similarities and differences among multiple market seg­
ments in terms of an attribute’s impact. It helps establish design and
marketing strategies, such as targeting, product differentiation and
customization, and differentiated marketing.
An advantage of I-Kano analysis is that it supports the integration of
various results depending on the user’s requirements and the purpose of
the analysis. The I-Kano matrix allows a comparison of the impact of
multiple attributes in multiple market segments, which helps in recog­
nizing the similarities and differences among the market segments and
grasping the idea of the entire market. As an example, Fig. 9 shows an
integrated I-Kano matrix representing the results of 5-star, 4-star, and 3-
star hotels in one chart. (To make the similarities and differences among
the star levels stand out, only the average value of the five types of
customers were plotted; the Kano type was listed in order of frequency
among the five customer types.) In terms of which quadrant each
attribute belongs to, SS, FA, and BC were similar irrespective of the star
level, but RC, FC, DF, and LS revealed differences among star levels. The
result implies that the attributes that differentiate the customer prefer­
ences and satisfaction in the market are different at the star level, and
the I-Kano analysis can be an effective tool for revealing such differen­
tiating factors.
If a time series analysis is combined with the I-Kano analysis, the I-
Kano matrix also can assist in analyzing the dynamic change of attribute
impact over time. For instance, Fig. 10 shows the results of two separate
I-Kano analyses that were applied to the reviews of the early 2010 s
(2010 ~ 2015) and late 2010 s (2016 ~ 2020), respectively. Although
there was no change in the Kano type of attributes, the dual importance
showed some changes. The importance levels of RC and SS have
increased, while the importance levels of LS, DF, BC, and FA have
decreased. The importance of FC showed an interesting trend. It was less
frequently mentioned in reviews in the late 2010 s, but its effect on
customer satisfaction has increased slightly from the early 2010 s. These
results demonstrate that the I-Kano analysis can be a promising tool for
continuous observation of customer needs over time. Including the time
factor in the I-Kano analysis is expected to highlight dynamic changes in
customer needs and preferences over time.
Theoretically, the I-Kano analysis contributes to the literature in
three main ways. First, a multidimensional integrated approach is pro­
posed for the characterization and prioritization of attributes by
assessing the appearance, significance, and Kano type of product attri­
butes at the same time. As shown in Table 1, the I-Kano analysis is the
first attempt to combine all three viewpoints. Second, the I-Kano anal­
ysis supports comparative analyses across multiple market segments.
Although the differences among product attributes in a market have
been discussed frequently in most previous studies, the discussion of the
differences among multiple market segments is lacking. The I-Kano
analysis involves the min-max normalization of the appearance and
significance values, which allows for an apples-to-apples comparison
among market segments. Third, the I-Kano matrix provides a novel
visualization scheme for attribute characterization and prioritization. It
represents the three measures on a single chart in an integrated manner
and enables easy and clear derivation of useful insights for product
development and marketing.
In addition, the I-Kano analysis will contribute to the advancement of
review-based Kano classification. Most studies on review-based Kano
analyses (e.g., [9,35,38,47]) have proposed a rule-based classification
that requires user intervention to determine the values of multiple pa­
rameters. Moreover, some rules are ambiguous, requiring the user’s
subjective judgment; for instance, the following expressions are
frequently used in the rules: “if the two values are similar, then…”, “if
one is much less (greater) than the other, then…”, “if the value is low,
then…,” and so on. To apply these rules, multiple inputs from the user
based on her/his expertise are required, and the classification results can
vary from user to user. The proposed I-Kano analysis addressed these
concerns by offering clearer rules for Kano classification, which require
minimal user intervention and subjective judgment. Classification rules
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

were designed to match the original definition of the five Kano types (A, the work reported in this paper.
M, O, I, and R), and they require a single input γ regarding the threshold
of indifference. Acknowledgments

6. Conclusion This paper is partially based on the first author’s master’s thesis at
Soongsil University supervised by the third author. This work was sup­
Online reviews are a valuable source of information for under­ ported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant fun­
standing how product attributes affect customer preference and satis­ ded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. NRF-
faction. To characterize the impact of attributes and prioritize them for 2019R1F1A1041099).
design and marketing purposes, this study proposed the importance-
Kano (I-Kano) analysis as a novel review-analytics tool for analyzing Appendix A
and comparing multidimensional attribute impacts. By fusing term-
frequency and sentiment analyses of online reviews with conjoint See Table A1
analysis, I-Kano analysis identifies the dual importance (appearance and
significance) and Kano type of an attribute simultaneously in a market
segment. As the final deliverable of the I-Kano analysis, a new visuali­
zation scheme, called the I-Kano matrix, is proposed, which represents
Table A1
the dual importance and Kano type of multiple attributes in a single
Details of review data.
chart.
Hotel star Region Customer Early 2010 s Late 2010 s Total
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the I-Kano analysis is the first
level type
attempt to integrate the three impact measures in a single analysis.
Although this paper demonstrated the I-Kano analysis with an example 5-star hoel Seoul SOL 61 638 699
BIZ 143 588 731
of online hotel reviews, the framework is generally applicable to a va­
CPL 436 2323 2759
riety of products including both tangible goods and intangible services. FAM 577 3799 4376
Clearer rules for Kano classification that require minimal user inter­ FRD 279 1719 1998
vention and subjective judgment constitute another distinguishing Busan SOL 17 101 118
BIZ 36 131 167
feature of the framework. The I-Kano analysis enables easy and clear
CPL 117 469 586
apples-to-apples comparative analyses, including both a comparison of FAM 170 724 894
multiple product attributes and a comparison of multiple market seg­ FRD 74 247 321
ments. The I-Kano matrices facilitate an intuitive interpretation of the Jeju SOL 5 36 41
results, which is helpful in establishing product design and marketing BIZ 17 43 60
CPL 9 122 131
strategies.
FAM 29 426 455
Notably, each step of the I-Kano analysis can be improved further if FRD 11 53 64
better methods become available. For instance, although the current I- 4-star hoel Seoul SOL 102 1253 1355
Kano analysis involved lexicon-based review analytics, it also is possible BIZ 220 1632 1852
CPL 307 3443 3750
to replace the method with a machine learning-based approach if such
FAM 258 2191 2449
an approach works better. In this regard, including the intensity FRD 273 1742 2015
(strength) of sentiments can be considered for possible future work. In Busan SOL 7 137 144
this study, only the sentiment polarity was considered, and the senti­ BIZ 15 210 225
ment toward an attribute was converted into binary data, which can be CPL 32 701 733
FAM 45 974 1019
regarded as a limitation of the current approach. Future work should
FRD 28 459 487
incorporate sentiment strengths. In addition, further research is required Jeju SOL 14 66 80
regarding the extraction of attributes. Building a lexicon of product at­ BIZ 25 104 129
tributes was beyond the scope of this study, but doing so is highly CPL 26 173 199
important for the success of the proposed model. In particular, a way to FAM 36 291 327
FRD 30 127 157
detect emerging attributes that may appear and gain increasing interest 3-star hoel Seoul SOL 28 380 408
in the market should be incorporated. BIZ 120 471 591
For the decision maker to prioritize attributes and establish product CPL 122 753 875
and marketing strategies, the performance of a specific product must be FAM 72 520 592
FRD 79 511 590
considered simultaneously. However, the current I-Kano analysis is a
Busan SOL 32 118 150
tool for understanding customers in a market, and it was not intended BIZ 66 153 219
for use in assessing the performance level of an individual product. CPL 82 237 319
Therefore, combining the I-Kano analysis with performance analysis will FAM 49 199 248
be considered in the future. FRD 82 175 257
Jeju SOL 2 107 109
BIZ 5 88 93
Declaration of Competing Interest CPL 31 226 257
FAM 59 361 420
FRD 20 128 148
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

15
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Appendix B

See Table B1

Table B1
Results of ordinal logistic regression for conjoint anlaysis: statistics and parameter estimates after variable selection.
Segment SOL5 BIZ5 CPL5 FAM5 FRD5 SOL4
Statistics Obs. 858 958 3476 5725 2383 1579

R2 0.232 0.228 0.202 0.181 0.148 0.234

LR Chi2 175.91 210.27 616.98 923.74 287.07 343.29
p-value 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***
Variable
RC_pos Coef. 0.000 0.464** 0.162 + 0.223*** 0.318** 0.571***
S.E. – 0.152 0.083 0.062 0.105 0.117
95% CI – [0.17,0.76] [0.00,0.32] [0.10,0.35] [0.11,0.52] [0.34,0.80]
VIF – 1.651 2.145 1.941 2.008 1.775
RC_neg Coef. − 0.948*** − 1.033*** − 1.230*** − 1.149*** − 0.613*** − 1.221***
S.E. 0.224 0.212 0.110 0.083 0.167 0.140
95% CI [− 1.39,− 0.51] [− 1.45,− 0.62] [− 1.45,− 1.02] [− 1.31,− 0.99] [− 0.94,− 0.29] [− 1.49,− 0.95]
VIF 1.450 1.290 1.473 1.415 1.345 1.493
SS_pos Coef. 0.909*** 1.129*** 0.914*** 0.985*** 1.014*** 0.872***
S.E. 0.173 0.152 0.083 0.064 0.105 0.120
95% CI [0.57,1.25] [0.83,1.43] [0.75,1.08] [0.86,1.11] [0.81,1.22] [0.64,1.11]
VIF 1.877 1.671 1.795 1.721 1.810 1.720
SS_neg Coef. − 1.256*** − 1.577*** − 1.495*** − 1.055*** − 1.195*** − 1.593***
S.E. 0.309 0.252 0.144 0.107 0.204 0.221
95% CI [− 1.86,− 0.65] [-2.07,− 1.08] [− 1.78,− 1.21] [− 1.27,− 0.84] [− 1.60,− 0.79] [-2.03,− 1.16]
VIF 1.159 1.228 1.275 1.226 1.194 1.261
FC_pos Coef. 0.497** 0.284 + 0.278** 0.179** 0.250* 0.235 +
S.E. 0.188 0.159 0.086 0.064 0.109 0.130
95% CI [0.13,0.87] [− 0.03,0.59] [0.11,0.45] [0.05,0.30] [0.04,0.46] [− 0.02,0.49]
VIF 1.543 1.536 1.671 1.689 1.693 1.395
FC_neg Coef. − 0.616* − 0.732** − 0.563*** − 0.502*** − 0.794*** 0.000
S.E. 0.254 0.223 0.125 0.095 0.168 –
95% CI [− 1.11,− 0.12] [− 1.17,− 0.29] [− 0.81,− 0.32] [− 0.69,− 0.31] [− 1.12,− 0.47] –
VIF 1.340 1.297 1.346 1.327 1.347 –
LS_pos Coef. 0.000 0.000 − 0.142 + 0.000 − 0.204 + 0.188 +
S.E. – – 0.093 – 0.121 0.124
95% CI – – [− 0.32,0.04] – [− 0.44,0.03] [− 0.05,0.43]
VIF – – 1.423 – 1.352 1.474
LS_neg Coef. − 0.948* − 0.443 + − 0.369 + − 0.365 0.000 0.000
S.E. 0.391 0.288 0.205 0.146 – –
95% CI [− 1.71,− 0.18] [− 1.01,0.12] [− 0.77,0.03] [− 0.65,− 0.08] – –
VIF 1.133 1.140 1.111 1.087 – –
DF_pos Coef. 0.686** 0.000 0.282** 0.282*** 0.333** 0.221 +
S.E. 0.219 – 0.096 0.070 0.117 0.156
95% CI [0.26,1.11] – [0.09,0.47] [0.14,0.42] [0.10,0.56] [− 0.08,0.53]
VIF 1.288 – 1.369 1.414 1.418 1.263
DF_neg Coef. − 1.188** − 1.062** − 0.455** − 0.713*** − 0.964*** − 0.537*
S.E. 0.379 0.362 0.165 0.126 0.225 0.263
95% CI [− 1.93,− 0.45] [− 1.77,− 0.35] [− 0.78,− 0.13] [− 0.96,− 0.47] [− 1.40,− 0.52] [− 1.05,− 0.02]
VIF 1.140 1.085 1.171 1.152 1.153 1.157
BC_pos Coef. 0.595 + 0.000 0.307* 0.303** 0.000 0.000
S.E. 0.366 – 0.149 0.104 – –
95% CI [− 0.12,1.31] – [0.02,0.60] [0.10,0.51] – –
VIF 1.135 – 1.191 1.187 – –
BC_neg Coef. − 1.305*** − 0.862* − 0.610** − 0.740*** − 0.682** − 0.982***
S.E. 0.317 0.342 0.186 0.140 0.253 0.234
95% CI [− 1.93,− 0.68] [− 1.53,− 0.19] [− 0.97,− 0.25] [− 1.02,− 0.47] [− 1.18,− 0.19] [− 1.44,− 0.52]
VIF 1.274 1.149 1.228 1.162 1.183 1.213
FA_pos Coef. 0.000 0.500 + 0.562*** 0.000 0.380* 0.000
S.E. – 0.302 0.157 – 0.181 –
95% CI – [− 0.09,1.09] [0.25,0.87] – [0.03,0.74] –
VIF – 1.118 1.131 – 1.145 –
FA_neg Coef. − 1.936** 0.000 − 0.805** − 0.884*** − 0.985** − 1.294***
S.E. 0.629 – 0.259 0.185 0.340 0.327
95% CI [-3.17,− 0.70] – [− 1.31,− 0.30] [− 1.25,− 0.52] [− 1.65,− 0.32] [− 1.93,− 0.65]
VIF 1.040 – 1.110 1.067 1.094 1.111

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; +: The 95% confidence interval (CI) includes zero, and the coefficient is regarded as 0 in the I-Kano analysis; -: The variable
was excluded by the backward elimination method.
VIF: Variance inflation factor, if the variance

16
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

BIZ4 CPL4 FAM4 FRD4 SOL3 BIZ3 CPL3 FAM3 FRD3

2206 4682 3795 2659 667 903 1451 1260 995

0.183 0.218 0.209 0.187 0.268 0.273 0.205 0.228 0.307

377.69 939.38 733.89 433.98 180.81 253.75 291.67 289.6 310.4
0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***

0.270** 0.526*** 0.326*** 0.322*** 0.527** 0.402** 0.450*** 0.262* 0.000

0.094 0.067 0.073 0.090 0.166 0.143 0.109 0.116 –
[0.09,0.45] [0.39,0.66] [0.18,0.47] [0.15,0.50] [0.20,0.85] [0.12,0.68] [0.24,0.66] [0.03,0.49] –
1.757 1.914 1.905 1.942 1.774 1.660 1.833 1.738 –
− 1.271*** − 1.380*** − 1.161*** − 1.138*** − 1.546*** − 1.049*** − 1.063*** − 1.250*** − 1.457***
0.118 0.084 0.096 0.120 0.205 0.172 0.130 0.144 0.170
[− 1.50,− 1.04] [− 1.54,− 1.22] [− 1.35,− 0.97] [− 1.37,− 0.90] [− 1.95,− 1.14] [− 1.39,− 0.71] [− 1.32,− 0.81] [− 1.53,− 0.97] [− 1.79,− 1.12]
1.370 1.470 1.404 1.351 1.682 1.524 1.475 1.495 1.578
1.046*** 0.912*** 0.970*** 1.033*** 0.902*** 1.151*** 1.088*** 0.910*** 1.569***
0.099 0.071 0.079 0.095 0.175 0.151 0.120 0.126 0.158
[0.85,1.24] [0.77,1.05] [0.82,1.12] [0.85,1.22] [0.56,1.24] [0.85,1.45] [0.85,1.32] [0.66,1.16] [1.26,1.88]
1.524 1.561 1.523 1.594 1.700 1.490 1.468 1.511 1.499
− 1.196*** − 1.422*** − 1.391*** − 1.172*** − 1.099** − 1.358*** − 1.266*** − 1.420*** − 1.520***
0.209 0.141 0.148 0.224 0.342 0.328 0.253 0.284 0.351
[− 1.60,− 0.79] [− 1.70,− 1.14] [− 1.68,− 1.10] [− 1.61,− 0.73] [− 1.77,− 0.43] [-2.00,− 0.72] [− 1.76,− 0.77] [− 1.98,− 0.86] [-2.21,− 0.83]
1.137 1.156 1.165 1.123 1.149 1.195 1.119 1.110 1.141
0.166 + 0.123 + 0.194* 0.204* 0.683** 0.000 0.204 + 0.398** 0.000
0.101 0.073 0.079 0.100 0.206 – 0.121 0.137 –
[− 0.03,0.36] [− 0.02,0.27] [0.04,0.35] [0.01,0.40] [0.28,1.09] – [− 0.03,0.44] [0.13,0.67] –
1.438 1.473 1.518 1.419 1.326 – 1.398 1.351 –
− 0.640*** − 0.693*** − 0.788*** − 0.887*** − 0.728* − 1.134*** − 0.668** − 0.908*** − 0.816**
0.166 0.115 0.122 0.157 0.327 0.259 0.209 0.197 0.265
[− 0.97,− 0.31] [− 0.92,− 0.47] [− 1.03,− 0.55] [− 1.19,− 0.58] [− 1.37,− 0.09] [− 1.64,− 0.63] [− 1.08,− 0.26] [− 1.29,− 0.52] [− 1.34,− 0.30]
1.155 1.184 1.206 1.166 1.146 1.299 1.167 1.204 1.143
0.000 0.000 0.179* 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
– – 0.077 – – – – – –
– – [0.03,0.33] – – – – – –
– – 1.544 – – – – – –
− 0.343 + 0.000 − 0.419* − 0.362 + − 0.571 + − 0.410 + 0.000 − 0.708** − 0.710*
0.207 – 0.171 0.216 0.341 0.281 – 0.235 0.321
[− 0.75,0.06] – [− 0.75,− 0.08] [− 0.79,0.06] [− 1.24,0.10] [− 0.96,0.14] – [− 1.17,− 0.25] [− 1.34,− 0.08]
1.099 – 1.100 1.080 1.118 1.114 – 1.098 1.090
0.225 + 0.260** 0.308** 0.206 + 0.671** 0.677** 0.317* 0.442** 0.423*
0.125 0.096 0.096 0.110 0.233 0.205 0.153 0.147 0.207
[− 0.02,0.47] [0.07,0.45] [0.12,0.50] [− 0.01,0.42] [0.21,1.13] [0.27,1.08] [0.02,0.62] [0.15,0.73] [0.02,0.83]
1.212 1.187 1.244 1.284 1.201 1.178 1.187 1.243 1.165
− 0.924*** − 0.900*** − 0.957*** − 0.671** 0.000 − 0.589 + 0.000 0.000 − 1.082**
0.231 0.164 0.161 0.224 – 0.349 – – 0.368
[− 1.38,− 0.47] [− 1.22,− 0.58] [− 1.27,− 0.64] [− 1.11,− 0.23] – [− 1.27,0.10] – – [− 1.80,− 0.36]
1.124 1.122 1.140 1.123 – 1.115 – – 1.085
0.233 + 0.182 + 0.212 + 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.154 0.105 0.115 – – – – – –
[− 0.07,0.54] [− 0.02,0.39] [− 0.01,0.44] – – – – – –
1.169 1.223 1.214 – – – – – –
0.000 − 0.446** − 0.693*** − 0.780*** − 0.615* − 0.546 + − 0.781*** 0.000 − 0.431 +
– 0.148 0.165 0.209 0.304 0.284 0.219 – 0.238
– [− 0.74,− 0.16] [− 1.02,− 0.37] [− 1.19,− 0.37] [− 1.21,− 0.02] [− 1.10,0.01] [− 1.21,− 0.35] – [− 0.90,0.03]
– 1.200 1.169 1.148 1.180 1.189 1.144 – 1.228
0.583*** 0.433*** 0.406** 0.468*** 0.000 0.526* 0.281 + 0.527** 0.726***
0.150 0.095 0.123 0.129 – 0.223 0.158 0.186 0.207
[0.29,0.88] [0.25,0.62] [0.16,0.65] [0.22,0.72] – [0.09,0.96] [− 0.03,0.59] [0.16,0.89] [0.32,1.13]
1.201 1.220 1.175 1.216 – 1.173 1.179 1.210 1.199
− 0.540* − 0.567** − 0.835*** − 1.004*** − 0.731 + − 1.458*** − 0.679* − 1.143*** − 1.221***
0.275 0.186 0.200 0.277 0.406 0.388 0.316 0.303 0.302
[− 1.08,0.00] [− 0.93,− 0.20] [− 1.23,− 0.44] [− 1.55,− 0.46] [− 1.53,0.06] [-2.22,− 0.70] [− 1.30,− 0.06] [− 1.74,− 0.55] [− 1.81,− 0.63]
1.087 1.112 1.114 1.117 1.122 1.162 1.081 1.164 1.154

17
S. Lee et al. Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533

Appendix C Table C2
I-Kano analysis results for 3-star hotels.
See Figs. C1 and C2. Tables C1 and C2 Q1(more Q2(higher Q3(less Q4(higher
important) appearance) important) significance)

SOL3 SS (O), RC (O) LS (I) FA (I), BC (M), FC(O)

DF (A)
BIZ3 SS (O), RC LS (I) DF (A) BC(I) FA(O)
(O), FC(M)
CPL3 SS (O), RC (O) LS (I) FC (M), DF (A), –
BC (M), FA (M)
FAM3 SS (O), RC LS (M) DF (A) BC(I) FA(O)
(O), FC(O)
FRD3 SS (O), RC LS (M) FC (M) BC(I) DF(O) FA(O)
(M)

References

[1] A. Kamal, Review mining for feature based opinion summarization and
visualization, Int. J. Comput. Appl. 119 (17) (2015) 6–13, https://doi.org/
10.5120/21157-4183.
[2] K. Khan, B. Baharudin, A. Khan, A. Ullah, Mining opinion components from
unstructured reviews: A review, J. King Saud Univ. – Comput. Inform. Sci. 26 (3)
(2014) 258–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2014.03.009.
[3] Y. Kim, R. Dwivedi, J. Zhang, S.R. Jeong, Competitive intelligence in social media
Twitter: iPhone 6 vs. Galaxy S5, Online Inf. Rev. 40(1) (2016). 42–61. https://doi.
org/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0068.
[4] B. Liu, Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining, Synth. Lect. Human Lang. Technol.
5 (1) (2012) 1–167, https://doi.org/10.2200/S00416ED1V01Y201204HLT016.
Fig. C1. I-Kano matrix for 4-star hotels: results of SOL4, BIZ4, CPL4, FAM4, [5] Y.C. Chang, C.H. Ku, C.H. Chen, Social media analytics: Extracting and visualizing
and FRD4. Hilton hotel ratings and reviews from TripAdvisor, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 48 (2019)
263–279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.001.
[6] H. Jiang, C.K. Kwong, K.L. Yung, Predicting future importance of product features
based on online customer reviews, J. Mech. Des. 139 (11) (2017), 111413, https://
doi.org/10.1115/1.4037348.
[7] H. Jiang, C.K. Kwong, G.E. Okudan Kremer, W.-Y. Park, Dynamic modelling of
customer preferences for product design using DENFIS and opinion mining, Adv.
Eng. Inf. 42 (2019) 100969, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.100969.
[8] J. Jin, Y. Liu, P. Ji, C.K. Kwong, Review on rdecent advances in information mining
from big consumer opinion data for product design, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 19 (1)
(2019), 010801, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4041087.
[9] S. Xiao, C.P. Wei, M. Dong, Crowd intelligence: Analyzing online product reviews
for preference measurement, Inf. Manag. 53 (2) (2016) 169–182, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2015.09.010.
[10] M.C. Chiu, K.Z. Lin, Utilizing text mining and Kansei Engineering to support data-
driven design knowledge-based systems automation at conceptual design stage,
Adv. Eng. Inf. 38 (2018) 826–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.11.002.
[11] T. Kato, Functional value vs emotional value: A comparative study of the values
that contribute to a preference for a corporate brand, IJIM Data Insights. 1 (2)
(2021), 100024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100024.
[12] J.W. Bi, Y. Liu, Z.P. Fan, E. Cambria, Modelling customer satisfaction from online
reviews using ensemble neural network and effect-based Kano model, Int. J. Prod.
Res. 57 (22) (2019) 7068–7088, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2019.1574989.
[13] J. Jin, Y. Liu, P. Ji, H.G. Liu, Understanding big consumer opinion data for market-
driven product design, Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (10) (2016) 3019–3041, https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1154208.
[14] R. Rai, Identifying key product attributes and their importance levels from online
customer reviews, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design
Fig. C2. I-Kano matrix for 3-star hotels: results of SOL3, BIZ3, CPL3, FAM3,
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
and FRD3. Conference, 2012, pp. 533–540.
[15] H.J. Ban, H. Choi, E.K. Choi, S. Lee, H.S. Kim, Investigating key attributes in
experience and satisfaction of hotel customer using online review data,
Table C1 Sustainability 11 (23) (2019) 6570, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236570.
[16] F. Vencovsky, Service quality evaluation using text mining: A systematic literature
I-Kano analysis results for 4-star hotels. review, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Business
Q1(more Q2(higher Q3(less Q4(higher Informatics Research, 2020, pp. 159–173.
important) appearance) important) significance) [17] Y.T. Chong, C.-H. Chen, Management and forecast of dynamic customer needs: An
artificial immune and neural system approach, Adv. Eng. Inf. 24 (1) (2010)
SOL4 SS (O), RC (O) FC (I), LS (I) DF (M), BC (M) FA (M) 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2009.06.003.
BIZ4 SS (O), RC (O) FC (M), LS (I) BC (I), DF (M) FA (O) [18] J. Koch, R. Plattfaut, I. Kregel, Looking for Talent in Times of Crisis – The Impact of
CPL4 SS (O), RC (O) LS (I) FC (M), BC(M) DF (O), FA (O) the Covid-19 Pandemic on Public Sector Job Openings, Int. J. Mark. Res. 1 (2)
FAM4 SS (O), RC (O) LS (O), FC (O) DF (O), BC (M), – (2021), 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100014.
FA (O) [19] S. Verma, R. Sharma, S. Deb, D. Maitra, Artificial intelligence in marketing:
FRD4 SS (O), RC (O) LS (I) DF (M), BC (M) FA(O), FC (O) Systematic review and future research direction, Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights. 1
(1) (2021), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2020.100002.

18
S. Lee et al.
[20] S.M.C. Loureiro, J. Guerreiro, H. Han, Past, present, and future of pro-
environmental behavior in tourism and hospitality: a text-mining approach,
J. Sustain. Tour. (2021) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1875477.
[21] X. Li, R. Law, G. Xie, S. Wang, Review of tourism forecasting research with internet
data, Tour. Manag. 83 (2021) 104245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2020.104245.
[22] J. Choi, S. Park, S. Kim, G. Lee, M. Kwak, Key attributes of hotel service quality in
Korea : an analysis based on online review mining, J. Tour. Manag. Res. 22 (5)
(2018) 1069–1093, https://doi.org/10.18604/tmro.2018.22.5.49.
[23] B. Jeong, J. Yoon, J.M. Lee, Social media mining for product planning: A product
opportunity mining approach based on topic modeling and sentiment analysis, Int.
J. Inf. Manag. 48 (2019) 280–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2017.09.009.
[24] S.W. Kim, K. Lee, J.S. Sohn, S.W. Cha, Product development using online customer
reviews: A case study of the south Korean subcompact sport utility vehicles market,
Appl. Sci. 10 (19) (2020) 6918, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196918.
[25] S. Nam, H.C. Lee, A text analytics-based importance performance analysis and its
application to airline service, Sustainability 11 (21) (2019) 6153, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11216153.
[26] I. Yoo, J. Park, J. Mo, Online review mining: Identification of important features
and their satisfaction levels of mobile phones, J. Korean Inst. Ind. Eng. 43 (6)
(2017) 435–450, https://doi.org/10.7232/JKIIE.2017.43.6.435.
[27] H. Sun, W. Guo, H. Shao, B. Rong, Dynamical mining of ever-changing user
requirements: A product design and improvement perspective, Adv. Eng. Inf. 46
(2020), 101174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101174.
[28] J.W. Bi, Y. Liu, Z.P. Fan, J. Zhang, Wisdom of crowds: Conducting importance-
performance analysis (IPA) through online reviews, Tour. Manag. 70 (2019)
460–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.010.
[29] J. Joung, H.M. Kim, Approach for importance–performance analysis of product
attributes from online reviews, J. Mech. Des. 143 (8) (2021), 081705, https://doi.
org/10.1115/1.4049865.
[30] J. Mikulić, D. Prebežac, Accounting for dynamics in attribute-importance and for
competitor performance to enhance reliability of BPNN-based
importance–performance analysis, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (5) (2012) 5144–5153,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.026.
[31] N. Kano, N. Seraku, F. Takahashi, S. Tsuji, Attractive quality and must-be quality,
J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control. 14 (2) (1984) 147–156.
[32] E.O.C. Mkpojiogu, N.L. Hashim, Understanding the relationship between Kano
model’s customer satisfaction scores and self-stated requirements importance,
SpringerPlus 5 (1) (2016) 197, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1860-y.
[33] C.-H. Lee, C.-H. Chen, C. Lin, F. Li, X. Zhao, Developing a Quick Response Product
Configuration System under Industry 4.0 Based on Customer Requirement
Modelling and Optimization Method, Appl. Sci. 9 (23) (2019) 5004, https://doi.
org/10.3390/app9235004.
[34] D. Chen, D. Zhang, A. Liu, Intelligent Kano classification of product features based
on customer reviews, CIRP Ann. 68 (1) (2019) 149–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cirp.2019.04.046.
[35] J.Y. Qi, Z.P. Zhang, S.M. Jeon, Y.Q. Zhou, Mining customer requirements from
online reviews: A product improvement perspective, Inf. Manag. 53 (8) (2016)
951–963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.06.002.
[36] M. Kwak, J. Choi, S. Park, Sentiment analysis of online reviews for evaluating
customer satisfaction on hotel service attributes, J. Tour. Manag. Res. 23 (4) (2019)
1–25, https://doi.org/10.18604/tmro.2019.23.4.1.
[37] S. Park, M. Kwak, J. Choi, Comparing Competitive Advantages of Hotel Services
Using Opinion Mining of Online Customer Reviews: A Study Focusing on 5-Star
Hotels in Seoul, Korea, ICIC-ELB. 11 (2020) 743–749. https://doi.org/10.2450
7/icicelb.11.08.743.
[38] J. Wu, Y. Wang, R. Zhang, J. Cai, An approach to discovering product/service
improvement priorities: Using dynamic importance-performance analysis,
Sustainability 10 (10) (2018) 3564, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103564.
[39] A. Wang, Q. Zhang, S. Zhao, X. Lu, Z. Peng, A review-driven customer preference
measurement model for product improvement: sentiment-based
importance–performance analysis, Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 18 (1) (2020) 61–88,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-020-00463-7.
[40] H.Y. Li, Q. Ye, R. Law, Determinants of customer satisfaction in the hotel industry:
An application of online review analysis, Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 18 (7) (2013)
784–802, https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.708351.
[41] J. Yu, Z.J. Zha, M. Wang, T.S. Chua, Aspect ranking: Identifying important product
aspects from online consumer reviews, in: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting
19
Advanced Engineering Informatics 51 (2022) 101533
of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies,
2011, pp. 1496–1505.
[42] X. Liu, N. Zhang, Research on customer satisfaction of budget hotels based on
revised IPA and online reviews, Sci. J. Bus. Manag. 8 (2020) 50–56. https://doi.or
g/10.11648/j.sjbm.20200802.11.
[43] A.K. Kar, What Affects Usage Satisfaction in Mobile Payments? Modelling User
Generated Content to Develop the “Digital Service Usage Satisfaction Model”, Inf.
Syst. Front. 23 (5) (2021) 1341–1361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-
10045-0.
[44] A.K. Kar, S. Kumar, P.V. Ilavarasan, Modelling the Service Experience Encounters
Using User-Generated Content: A Text Mining Approach, Glob. J. Flex. Syst. 22 (4)
(2021) 267–288, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00279-5.
[45] A.K. Kar, Y.K. Dwivedi, Theory building with big data-driven research-Moving
away from the “What” towards the “Why”, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 54 (2020), 102205
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102205.
[46] A.M. Bigorra, O. Isaksson, M. Karlberg, Aspect-based Kano categorization, Int. J.
Inf. Manag. 46 (2019) 163–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.004.
[47] T. Hou, B. Yannou, Y. Leroy, E. Poirson, Mining changes in user expectation over
time from online reviews, J. Mech. Des. 141 (9) (2019), 091102, https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.4042793.
[48] S. Li, H. Lu, J. Kong, Z. Yu, R.u. Wang, Lean improvement of the stage shows in
theme park based on consumer preferences correlation deep mining, Multimed.
Tools Appl. 79 (33-34) (2020) 24487–24506, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-
020-09112-0.
[49] H. Song, C. Chen, Q. Yu, Research on Kano model based on online comment data
mining, in: In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Big
Data Analysis, 2018, pp. 76–82.
[50] A. Yadav, D.K. Vishwakarma, Sentiment analysis using deep learning architectures:
a review, Artif. Intell. Rev. 53 (6) (2020) 4335–4385, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10462-019-09794-5.
[51] J.A. Martilla, J.C. James, Importance-performance analysis, J. Mark. 41 (1) (1977)
77–79, https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495.
[52] C.S. Tucker, H.M. Kim, Trend Mining for Predictive Product Design, J. Mech. Des.
133 (11) (2011), 111008, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4004987.
[53] M.Z. Asghar, A. Khan, S. Ahmad, F.M. Kundi, A review of feature extraction in
sentiment analysis, J. Basic Appl. Res. Int. 4 (3) (2014) 181–186.
[54] B. Ma, D. Zhang, Z. Yan, T. Kim, An LDA and synonym lexicon based approach to
product feature extraction from online consumer product reviews, J. Electron.
Commer. Res. 14 (4) (2013) 304–314.
[55] W. Medhat, A. Hassan, H. Korashy, Sentiment analysis algorithms and applications:
A survey, Ain Shams Eng. J. 5 (4) (2014) 1093–1113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2014.04.011.
[56] T. Wang, Y. Cai, H.F. Leung, R.Y.K. Lau, Q. Li, H. Min, Product aspect extraction
supervised with online domain knowledge, Knowl.-Based Syst. 71 (2014) 86–100,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.05.018.
[57] M. Hu, B. Liu, Mining and summarizing customer reviews, in: Proceedings of the
tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data
Mining, 2004, pp. 168–177.
[58] M. Taboada, J. Brooke, M. Tofiloski, K. Voll, M. Stede, Lexicon-based methods for
sentiment analysis, Comput. Linguist. 37 (2) (2011) 267–307, https://doi.org/
10.1162/coli_a_00049.
[59] P. Cattin, D.R. Wittink, Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey, J. Mark. 46
(3) (1982) 44–53, https://doi.org/10.2307/1251701.
[60] P.E. Green, V. Srinivasan, Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and
outlook, J. Consum. Res. 5 (2) (1978) 103–123, https://doi.org/10.1086/208721.
[61] P.E. Green, V. Srinivasan, Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with
implications for research and practice, J. Mark. 54 (4) (1990) 3–19, https://doi.
org/10.2307/1251756.
[62] B.K. Orme, Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design
and Pricing Research, second ed., Research Publishers, 2010.
[63] C.R. Bilder, Analysis of Categorical Data with R, first ed., CRC Press, 2014.
[64] L. Eboli, G. Mazzulla, A new customer satisfaction index for evaluating transit
service quality, J. Public Transport. 12 (3) (2009) 21–37, https://doi.org/10.5038/
2375-0901.12.3.2.
[65] S. Sheater, A Modern Approach to Regression with R, Springer, New York, 2009.
[66] RHINO - Korean POS tagger, https://sourceforge.net/projects/koreananalyzer/.
[67] S. Bird, E. Klein, E. Loper, Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text
with the natural language toolkit, first ed., O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2009.
[68] KNU Korean sentiment word dictionary, http://dilab.kunsan.ac.kr/knusl.html.