Kansei Engineering International Vol.5 No.4 pp.

11-19 (2006)

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

DEVELOPING THE SPACE OF PRODUCT PROPERTIES

SUPPORTING KANSEI ENGINEERING PROCEDURE

Simon SCHUTTE

Quality and Human-Systems Engineering,

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Linkoping University, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden

Abstract: Applications of Kansei Engineering method can be found in many different companies , countries and cultures. Although
new applications are increasingly being discovered, the relation of their core activities to Kansei Engineering can be readily
identified. In this paper, a basic procedure is proposed which visualizes the way semantic descriptions are linked to product
properties. From this model, a number of improvements can be derived, such as the need for a proper definition of the relative
importance of product properties and the proximity of interaction. The aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual model for
spanning the space of product properties, and to describe its testing in an application study . The space of product properties was
spanned in three different steps. The first step was to collect potential properties from existing products
, new product concepts and
company image variables, followed by the second and third steps, selection and compilation . The application study, conducted on
laminate flooring, revealed that laminate floors could be semantically described by four factors: reliable and practical
, modern d
esign, classic style, and finally nice and solid. From a physical perspective , eight different properties were chosen for evaluation
according to the proposed model. It could be seen that the four previously mentioned factors were related to the properties .
Moreover, it became clear that the two groups rating their impressions , craftsmen and architects, had different opinions. From this
study, it was concluded that the proposed procedure and conceptual model for the space of product properties was useful when
performing applications.
Keywords: Semantic Space, Proposed Model, Pergo, Laminate Flooring

I. KANSEI ENGINEERING have been added, however, and different "schools" of

The basis for today's Kansei Engineering method is engineering can be distinguished. Not surprisingly, the
not new; as early as the 1940s, American psychologist country that has most successfully deployed the
Charles E. Osgood developed a method which he called methodology of Kansei Engineering to date is Japan.
"semantic differential method" (SD scales). His intention
was to measure underlying and often unconscious
2. AIM
meanings of semantic expressions, and link them to
The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it proposes a
physical concepts [1]. In the early 1970s, the Japanese conceptual model for spanning the space of product
psychologist and forerunner of Kansei Engineering,
properties. The new model should facilitate
Mitsuo Nagamachi, developed an affective product innovativeness in Kansei Engineering . Moreover, it
development method that formed the basis for SD scales. should allow for the selection of properties according to
He initially called it Emotional Engineering. their importance, their degree of proximity and the
In the 1980s, an increasing number of researchers, company's image.
mainly Japanese, began to explore this field, and several Secondly, it describes the application in and testing
important books were published [2]. One of the first to of the proposed model in an application study.
extend the ideas of effective product development and
introduce the expression "Kansei" was Ogawa in 1983
3. IDENTIFICATION OF CORE ACTIVITIES IN
[3]. KANSEI ENGINEERING
Internationally, the expression was introduced by
In theory, Kansei Engineering contains three
Ken'ichi Yamamoto, former president of Mazda Motor distinctive steps. First, verbal expressions and physical
Co. at the International Automobile Technology
products describing the product domain are collected
Conference in 1986 [2]. from different sources. Second, users rate the Kansei
Today, the application of Kansei Engineering is words on SD scales. In the third step, a mathematical
common throughout the world. Tools from other areas

Received April 6, 2005

Accepted October 11, 2005
11
 Kansei Engineering International 020

model is built which links the words to concrete In conducting SSI, several methods can be used.
properties. Manual methods include the Affinity Diagram [7],
designer's choice and interview techniques, while
statistical method examples are Principle Component
Analysis, Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis (see [5,
8]). In addition, quantification theory types II, III, and IV
Figure 1: The basic principle of Kansei Engineering [4] can be used a recent method uses Thurstone's paired
comparisons to accomplish this task [9].
Despite this relatively simple procedure, Kansei Another alternative, using computer logics, is Neural
Engineering currently exists in eight different varieties, Networks [ 10, 1I]. As previously mentioned, mapping
often strongly specialized for certain product types. Thus, the state of the mind is not a new concept. In this area,
the area of Kansei Engineering may at a first glance Osgood's Semantic Differential Method [1] is frequently
appear to be rather complex, scattered and highly used.
dependent on individual research context. However, 3.2. Physical Structure Identification (PSI)
similarities in the different Kansei Engineering types, In parallel with the SSI, the physical structure of the
procedures and the tools used for evaluation can be seen. chosen product domain is mapped. The evaluated
Research on Kansei Engineering requires a structure in product type is examined according to its properties, and
order to facilitate the understanding of the method as a the most important properties are selected for further
whole, and to incorporate new tools into Kansei examination of their impact on the user's emotional state.
Engineering. As a first step, the main activities common Unfortunately, few methods for semantic structure
to all Kansei Engineering applications are identified. identification are found in English literature. Often,
These are: company product designer decide the importance of the
product properties. This method might work, but by not
■ Semantic Structure Identification (SSI) involving customers there is a considerable risk of
● Physical Structure Identification (PSI) missing important traits.
● Relationship Identification (RI)

Figure 2: Main activities in Kansei Engineering

3.1. Semantic Structure Identification (SSI)
Many Kansei applications start with the mapping of
the individual's state of mind - the so called "Kansei"
(see [2, 5, 6]). It is often measured using semantic
descriptions which are conditioned for better
understanding and easier access for further evaluation.
The aim of this mapping, called "semantic structure
identification", is to appraise the semantic descriptions
of the product, rank them according to their relevance
and affinity, and collect only those expressions which
are mostly related to the product and the examined
context.
Schutte [5] uses a Pareto diagram [7] for this task. He
also integrates new design concepts in order to enable
Kansei Engineering to create innovative solutions.
Mapping the physical structure of the products in
question supports the finding of new solutions and
increases the objective appraisal of competing products
or design concepts.
3.3. Relationship Identification (RI)
Finally, each semantic description is linked to one of
several product properties. This can be done using
mathematical or non-mathematical tools. Regardless the
tool, the links are quantified and give a certain answer
concerning how, and in which way, the Kansei or state

12
 DEVELOPING THE SPACE OF PRODUCT PROPERTIES SUPPORTING KANSEI ENGINEERING PROCEDURE

of mind is affected by a certain product property. This

activity can be thought of as the core of Kansei
Engineering, and makes it unique in comparison to other
affective product design tools.
Different methods can be used for linking the
Semantic Space to the Space of Product Properties.
Whereas the linking methods were mostly manual in the
early days of Kansei Engineering (i.e. category
identification Kansei Engineering Type I) [12], they
were later replaced by rather complex mathematical
tools such as Regression Analysis [13], General Linear
Model [14] and Quantification Theory Type I [15].
Alternative methods used are from the area of
ergonomics, and quantify the user's Kansei [16]. Other
tools are based on rankings or ratings, such as Generic
Algorithm [ 17], Fuzzy Sets Theory [ 18, 19] and Rough
Set Theory [20].
In product development, this type of information has
crucial importance. It assembles both the semantic
descriptions and product properties and assigns them to
Figure 3: A proposed model for Kansei Engineering [5]
certain user groups. Moreover, not only are the
customer's objective demands grasped, but also a part of
The aims for proposing this model were to give an
the unconscious affective needs are included. Using this
overview of the different existing approaches, and to
data, the product designer can make an estimate of how
find a way to identify common parts . A side effect was
certain customer groups may experience new concepts
that it became considerably easier to explain the
and optimize them according to the intended affective
technology to novices and to find potentially new tools .
value.
It also became evident, however, which areas of Kansei
4. KANSEI ENGINEERING PROCEDURE Engineering required additional research. Schutte also
The previous sections have provided an overview of realized that some activities performed in Kansei
the theoretical basics of Kansei Engineering. It is Engineering are only partly, or not at all documented in
obvious, however, that more steps are required to the English literature [21].
execute real product development based on Kansei 4.1. Core Activities in Kansei Engineering Procedure
In comparing figure 2, which depicts the main
Engineering. Schutte [5] proposed a general model activities in Kansei Engineering, with the Kansei
embracing all known types of Kansei Engineering, and Engineering procedure presented in
which has a primary focus on the procedures used in Figure 3, the position of semantic structure
identification, physical structure identification and
previous Kansei Engineering studies. relationship identification can be identified in the
According to this model, a product domain is procedural scheme.
described from two different angles, resulting in a The Semantic Structure Identification is almost
semantic description (Semantic Space) and a physical congruent with the "spanning of the Semantic Space", an
description (Space of Product Properties). These two expression introduced by Osgood and Suci [22] . The
descriptions span a vector space each. Subsequently, only difference is that there are more tools available than
these spaces are merged with each other, indicating suggested by Osgood, who exclusively used factor
which of the product properties evokes which semantic analysis.
impact. Validity tests are then conducted, and following The physical structure identification can be
this a model is built describing the association between adequately carried out in parallel. The results from both
the Semantic Space and the Space of Product Properties. activities are then bonded in the following relationship

13

identification which can be settled in the synthesis phase.
Here, the physical properties are connected to the
semantic descriptions.
4.2 Developing Opportunities in Kansei Engineering
From the literature review above, it can be seen that
the Kansei Engineering technique is well developed and
applicable for many product types. A sufficiently
detailed description of how to conduct a Kansei
Engineering study, however, has yet to be presented in
the English literature. Many secondary actions have been
conducted, which doubtless are crucial, but few
references or theoretical backgrounds can be found.
The definition of the domain is one of these.
According to Nagamachi, the expression "domain" in a
Kansei Engineering context addresses the product group
[12]. Schutte's observations support the thesis that
defining the domain also includes activities such as
defining the target group, market segment and product
type [21]. This domain definition is the basis for the
semantic structure identification, where the Kansei is
broken down and analyzed. Finally, the most important
higher level Kansei words are selected for further
evaluation (see [22]).
Whereas there is a well-founded theory for the
semantic description, there is no consistent way of
developing the Space of Product Properties. In most
studies reviewed for this paper, the product properties
used for evaluation were either chosen randomly or
provided by the client company. Often, the properties are
chosen due to the feasibly of producing product
examples for presentation in the study. How can it be
ensured then that the properties chosen are really
relevant to the user/ customer in the examined context?
What happens if a trait chosen for selection is not
very important for the user? Intake, for example, a study
where the participants are asked to make a statement
concerning their impression of a car's quality. Here , the
finish of the coated surfaces is of high importance. If
such a property is not chosen for evaluation, the final
result will not be valid. Worse, it will not be possible to
determine that there is a property missing. Consequently,
it is necessary to rate the importance of the different
product properties and make this a criterion for the
selection.
Moreover, the way product properties are
experienced shifts. There are many examples of how the
perception of product traits varies over time and the
14
Kansei Engineering International 020
degree of interaction with the product. Eklund and
Kiviloog [23] call this the "Proximity of Interaction".
Whereas the importance of properties drops in some
cases, other properties which initially were considered to
be less important become more central. Short-cut
functions in computer software or additional
adjustability in office chairs are such examples.
Consequently, this phenomenon must also be taken into
account when performing a physical structure analysis of
the domain.
Finally,products are chosen representing the product
properties previously selected. The presentation of the
products to the participants of the study can be done in
different ways. One way is to let the participants interact
physically with the products. However, if the products
are too expensive, too big or if no mock-up of a new
product concept is available, participants usually rate
parts of the product or, or alternatively product
illustrations or photographs. Doing so narrows the
affective bandwidth [24], i.e. the participants do not get
the "full" impression (Kansei) since not all senses are
involved. Smell and tactile feeling may have a strong
impact on the total affective picture. Again, if smell has
a high importance, then the participants in the study must
be enabled to sense this property. The author calls this
the "Proximity of Presentation".
Another subject of discussion is the question of
whether Kansei Engineering supports innovation. In fact,
Kansei Engineering studies assume that the respondents
are familiar with the products they rank. This often
means that only existing products are rated, and no new
features can be integrated. In some cases, illustrations or
mock-ups are presented to the participants . This
approach is better, but still the proximity of interaction is
low, with an unpredictable effect on the results .
Companies often launch their products in product
series or families. Doing so explains much of the
purpose of a product, and also makes it easer for the user
to choose and combine it with other products . A side
effect is that such marketing strategy helps to present the
company image by uniform design, improved interaction
between the products etc. Examples here are HiFi-
applications. Consequently, a new product must be
designed to fit in this line and reflect the company's
image.
 DEVELOPING THE SPACE OF PRODUCT PROPERTIES SUPPORTING KANSEI ENGINEERING PROCEDURE

5. PROPOSED MODEL FOR IDENTIFYING usually found in literature, technical datasheets,

RELEVANT PRODUCT PROPERTIES magazines etc. For identification of suitable product
The systematic collection of Kansei Engineering
properties, collection in the form of a list is suitable. The
Properties - i.e. properties usable for a Kansei determination of importance and selection of properties
Engineering examination - follows the model of the with the highest importance and affective value is
collection and selection of Kansei Engineering words .
preferably done by customer representatives. For
This can be roughly subdivided into three steps , as facilitating the work of gathering raw data , tools such as
shown in Figure 4 (see [5]). In the first collection step , focus groups or one-to-one interviews can be used . For
inspirational material regarding a product domain is determining the importance, pareto diagrams [7] can be
collected from a variety of sources , and potential useful.
properties are identified. In the second step, they are In almost all Kansei Engineering studies carried out
sorted according to certain rules . The number of in industrial product development projects , a central
properties is narrowed by selecting most important specification is a good fit with the company's image. For
properties. Properties passing on to the following step this reason, companies tend to integrate characteristic
possess only the highest affective impact for further features in their products . Based on the companies'
evaluation. existing products, product properties are identified which
Finally, example products possessing the desired are unique for each company. Together with company
properties are chosen, and in this way represent the marketing experts, the relative importance of these
Space of Product Properties . Depending on the method
properties are determined. Usually, the number of image
used for relationship identification , the set of products
properties is so small that no special tool needs to be
selected can vary. deployed.
Typically, existing products provide a wide variety of The central column in Figure 4, however, is the
potential properties, which can be integrated into a new integration of new product concepts . Kansei Engineering
product. Getting inspiration from already existing has often been criticized for lacking not promoting
products is also one of the most common ways of innovation. This column illustrates how creative thinking
identifying relevant properties. Sources for collection are and new ideas can be integrated into Kansei Engineering

Figure 4: A proposed model on identifying relevant product properties.

15
 Kansei Engineering International 020

as a method. As a main source, the designer's mind is considered to be the most important regarding the total
used. A designer can make a sketch, a mock-up or a impression. Kansei Engineering was chosen as the prime

prototype of the complete product or parts of it. By method [25].

doing so, he or she can create ideas for new properties, In conformance with Figure 3, the domain was
which in turn are appraised and possibly selected by an determined and semantic descriptions were collected and
expert group. treated according to the rules spanning the Semantic
However, Figure 4 also shows that these processes do Space [ 1].
not necessarily evolve separately and in isolation. On the Moreover, physical properties of laminate and
contrary, they influence each other as indicated by the wooden flooring were collected from different sources.
arrow signs in Figure 4. The designer might get By doing so, the proposed model presented in Figure 4
inspiration from both existing products and company was applied.
image, which he or she in turn develops into a new In the first step, a large variety of laminate flooring
solution. This might influence the company's decision examples available on the Swedish market were
concerning which product properties to select as image- collected and categorized. Differences were determined,
relevant. In addition, new trends identified by the and a focus group consisting of lead customers rated the
designers may influence the choice of product properties properties according to their importance. This source
from existing products. accounted for most of the properties identified.
Finally, all selected properties are brought together in In parallel, a group at Pergo consisting of company
one set of product properties from which representing marketing specialists collected attributes relating to

products are determined or mocked up to he used in a Pergo's product image, rated them and finally selected
following synthesis step. the most important for further evaluation.
Designers and artists at Pergo used the previously
6. AN APPLICATION OF KANSEI ENGINEERING mentioned sources as an inspiration for new product
The Pergo Group has its headquarters in Sweden. samples. For this study, both the data from existing
Pergo's business idea is to develop, produce and market products and the company image attributes were used.
laminate flooring. Its main outlet markets are Moreover, attributes from other product groups were
Scandinavia, Western Europe and the USA. included in new product solutions. An expert group
One of the most serious competing products for selected only one innovative attribute for further
laminate flooring is wooden flooring, which is evaluation. The group consisted of designers and
commonly considered to be more "natural" than company marketing specialists.
laminate flooring. Laminate flooring, on the other hand, In accordance with Figure 4, the selected product
is more durable, has a better finish, and many more samples were grouped and evaluated in order to
varieties of surfaces and individual patterns can be determine their degree of importance in the users' minds.
realized_ An experimental design matrix was constructed, and
product samples representing the product properties were
found. Despite the intention to find product samples
among already existing products, some prototypes had to
be manufactured. Nine different samples were extracted,
which were presented in parts of 400mm X 170mm. This
implies that the proximity of interaction was limited to
viewing and touching a product sample.
With these data, an analysis using Quantification
Figure 5: Example of laminate flooring Theory Type I (QT1) [15] was conducted, linking
together the Semantic Space and the Space of Product
The aim of the study was to determine how users Properties. Questionnaire respondents were lead users,
experience laminate flooring and which properties are i.e. architects and professional floor craftsmen.

16
 DEVELOPING THE SPACE OF PRODUCT PROPERTIES SUPPORTING KANSEI ENGINEERING PROCEDURE

In total, 16 Kansei words were selected which could these attributes will make Pergo's flooring distinctive
be grouped into four main factors representing laminate and act as a unique selling point.-
flooring. Table 1 presents these results. Joining together the Semantic Space represented by the
In total, 16 Kanse words were selected which could be Kansei words and the Space of Properties represented by
grouped into four main factors representing laminate product attributes in Table 2 revealed the relative
flooring. importance of the properties. Table 3 presents the
Table 2 presents the product properties selected for properties according to their affinities to a certain factor
evaluation with QT1. Most properties were gathered and in order of their relative importance. It could be seen
from existing products, and only three represented new that the two groups of respondents disagreed regarding
concepts and Pergo's image. However, it is expected that factors 1 and 2, but had similar opinions for factors 3 and
4.

Table 1: Kansei words extracted and grouped after factor analysis

Table 2: Product properties selected; presented according to source

Table 3: Connecting factors to product properties (QT1 result)

It was concluded that architects apparently prefer properties which related more strongly to mechanical
natural flooring, but appreciate the availability of attributes rather then visual appearance.
varying properties such as tone, structure and pattern Moreover, it can be assumed that craftsmen are very
type according to their individual preferences. aware of the specialties of a Pergo floor since they are
Craftsmen, on the other hand, set most value on concerned with those properties, which relates to the
Pergo company image. Architects , on the other hand,

17

are not aware of these differences and probably cannot
easily recognize a Pergo floor.
The tone, which was introduced as a property from a
new concept, was only recognized by architects as an
important feature. This is probably due to their more
extensive background regarding trends and competing
products.
7. DISCUSSION
The outcome from Chapter 2 finally led to the
construction of a proposed model for Kansei
Engineering procedure (Figure 3). This figure, in turn,
assumes the existence of the Space of Product
Properties as a counter weight to the Semantic Space,
although the Space of Product Properties is seldom
mentioned in English literature. Many methods within
the area of affective Engineering deal with structuring
the state of mind (Kansei). What makes Kansei
Engineering unique is its ability to definitively connect
semantic descriptions to product attributes. Since the
Kansei is structured and sorted according to its
importance in the customers' minds there must be a
proper description of the properties as well. Today, the
choice of product attributes to be evaluated is
determined by the client company or the research team.
However, the decision is often based on uncertain facts,
and in some cases on intuition. Hence, the author of this
paper decided to give a suggestion of how this could be
carried out in a systematic way.
The task when constructing the Space of Product
Properties is to describe the product domain as
completely as possible. Similarly as in the construction
of the Semantic Space, the total number of possible
physical properties is often too big to be dealt with in
the evaluation. In this case, the number must be reduced.
This, however, leads to an undocumented loss of
information. The ambition must be to reduce the
number of properties, and at the same time minimize the
loss of information. In Figure 4, this is achieved by
collecting raw data from different sources and
evaluating additional information such as the proximity
of interaction and the relative user importance, thereby
making it possible to eliminate less important properties
and retain information.
In the study at Pergo, both the proposed Kansei
Engineering procedure and the Space of Product
Properties were successfully constructed and led to
18
Kansei Engineering International 020
good results, as shown above. Potential product traits
were collected from three different directions, and many
different sources. However, the experimenter decided to
carry out the selection not as diversified as suggested in
the model. This must be allowed, since the product is
rather simple. Generally, it must be said that with
separate processes, carrying out the estimation of
importance individually increases the credibility and
validity of the method.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The model presented in this paper is based on
previous studies involving Kansei Engineering.
Moreover, it supports innovative concept solution by
actively searching for new yet still to be utilized product
attributes. Another parallel process integrates the
company image into the new product. In addition, the
selection of properties is facilitated by taking care of the
relative importance of the item for the user's mind and
the degree of proximity. This is mainly accomplished by
involving experts and users early in the selection
process.
The study of laminate flooring at Pergo AB reveals
the usability of the theoretical model in practise. All
three parallel processes (gathering data from existing
products, new concept solutions and company image
variables) were carried out without failure. The
selection process was carried out centrally, and the most
important properties were identified. Finally, a new
product concept was created.
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professors Jorgen Eklund and
Mitsuo Nagamachi, who as supervisors discussed the
topic with me many times and thus contributed to this
paper. Moreover, I want to thank Pergo AB, and
specifically Anna Lindberg, for her work and
contributions to the laminate floor study.
Finally, thanks to BT Industries AB for supporting
my research both financially and intellectually.
REFERENCES
1. C.E. Osgood, G.J. Suci, and P.H. Tannenbaum;
The Measurement of Meaning; University of
Illinois Press, Illinois, (1957).
2. S.. Nagasawa; Kansei and Business, Kansei
Engineering International- International
 DEVELOPING THE SPACE OF PRODUCT PROPERTIES SUPPORTING
Journal of Kansei Engineering. 3 (3), 2-12
(2002).
3. A. Ogawa; Kansei Revolution; TBS Brittanica,
Tokyo, (1983).
4. M. Nagamachi; Kansei Engineering: A new
ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for
product development, International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics. 15 3-11 (1995).
5. S.T.W. Schutte, Designing Feeling into
Products-Integrating Kansei Engineering
Methodology in Product Development,
Linkoping, (2002).
6. JSKE, www jske. org, (2004).
7. B. Bergman and B. Klefsjo; Quality;
Studentlitteratur, Lund, (1994).
8. J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and
W.C. Black; Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings; Prentice-Hall, London, (1995).
9. T. Kanda; Classification of Menues on Home
Dining Tables Based upon Human Meal
Kansei, Kansei Engineering International-
International Journal of Kansei Engineering. 3
(4), 9-14 (2002).
10. H. Kosaka and K. Watnabe; A Kansei Product
Design System Unsing Neural Network,
Kansei Engineering International-International
Journal of Kansei Engineering. 3 (4), 31-36
(2002).
11. S. Ishihara, K. Ishihara, M. Nagamachi , and Y.
Matsubara; Neural network approach for
Kansei analysis on milk carton design. In: O.
Brown Jr. and H.W. Hendrick (Ed .) Human
Factors in Organizational Design and
Management - V, Elsevier Science B.V.,
Breckenridge, USA, 7-12, (1996).
12. M. Nagamachi; Kansei Engineering: The
Framework and Methods. In; M. Nagamachi
(Ed.) Kansei Engineering 1; Kaibundo
Publishing co.,LTD, Kure, 1-9 (1997).
13. S. Ishihara, Kansei Engineering Procedure and
Statistical Analysis, Singapore, (2001).
14. K. Arnold, Towards increased Customer
Satisfaction, Linkoping, (2002).
15. T. Komazawa and C. Hayashi;A Statistical
Method for Quantification of Categorical Data
and its Applications to Medical Science. In;
KANSEI ENGINEERING PROCEDURE
F.T. de Dombal and F. Gremy (Ed.) North-
Holland Publishing Company, (1976).
16. Y. Matsuoka; Quantitative Design Methods for
Kansei in Automobile Development, Kansei
Engineering International-International
Journal of Kansei Engineering. 1 (4), 39-46
(2000).
17. T. Nishino, M. Nagamachi, K . Ishihara, S.
Ishihara, M. Ichitsubo, and K. Komatsu;
Internet Kansei Engineering System with Basic
Kansei Database and Genetic Algorithm. In: J.
Axelsson, B. Bergman, and J. Eklund (Ed.)
TQM and Human Factors, Centre for Studies
of Humans, Technology and Organization,
Linkoping, Sweden, 367-372, (1999).
18. Y. Shimizu and T. Jindo; A fuzzy logic
analysis method for evaluating human
sensitivities, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics. 15 39-47 (1995).
19. S. Nagasawa;Kansei evaluation using fuzzy
stuctural modeling. In; M. Nagamachi (Ed.)
Kansei Engineering 1; Kaibundo Publishing
co.,LTD, Kure, 119-125 (1997).
20. N. Mori; Rough Set Approach to product
Desing Solution for the Purposed "Kansei",
The Science of Design Bulletin of the Japanese
Society of Kansei Engineering. 48 (9), (2002) .
21. S. Schutte and J. Eklund; Concepts, methods
and Tools in Kansei Engineering, Theoretical
Issues in Ergnomic Science. 5 214-232 (2004) .
22. C.E. Osgood and G.J. Suci;Factor Analysis of
Meaning. In; C.E. Osgood and J.G. Snider
(Ed.) Semantic differential technique - a source
book; Aldine publishing company, Chicago,
42-55 (1969).
23. J. Eklund and L. Kiviloog; Kansei ratings and
time dependencies. In: (Ed.) Proceedings of the
XVth Triennal Congress of the International
Ergonomics Association, Seoul, Korea, (2003) .
24. R. Picard; Affective Computing;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (1997) .
25 A. Lindberg, First Impressions Last-A Kansei
Engineering Study on Laminate Flooring at
Pergo, Master Thesis, Linkoping University,
Linkoping (2004)
19