USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES

Transcription

1 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES VINCENT TER MAAT (373340) UTRECHT UNIVERSITY METHOD ENGINEERING

2 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 2. INTRODUCTION A major aspect of launching a product or service is determining the expected customer satisfaction. Since even the customers themselves are not always aware of what their needs regarding a product or service are, it can also be one of the most difficult ones to track down. The Kano Model helps to define, categorize and prioritize the customer s needs. This creates the possibility to focus on the development of a product, based on the usages and features that are most likely to satisfy the majority of the customers. (Matt C. Primrose, 200). The Kano Model as proposed by Kano et al. (984) can be applied to a wide variety of products and services. Examples are: strategic thinking, business planning, and product development (Watson, 2003). The model describes five categories of quality attributes: attractive, one-dimensional, must-be, indifferent and reverse quality attributes (Yang, 2005). A questionnaire survey can be used to define the category of a feature of the product (Kano et al., 984). The expected satisfaction flow can be extracted from the diagram that is depicted in Figure. The procedure will be more thoroughly described in the example. FIGURE : KANO'S MODEL OF QUALITY ATTRIBUTES (YANG, 2005)

3 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 3 2. EXAMPLE In order to describe the procedure of categorization by KANO categories we will divide the process into four steps (partly adopted from Matzler et al., 996): The example refers to the PDD depicted in figure 5, located in the third part of this paper. References to the PDD can be recognized as being italic and between brackets.. Define what you believe that the possible needs and expectations of your customers regarding your product will be. 2. Construct a KANO questionnaire. 3. Evaluate the results of the questionnaire. 4. Prioritize the features of your product accordingly. The execution of these steps will be explained by using the development of a coffee machine as an example. STEP ONE: DEFINE THE POSSIBLE NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF YOUR CUSTOMERS The first step of the KANO categorization process is to put yourself in the shoes of your customer in order to come up with features that could benefit your product (Identify possible features). In this example we will consider the following features: () usage of fresh coffee beans instead of coffee pads, (2) remote-control, (3) pre-contained cups, (4) sensor-mechanism, compatible with all cup-sizes, which stops the coffee flow automatically when a cup is full, (5) heater, which keeps the coffee warm after it has been made, (6) direct connection to a water supply instead of a water-reservoir, (7) coffee making in a short amount of time, (8) automatic standby. STEP TWO: CONSTRUCT A KANO QUESTIONNAIRE In step one, the possible product features based on our own expectations of possible customer needs were specified. The next step is to construct a questionnaire in such a way that we can use the survey results to utilize the KANO model. More specifically: we want to be able to categorize the features based on the KANO attributes. The KANO questionnaire as originally proposed by Kano et al. (984) consists of two types of questions: functional and dysfunctional questions. The former ask the respondents how they would feel if a feature would be implemented, the latter are concerned with how the respondent would feel if the product would not include a certain feature. When conducting the survey, the respondent has the choice of five multiple-choice answers: (a) I like it that way, (b) It must be that way, (c) I am neutral, (d) I can live with it that way, (e) I dislike it that way. As an example, both types of questions will

4 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 4 be formulated for two product features that are specified in step one: (Construct questionnaire) () Functional: How would you feel if the coffee machine allowed the usage of fresh coffee beans? Dysfunctional: How would you feel if the coffee machine does not allow the usage of fresh coffee beans? (2) Functional: How would you feel if the coffee machine would include a remote control? Dysfunctional: How would you feel if the coffee machine would not include a remote control? In addition to the KANO questionnaire, prioritizing individual features based on the respondent s preference can be taken into consideration. According to Kurt Matzler et al. (996) this method can be helpful in the evaluation process when prioritizing the development of components assigned to the KANO category of attractive attributes. We have now constructed a questionnaire and are ready to conduct the survey. (Conduct survey) The next section discusses how to evaluate and interpreted the results. STEP THREE: EVALUATE THE RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE In order to interpret the results of our survey let us analyze the following table, which describes how the survey results can be categorized into KANO categories. The table is shown as Figure 2: FUNCTIONAL DYSFUNCTIONAL QUESTION QUESTION LIKE MUST-BE NEUTRAL LIVE WITH IT DISLIKE LIKE QUESTIONABLE ATTRACTIVE ATTRACTIVE ATTRACTIVE ONE-DIMENSIONAL MUST-BE REVERSE INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT MUST-BE NEUTRAL REVERSE INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT MUST-BE LIVE WITH IT REVERSE INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT MUST-BE DISLIKE REVERSE REVERSE REVERSE REVERSE QUESTIONABLE FIGURE 2: KANO EVALUATION TABLE (ERIN MACDONALD ET AL., 2006; HUEIJU YU & HSIEN-TANG KO, 202; KURT MATZLER ET AL., 996; BERGER ET AL., 993).

5 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 5 Imagine we got the following results out of our example survey (Figure 3). (Elaborate survey results) PRODUCT FEATURES PERCENTAGE OF REPLIES A O M I R Q TOTAL KANO CATEGORY () COFFEE BEANS ATTRACTIVE (2) REMOTE-CONTROL ATTRACTIVE (3) CUPS REVERSE (4) AUTO STOP MUST-BE (5) HEATER QUESTIONABLE (6) WATER SUPPLY INDIFFERENT (7) FAST ON-DIMENSIONAL (8) AUTO-STANDBY MUST-BE FIGURE 3: SURVEY RESULTS (LAYOUT PARTLY ADOPTED FROM KURT MATZLER, 996) Based on this data we can now determine the customer satisfaction coefficient. The customer satisfaction coefficient states whether satisfaction can be increased by meeting a product requirement, or whether fulfilling this product requirement merely prevents the customer from being dissatisfied (Berger et al., 993). This will be explained in the next section of the process. STEP FOUR: PRIORITIZE THE FEATU RES OF YOUR PRODUCT ACCORDINGLY. The last step this example covers is determining in which order the features should be prioritized (Prioritize features). When planning the development stage Berger et al. (993) and Kurt Matzler et al. (996) recommend to implement the features according to the following prioritization scale: Mustbe > One-dimensional > Attractive > Indifferent. However, in some cases it can be unclear to which category a specific feature should be assigned. Therefore, in addition to the evaluation rule, the requirements that cause the highest dissatisfaction if not met have to be implemented first (Matzler et al., 996) Kurt Matzler et al. (996) discusses two formulas to determine the extent of satisfaction and the extent of dissatisfaction. The formulas themselves are based on Berger et al. (993). Extent of satisfaction: Attractive ( A) OneDimensional( O) Attractive ( A) OneDimensional( O) MustBe ( M ) Inverse( I) Extent of dissatisfaction: OneDimensional( O) MustBe ( M ) Attractive ( A) OneDimensional( O) MustBe ( M ) Inverse( I)

6 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 6 PRODUCT FEATURES PERCENTAGE OF REPLIES A O M I TOTAL KANO CATEGORY SATISF. DISSATISF. () COFFEE BEANS ATTRACTIVE (2) REMOTE-CONTROL ATTRACTIVE (3) CUPS REVERSE (4) AUTO STOP MUST-BE (5) HEATER QUESTIONABLE (6) WATER SUPPLY INDIFFERENT (7) FAST ON-DIMENSIONAL (8) AUTO-STANDBY MUST-BE FIGURE 4: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION COEFFICIENT If we examine the results in Figure 4, we find that the Auto stop feature gives a satisfaction of only 0.40 when implemented, while the absence of this feature gives a dissatisfaction of It is therefore important to implement this feature to prevent the relatively-high expected dissatisfaction caused by the lack of presence. (Matzler et al., 996)

7 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 7 3. PROCES DELIVERABLE DIAGRAM Identify possible features Conduct brainstorm sessions RESEARCH RESULT Perform market research Define feature [else] [no more features?] defines 0..*..* FEATURE..* FEATURE LIST Classify features Formulate functional question [else] Construct questionnaire Conduct survey Formulate dysfunctional question [no more features?] Elaborate survey results FUNCTIONAL Q. DYSFUNCTIONAL Q. FEATURE QUESTION..* QUESTIONNAIRE..* SURVEY ANSWER FORMS C..*..* results in is input for refers to SURVEY RESULT is elaborated in FEATURE CLASSIFICATION TABLE - Answer percentage per feature per KANOcategory is part of Plan development Prioritize features is used in FEATURE SATISFACTION TABLE - Satisfaction coefficient - Dyssatisfaction coefficient Create development planning DEVELOPMENT PLANNING..* is input for FIGURE 5: PROCESS DELIVERABLE DIAGRAM

8 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 8 3. ACTIVITIES TABLE ACTIVITY SUB-ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Identify possible features Conduct brainstorm sessions Brainstorm sessions are conducted to identify possible product features. The results are added to the RESEARCH RESULTS. (Matzler et al., 996) Perform market research Define feature A market research is performed to get more possible features from customers. The results are added to the RESEARCH RESULTS. (Matzler et al., 996) The RESEARCH RESULT is examined and used to define a possible FEATURE. The feature is added to the FEATURE LIST. The process is repeated until all relevant features are extracted from the RESEARCH RESULT. (Matzler et al., 996) Classification of features Formulate functional question FUNCTIONAL QUESTION is formulated for each FEATURE. (Kano et al., 984) Formulate dysfunctional question Construct questionnaire Conduct survey Elaborate survey results DYSFUNCTIONAL QUESTION is formulated for each FEATURE. (Kano et al., 984) The questions are combined into a QUESTIONNAIRE. (Kano et al., 984) The QUESTIONNAIRE is used to conduct a survey. This results in multiple filled in SURVEY ANSWER FORMS. These are combined into the SURVEY RESULTS. SURVEY RESULTS are examined and elaborated into a FEATURE CLASSIFICATION TABLE. (Berger et al., 993) Plan development Prioritize features Based on the FEATURE CLASSIFICATION TABLE, the features are prioritized by calculating the satisfaction and dissatisfaction coefficient. The results are combined into a FEATURE SATISFACTION TABLE. (Matzler et al., 996) Create development planning A development planning is created. This results in a DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.

9 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES CONCEPTS TABLE CONCEPT RESEARCH RESULTS FEATURE FEATURE LIST FUNCTIONAL QUESTION DYSFUNCTIONAL QUESTION FEATURE QUESTION QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ANSWER FORMS SURVEY RESULTS FEATURE CLASSIFICATION TABLE FEATURE SATISFACTION TABLE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DESCRIPTION The RESEARCH RESULTS contain information that can be used to identify possible features. A FEATURE is a functional description of a functionality that can be added to the product. The FEATURE LIST consists of all features. A FUNCTIONAL QUESTION is a question about a feature that asks the respondent how he would feel if the feature would be included in the product. (Chen & Lee, 2009) A DYSFUNCTIONAL QUESTION is a question about a feature that asks the respondent how he would feel if the feature would not be included in the product. (Chen & Lee, 2009) A question concerning a certain feature, this can be either a functional or a dysfunctional question. Both questions have to be formulated to be used in the SURVEY RESULTS. (Kano et al., 984) The collection of all FEATURE QUESTIONS with multiple-choice answers: Like, Must-be, Neutral, Live with it, Dislike. (Kano et al., 984) The QUESTIONNAIRE filled in by the respondent. The results of the survey combined from all survey answer forms. The results will be elaborated in the FEATURE CLASSIFICATION TABLE. The SURVEY RESULTS are elaborated in a two dimensional table: features and KANO-categories. With the percentage of answers per category per feature. (Berger et al., 993) The FEATURE SATISFACTION table contains the satisfaction coefficient and dissatisfaction coefficient per feature. (Matzler et al., 996) The planning for development.

10 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 0 4. RELATED LITERATURE The articles for this literature review where found in the UU library, Google Scholar and Wageningen UR library. In Kano et al. (984) the KANO model referred to as theory of attractive quality is proposed. The paper consists of two parts: the first proposes that developers classify the features of a product in KANO attributes; the second describes how to conduct a survey to classify these features (MacDonald, 2006). Many people perceive the Kano model as very interesting since it gives a better understanding of the customer needs (Berger et al., 993). The publication Berger et al. (993) consists of eleven parts and describes some ways to improve the utilization of the KANO model in practice. Since its introduction, the KANO model has been widely accepted and applied (Chen & Lee, 2009; Yu & Ko, 202). In 2006, Erin MacDonald and his colleagues wrote a paper that assessed the imperfections and implications of the KANO model (MacDonald et al., 2006). The first part of this paper thoroughly describes the categorization of the KANO attributes by the Kano classification system, as described in Kano et al. (984), with and without the use of a self-report approach. The second part reveals some shortcomings of the usage of these systems and proposes a new categorization scheme and a survey with Likert-scale ranking questions. In 2008, Lofgren and his colleagues wrote a literature review (Lofgren, 2008), conducted on 33 papers. However, the paper does not include the previously mentioned publication of MacDonald et al. (2006). Since the introduction of the KANO model a number of case studies have been written on the application of the model in a wide variety of products and services.

11 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES REF ERENC ES Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., & Walden, D. (993), Kano s methods for understanding customer defined quality, The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control. Fall, Chen, Y.K., & Lee, Y.C. (2009). A new method to identify the category of the quality attribute. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 20(0), Kano, N., Nobuhiko S., Fumio T., & Shinichi T. (984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 4(2), Lofgren, M., & Witell L. (2008). Two decades of using Kano's theory of attractive quality: a literature review. Qual Manage, 5(), MacDonald, E., Backsell, M., Gonzalez, R., & Papalambros, P. (2006). The Kano Method's Imperfections, and Implications in Product Decision Theory, International Design Research Symposium, Seoul, Korea. Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H. H., Bailom, F., & Sauerwein, E. (996). How to delight your customers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 5, 6 8. Primrose, M.C. (200). User Experience Grading via Kano Categories. Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 200 8th IEEE International, 8, Watson, G.H. (2003). Customer focus and competitiveness. in Stephens, K.S. Six Sigma and Related Studies in the Quality Disciplines. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press. Yang, C.C. (2005). The refined Kano s model and its application. Total Quality Management, 6(0), Yu, H., & Ko, H. T. (202) Integrating Kano model with strategic experiential modules in developing ICT-enabled services. Management Decision, 50(), 7-20.

12 USER EXPERIENCE GRADING IN KANO CATEGORIES 2 APPENDIX A: TEMPLATES FUNCTIONAL QUESTION DYSFUNCTIONAL QUESTION LIKE MUST-BE NEUTRAL LIVE WITH IT DISLIKE LIKE QUESTIONABLE ATTRACTIVE ATTRACTIVE ATTRACTIVE ONE-DIMENSIONAL MUST-BE REVERSE INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT MUST-BE NEUTRAL REVERSE INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT MUST-BE LIVE WITH IT REVERSE INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT MUST-BE DISLIKE REVERSE REVERSE REVERSE REVERSE QUESTIONABLE REFERENCE TABLE: KANO CATEGORIES PRODUCT FEATURES PERCENTAGE OF REPLIES A O M I R Q TOTAL KANO CATEGORY () 00 (2) 00 (3) 00 (4) 00 (5) 00 (6) 00 (7) 00 (8) 00 TEMPLATE A: SURVEY RESULTS PRODUCT FEATURES PERCENTAGE OF REPLIES A O M I TOTAL KANO CATEGORY SATISF. DISSATISF. () 00 (2) 00 (3) 00 (4) 00 (5) 00 (6) 00 (7) 00 (8) 00 TEMPLATE B: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION COEFFICIENT