🚀 go-pugleaf

May I introduce myself: I am an assistant professor at the Department of Managem
 ent.
My PH.D. is about the Kano Model. I want to test the reliability and validity of
  the model.
 We have already conducted 5 surveys using Kano questionnaires inlcuding the fie
 lds of
health services, skiing and trade.  I am looking for sources on Kano or recommen
 dations.


SHORT DESCRIPTION OF KANO MODEL

 In his model, Kano distinguishes between three types of product requirements wh
 ich
 influence customer satisfaction in different ways when met:
Must-be requirements: The must-be requirements are basic criteria of a product.
 If these
 requirements are not fulfilled, the customer will be extremely dissatisfied.
One-dimensional requirements: With regard to these requirements, customer satisf
 action
 is proportional to the level of fulfillment - the higher the level of fulfillme
 nt, the higher the
customer's satisfaction and vice versa.
Attractive requirements: These requirements are the product criteria which have
 the
greatest influence on how satisfied a customer will be with a given product. Att
 ractive
requirements are neither explicitly expressed nor expected by the customer.
The advantages of classifying customer requirements are very clear:
o       The product criteria which have the greatest influence on the customer's
 satis
 faction
 can be identified.
o       Classifying product requirements can be used to focus on priorities for
 produc
 t development.
 It is, for example, not very useful to invest in improving must-be requirements
  which are
already at a satisfactory level
o       If two product requirements cannot be met simultaneously due to
 technical or f
 inancial
reasons, the criterion can be identified which has the greatest influence on cus
 tomer
satisfaction.


In the literature on customer satisfaction there are only few examples on the mu
 ltifactoral
structure of satisfaction (except Herzbergs theory, which was widely criticized,
  because
 his results could only be replicated by the use of the Critical Incident Techni
 que). Only in
 recent studies on especially on service quality authors tried to produce eviden
 ce that
 satisfaction is not just one-dimensional:
Johnston, R./Silvestro, R. (1990): The Determinants of Service Quality - A Custo
 mer-based
Approach, in: Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute Conference, San Dieg
 o, CA, November
Johnston, R.: The Determinants of Service Quality: Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers,
  in:
International Journal ofService Industry Management, Vol 6, No. 5, pp. 53-71
Cadotte, E.R./Turgeon, N.(1988): Dissatisfiers and Satisfier: Suggestions from C
 onsumer
Complaints and Compliments, in: Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfactio
 n and
Complaining Behavior, Vol 1, 1988, pp. 74-79
Especially Brandt's work (Brandt, D. R. (1988): How Service Marketers can indent
 ify
Value-Enhancing Service Elements, in: Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 3, No.
  4, Fall,
 pp. 5-14) can be compared to the Kano model. Brandt identifies tree categories
 of product
requirements: Penalty Factors ( minimum requirements) = Must Be's, Reward Factor
 s also
called value-enhancing features = Attractives) and Hybrid Factors = One-Dimensio
 nals.



WHAT I AM  SUPPOSED T O DO

First of all I want to run tests from the classical test theory: Test-Retest, Pa
 rallel Test and
split-half test.This should examine the reliability. I already conducted a test-
 retest with
students using a questionnaire on skiing with an interval of 2-3 weeks before re
 peating
the test. The test-retest-reliability was not very exciting. The coefficient ran
 ged from
0.37 to 0.70, e.g. on certain items not even 50 % of the students answered the s
 ame
way as they  did 2 weeks ago. I presume, there are difficulties with splitting t
 he question
on a product reuqirement into functional and dysfunctional questions. Maybe it w
 ould be
an idea to classify the product requirement by one question, describing in short
  words
Attractives, One-Dim., Must-Be's, Indifferent, Reverse and Questionables (?).
A further problem I envisioned is the limited use of Kano questions in big surve
 ys
(We did them 5 times with a sample of about 1.500). The more complex the product
the longer the questionnaire. This has a negative effect on the reliability, bec
 ause of
fatigue or unwillingness of the respondents.

Also I want to test the influence of product requirements on overall satisfactio
 n by means
of regression., thus testing the validity.
The use of linear regression to examine the influence of a product requirement o
 n overall
satisfaction is one way (see Cohen, L.:QFD,1995, p. 255 and Klein, R.: New techn
 iques for
 Listening to the voice of the customer, in: Transactions on the 2nd Symposium o
 n QFD,
1990, p. 197), but can be criticized. Why? Kano states, that the influence of at
 tractives
 and must-be's is not proportional. But the underlying logic of the linear regre
 ssions is
 exactly the proportionality. Sure we can measure by multiple regression the wei
 ght of
each product requirement, but I  suppose we have to use nonlinear multiple regre
 ssion
to test the influence of attractives on overall satisfaction.

Another way to test validity could be:
Conducting a Kano survey, classifying  product requirements
Rating requirements: Most important attractive, 2nd important attract. and so on
 .
Conducting a conjoint analysis comparing different requirement bundles one inclu
 ding
no attractives,one including a less important attractive and one with important
 attractives.
If the last one is chosen by the majority the model is valid.


SOURCES I ALREADY HAVE

Sauerwein, E./Bailom, F./Matzler, K.: How to delight your customers, Preprints V
 olume I of
the IX. International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Innsbruck/Igls, 1
 9- 23
Februayr 1996, pp. 313 - 327
THIS ARTICLE CAN BE SENT TO YOU BY ATTACHEMNT  IF YOU ARE INTERESTED
(WORD 6.0.1)

List of other sources with explanations of Kano-Model:

Berger et al. "Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer-defined Quality", Hinsh
 itsu:
The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control.(Fall 1993), pp. 3 - 35.
Cohen, L.: Quality Function Employment: How to make QFD working for You, Rea-din
 g/MA,
1995
N. Kano. "Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality", Hinshitsu. The Journal of the
  Japanese
Society for Quality Control, (April 1984), pp. 39 -48.
King B.: Better designs in half the time, GOAL/QPC: Lawrence, MA, 1989
King, R.: Designing Products and Services That Customers want, Portland/OR, 1995
Ouellet, D.: Applying Total Quality Management Concepts to Healthcare Dietetics,
 Madison/WI, 1993, (University of Wisconsin - Dissertation)
Robertshaw, W.: Using an objective Sales Point Measure to incorporate Elements o
 f the
Kano Model into  QFD, in: Transactions from the 7th Symposium on QFD, June 11. -
  13.6.1995,
Novi/MI, QFD Institute, S. 201-216
Rosler, F.: Kundenanforderungen als Determinante des Kostenmanagements komplexer
Produkte (Customer requirements as Determinants of cost management of complex pr
 oducts),
in: Kostenrechnungspraxis (krp), vol. 11 (1995), Nr. 4, S. 214-219
S. Shiba, A. Graham, D. Walden. A new American TQM, Four Practical Revolutions
 in Management. Portland: Productivity Press, OR, 1993.


I would be very happy about further sources about the Kano Model or comparable t
 heories.

Thank you for your valuable recommendations. I could not do it without the help
 of experts.



Elmar Sauerwein
Institut fuer Unternehmensfuhrung/Department of Management
Universitaet Innsbruck/University of Innsbruck
Rennweg 25
A-6020 Innsbruck
Tel. +43/(0)/512/507 - 7188
GSM +43/(0)664/335 777 5
FAX +43/(0)/512/507 - 2968
e-mail: elmar.sauerwein@uibk.ac.at
http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c4/c407/31psa.html