This article summarizes the development key concepts of

the Kano Mode—the process for gaining deep insights

regarding customers’ preferences.

A Quick
Refresher on the
Kano Model
O rganizations of all sizes
from various industries
across the globe invest consid-
erable resources and effort in
determining the voice of the cus-
tomer. The information obtained
through these activities is indis-
pensable for managing research
and development related to
new and improved products
and services that will meet or
exceed customers’ expectations.
Furthermore, by continually gath-
ering and analyzing customers’
preferences, organizations can
identify ways to outperform their
competitors, command markets,
and generate sustainable success.
Widely accepted quality manage-
ment frameworks, including the
Baldrige Performance Excellence
Criteria and the ISO 9001 stan-
dard, support this approach.

www.asq.org/pub/jqp 3
 of achievement increases. It is represented by a less the customer is satis ed. The pattern for this
45-degree line that begins in the non-ful llment/ dimension also is represented by a 45-degree
dissatisfaction quadrant and linearly moves up line; however, that line begins in the non-ful ll-
into the ful llment/satisfaction quadrant. As ment/satisfaction quadrant and linearly moves
the feature progressively ful lls the customers’ down into the ful llment/dissatisfaction quad-
expectations, it shifts perceptions from dissat- rant.1 If the hamburger restaurant decided to add
isfaction to perfection.1 For instance, the basic a fee to support a local charity to the pricing for
hamburger order might come with a plain, white a hamburger, it is likely that many customers
bun. Organizations that wanted to leverage this would consider that a dissatisfying attribute, and
one-dimensional feature could drive the upward if the fee increased over time the level of dissatis-
increase of satisfaction by moving to a bun with faction would grow.
sesame seeds, then a Kaiser roll, and eventually
a ciabatta roll. Conducting a Kano Survey
• On the other hand, attractive quality occurs One of the most frequent misunderstandings
only when the product/service has attributes regarding the use of the Kano Model is that any type
that are unexpected and delight customers. of survey which gathers feedback from customers
Note that it provides a dramatic and non-linear can provide the information needed to categorize
increase in satisfaction, but even its initial the features. Actually, a very speci c structure is used
introductory level, where ful llment is limited, to gather the data, and the analytical procedure also
creates immediate satisfaction.1 An examina- differs substantially from standard market-research
tion of hamburger products sold by fast-food studies or other approaches for gathering customer
restaurants these days shows that features, such data, such as net promotor scores. Although a
as the inclusion of bacon, higher-quality beef, detailed description of the process for determining
onion straws, and other atypical components of what features should be tested, structure of the sur-
the sandwich, can create a competitive advan- vey questions, comparative analyses that are used
tage for innovative companies. to evaluate the responses, and calculations that
determine how the results should be plotted on
• Indifferent quality is associated with a customer
the quadrant-based model cannot be covered rea-
reaction that most organizations never con-
sonably in this summary article, the ASQ resource
sider.1 In this case, the product/service contains
center includes a previously published column
a feature that research and development, mar-
that describes this process completely and can be
keting, or some other function in the company
used as a training manual for organizations which
thought mattered to customers. Unfortunately,
choose to be rigorous in their application of this
the reality is that these attributes are unexpected
valuable methodology.3
by customers, and/or they are rarely or never
used. It is almost amazing that companies will Current Use of the Kano Model
invest large amounts of resources, including In addition to functions such as research and
money, only to learn that they have no focus on development, market research, marketing, and
customers’ purchasing decisions. If a hamburger quality using the results of Kano surveys and the
restaurant provided a fortune cookie with every categorization of product/service features to make
order, customers would notice it, but would decisions regarding the design and value of speci c
they switch to that restaurant solely to get the attributes, this methodology is now deployed in
cookie—especially if they had a favorite brand many other ways. For instance, at the executive level,
provided by another company? So indifferent Kano survey results are used to establish strategies
quality, which isn’t shown in Figure 2, would be for increasing the competitive capabilities of the
represented by a straight line that is only slightly organization and assuring sustainable performance.
above the vertical division of the quadrants. Consideration of the insights gained from a
• Finally, it is actually possible for companies to Kano analysis is now thought to be a worthwhile
include attributes in their offerings that custom- approach for lean improvement projects and gen-
ers don’t want and which cause dissatisfaction. eration of customer delight. “Like so much of lean
These are called reverse quality because the more philosophy, the Kano Model is a way of thinking
the feature is present in the product/service, the that can be applied to everyday situations. Lean

6 THE JOURNAL FOR QUALITY & PARTICIPATION October 2019

thoughts are given concrete application through the with the natural diversity of customers’ expecta-
use of varied and diverse tools.”4 tions, however, the Kano Model makes it possible
Similarly, “Delivering value and excellence in for organizations to identify the features that will
products and services starts with carefully de n- satisfy their target customers the best, increase their
ing and understanding critical-to-quality (CTQ) competitiveness in the marketplace, and develop
requirements. Noriaki Kano developed a model the capabilities necessary to keep abreast of chang-
to understand customers’ reactions to prod- ing opportunities and issues, which is critical to
uct or service features and how these features long-term high performance. The commonly cited
impact customer satisfaction. Kano’s model can example of the buggy whip company that went out
t into establishing CTQs for any lean Six Sigma of business because it did not know that customers
(LSS) program.”5 would be willing to invest in a car provides a dra-
These last two examples show that the use of matic reminder that without continuous attention
the Kano Model has now expanded beyond the to changing customer perspectives every business—
traditional functions that were concerned with cus- even the most well-recognized industry leaders
tomers’ perspectives and product/service design. The today—may become fond memories in the future.
use of the model in lean and Lean Six Sigma quality
and process-improvement projects has extended its References
value dramatically. In many ways, this framework 1. Noriaki Kano, Nobuhiku Seraku, Fumio Takahashi,
has generated a whole new way of thinking that and Shinichi Hinshitsu Tsuji, “Attractive Quality and
Must-Be Quality,” Journal of Japanese Society for Quality
can be used to build common values related to cus-
Control, April 1984, pp. 147–156.
tomer satisfaction, loyalty, and experiences across
all levels of the organization. 2. Frederick Herzberg, Motivation to Work, Routledge,
1993, pp. 113–119.
Summary 3. Christine Robinson, “At Your Request: Kano on
Although it’s not possible to describe even the Customers” and “At Your Request: How is a Kano
fundamentals of the Kano Model and its associated Survey Prepared and Analyzed?” The Journal for Quality
survey and analysis procedure in one summary and Participation, July 2009, pp. 23–38.
article, it is abundantly clear that this research has 4. Lance B. Coleman, “Thinking Lean: Insight on
changed the way leaders think and organizations Delight,” Six Sigma Forum, November 2014, p. 24.
operate. Customers are now encouraged to express 5. Larry R. Smith and Jiju Anthony, “Customer
their preferences regularly, and the concept that Satisfaction: Making the Connection,” Six Sigma Forum,
“one size will t all” is no longer accepted. Even February 2011, p. 20.

www.asq.org/pub/jqp 7