THE SELECTION OF CLASSIFICATION METHODS in KANO’S MODEL for PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

Abstract

The Kano’s model has been developed to evaluate product features from the customer's perspective without causing a high cost increase in product design. The methods used in the past was assuming that there is a linear relationship between the product’s features and customer satisfaction. According to one-dimensional quality models, more features will bring out more satisfaction, whereas decreasing features will cause decrease in customer satisfaction. As a two-dimensional model of quality, Attractive Quality Theory defines the relationship between quality features and customer satisfaction in three main categories: Must-be, One-Dimensional and Attractive. In this way the Kano’s Model removes a deficiency in one-dimensional quality models. However, the Kano’s Model does not consider the importance given to quality elements by customers. Alternative approaches such as the Refined Kano Model or the IPA-Kano Model aim to fill the deficiency. In our study, in addition to the Traditional Kano’s Model, the Refined Kano Model and IPA-Kano model are considered in detail. All three models were used for the laptop computer design example and compared with each other.

Keywords

• Kano’s Model
• Refined Kano Model
• IPA-Kano Model

ÜRÜN GELİŞTİRME SÜREÇLERİNDE KANO MODELİ SINIFLANDIRMA YÖNTEMLERİ SEÇİMİ

Abstract

Kano modeli, ürün tasarımında yüksek bir maliyet artışına neden olmadan ürün özelliklerini müşterinin bakış açısından değerlendirmek için geliştirilmiştir. Geçmişte kullanılan yöntemler, ürünün sahip olduğu özellikler ile müşteri memnuniyeti arasında doğrusal bir ilişki olduğunu varsaymaktadır. Tek boyutlu kalite modellerine göre, daha fazla özellik daha fazla memnuniyet ortaya çıkartacak, buna karşın özelliklerin azalması müşteri memnuniyetinde düşüşü beraberinde getirecektir. İki boyutlu kalite modeli olarak Çekici Kalite Teorisi, ürün özellikleri ile müşteri memnuniyeti arasındaki ilişkiyi üç ana kategoride tanımlamaktadır: Temel, Tek Boyutlu ve Heyecan Verici. Bu sayede, Kano Modeli, tek boyutlu kalite modellerindeki bir eksikiği ortadan kaldırmaktadır. Ancak Kano Modeli de kalite unsurlarına müşteriler tarafından verilen önem derecesini dikkate almaz. Rafine (İşlenmiş) Kano Modeli ya da IPA-Kano Modeli gibi alternatif yaklaşımlar bu eksikliği gidermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmamızda Geleneksel Kano Modelinin yanı sıra Rafine Kano Modeli ve IPA-Kano modeli detaylı bir şekilde ele alınmıştır. Her üç model de taşınabilir bilgisayar tasarımı örneği için kullanılmış ve birbirleri ile kıyaslanmıştır.

Keywords

• Kano Modeli
• Rafine Kano Modeli
• IPA-Kano Modeli

References

1. BERGER, C. (1993). Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer-Defined Quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 2(4), 3-36.
2. CHEN, F. Y., & CHANG, Y. H. (2005). Examining Airline Service Quality from a Process Perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), 79-87.
3. CHEN, K. J., YEH, T., PAI, F. Y., & CHEN, D. F. (2018). Integrating Refined Kano Model and QFD for Service Quality Improvement in Healthy Fast-Food Chain Restaurants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1310-1325.
4. CHEN, M. C., HSU, C. L., & LEE, L. H. (2020). Investigating Pharmaceutical Logistics Service Quality with Refined. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 1-12.
5. CHIANG, T. Y., & PERNG, Y. H. (2018). A New Model to Improve Service Quality in the Property Management Industry. The International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 25(5), 436-446.
6. CHU, R. S., & CHOI, T. (2000). An Importance–Performance Analysis of Hotel Selection Factors in the Hong Kong Hotel Industry: A Comparison of Business and Leisure Travelers. Tourism Management, 21(4), 363-377.
7. EVANS, M. R., & CHON, K. (1989). Formulating and Evaluating Tourism Policy Using Importance–Performance Analysis. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 13(3), 203-213.
8. HAMMASI, M., STRONG, K. C., & TAYLOR, S. A. (1994). Measuring Service Quality for Strategies Planning and Analysis in Service Firms. Journal of Applied Business Research,, 10(4), 24-34.

9. HAUSER, J. R. (1991). Comparison of Importance Measurement Methodologies and their Relationship to Consumer Satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.
10. HERZBERG, F., MAUSNER, B., & SNYDERMAN, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
11. KANO, N. (2001). Life Cycle and Creation of Attractive Quality. Quality Management and Organizational Development Conference. Linköping University, Sweden.
12. KANO, N., & TAKAHASHI, F. (1979). On MH Property of Quality. 9th Annual Presentation Meeting, Abstract (s. 21-26). Nippon QC Gakka: apanese Society of Quality Control.
13. KANO, N., SERAKU, N., TAKAHASHI, F., & TSUJI, S.-i. (1984). Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality. The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 39-48.
14. KRISTENSEN, K., KANJI, G. K., & DAHLGAARD, J. J. (1992). On Measurement of Customer Satisfaction. Total Quality Management, 3(2), 123-128.
15. KUO, Y.-F., CHEN, J.-Y., & DENG, W.-j. (2012). IPA–Kano model: A new tool for categorising and diagnosing service quality attributes. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(7-8), 731-748.
16. LEE, M. C., & NEWCOMB, J. F. (1997). Applying the Kano Methodology To Meet Customer Requirements: NASA's Microgravity Science Program. Quality Control and Applied Statistics, 42, 537-538.
17. LEVENBURG, N. M., & MAGAL, S. R. (2005). Applying Importance–Performance Analysis to Evaluate E-Business Strategies among Small Firms. e-Service Journal, 3(3), 29-48.
18. MARTILLA, J. A., & JAMES, J. C. (1977). Importance–Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
19. MATZLER, K., & HINTERHUBER, H. H. (1998). How to Make Product Development Projects More Successful by İntegrating Kano’s Model of Customer Satisfaction into Quality Function Deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25-38.
20. O'NEIL, M., WRIGHT, C., & FITZ, F. (2001). Quality Evaluation in On-Line Service Environments: An Application of the Importance-Performance Measurement Technique. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 402-417.
21. POTRA, S. A., IZVERCIAN, M., PUGNA, A. P., & DAHLGAARD, J. J. (2017). The HWWP, a Refined IVA-Kano Model for Designing New Delightful Products or Services. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(1-2), 104-117.
22. SKOK, W., KOPHAMEL, A., & RICHARDSON, I. (2001). Diagnosing Information Systems Success:Importance–Performance Maps in the Health Club Industry. Information & Management, 38(7), 409-419.
23. TIMKO, M. (1993). Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer-Defined Quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), 17-20.
24. URBAN, G. L., & HAUSER, J. R. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25. WALDEN, D. (1993). Kano’s Methods for Understanding Customer Defined Quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), 2-36.
26. YANG, C. C. (2003). Establishment and Applications of the Integrated Model of Service Quality Measurement. Managing Service Quality, 13(4), 310-324.
27. YANG, C.-C. (2005). The refined Kano's model and its application. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(10), 1127-1137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360500235850