Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 459–467 | Cite as

A rapid Kano-based approach to identify optimal user segments

  • Reynir Smari Atlason
  • Arnaldur Smari Stefansson
  • Miriam Wietz
  • Davide Giacalone
Original Paper

Abstract

The Kano model of customer satisfaction provides product developers valuable information about if, and then how much a given functional requirement (FR) will impact customer satisfaction if implemented within a product, system or a service. A limitation of the Kano model is that it does not allow developers to visualize which combined sets of FRs would provide the highest satisfaction between different customer segments. In this paper, a stepwise method to address this shortcoming is presented. First, a traditional Kano analysis is conducted for the different segments of interest. Second, for each FR, relationship functions are integrated between x = 0 and x = 1. Third, integrals are inserted into a matrix crossing segments and FRs, where FRs with the highest sum across the chosen segments are identified. Finally, the functions of the chosen segments with the smallest interval, define the FRs appealing to the biggest target group. The proposed extension should assist product developers within to more effectively evaluate which FRs should be implemented when considering more than one combined customer segment. It shows which segments provide the highest possibility for high satisfaction of combined FRs. We demonstrate the approach in a case study involving customers’ preference for outdoor sports equipment.

Keywords

Kano model Customer satisfaction Innovation Segmentation 

References

  1. Atlason RS, Oddsson GV, Unnthorsson R (2014) Geothermal power plant maintenance: evaluating maintenance system needs using quantitative Kano analysis. Energies 7:4169–4184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaudha A, Jain R, Singh AR, Mishra PK (2011) Integration of Kano’s Model into quality function deployment (QFD). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen YH, Su CT (2006) A Kano-CKM model for customer knowledge discovery. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 17(5):589–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cristiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC (2000) Customer-driven product development through quality function deployment in the US and Japan. J Prod Innov Manag 17(4):286–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Füller J, Matzler K (2008) Customer delight and market segmentation: an application of the three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style groups. Tour Manag 29(1):116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ji P, Jin J, Wang T, Chen Y (2014) Quantification and integration of Kano’s model into QFD for optimising product design. Int J Prod Res 52:6335–6348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Qual Control 14:39–48Google Scholar
  8. Kwong CK, Chen Y, Chan KY (2011) A methodology of integrating marketing with engineering for defining design specifications of new products. J Eng Des 22:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee S, Lee JH, Garrett TC (2013) A study of the attitude toward convergent products: a focus on the consumer perception of functionalities. J Prod Innov Manag 30(1):123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Min S, Kim H, Kwon Y, Sohn S (2011) Conjoint analysis for improving the e-book reader in the Korean market. Expert Syst Appl 38:12923–12929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 14 Feb 2016
  12. Reich Y, Ziv Av A (2005). Robust product concept generation. In: ICED 05: 15th international conference on engineering design: engineering design and the global economy. Engineers Australia, pp 2726Google Scholar
  13. Sauerwein E, Bailom F, Matzler K, Hinterhuber HH (1996). The Kano model: how to delight your customers. In: International working seminar on production economics. Innsbruck, vol 1, No 4, pp 313–327Google Scholar
  14. Schmidt DM, Guerrero JU, Michailidou I, Lindermann U (2014). Differentiated customer needs’ analysis for user experience. In: IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp 1305–1309Google Scholar
  15. Trevisan B, Steinmeier B, Jakobs EM (2012) Evaluation of user-centred methods in product design: a holistic approach. Int J Des Eng 5(2):107–121Google Scholar
  16. Van De Poel I (2007) Methodological problems in QFD and directions for future development. Res Eng Des 18(1):21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang T, Ji P (2010) Understanding customer needs through quantitative analysis of Kano’s model. Int J Quality Reliab Manag 27:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang CH, Wu CW (2014) Combining conjoint analysis with Kano model to optimize product varieties of smart phones: a VIKOR perspective. J Ind Prod Eng 31:177–186Google Scholar
  19. Xu Q, Jiao RJ, Yang X, Helander M, Khalid HM, Opperud A (2009) An analytical Kano model for customer need analysis. Des Stud 30:87–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zikmund W, Babin B, Carr J, Griffin M (2012) Business research methods. Cengage Learning, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ziv-Av A, Reich Y (2005) SOS–Subjective objective system for generating optimal product concepts. Des Stud 26(5):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reynir Smari Atlason
    • 1
  • Arnaldur Smari Stefansson
    • 2
  • Miriam Wietz
    • 3
  • Davide Giacalone
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental TechnologySDU Life Cycle EngineeringOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.SDU Innovation and Design Engineering, Department of Technology and InnovationUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations