QFD and Fuzzy Kano model based approach for classification of aesthetic attributes of SUV car profile

  • Shwetank AvikalEmail author
  • Rohit Singh
  • Rashmi Rashmi


The aesthetic appearance and features of a product are the most censorious elements for the accomplishment of a product in the industry. An aesthetic is the quality element which adds value to the product design. Product design is a basic need of every manufacturing company in which visual aspects play an important role to enhance the customer satisfaction. Therefore, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) can be considered as an effective tool for translating the customer’s voice into the design of the product and its specifications. The Kano model helps to identify the desires of a product that brings greater satisfaction or dissatisfaction level to the customer. Kano model tells the connection between the product’s attributes and its satisfaction to the customer. For achieving better results, Fuzzy Kano model has been more favorably applied over traditional Kano model. In this work, an approach of Integration of Kano model into QFD has been applied with an aim to examine the customer satisfaction based on aesthetic sentiments. A Sport Utility Vehicle has been selected for the study. The aesthetic attributes have been selected with the help of QFD and their importance and classification have been calculated using both Fuzzy Kano and Traditional Kano model. The result of Fuzzy Kano and Traditional Kano model has also been compared to calculate the effectiveness of the applied approach.


Kano model Quality function deployment Fuzzy Kano model Aesthetic attributes Product design Customer satisfaction 


  1. Baxter, M. (1995). Product design: A practical guide to systematic methods of new product development. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., et al. (1993). Kano’s method for understanding customer defined quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2, 2–36.Google Scholar
  3. Berlyne, David E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. Cardoso, J. F., Filho, N. C., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2014). Application of quality function deployment for the development of an organic product. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, H. C., Lai, H. H., & Chang, Y. M. (2007). A measurement scale for evaluating the attractiveness of a passenger car form aimed at young consumers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaudha, A., Jain, R., Singh, A. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2011). Integration of Kano’s Model into quality function deployment (QFD). International Journal Advance Manufacturing Technology, 53, 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C. C. (2010). Application of quality function deployment in the semiconductor industry: A case study. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58, 672–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crozier, W. R. (1994). Manufactured pleasures: Psychological response to design. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cupchik, G. C. (1999). Emotion and industrial design: reconciling meanings and feelings. In First international conference on design & emotion, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
  12. Djekic, I., Vunduk, J., Tomasevic, I., Kozarski, M., Petrovic, P., Niksic, M., et al. (2016). Application of quality function deployment on shelf-life analysis of Agaricus bisporus Portobello. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 78, 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dou, R., Zhang, Y., & Nan, G. (2016). Application of combined Kano model and interactive Genetic Algorithm for product customization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. Scholar
  14. Haahti, A., & Yavas, U. (2004). A multi-attribute approach to understanding image of a Theme park: The case of SantaPark in Lapland. European Business Review, 16(4), 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hashim, A. M., & Dawal, S. Z. M. (2012). Kano model and QFD integration approach for Ergonomic Design Improvement. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauser, J., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66, 63–73.Google Scholar
  17. He, L., Song, W., Wu, Z., Xu, Z., Zheng, M., & Ming, X. (2017). Quantification and integration of an improved Kano model into QFD based on multi-population adaptive genetic algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 114, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. (2003). Most advanced yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyun, K. H., Lee, J. H., Kim, M., & Cho, S. (2015). Style synthesis and analysis of car designs for style quantification based on product appearance similarities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29, 483–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ilbahar, E., & Cebi, S. (2017). Classification of design parameters for E-commerce websites: A novel fuzzy Kano approach. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1814–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kano, N. (2001). Life Cycle and Creation of attractive quality. In Paper presented at the 4th International QMOD Conference Quality Management and Organization Development, Link-opingsUniversitet, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must be quality. The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39–48.Google Scholar
  23. Kasaei, A., Abedian, A., & Milani, A. S. (2013). An application of quality function deployment method in engineering materials selection. Materials and Design, 55, 912–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kowalska, M., Pazdzior, M., & Maziopa, A. K. (2015). Implementation of QFD method in quality analysis of confectionery products. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 29, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kreuzbauer, R., & Malter, A. J. (2005). Embodied cognition and new product design: Changing product form to influence brand categorization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lai, H. H., Lin, Y. C., Yeh, C. H., & Wei, C. H. (2006). User-oriented design for the optimal combination on product design. International Journal of Production Economics, 100, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lam, J. S. L., & Bai, X. (2016). A quality function deployment approach to improve maritime supply chain resilience. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 92, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y. C., & Huang, Y. S. (2009). A new fuzzy concept approach for Kano’s model. Expert System with Applications, 36, 4479–4484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewalski, Z. M. (1988). Product esthetics: An interpretation for designers. Carson City: Design & Development Engineering Press.Google Scholar
  30. Liu, Y. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetics ergonomics: Theoretical foundation and dual process methodology. Ergonomics, 46(11/14), 1273–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martínez, F. F., García, A. H., & Maria, F. D. (2014). Succeeding metadata based annotation scheme and visual tips for the automatic assessment of video aesthetic quality in car commercials. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matzler, K., & St Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s Model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mikulic, J., & Prebezac, D. (2011). A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 21, 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murdoch, P., & Flurscheim, C. H. (1983). Form. In Charles H. Flurscheim (Ed.), Industrial design in engineering (pp. 105–131). Worcester: The Design Council.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Pawitra, T. A., & Tan, K. C. (2003). Tourist Satisfaction in Singapore: A perspective from Indonesian Tourists. Manage ServQual, 14(5), 426–435.Google Scholar
  37. Pham, B. (1999). Design for aesthetics: interaction of design variables and aesthetics properties. In Proceedings of SPIE IS&T/SPIE 11th annual symposium—electronic imaging’99, San Jose, USA, pp. 364–371.Google Scholar
  38. Ranscombe, C., Hicks, B., Mullineux, G., & Singh, B. (2012). Visually decomposing vehicle images: Exploring the influence of different aesthetic features on consumer perception of brand. Design Studies, 33, 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rashid, A., Mc Donald, B. J., & Hashmi, M. S. J. (2004). Evaluation of aesthetics of products and integrating of the finding in a proposed design system. Journal of Material Processing Technology, 153, 380–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rashid, M. M., & Ullah, A. M. M. S. (2016). A possibilistic approach for aggregating customer opinions in product development. Systems, 4(17), 1–13.Google Scholar
  41. Sauerwein E, Bailom F, Matzler K, Hinterhuber H. H. (1996). The Kano model: How to delight your customers. In Presented at the 9th Int. Working Sem. Production Economics, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 19-23.Google Scholar
  42. Schenkman, B. N., & Jonsson, F. U. (2000). Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behavior and Information Technology, 19(5), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shin, J. S., & Kim, K. J. (2000). Complexity reduction of a design problem in QFD using decomposition. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 11, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sullivan, L. P. (1986). Quality function deployment. Quality Progress, 19, 39–50.Google Scholar
  45. Talia, L., & Noam, T. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of websites. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 60, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tan, K. C., & Shen, X. X. (2000). Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1141–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tontini, G. (2003). Develop of customer needs in the QFD using a modified Kano model. Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics, 2, 103–115.Google Scholar
  48. Tontini, G. (2007). Integrating the Kano model and QFD for designing new products. Total Quality Management, 18(6), 599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ullah, A. M. M. S., Sato, M., Watanabe, M., & Rashid, M. M. (2016). Integrating CAD, TRIZ, and customer needs. International Journal of Automation Technology, 10(2), 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ullah, A. M. M. S., & Tamaki, J. (2010). Analysis of Kano-Model-based customer needs for product development. Systems Engineering, 14(2), 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warell, A., Stridsman-Dahlstr€om, J., Fjellner, C. (2006). Visual product identity: Understanding identity perceptions conveyed by visual product design. In K. M (Ed.), 5th international conference on design & emotion. G€oteborg.Google Scholar
  52. Yadav, H. C., Jain, R., Shukla, S., Avikal, S., & Mishra, P. K. (2013). Prioritization of aesthetic attributes of car profile. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43, 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yadav, H. C., Jain, R., Singh, A. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2012). An integrated approach to enhance aesthetic quality of a car profile. International Journal of Design Engineering, 5(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yadav, H. C., Jain, R., Singh, A. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2016). Kano integrated robust design approach for aesthetical product design: A case study of a car profile. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(7), 1709–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zadry, H. R., Rahmayanti, D., Susanti, L., & Fatrias, D. (2015). Identification of design requirements for ergonomic long spinal board using quality function deployment (QFD). Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 4673–4680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, F., Yang, M., & Liu, W. (2014). Using integrated quality function deployment and theory of innovation problem solving approach for ergonomic product design. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 76, 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringGraphic Era Hill UniversityDehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations