Advertisement

Evaluation of Kano-like Models Defined for Using Data Extracted from Online Sources

  • Huishi Yin
  • Dietmar PfahlEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10027)

Abstract

The Kano model is a frequently used method to classify user preferences according to their importance, and by doing so support requirements prioritization. To implement the Kano model, a representative set of users must answer for each feature under evaluation a functional and dysfunctional question. Unfortunately, finding and interviewing users is difficult and time-consuming. Thus, the core idea of our proposed approach is to extract automatically opinions about product features from online open sources (e.g., Q & A sites, App reviews, etc.) and to feed them into the Kano questionnaire to prioritize software requirements following the principles of the Kano model. One problem with our proposed approach is how to pair input extracted from the internet into paired answers to the functional dysfunctional questions. This problem arises because the reviews and comments from online sources that we plan to transform into answers to either the functional or dysfunctional question are usually unpaired. Therefore, the aim of this study is to find a method that produces results resembling those of the traditional Kano model although we only retrieve partial information. We propose two Kano-like models, i.e., the Half- and the Deformed-Kano model, for unpaired answers to functional and dysfunctional questions. In order to analyze the performance of the two proposed models as compared to that of the traditional Kano model, we run several simulations with synthetic data. Then we compare the simulation results to see which Kano-like model produces results that are similar to those of the traditional Kano model. The simulation results show that on average both the Half-Kano and Deformed-Kano models on average generate feature categorizations similar to those of the traditional Kano model. However, only the Deformed-Kano model generates the same range of categorizations as the traditional Kano model. The Deformed-Kano can be used as an approximation of the traditional Kano model when the input is unpaired or partly missing.

Keywords

Kano model Requirement prioritization Online source 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Estonian Research Council.

References

  1. 1.
    Lehtola, L., Kauppinen, M., Kujala, S.: Requirements prioritization challenges in practice. In: Bomarius, F., Iida, H. (eds.) PROFES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3009, pp. 497–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24659-6_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berander, P., Andrews, A.: Requirements prioritization. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 69–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kano, N., Nobuhiku, S., Fumio, T., Shinichi, T.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control 14(2), 39–48 (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Timko, M.: Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center Qual. Manage. J. 2(4), 3–35 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiao, J.R., Chen, C.H.: Customer requirement management in product development: a review of research issues. Concurrent Eng. 14(3), 173–185 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kai, Y.: Voice of the Customer: Capture and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sharif Ullah, A.M.M., Tamaki, J.I.: Analysis of Kano-model-based customer needs for product development. Syst. Eng. 14(2), 154–172 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Mikulic, J., Prebezac, D.: A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Managing Serv. Qual. An Intl. J. 21(1), 46–66 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brandt, R.D.: A procedure for identifying value-enhancing service components using customer satisfaction survey data. In: Surprenant, C. (ed.) Add Value to Your Service, pp. 61–65. American Marketing Association, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vavra, T.G.: Improving Your Measurement of Customer Satisfaction: A Guide to Creating, Conducting, Analyzing, and Reporting Customer Satisfaction Measurement Programs. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cadotte, E.R., Turgeon, N.: Dissatisfiers and satisfiers: suggestions from consumer complaints and compliments. J. Consum. Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Complaining Behav. 1, 74–79 (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliver, R.L.: Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-Hill Series in Marketing Show all Parts in this Series. McGraw-Hill, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friman, M., Edvardsson, B.: A content analysis of complaints and compliments. Managing Serv. Qual. Intl. J. 13(1), 20–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emery, C.R., Tian, R.G.: Schoolwork as products, professors as customers: a practical teaching approach in business education. J. Educ. Bus. 78(2), 97–102 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations