TRC

By Rajan Sambandam

Research in psychology and practical experience in marketing research suggest that product features are not always perceived to be symmetric. That is, there isn’t always a smoothly increasing (or decreasing) relationship between product feature performance and its effect on the consumer.

A good way to understand this may be to look at a feature that is linear, say, gas mileage for a car. Generally as gas mileage increases, satisfaction with the car increases proportionately, and vice versa. Now consider something like heated seats in a non-luxury car. If it is not available it is unlikely to cause any dissatisfaction, while its presence can be a pleasant surprise. Such a feature is often referred to as a satisfier. The opposite of that is a dissatisfier (i.e.) one whose absence causes dissatisfaction, but whose presence does not increase satisfaction. An example of such a feature may be keyless entry in a car. Therefore, one could say that these types of features are asymmetric since their impact on satisfaction and dissatisfaction is not equal. [Please refer to the article Asymmetry Analysis for a more complete explanation of this topic].

The focus of asymmetry analysis is to identify satisfiers and dissatisfiers from among the features of a product. By definition, satisfaction with a product is an experience and can only be measured when a consumer has used the product. What do we do when such features need to be identified before the product is used (i.e.) in the development of a new product? The Kano method provides similar results and can therefore be very useful in the new product development process.

The Kano method is named after Professor Noriaki Kano from Japan and is based on his work on product quality and, in particular, customer defined quality. While its terminology and approach are different, its essence is very similar to that of asymmetry analysis. In the Kano method, features are seen as belonging to one of several categories. For our purpose the relevant categories are One-Dimensional, Must-Have (also called Must-Be), Attractive and Indifferent. Table 1 shows the relevant categories in each system and their similarities.

While the two methods are clearly similar they differ in how the results are obtained. In asymmetry analysis, satisfaction data are analyzed in a regression framework to identify satisfiers and dissatisfiers. In the Kano method, the questions are asked in such a way that respondent answers would indicate what category a feature should fall into. No multivariate analysis is used. A feature is essentially seen as working (functional) or not working (dysfunctional). (See Figure 1)

Respondents are asked to indicate how they would feel if the feature were functional and how they would feel if it were dysfunctional. The response scale has five categories ranging from Delight to Dislike. Given that the original scale was in Japanese, the exact translation of the scale is sometimes confusing. Therefore, modified versions of the original scale have often been used. For the functional and the dysfunctional aspects of each feature, the respondents indicate their liking. Compiling the results in a Kano evaluation table provides the classification of features.

The Kano table is a five-by-five matrix between the two scales and one way of interpreting the categories is shown in Table 2.

Responses that fall into the empty cells are questionable. The categorization of the other cells is not always clear cut, but the general pattern is evident.