CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
13th Toulon-Verona Conference “Organizational Excellence in Services”
University of Coimbra (Portugal) – September 2-4, 2010
pp. 649-661 – ISBN: 978-972-9344-04-6
AN APPROACH FOR ADAPTING KANO’S THEORY TO CONSIDER
THE WEIGHTED DEGREE OF REQUIREMENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Christian Kern, Dortmund University of Technology, [email protected]
Sandra Klute, Dortmund University of Technology, [email protected]
Robert Refflinghaus, Dortmund University of Technology, [email protected]
Keywords: Requirements, structuring, weighting, Kano`s theory, customer satisfaction
Area of focus: Theoretical and methodological approaches
1.
Introduction
When planning and developing complex products lots of stakeholder requirements have to be
gathered, managed and transformed into adequate product characteristics to satisfy customer
needs. Thereby, it has to be taken into account that these requirements often have different
weightings and different levels of specification. This complicates the mentioned processes. To
optimize requirements management regarding theses aspects an adequate structuring of
requirements is necessary. Therefore, a 10-dimensional model has been developed within the
German Collaborative Research Centre 696, sub-project A1. This model allows structuring
requirements on complex products, e.g. intra-logistical facilities. Furthermore, it allows
reviewing whether, and how far, the requirements have been met by including feedback
between nominal and actual condition. Hence, the developed model goes beyond other
existing structuring methods.
Customer satisfaction, one dimension of the model, results from the perceived difference
between expectation and performance. Thereby, the requirements’ importance for the
stakeholders respectively their weighting is essential for the customer satisfaction. However,
it is often difficult for stakeholders to weight their requirements at the beginning of the
planning process. Furthermore, it is mandatory to identify and analyse also non-expressed, but
latent existing requirements of existing and potential customers. In this context, the Kanomodel allows structure, classify und valuate customer requirements. However, the weighting
of the requirements is insufficiently regarded in the model. Therefore, a model to advance
Kano`s theory was developed to define the weighted importance of requirements and thereby
the degree of customer satisfaction.
In this paper the developed multi-dimensional model with a balance point on the dimension
“customer satisfaction” is presented. Also, the paper illustrates the advancement of Kano`s
theory by integrating a weighting factor.
2.
Multi-dimensional model for structuring requirements
The developed multi-dimensional model has been originally created for the fields of
intralogistics. Nevertheless, the model is generic. Therefore, it can be applied and extended to
complex products and processes of different fields of application by adapting single
dimensions or categories respectively sub-categories if it is necessary.
By choosing the number of structuring dimensions and the division of each dimension into
categories hence a space can be generated, in which requirements can be classified. Hereby,
the corresponding dimensions and categories should be chosen in that way, that they are
associable to the requirements of an intra-logistical facility. Avoiding laminations and
providing independencies of these categories should be considered. Classes of different
dimensions should therefore be not to similar in order to prevent a comparison of these two
categories from having no validity.
In addition to that, classes should not be too similar, to avoid laminations and to assure a valid
interpretation by comparing theses classes respectively the requirements that have been
matched to them [Cros08].
Furthermore, it should be taken into account, that an exact classification of requirements in
one dimension is consequently not possible. They should rather be classified in an ndimensional space, which includes all dimensions of an intra-logistical facility occurring
while planning. Referring to the developed model and with respects to the field of application
there are 9 dimensions with different content and meaning to be mentioned: obligations,
surroundings, economy, information, qualification, technical and functional requirements,
product, evaluation resp. weighted level of performance and customer satisfaction.
Additionally, the time dimension has to be considered. It may be no independent or
comparable dimension to the others, but it should be taken into account, because all
requirements always include a temporal aspect. For example requirements can occur in the
phase of planning or operating.
Time
Obligations
Surroundings
Economy
Information
Qualification
Technical-functional aspects
Product (reference object)
Weighted level of performance
Customer satisfaction
Figure 1: Multi-dimensional model for structuring requirements
Thereby, the first five dimensions serve to structure the requirements on the reference object
from the stakeholders’ point of view. The dimension “obligations” includes all requirements
that demand for the compliance with or the observance of legal aspects and religious or
cultural moral concepts. The dimension can be further divided into six categories. These are
“religion”/culture”, “laws”, “industrial property rights”, “standards/guidelines”, “contractual
provision” and “stipulations/agreements”. Within the categories a differentiation into subcategories can be made. By this, all requirements regarding obligations can be adequately
matched according to their level of specification.
The dimension “surroundings” comprises all requirements that do not refer directly to the
regarded product, but to its surroundings. Thereby, the categories “direct facilities
surroundings”, “resources”, “environment” and “safety” can be distinguished. Requirements
like for example “The intra-logistical facility should be able to operate with three employees
in shift operation” or “Dangerous spots are not allowed to be accessible when operating”
belong to this dimension [Cros10].
All requirements that refer to the type, provision, contents and volume of information for the
planning and developing of intra-logistical facilities or complex products in general belong to
the dimension “information”. For instance, requirements dealing with type and speed of data
transfer or data processing can be mentioned.
The dimensions “economy” deals with the aspects of “costs” and benefits” that go along with
the acquisition and operation of the regarded product. In this context aspects like acquisition
and operation costs are very important. Also, it is important to be able to estimate whether the
economic requirements fit with the requirements from dimensions with regard to content.
Requirements which are of a general kind are part of the dimension “technical-functional
aspects”. That means these requirements do not refer to single parts or components of the
product or the used materials or resources but rather to the whole product or its function
capability or performance. Thereby, requirements concerning the reliability, flexibility,
disposability or operability of the facility can be named.
The dimension “qualification” serves to concretize the requirements that have been gathered
and structured with the former presented dimensions by giving the attributes a concrete value.
Hence, the dimension is not comparable to the other ones and a sub-division into categories is
not possible.
In contrast to the already presented dimensions the dimension “product” structures the
reference object to which the requirements refer. For this, the product term in style of the
onion-layer model can be used although it has to be extended regarding the aspect of the
“collaboration of the facility’s components. This has been necessary to consider
interdependency and compatibility of the different components. Consequently, the dimension
can be sub-divided into the categories product core, extended product, formal product and
collaboration between components.
The dimensions “weighted level of performance” and “customer satisfaction” do not serve to
gather and structure requirement. In fact, they serve to give feedback to the gathered and
structured requirements. Hence, these dimensions show the actual condition of the
requirements respectively the customer satisfaction which results from this, whereas the
former ones show the nominal condition. By comparing nominal and actual condition the
extent of the requirements’ implementation can be shown. Also, potential weaknesses which
need additional action can be revealed.
In addition, the dimension “time” has to be taken into account. This dimension is not
independent or comparable to the other dimensions but all requirements include a temporal
aspect. Thereby, it is regarded that requirements are of different importance in different stages
of the life cycle. Moreover, it is considered that they are not statical. In fact, they are
dynamical and change over time regarding their importance respectively their weighting and
their level of specification. For example, at the beginning of the planning process customers
may not be able to articulate all of their requirements and may not be able to give precise
requirements [Gaut08].
The evaluation of the requirements’ implementation by the stakeholders is determining for the
customer satisfaction. Therefore, it is of foremost importance for companies and their market
success. Thus, in the following, these dimensions will be presented in more detail.
2.1
Weighted Level of Performance
As shortly mentioned above, this dimension differs from the dimensions which serve to gather
and structure requirements. They are set temporarily before the evaluation and gather the
nominal condition, i.d.. the stakeholders requirements for the product. The dimension
weighted level of performance instead depicts the actual condition. That means that in this
dimension the requirements’ satisfaction respectively their weighted level of performance is
checked. This can be done by a person on the one hand, on the other hand by suited
measurement devices. Thereby, it has to be considered that it is hardly possible to measure a
property’s “true condition”. For this a differentiation between the objective and the subjective
evaluation must be made. Requirements as, for instance, “The roll-conveyer may not be
higher than 2 metres.” are measurable objectively with measurement devices. The reached
respectively reachable results vary due to an uncertainty of measurement so that the “true”
value can only be determined with a certain probability. Requirements like “The running costs
of the facility should be as low as possible.” cannot be measured objectively. These
requirements respectively their fulfillments can only be evaluated by persons. Important
factors for their “subjective” evaluation are senses, feelings and their case history. Thereby,
the potential experience the stakeholder may have made with the producer in the past and the
quality image of the producer determine the case history. For example delayed delivery or
defective components and products a customer may have received beforehand or may have
got heard of can influence his evaluation. Also the sympathy between the buyer and the
vender may have an influence of assessing the requirements’ fulfillment. Thereby, little
deviation from the required performance may be evaluated more critical in case of lacking
sympathy.
The ServQual-approach has to be considered additionally when evaluating services. This
approach evaluates based on the factors assurance, reliability, tangibles, empathy and
responsiveness [Hent90]. In addition to that, the significance a requirement possesses for a
stakeholder may be important. This means that the weighting of the requirement has to be
considered because it is also crucial for the customer satisfaction, which is determined by the
fulfillment of those requirements. (Figure 2).
Characterist ics (t rue condit ion)
object ive
Result s of measurement (uncert aint y of measurement)
Human being
subject ive
Senses
Feelings
Organo
- hapt ic
- lept ic
ServQual
Fear
Experience
Assurance
Disgust
Q- Image
…
Reliabilit y
Sympat hy
…
…
Case
hist ory
Tangibles
Empat hy
Responsiveness
Figure 2: Weighted level of performance
Consequently, this dimension comprises all dimensions which serve to structure requirements
and the implementation of the requirements, the actual condition. By comparing nominal and
actual condition additional need for action can be derived, if necessary. For example the
requirement: “The noise exposure must not be higher than 80db”, which belongs to the
dimensions obligations and surroundings. In contrast, this dimension includes the actual
condition of this requirement. That means the noise exposure of the facility has to be
measured and compared to the required maximum (80 db).
Requirements
(nominal condit ion)
act ual condit ion
Nominal/ actual
comparison
Product
Figure 3: Comparison of nominal and actual condition
2.2
Customer Satisfaction
This dimension also does not serve to depict requirements as shortly mentioned above. In fact,
it serves to give feedback to the other dimensions’ surveyed and structured information by
showing the level of customer satisfaction. Information for this dimension result from the
stakeholders’ evaluation whether and how far their requirements were met. Consequently,
customer satisfaction is the result from the perceived difference between expectation and
performance respectively between performance-standards and the perceived quality or
performance of the product. [Saue00], [Tse98]. The importance of a requirement for the
stakeholders respectively their weighting of the requirement is essential in this context. For
this purpose the Kano-Theory can be used. To determine the influence of individual product
requirements on customers` satisfaction, it is useful to classify them by using the Kano model.
Therefore, in the following section the main features of the Kano model will be presented.
Kano`s Theory of Customer Satisfaction
According to the Kano-Theory customers evaluate the quality of a product using several
factors and dimensions which lead to different shapes of customer satisfaction [Crost09]. In
order to explain the different relationship between customer satisfaction and product attributes
Kano developed a famous two- dimensional model [Kano84].
Figure 4: The Kano-model of customer satisfaction [Sauerwein 2000]
The Kano model of customer satisfaction is used to structure customer requirements based on
groupings in various requirement categories. Depending on the allocation of potential
customer expectations to different Kano requirement categories, the model allows statements
to be made about the influence of individual product features on the satisfaction of the
customer [Hölz08].
As shown in figure 1 the main Kano requirement categories are [Chen08]:
• must-be or basic requirements (M): If product features classified as basic requirements
are not available or the performance of these product features is low customers
become dissatisfied. Even in case of high performance of basic requirements customer
satisfaction does not rise above a neutral level.
•
one- dimensional or performance requirements (O): In this case customer satisfaction
is linear to the performance of the corresponding product feature. Low attribute
performance leads to low customer satisfaction and vice versa.
•
attractive (delight and surprise) requirements (A): Attractive requirements are neither
explicitly expressed nor expected by the customer. Because of that, in case of fulfilling
these requirements lead to disproportionate satisfaction. Even if attractive
requirements are not fulfilled by the manufacturer there is no feeling of dissatisfaction.
• indifferent requirements (I): Customer satisfaction is not affected by the performance
of product features corresponding to indifferent requirements. In figure 1 this
requirement category correlates to the x-axis.
Although there are already existing some interesting approaches [cf. Lofg08], Kano`s model
has to be modified in order to take the weighted requirements as well as the weighted degree
of satisfaction into account. As shown by the presentation of the original model, according to
Kano`s theory requirements can be classified into attractive, one-dimensional and must-berequirements. It is assumed that the correlation between fulfilling requirements and
satisfaction is not necessarily linear [Hölz08], [Saue00]. Integrating a weighting-factor
although leads to the inability to depict graphs of requirements exactly. Moreover, the graphs
may have a flatter or steeper progress which means that the weighting-factor causes a weaker
or more intense impact of the meeting of requirements on customer satisfaction. Arrows show
this fact in the following figure.
Customer satisfaction
high
One- dimensional
requirement s
Att ract ive
requirements
low
high
Must- be/ basic
requirements
t ime
Degree of performance
(weighted)
low
Figure 5: Structuring according to the dimension customer satisfaction
The following chapter presents an approach to enlarge Kano`s theory by integrating a
weighting-factor into Kano`s model.
3.
An approach to enlarge Kano`s theory
In a traditional Kano-project the classification of several product features to Kanorequirement categories (cf. Figure 4) rests upon analysis results of an especially designed
questionnaire, which exhibits the following distinctiveness: there are two questions
formulated for any identified product feature – a positively formulated functional question,
which comprehends the respondents’ level of satisfaction if the requested product property
will be fulfilled by the manufacturer and a negatively formulated dysfunctional question,
which comprises the respondents’ reaction to non-fulfillment of the product property (cf.
[Saue00]). That followed, the questions have to be completed by five Kano-typical choices to
reply.
If a navigation system is part of the standard equipment of a car, how do you think about it?
If a navigation system is not part of the standard equipment of a car, how do you think about it?
Figure 6: Extract of a Kano-questionnaire
Below the main methods for evaluating a Kano questionnaire will be presented.
The first evaluation step of a Kano-questionnaire is an evaluation according to absolute
frequencies. For this purpose the two answers, which the respondents have given to the
functional and the dysfunctional question concerning to a certain product requirement will be
combined to a pair of answers. By using an evaluation table [cf. Saue00] it is apparent for
each combination of answers, if the corresponding product requirement is a basic
requirement, a performance requirement, an attractive requirement or an indifferent
requirement from the respondents’ point of view [Karp06].
In order to deduce recommendations of action and plans of measurement for a customeroriented product development from the results of a Kano frequency evaluation in the next step
it is necessary to interpret these results by using special Kano evaluation modes.
A relatively simple way to prioritize actions is the application of the M>O>A>I-rule. This
evaluation mode recommends firstly taking those product requirements into consideration,
which are allocated to the requirement category M (basic requirements), because disregarding
of such elementary basic elements creates dissatisfaction [Zang98]. According to the
M>O>A>I-rule product properties illustrating performance or attractive requirements from
customers’ point of view only have to be optimized or rather new integrated into the product
when fulfillment of all basic requirements is already assured. That rule also shows that
indifferent product requirements have the lowest priority. As already mentioned above this is
based on the fact that indifferent requirements only have a minor influence on customers’
satisfaction with the product. A detailed analysis of indifferent product requirements therefore
makes only sense, when all as basic, performance and enthusiasm product requirements have
already been taken into consideration.
If it is owing to inadequate personal, temporal or technological capacities impossible to fulfill
all product requirements, which were classified as performance or attractive requirements, the
calculation of Category Strength (CAT) suggests itself to establish priorities within a
requirement category [Lofgren, 2008]. Through measuring CAT it is possible to identify the
product attribute’s intensity of assignment to a requirement category. One can calculate CAT
for the product attributes of each Kano- requirement category on the basis of formula CAT =
most frequent mention (%) – second frequent mention (%) [Lee97]. The higher the value of
Category Strength the more persons have classified the considered product requirement into
this requirement category and the more effective the satisfaction donation capability in case of
fulfillment will affect contentedness to the customers.
In the following the development of a weighting concept based on the Kano-evaluation modes
“M>O>A>I” and “CAT” will be presented and exemplarily illustrated by fictitious values for
two requirements. The method is based on the assumption that the meaning of a customer
requirement is not only depending on the Kano-category (basic, performance, attractive,
indifference) of the requirement determined by frequency evaluation but is also addicted to
the percentage distribution of the remained answers to the other Kano-categories.
The aim, which the approach is going to pursue, is to detect the meaning and with it the
weight of a customer requirement by a multistage method of calculation directly from the
results of a Kano-project by considering the frequency of the individual Kano-categories and
with it the strength of assignment to the individual Kano-categories. For this, the following
calculation formula is applied:
Gi = x1/100*g1 + x2/100*g2 + x3/100*g3 + x4/100*g4 [I]
In this formula, the factors x1 to x4 are representing the percentage frequency distribution of
responses, which were allotted to the individual Kano-categories. The factor x1 is
representing the most frequently Kano-category and the factor x4 the most rarely one. g1 to
g4 are weighting coefficients. To determine x1 to x4, the first step of requirement weighting
process is to accomplish a Kano-evaluation according to absolute frequencies. Afterwards, the
results will be sorted according to descending frequency and recorded in a frequency table
with its percentage value.
The following table shows the frequencies of nomination which were allotted to the individual
Kano-categories.
Frequency of Nomination [%]
Customer Requirement
Arranged in downward frequencies
G1: Requirement 1
G2: Requirement 2
Gn: ……………
65 ( O ) = x1
40 ( O ) = x1
… = x1
30 ( M ) = x2
35 ( M ) = x2
… = x2
3 ( A ) = x3
23 ( A ) = x3
… = x3
2 ( I ) = x4
2 ( M ) = x4
… = x4
Table 1: Table of frequencies
Based on the table, one can see that an exemplarily evaluation according to absolute
frequencies classifies requirement one mainly as a one-dimensional requirement (O) and
requirement two mainly as an attractive requirement (A).
Applying the formula leads to the following results:
G1 = 0.65 (O) * g1 + 0.30 (M) * g2 + 0.03 (A) * g3 + 0.02 (I) * g4
G2 = 0.40 (A) * g1 + 0.35 (I) * g2 + 0.23 (O) * g3 + 0.02 (M) * g4
Gn = …
To determine the weight Gi of a customer requirement, the weighting coefficients g1 to g4
named in the formula have to be specified in the next phase of requirement weighting process.
g1 to g4 are determined step by step. They are fundamentally regulated by the Kanocategories of the corresponding frequencies of mentioning (x1 to x4).
If value x1 is representing a basic requirement (requirement category M) and value x2 is
representing an indifferent requirement (requirement category I), the weighting coefficient g1
overvalues in dependence of M>O>A>I-rule (cf. page 8) the weighting coefficient g2. This is
based on the assumption that a neglect of elementary basic requirements causes customers’
dissatisfaction in contrary to neglect of indifferent requirements.
Via formulating a weighting coefficient table on the basis of M>O>A>I-rule (cf. table 2), it is
warranted that the shown potential of causing dissatisfaction from a non-fulfilled requirement
finds consideration in the weighting process and requirements, which arouse discontentedness
while non-fulfillment, achieve a higher weighting as those arousing no discontentedness.
Requirement Category
Must-be requirement (M)
One-dimensional requirement (O)
+
Intensity of Allocation
=
very strong allocation
strong allocation
Weighting Coefficient gi
10 to 7
7 to 4
moderate allocation
Attractive Requirement (A)
Indifferent Requirement (I)
weak allocation
Independent from the intensity of allocation
4 to 1
1
Table 2: Table of weighting coefficients
As shown in table 2, the values of weighting coefficients g1 to g4 are not only affected by the
Kano-category but also by the intensity of classification into the considered Kano-category. In
enlargement to existing Kano-evaluation modes, the developed weighting base not only takes
into account the intensity of assignment to one but to all Kano requirement categories (cf. (I)).
The determining of intensity of a requirement’s classification to the individual Kanorequirement categories occurs step by step and is of use to the exact specification of weighting
coefficients within the available range (cf. arrows in table 2).
The intensity of classification is divided into four sectors for each requirement category and
extends from a very strong allocation to a weak allocation. The determining of sector
changeovers is carried out according to the Kano evaluation method Category Strength (cf.
page 9) and will be specified individually for each customer requirement as the frequency of
mentioning of the most named Kano-requirement category will be composed proportionately
to the frequency of mentioning of the residual ones. If the weighting factors g1 to g4 are
defined they complete the frequency table from step 1 of the weighting process.
Frequencies of Nomination [%] and Weighting Coefficients
Customer Requirement
G1: Requirement 1
G2: Requirement 2
Gn: Requirement n
Arranged in downward frequencies
65 ( O ) = x1 g1
=6
40 ( A ) = x1
g1 = 1
… = x1
g1 = …
30 ( M ) = x2
g2= 10
35 ( I ) = x2
g2
=1
… = x2
g2
=…
3 ( A ) = x3
=3
23 ( O ) = x3
=6
… = x3
g3 = …
g3
g3
2 ( I ) = x4
g4
=1
2 ( M ) = x4
g4 = 10
… = x4
g4 = …
Table 3: Extended table of frequencies
With the information given in table 3 the weightings G1 to Gn of the customer requirements
requested in a Kano-project can finally be calculated in the last phase of requirement
weighting process. Applying formula [I] leads to the following results:
G1= 0.65 * 6 + 0.30 * 10 + 0.03 * 3 + 0.02 * 1 = 7.01
G2 = 0.40 * 1 + 0.35 * 1 + 0.23 * 6 + 0.02 * 10 = 2.33
Gn = …
The results show that the one-dimensional requirement R1 received a significantly higher
weight than the attractive requirement R2.
The following charts illustrate how these results could affect the curves of the Kano-model.
Figure 7: Effects of weighting factors on the Kano-curves
The left chart shows the traditional Kano-graphs and the right one shows the Kano-model
with modified graphs regarding the example. According to the developed weighting approach
the average weight of a one-dimensional requirement is 5.5 (cf. table 2: the weighting factors
of one-dimensional requirements run between 4 and 7) and the average weight of an attractive
requirement is 2.5 (cf. table 2: the weighting factors of an attractive requirement run between
1 and 4). Because of its high weight of 7.01 the one-dimensional requirement R1 has a steeper
progress than one-dimensional requirements in the traditional Kano-model normally have.
However because of its low weight of 2.33 the graph of the attractive requirement R2 has a
flatter progress than attractive requirements in the traditional Kano-model normally have.
By considering all Kano-categories during the weighting process it could be shown that the
fulfillment of a one-dimensional requirement can make a greater contribution to the customer
satisfaction than the fulfillment of an attractive requirement. Regarding the example in case of
limited resources the manufacturers of intra-logistical facilities firstly should fulfill the onedimensional requirement “the number of staff needed to operate the system should be low” in
order to achieve a high customer satisfaction.
Following the weighting approach, during the evaluation process of more comprehensive
Kano-projects it is possible to draw a separate Kano-curve for each of the queried
requirements. Here, the slope of each curve is determined by the weight of the corresponding
requirement in relation to the average weight of its requirement category. Then, using the
curves the impact of each individual requirement to the satisfaction of the customers with the
product can be disclosed. Thus the developed approach allows prioritizing measures at a
glance. Nevertheless, it is necessary to quantify the Kano-graphs in general by adequate
formulas. This is analyzed in current research.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for supporting their
work within the framework of the Collaborative Research Centre 696.
References
[Chen08]
Chen, C.-C.; Chuang, M.-C.:“Integrating the Kano model into a robust design
approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design”, Production
Economics, Vol.114 (2008), pp. 667-681.
[Crost08]
Crostack, H.A.; Schlüter, N.: Anforderungen an intralogistische Anlagen erfolgreich strukturieren, PPS Management - Zeitschrift für Produktion und
Logistik, Volume 01, 2008, ISSN 1434-2308.
[Cros09]
Crostack, H.-A.; Kern, C.; Refflinghaus, R.: “The suitability of Kano`s method
for the requirements of the cutlery industry”, Proceedings of the 12th
International QMOD Conference (Quality Management and Organizational
Development), 2009, Verona/Italien, 27.-29.08.
[Cros10]
Crostack, H.-A.; Klute, S.; Refflinghaus, R.: A Multi-dimensional Model for
Structuring Stakeholder Requirements, in: Proceedings of the 20th CIRP
Design Conference, Nantes/France, 2010.
[Gaut08]
Gautum N.; Singh, N.: Lean product development: Maximizing the customer
perceived value through design change (redesign). Journal of Production
Economics, 114, pp 313-332, 2008.
[Hent90]
Hentschel, B., 1990, Die Messung wahrgenommener Dienstleistungsqualität
mit SERVQUAL – eine kritische Auseinandersetzung. In: Diskussionsbeiträge
der Wirtschafts-wissenschaftlichen Fakultät Ingolstadt. 1990, Nr. 3., ISSN:
0938-2712.
[Hölz08]
Hölzing, J. A.: Die Kano- Theorie der Kundenzufriedenheitsmessung – Eine
theoretische und empirische Überprüfung, GWV Fachverlage, Wiesbaden,
2008.
[Kano84]
Kano, N. et al.: “Attractive Quality and must- be quality”, Hinshitsu - The
Journal of The Japanese Society for Quality Control, Vol. 14 (1984), No. 2, pp.
47-56.
[Karp06]
Karpe, N. ; Scharf, A.:“Ermittlung relevanter Determinanten der Kundenzufriedenheit mittels Kano- Modell – dargestellt am Beispiel der
Dienstleistungen von Immobilienmaklern“, in Scharf, A. ; Stein, B. (Ed.),
Nordhäuser Hochschultexte. Schriftenreihe Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 1/ 2006.
[Lee97]
Lee, M.C.; Newcomb, J.F.: “Applying the Kano methodology to meet
customer requirements: NASA´s Microgravity Science Program”, Quality
Management Journal, Vol. 4 (1997), No. 3, pp. 95-110.
[Lofg08]
Lofgren, M.; Witell, L.: “Two Decades of Using Kanos Theory of Attractive
Quality: A Literature Review”, Quality Management Journal, Vol.15 (2008),
No.1, pp. 59-75.
[Saue00]
Sauerwein, E.: Das Kano-Modell der Kundenzufriedenheit – Reliabilität und
Validität einer Methode zur Klassifizierung von Produkteigenschaften,
Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000.
[Tse98]
Tse, D.; Wilton, P.1998, Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An
Externsion, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May, S. 204-212,
ISSN: 0022-243.
[Zang98]
Zanger, C. ; Baier, G.: “Händlerzufriedenheit mit Telekommunikationsgroßhändlern – Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Methodenvergleich
zwischen Conjoint- Analyse und Kano- Modell“, in Trommsdorff, V. (Ed.),
Handelsforschung 1998/99. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 407-432.