Kano model

Kano model is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction that categorizes product attributes based on how they influence customer satisfaction, distinguishing between basic expectations, performance factors, and delight features (Kano N. 1984, p.39)^[1]. Not all features affect satisfaction equally. A car that starts reliably doesn't make customers ecstatic—they expect it. But a car that won't start creates fury. Meanwhile, an unexpected upgrade to heated seats might genuinely delight. Noriaki Kano's insight was that different feature categories operate on fundamentally different satisfaction curves.

The model revolutionized product development by revealing that simply adding features doesn't linearly increase satisfaction. Some features must be present to avoid dissatisfaction; others create satisfaction only when present; still others delight but aren't expected. Understanding these distinctions helps organizations prioritize development efforts, allocate resources wisely, and create products customers love.

The three quality categories

Kano identified three primary attribute types:

Must-be quality (basic expectations)

Definition. These are features customers take for granted. When present, they don't increase satisfaction; when absent, they cause significant dissatisfaction. Customers don't articulate these expectations because they seem obvious^[2].

Characteristics. Must-be features represent the price of entry. A hotel room must be clean. A phone must make calls. A restaurant must serve safe food. Meeting these requirements brings customers to neutral—not satisfied, just not dissatisfied.

Examples. Brakes on a car. Sound on a television. Legs on a chair. Working buttons on a website. These features don't impress anyone; their absence appalls everyone.

Implication. Must-be features demand attention but shouldn't consume excess resources once adequate performance is achieved. You can't delight customers by exceeding basic expectations—you can only avoid angering them by meeting those expectations.

One-dimensional quality (performance attributes)

Definition. These features produce satisfaction proportional to their level. More is better; less is worse. Customers explicitly request these attributes and compare competitors on them^[3].

Characteristics. Linear relationship between attribute level and satisfaction. Customers articulate these needs clearly. Competition often centers on these features.

Examples. Battery life in phones—longer is better. Fuel economy in cars. Processing speed in computers. Interest rates on savings accounts. Delivery speed for packages.

Implication. Performance attributes merit continuous improvement. Competitive differentiation often occurs here. Investment in these features directly translates to customer satisfaction.

Attractive quality (delighters)

Definition. Features that customers don't expect but appreciate when present. Their absence causes no dissatisfaction; their presence creates disproportionate satisfaction and delight.

Characteristics. Unexpected and unspoken needs. Customers can't articulate what they don't know to expect. These features differentiate products and create emotional connections^[4].

Examples. The first smartphone's touch screen. Free cookies at a hotel. Surprise gift wrapping. Personalized recommendations. An umbrella provided on rainy days.

Implication. Delighters create competitive advantage and customer loyalty. They generate word-of-mouth. But they require innovation since customers won't ask for what they can't imagine.

Additional categories

Later refinements added categories:

Indifferent attributes. Features customers don't care about regardless of presence or absence. Including them wastes resources without affecting satisfaction.

Reverse attributes. Features some customers want while others actively dislike. Polarizing attributes require careful targeting. Loud engine sounds might appeal to sports car enthusiasts and repel sedan buyers^[5].

Attribute dynamics

Feature categories aren't permanent:

Delight decay. Today's delighters become tomorrow's performance features and eventually must-be expectations. The first cars with power windows delighted buyers; now their absence disappoints.

Rising expectations. Market exposure raises customer expectations. What competitors offer becomes the minimum acceptable standard.

Technology progression. Technical advances make yesterday's premium features today's basics. Features once requiring premium pricing become standard equipment^[6].

Competitive dynamics. One company's innovation becomes industry standard when competitors copy it. Differentiation requires continuous innovation.

Kano questionnaire methodology

Identifying attribute categories requires specific research methods:

Functional/dysfunctional questions

For each feature, ask two questions:

Functional question. "How would you feel if the product had this feature?" Response options range from "I would like it" to "I would dislike it."

Dysfunctional question. "How would you feel if the product did NOT have this feature?" Same response options.

Classification matrix

Combining responses classifies the attribute:

• If customers like having it and dislike not having it → Performance attribute
• If customers are neutral about having it but dislike not having it → Must-be attribute
• If customers like having it but are neutral about not having it → Attractive attribute
• If customers are neutral about both → Indifferent
• If customers dislike having it but like not having it → Reverse

Analysis considerations

Segment differences. Different customer segments may classify the same feature differently. One segment's delighter might be another's must-be.

Time sensitivity. Survey timing matters given attribute drift over time^[7].

Questionnaire design. Careful wording prevents confusion. The double-question format feels unfamiliar to respondents.

Applications

The Kano model guides multiple business functions:

Product development

Feature prioritization. Ensure must-be requirements are met first. Then optimize performance attributes. Finally, seek delighter opportunities.

Resource allocation. Don't over-invest in must-be features beyond adequacy. Don't neglect performance features where competition occurs. Reserve resources for delight innovation.

Roadmap planning. Sequence development to address categories appropriately.

Quality management

Quality planning. Different quality approaches suit different categories. Must-be features need reliability and consistency; delighters need innovation and creativity.

Defect prioritization. Must-be defects demand immediate attention; performance defects merit systematic improvement; delighter defects matter less.

Marketing

Positioning. Communicate performance advantages. Highlight delighters for differentiation. Don't emphasize must-be features since competitors have them too.

Pricing. Must-be features don't justify premium pricing. Performance leadership supports premium positioning. Delighters may command premiums if competitors lack them^[8].

Agile development

Backlog prioritization. Product managers categorize stories by Kano type to inform sprint planning.

MVP definition. Minimum viable products must include must-be features and sufficient performance features. Delighters can wait for later iterations.

Limitations

The Kano model has constraints:

Categorization difficulty. Survey responses may be inconsistent or ambiguous. Clear classification isn't always achievable.

Dynamic instability. Rapid category drift in fast-moving markets reduces classification shelf life.

Customer segment complexity. Different segments classifying features differently complicates prioritization.

Innovation limitation. Customers can't articulate needs for features they can't imagine. The model identifies categories for known features but doesn't generate breakthrough innovation.

Implementation gaps. Knowing categories doesn't automatically translate to execution success.

Kano model — recommended articles

Quality management — Customer satisfaction — Product development — Total quality management

References

• Kano N. et al. (1984), Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality, Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, Vol. 14, No. 2.
• Berger C. et al. (1993), Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer-defined Quality, Center for Quality Management Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4.
• Matzler K., Hinterhuber H.H. (1998), How to Make Product Development Projects More Successful, Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 1.
• ASQ (2023), The Kano Model, American Society for Quality.

Footnotes

1. ↑ Kano N. et al. (1984), Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality, p.39
2. ↑ Berger C. et al. (1993), Kano's Methods, pp.3-28
3. ↑ ASQ (2023), The Kano Model
4. ↑ Kano N. et al. (1984), Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality, pp.42-48
5. ↑ Matzler K., Hinterhuber H.H. (1998), Product Development, pp.25-38
6. ↑ Berger C. et al. (1993), Kano's Methods, pp.29-35
7. ↑ ASQ (2023), The Kano Model
8. ↑ Matzler K., Hinterhuber H.H. (1998), Product Development, pp.39-51

Author: Sławomir Wawak