Kano Analysis and Customer Needs
November 15, 2004 | 
11 Comments
Just got through reading Gene’s post, Kano Taxonomy of Customer Needs and another post he refers to on the topic.
This is interesting stuff, and a great way to represent visually the needs of your customers (or your users) for almost any project. When it comes to Web projects this kind of model can be great for illustrating design features that are must-haves, nice-to-haves, etc.
We all know that designing for the Web is about balance and trade-off and that sometimes it can be hard to sell some of the “finer” things. Take a model like this, relate it to the bottom-line and you’ve got one more tool in the box when it comes to those “hard to get your (or more importantly, your clients’) mind around” details.
Filed under: News
Comments
1. Jeff Adams said:
This Kano analysis is very interesting thanks for pointing it out.
If I apply this to the current state of browsers particularly Internet Explorer on windows. For the majority of people I think browsers break down to this:
Must Haves
Able to surf the internet
Able to create bookmarks
More The Better
Browser Security
Delighters
Tabbed Browsing
Popup Blocking
From the above analysis I don’t see how alternate browsers like firefox can make a difference in Internet Explorer’s market share unless the Delighters are so convincing that they are willing to make the switch.
Am I wrong?
Posted on November 15, 2004 03:12 PM | #
2. Keith said:
Jeff – An interesting application that brings up a question. What if a feature moves? For example, for me, I used to consider tabbed browsing a Delighter, but now I think it’s closer to “More The Better” or “Must Have”…..
Posted on November 15, 2004 03:18 PM | #
3. Jeff Adams said:
I think that is what must happen for widespread adoption of a new product that is competing against a well established one. To make those “Delighter” features turn into “Must Haves” in the mind of their potential customers.
Now off to eat my “Must Have” Ramen noodles.
Posted on November 15, 2004 03:44 PM | #
4. Ray said:
Your timing is impeccable. I’m consulting with a new small business and was just talking with them about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to their staff and clients.
Physiological Needs
Safety Needs
Love Needs
Esteem Needs
Self-Actualization
The Kano Analysis will make for great discussion at our next meeting. Thanks for the post. Good stuff (just made my job a little easier) ; )
Posted on November 15, 2004 04:07 PM | #
5. Ray said:
Given the current state of things I’d say Browser Security & Popup Blocking belong in the Must Have list. Tabbed Browsing would fall under More The Better.
imho
Posted on November 15, 2004 04:15 PM | #
6. Jeff Adams said:
Ray,
I agree with you for people that are involved in the web as a business but for the majority of people I don’t think that is the case.
Posted on November 15, 2004 06:05 PM | #
7. Mark Burgess said:
It’s an interesting way to look at things but I don’t see where the data set comes from, or how it could be used. How do we determine ahead of time how much work any one feature might be, and what would result from putting more work into it? E.g. is it really possible to say that feature f will take h1 hours to minimally implement, then h2 hours to beef up, then h3 for refinement? And that’s only three data points, and only along the x-axis… seems like a lot of guesswork to me. How do we measure the various satisfaction levels before the work is done?
The shape of the delighter curve kinda makes sense – a delightful feature may have a long investment but the payoff is great once you get it right (at which time there’s no sense in putting more effort into it, since satisfaction is very high). But I don’t see how it’s necessarily the case that delightful features require a lot of investment.
And, as evidenced in the discussion above, one person’s delighter is another’s must-have. I suppose we could evaluate these in terms of our personal goals to figure out what’s what.
Posted on November 15, 2004 07:42 PM | #
8. Mark Burgess said:
doh! evaluate in terms of our *persona* goals
Posted on November 15, 2004 07:44 PM | #
9. Gene said:
Hi Mark,
You should look at the PDF I linked at the bottom of the post–it shows you how to conduct a Kano survey to understand how customers perceive features. The other issue–how much time it takes implement a feature–isn’t addressed in the Kano model. But Kano analysis can inform your design process to help you make the right trade-offs.
Cheers,
Gene
Posted on November 15, 2004 08:11 PM | #
10. Tom Dell'Aringa said:
Our Six Sigma team brought us Kano analysis for one of our brand Intranet sites, and it really turned out to be a good thing because it is next to impossible to get any of these customers to come in and talk about what they need.
So essentially, the SS team was able to go out in the field and grab this data and hand it over to us at the start of the project. So although I could not actually sit down with my actual customers, I at least have a pretty targeted list of the exact functionalities they want to see to call this project a success.
It’s also helping to drive the iterative process, to serve kind of like guideposts along the way. If it’s not part of what they want, we aren’t scope creeping things around it, and that’s a good thing.
Tom
Posted on November 16, 2004 07:33 AM | #
11. Ray said:
Great idea. “Guideposts along the way”… everyone singing from the same agreed upon song book, right from the get go.
Posted on November 16, 2004 08:17 AM | #
Comments are now closed