With regard to management using limited business resources, understanding customer requirements and their effect on customer satisfaction is very important. Consequently, the quality attribute strength of every outcome in the evaluation sheet is a critical factor that is considered by managers in categorizing the quality attributes. The new Kano’s evaluation sheet allows quality attributes to be assigned to categories more precisely. In the preceding case, a more practical categorization of quality attributes was achieved using the new Kano’s evaluation sheet, and the improvement order is gained more precisely by utilizing a new SII and DDI, which were compared and integrated with the original SII and DDI.
Accordingly, enterprises can make better decisions concerning product quality using the new evaluation sheet presented here. Enterprises can analyze the categories of quality attributes using both the new Kano’s evaluation sheet and the customer satisfaction index (SII and DDI), to gain much more valuable information than they would otherwise would have to improve the customer satisfaction. The new evaluation sheet presents not only a different logic of classification and statistical method for analyzing quality attributes, but also reviewed judgments of the category of quality attributes from Kano’s traditional evaluation sheet.
In the analytical Kano-IPA model, this study discussed the nonlinear relationship between quality attributes and customer satisfaction by employing the modified Kano indices, and identified the priority of improvements using quantitative methods. In the preceding case, the improvement order is obtained more precisely by utilizing the analytical Kano-IPA model. Accordingly, enterprises can obtain greater amounts of valuable information for improvement, including improvement effects, the priority of improvements, categories of quality attributes, and impact of the life cycle of quality attributes. Moreover, enterprises can use the revised analytical Kano model to analyze the customer satisfaction index (SII and DDI) directly, and enterprises can then determine which attributes can influence customer satisfaction and make better decisions concerning products and services quality. The analytical Kano-IPA model takes the nonlinear relationship between quality attributes and customer satisfaction into account, which is not only elevating effectiveness of the IPA model, but also retaining the simple decision making pattern of traditional IPA model.
According to the Kano’s model refined by IPA, quality attributes can be divided into more precise categories. Simultaneously, issues related to the traditional Kano’s model are improved, and the problem of a non-quantitative measure is solved. In addition, the
concept of “importance” and “performance” is integrated into the Kano’s model, resulting in the Kano’s model refined by IPA, which can be used to directly discuss improvement effects and prioritize quality attributes. Thus, not only does the Kano’s model include the advantages of IPA, but it also solves IPA’s hidden problems. Enterprises can simultaneously manage the satisfaction level of quality attributes and their degree of importance and performance. Additionally, enterprises can obtain valuable information for improvements by comparing the satisfaction levels and the degree of importance and performance of quality attributes. In the preceding case, the order of improvements was prioritized more precisely using the Kano’s model refined by IPA. Compared to the refined Kano’s model (Yang, 2005) and the analytical Kano-IPA model, the Kano’s model refined using IPA is significantly simpler for practical applications, and enables greater amounts of valuable information for improvement to be obtained. Business management typically focuses on improvements to quality elements that customers consider unsatisfactory.
However, according to the Kano’s model refined by IPA, this is not the only consideration.
Based on the three preceding case studies, we can understand how to use the three improvement methods. If managers need only to classify quality attributes precisely to conduct further evaluation upon product or service development and improvements, then they can use the new Kano’s evaluation sheet. If managers need to obtain more complete information to make comprehensive assessments, then they can use the analytical Kano-IPA model. If managers aim to obtain sufficient and precise information for decision making using simpler methods, then they can use the refined Kano’s model using IPA.
Additionally, based on the three preceding case studies, the feasibility and effectiveness of these methods are verified. The three improvement methods are not only practical tools for industries but are also theoretical methods for academic research.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. W. & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(Spring), 125-143.
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., et al. (1993).
Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. The Center for Quality Management Journal, 2(4), 3-36.
Coyne, K. (1989). Beyond service fades-meaningful strategies for the real world. Sloan Management Review, 39(Summer), 69-76.
Eskildsen, J. K. & Kristensen, K. (2006). Enhancing importance-performance analysis.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55, 40-60.
Gardial, S. F., Clemons, D. S., Woodruff, R. B., Schumann, D. W., & Burns, M. J. (1994).
Comparing consumers’ recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March), 548-560.
Grieves, M. (2005). Product lifecycle management: Driving the next generation of lean thinking. Asia, McGraw-Hill.
Herzberg, F., Bernard, M., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.
Hinterhuber, H. H. (1997). Un modello semiqualitative per la valutazione della soddisfazione del cliente. Micro and Macro Marketing. (April), 127–143.
IMTI Inc. (2002). Modeling and simulation for product life-cycle integration and management. New York: White Paper.
Jané, A. C. & Dominguez, S. M. (2003). Citizens’ role in health services: Satisfaction behavior: Kano’s Model, Part 2. Quality Management in Health Care, 12(1), 72-80.
Jiao, J. & Chen, C. H. (2006). Customer requirement management in product development:
A review of research issues. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 14(3), 173-185.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Kano, N. (2001). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality. Paper presented at the 4th International QMOD (Quality Management and Organizational Development) Conference, Linko¨pings Universitet, Sweden.
Kano, N., Seraku, K., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.
Kuo, Y. (2004). Integrating Kano’s Model into Web-community Service Quality. Total Quality Management, 15(7), 925-939.
Lee, M. C. & Newcomb, J. F. (1997). Applying the kano methodology to meet customer requirements: NASA’s Microgravity science program. Quality Management Journal, 4(3), 95-110.
Lee, Y. C. & Chen, J. K. (2009). A new method to identify the category of the quality attributes. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 20(10), 1139-1152.
Lee, Y. C., Cheng, C. C., & Yen, T. M. (2009). Integrate Kano’s Model and IPA to Improve Order-Winner Criteria: A Study of Computer Industry. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(1), 38-48.
Lee, Y. C., Ho, L. H., & Liang, C. H. (2006). Using Kano’s model to evaluate employee satisfaction- as applied for Taiwanese high-tech industry. The Journal of Global Business Management, 2(2), 160-167.
Lee, Y. C., Ho, L. H., Liang, C. H., & Lin, S. B. (2007). A study of high-tech employee satisfaction based on modified Kano's model. International Journal of Business and Strategy, 18(1), 22-48.
Lee, Y. C., Hsieh, Y. F., & Huang, C. W. (2010). Using gap analysis and implicit importance to modify SIPA. In Qi Ershi, Liu Binghui, Shen Jiang, & Dou Runliang (Eds.), Poster session presented at the 2010 IEEE 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (p.175-179), Beiging: IEEE Press.
Lee, Y. C., Hu, H. Y., Yen, T. M., & Tsai, C. H. (2008a). Kano’s model and Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory applied to order winners and qualifiers improvement: A study of the computer industry. Information Technology Journal, 7(5), 702-714.
Lee, Y. C. & Huang, S. Y. (2009). A new fuzzy concept approach for Kano’s model.
Expert Systems with applications, 36(3), 4479-4484.
Lee, Y. C., Lin, S. B., & Wang, Y. L. (2011). A new Kano's evaluation sheet. The TQM Journal, 23(2), 179-195.
Lee, Y. C., Sheu, L. C., & Tsou, Y. G. (2008b). Quality function deployment implementation based on Fuzzy Kano model: An application in PLM system.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 48-63.
Lee, Y. C., Yen, T. M., & Tsai, C. H. (2008c). Modified IPA for quality improvement:
Taguchi’s signal-to-noise ratio approach. The TQM Journal, 20, 488-501.
Lee, Y. C., Yen, T. M., & Tsai, C. H. (2008d). The study of an integrated rating system for supplier quality performance in the semiconductor industry. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(3), 453-461.
Löfgren, M. & Witell, L. (2005). Kano’s theory of attractive quality and packaging.
Quality Management Journal, 12(3), 7-20.
Löfgren, M. & Witell, L. (2008). Two decades of using Kano’s theory of attractive quality:
A literature review. The Quality Management Journal, 15(1), 59‐75.
Martilla, J. A. & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analyses. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004a). The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 271-277.
Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., & Schubert, A. K. (2004b). Employee satisfaction: Does Kano’s model apply? Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 15, 1179-1198.
Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25-38.
Matzler, K. & Renzl, B. (2007). Assessing asymmetric effects in the formation of employee satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28, 1093-1103.
Matzler, K. & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The Factor Structure of customer satisfaction: An empirical test of importance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast analysis.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(4), 314-332.
Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., & Heischmidt, K. A. (2003). Importance-performance analysis revisited: The role of factor structure of customer satisfaction. Service Industries Journal, 23(2), 112-129.
Nilsson-Witell, L. & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: A test of Kano’s theory of attractive quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), 152-168.
Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 22(6), 617-627.
Oliva, T. A., Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1995). The relationship among customer satisfaction, involvement, and product performance. Behavioral Science, 40(April), 104-132.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer, New York, NY.
Ryan, C. & Huyton, J. (2002). Tourists and aboriginal people. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 631-647.
Sampson, S. E. & Showalter, M. J. (1999). The performance-importance response function:
Observations and implications. The Service Industries Journal, 19(3), 1-25.
Schvaneveldt, S., Takao, E. J., & Masami, M. (1991). Consumer Evaluation Perspective of Service Quality：Evaluation Factors and Two-Way Model of Quality. Total Quality Management, 2(3), 149-161.
Tan, K. C. & Shen, X. X. (2000). Integrating Kano’s Model in the Planning Matrix of Quality Function Deployment. Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1141-1151.
Tarrant, M. A. & Smith, E. K. (2002). The use of a modified importance-performance framework to examine visitor satisfaction with attributes of outdoor recreation settings. Managing Leisure, 7(2), 69-82.
Ting, S. C. & Chen, C. N. (2002). The asymmetrical and non-linear effects of store quality attributes on customer satisfaction. Total Quality management, 13(4), 547-569.
Tontini, G. (2000). Identification of customer attractive and must-be requirements using a modified Kano’s method：Guidelines and case study. ASQ’s 54th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 728-740.
Wang, T. & Ji, P. (2010). Understanding customer needs through quantitative analysis of Kano’s model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(2), 173-184.
Watson, G. H. (2003). Customer focus and competitiveness. in Stephens, K.S. (Ed.), Six Sigma and Related Studies in the Quality Disciplines, Reprint, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Witell, L. & Löfgren, M. (2007). Classification of quality attributes. Managing Service Quality, 17(1), 54-73.
Xu, Q., Jiao, R. J., Yang, X., & Helander, M. (2009). An analytical Kano model for customer need analysis. Design Studies, 30(1), 87-110.
Yang, C. C. (2003). Establishment and applications of the integrated model of service quality measurement. Managing Service Quality, 13(4), 310-324.
Yang, C. C. (2005). The refined Kano’s model and its application. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(10), 1127-1137.
Yavas, U. & Shemwell, D. J. (2001). Modified importance- performance analysis: An application to hospitals. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 14(3), 104-110.
Zhang, H. Q. & Chow, I. (2004). Application of importance-performance model in tour guides performance: Evidence from mainland Chinese outbound visitors in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 25(1), 81-91.