这种措施的助益是力所能及得出一个的的数量结论。

今天于Medium看到同一篇用研方法的介绍—— 卡诺模型(The Kano
Analysis)。
用来分析一个活功效是否会如用户满意,这种措施的独到之处是能得出一个如实的数目结论,帮助决策。计算方式也生简单的,问卷操作也比较容易简单,成本大没有。我本人特别欣赏这种会迅速验证的小本钱措施,能以简单的年月和人力资源条件下,也能够高效得出可靠的数参考和清的结论。正而自齐一样篇稿子介绍的方式一如既往,能大大提高沟通效率,减少无谓的争吵。本办法对职能的五种划分也蛮有意思,让自身回忆锤子科技,锤子的无绳电话机就是是特地注重软件上的Delightful
Features而忽视任何硬件及之Required
Features。这虽刚刚解释了胡锤子销量和认知度无化正比。

Posted on March 19th, 2014 by Dave
Verduyn in
Kano
Model

初稿我就无备翻了,我单独拿重大之始末译生,由于Medium需要梯子,所以自己于征询作者同意的情况下把原本和粘贴在斯。有楼梯的同班请点此传送。 

图片 1

被行为科学家赫兹伯格的双双元素理论的诱导,东京理工大学教授狩野纪昭(Noriaki
Kano)和他的同事Fumio
Takahashi于1979年10月登出了《质量之保健因素和激发因素》(Motivator and
Hygiene Factor in Quality)一中和。

Kano Model

拖欠法把产品功能划分也以下五种:

** A product or service will only be successful** if it effectively
solves one or more important customer problems. Every customer problem
can be represented as a need. The Kano Model is an insightful
representation of 3 main categories of needs any product or service must
address in order to survive in a competitive market.

Desired Features 期望功能 

当提供者意义,用户满意度会提升,当不提供者功能,用户满意度会落;

I was introduced to the Kano Model back in 1988 while working early in
my career at Ford Motor Company. Twice I had the pleasure of meeting the
creator of the model, Dr. Noriaki Kano, once in 1991 at one of his
lectures at Ford, and the second in 2006 in a Kano Masters workshop he
led in San Diego. Even though Dr. Kano originally created his model back
in 1984, I truly believe it is more relevant today, than ever before,
primarily because of the increasingly global and competitive marketplace
coupled with the customer having more choices and being more demanding
than ever before.

Required Features 必备功能 

当优化是作用,用户满意度不见面升级,当不提供者功能,用户满意度会大幅下降;

Dr. Kano created this model while studying the contributing factors to
customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. He wanted to demonstrate and
explain how different “classifications/categories” of customer
requirements and features have the ability to influence customer
satisfaction in different ways. In any business, knowing how your
customer requirements impact satisfaction is very important when
prioritizing development efforts and managing product development
resources. Having said this, the Kano Model goes far beyond the simple
ability to see how requirements and features influence satisfaction.

Delightful Features 魅力功能 

用户意想不到的,如果非提供者功效,用户满意度不见面骤降,但当提供者意义,用户满意度会发生十分非常提升;

In the following article I will attempt to clearly introduce and
explain the Top 5 “Kano Model Take-Away’s” that I believe everyone
developing products and services should understand.

Indifferent Features 无差异功能

无论提供或无提供者意义,用户满意度都未见面生转移,用户向未小心;

1. There are five categories of customer requirements that have different effects on customer satisfaction!

图片 2

Figure 1 – Satisfaction Execution Axis

Not all customer requirements have the same ability to deliver high
satisfaction when done well. Now this sounds rather obvious, but there
is a distinction Kano discovered that is worth noting. You could have
two customer needs that are equally important and one will cause high
satisfaction when done well and the other will leave the customer
neutral when done well.

To further illustrate, one customer requirement could be far more
important than another requirement, but if they are both executed very
well the less important one may be able to increase satisfaction far
more than the more important requirement. This is because the two
requirements fall into two different categories, each which has a
different influence on delivering increased customer satisfaction. For
example, take the brakes and fuel efficiency of your car.

If they are both done very well, and assuming it is more important to
stop the car well at a traffic light than it is to get great fuel
economy, it is only the less important need, fuel economy, that has the
ability to greatly increase satisfaction. Having a car that breaks very
well at a traffic light will only leave the typical driver neutral
because braking well at a stop light is a given, it is assumed. This
does not mean that we don’t have to worry about braking, it means that
improving braking will likely have little effect on increasing
satisfaction.

The point here is that you must couple the importance of a particular
need with the Kano category it falls into to help prioritize your
improvement efforts and determine your future development goals. Dr.
Kano discovered and classified 5 categories of requirements. 3 of the
categories are very common and should be included in your offering and
two are relatively rare and should be excluded from your offering. Kano
explains and illustrates these 5 classifications on the axis shown in
Figure 1. The horizontal (x) axis is the degree of fulfillment or
execution. On the right extreme is fully executed, on the left extreme
is not done at all or very poorly. The vertical (y) axis is the
satisfaction level for a particular requirement, on the top, very
satisfied and on the bottom, very dissatisfied. Dr. Kano used this set
of axis to graphically show the 5 categories of customer needs.

图片 3

Figure 2 – Performance Requirements

Anti-feature Features 反朝功能

用户从都并未是意义,提供后用户满意度反而会下滑。

方式以问卷提问的法收集数据,最后通过数据整合得出一个效益的星星点点单系数:中意系数
Satisfaction Coefficient 
不满意系数 Dissatisfaction
Coefficient。如若满意系数过非乐意系数,该功能值得做。

以下是原文内容 Let’s Go:

Performance Requirements

These are the requirements the customers are able to articulate and are
at the top of their minds when making choices and evaluating options.
They are the most visible of the Kano requirements and likely the
easiest to acquire because customers freely talk about these type of
requirements. Performance Requirements are typically understood through
classic research methods like interviews, surveys, and focus groups. As
shown in Figure 2, the better they are performed (x-axis), the more
satisfaction they bring (y-axis), conversely, the worse they are
performed, the more dissatisfaction they bring. These are often “more
the better” requirements but can also be “less the better” like price,
noise, etc. Kano originally called these “One-Dimensional” because they
are somewhat linear in nature, the better you execute these, the more
satisfaction from the customer you get.
Examples of this type of quality are the battery life on a cell phone or
the time it takes to get an oil change at your dealership or the
resolution in your new flat screen TV. The better these requirements are
executed, the more satisfaction the customer will receive. These are
often “more the better” requirements but can also be “less the better”
on occasion for things like price, noise, emissions, etc.

图片 4

Figure 3 – Basic Requirements

The Kano Analysis

Basic Requirements

As shown in Figure 3, these are the requirements that the customers
expect to get and are very often taken for granted. Consider these
requirements as obvious expectations your customers have. When execution
is poor, satisfaction is low and when execution is done well,
satisfaction is neutral. It is very likely that every one of your
competitors provides these requirements as well. The interesting thing
about these Basic Requirements is that when we do these well, customers
are just neutral, but when done poorly, customers are very dissatisfied.
Kano originally called these “Must-be’s” because they are the
requirements that must be included and are the price of entry into a
market. Typical sources to discover these needs are industry standards,
government regulations, customer complaints, corporate experience and
tribal knowledge.
Examples of this type of quality is the strength of the handle on your
favorite coffee cup, windshield wipers on a car, the cleanliness of the
carpet in a hotel room or the reliability of a lock on the door of the
new car you are considering to purchase. If these are done extremely
well, it does very little to enhance your satisfaction, the customer
will typically remain neutral.

图片 5

Figure 4 – Excitement Requirements

A Better Way Discover What Users Really Want From Your Product

by Brian
O’Neill

You’re on the design team for Crunchrr, a new app that helps users
discover cereals they’ll love. Users can:

– Create a profile and connect with others

– Discover cereals based on their preferences

– Rate and review cereals

Crunchrr is in the hands of some early adopters who are loving its core
features. Things are going great. That is, until the requests start
rolling in.

Annelise from marketing says: “Crunchrr needs a map view so users can
see where each cereal is made. People are really interested in where
their food comes from nowadays, so this is really a must! Besides, every
app has a map view.” Kevin from sales was at a meeting with a potential
advertiser who asks: “Where’s the chatbot? You can’tnothave a chatbot.
Conversational UI is the future!”

One of your early adopters pings you to suggest: “There should be a
button so I can email the cereal maker to request a gluten-free
version.” Another one says: “Maybe there could be something like Shazam
for cereal. That way, if I’m in a restaurant I can take a picture of
what the person at the next table is eating and it’ll show me what that
cereal is.”

The next thing you know, your backlog is a gaggle of suggestions,
requests, and demands. It seems that everyone has brilliant idea that
justhasto go into the next release.

This can’t be avoided. Everyone has an opinion and given the
opportunity, they’ll express it. And people easily fall into a “more is
better” mentality. More features equals a better product, and the more
of each feature, the better.

The obvious problem is that you can’t deliver on every request. Not only
that, but all ideas aren’t created equal, and users are often at a loss
as to how to articulate what they really want and need. On the other
hand, internal stakeholders tend to view features in the narrow context
of their own interests. How do you stop the madness?

“The most important thing that a team can do to help their design is
to say no to almost any idea for a feature”

— Jared Spool

You need a way to predict user satisfaction that lets you prioritize
feature releases and even re-evaluate existing features. And you need
hard data to support your decisions about what goes into Crunchrr and
when. That’s where theKano
Modelcomes
in.

Excitement Requirements

As arguably one of the most important of the categories, these are the
requirements that are unexpected pleasant surprises or delights. These
are the innovations you bring into your offering. Some companies call
them USP’s (Unique Selling Propositions) As shown in Figure 4, they
delight the customer when there, but do not cause any dissatisfaction
when missing because the customer never expected them in the first
place. Kano originally called these “Attractive or Delighters” because
that’s exactly what they are and do.
Examples of this type of quality is Zappos with their free shipping both
ways and Nest’s thermostat that programs itself. Nest also came out with
a smoke detector that can be silenced with a simple wave of the hand
instead of finding a ladder and pushing a button that doesn’t work or
having to find and disconnect the battery that often ends up with a
broken smoke detector, not sure about you, but I’ve done this.
Excitement Quality doesn’t have to be expensive. Have you ever pulled
into a gas station only to realize the fuel filler door is on the other
side of the car? Back in the late 80’s Ford put a little arrow next to
the fuel icon on the dashboard to remind people what side of the car the
fuel door is. Cost, about 1/100 penny per car. If that. It was a very
inexpensive solution to a customer pain and such a good idea that all
cars do it now. On the other hand, if it is a big innovation, customers
will be very willing to pay more for big innovations.

图片 6

Figure 5 – Zone of Indifference

The Kano Model

In 1984 professor Noriaki Kano presented a model that predicts how
satisfied people will be with a product based on its features. Since
then, the Kano Model has become a standard design tool because of how
effectively it can make typically invisible ideas about quality visible.
The core principle of the model is that satisfaction can be plotted
along five distinct
curves.[1]

Indifferent Requirements

As seen in Figure 5, these are the requirements that most customers
simply don’t care about whether they are present or absent, their
satisfaction remains neutral under either circumstance. Examples of this
type of quality are some of the advanced features on a cell phone that
only one in every hundred people would ever use. If the vast majority of
customers don’t care about these functions or features and they are
expensive to include you may want to consider eliminating them in your
offering because they provide so little value.

Curve 1: Desired Features

Remember when I said more isn’t always better? Well,sometimesit is it
is. More storage space or battery life is better. Faster download
speeds? Better. These are all examples of where the user will usually
express greater satisfaction in direct proportion to how much of the
feature they get.

With desired features, satisfaction is directly proportional to feature
implementation

In the case of Crunchrr, desired features could be:

– Speed and responsiveness

– Number of users to connect with

– Suggestions based on stated preferences and past browsing behavior

– Options for quickly zeroing in on a kind of cereal (sorting,
filtering, etc.)

– Size of cereal selection

Reverse Requirements

Figure 6 shows likely the rarest of the five categories, and items you
want to consistently exclude from your offering. These are the
requirements that cause dissatisfaction when present and satisfaction
when absent. They are the features or attributes that cause customers to
say “I hate when they do that”. Although these are very rare, they do
sometimes find themselves in a product or service typically due to a
lack of product testing or customer research.

A small examples of this type of quality was Microsoft’s little
“paperclip helper”. Most people didn’t like it and it was even more
annoying because it was difficult to turn off unless you knew the secret
to disabling it.

图片 7

Figure 6 – Reverse Requirements

Important note: There are certainly several shades of grey between
categories. It’s important to keep in mind that there are very few
absolutes with the Kano Model. What one describes as an Excitement
Quality will be described as a Performance Quality by others and maybe
even a Basic by a third customer. Don’t be over analytic with the model,
the masses don’t always think alike. What is expected (Basic) by one
person may be perceived as an innovation (Excitement) to another person.
These differences are often attributed to customer segmentation issues
and the simple fact that all customers are a little different and each
of them have different priorities. You will see in conducting a Kano
Survey that once you aggregate the data you look for tendencies and
dominant responses to draw conclusions about the masses and customer
segmentation issues. One of the main benefits of understanding the Kano
Model is to realize there are three categories of requirements that need
to be designed into your product or service and missing the right needs
in all three categories may endanger the success of your offering.

Curve 2: Required Features

Required features are the ones users expect and take for granted.

With required features satisfaction levels off once the basic need has
been met

Users are dissatisfied when a required feature is not present and
satisfied when it is. But that satisfaction levels off after a certain
point. This makes sense when you think about it. If a wheel doesn’t
roll, it will cause dissatisfaction. If it does roll, it will cause
satisfaction. But it’s hard to get anyone excited about a wheel that
rollsreally, reallywell. In the case of Crunchrr, as with most other
apps, this could mean things like:

– Reliable uptime

– Search

– Ability to create a profile

– Easy log in/out

2. Time has a big influence on Excitement Quality

图片 8

Figure 7 – Influence of Time on Excitement Quality

I often tell people, “What’s exciting today will be asked for tomorrow
and expected the next day.”
Excitement Quality only lasts a short time so the pump has to be
continually primed with new innovations. There are a thousand of
examples of this phenomenon including heat in a car, wireless internet
in a hotel, cameras in cell phones, and remote controls for your TV.
Imagine any of those missing. Innovations only last so long until the
customers start requesting these features or the competition copies them
and eventually they becomes the standard.

Curve 3: Delightful Features

Delightful features are the ones that make an app fun to use and give it
a personality. They’re the features you love, but don’t expect. It could
be as simple as when the login form appears to shake its head when you
enter the wrong credentials. Or it could be the tone of the writing or a
fun mascot character or some unique interaction.

Users are satisfied with delightful features, but are not dissatisfied
when they are absent

As you can see from the graph, users express increased satisfaction with
delightful features. But there’s no dissatisfaction when they’re not
present. Also, as with required features, there’s a limit to just how
delighted a user can be. After a certain point, there are diminishing
returns. ­

Annelise’s map view is probably an example of a delighter because it’s
little more than eye candy, and it certainly isn’t solving any of the
currently defined business needs for Crunchrr.

Delightful features are an important part of the user experience, and
shouldn’t be ignored. Butthey come with a shelf
life,
in part because they’re so easily imitated. For a while, the swiping
interaction was a big part of Tinder’s unique identity. Now, Tinder is
justone of many
appswhere
users can swipe left or right. In other words, over time, delightful
features go on to become desired or even required features.

3. A special survey can be designed and administered to determine which Kano category your requirements (or features) fall into

图片 9

Kano Model Survey

Imagine being able to predict which of the 5 categories each of your
customers requirements falls into. There is a process called the Kano
Survey, or Kano Analysis, that uses two questions for each
requirement/feature to determine what category it falls into. It can be
designed and used to categorize all the requirements. In this survey,
you formulate two carefully worded questions, a functional and
dysfunctional representation of the requirement or feature.

Depending on how the respondents answer the question, the results will
be aggregated and compiled into a graph which clearly shows you which
category the requirement/feature falls into. Using this information
along with some other voice of customer data, the development team can
prioritize the requirements, find gaps in their offering and potential
holes in their customer research. Understanding how the list of
requirements fits into the Kano Model can also help a development team
determine which of the requirements or features to include, which need
enhancement, which need cost reduction, which should be excluded, and
which to simply leave alone. For a short webinar on how to conduct a
Kano Survey, see our Products and Services page.

Curve 4: Indifferent Features

These are features the user simply doesn’t care about either way.
Whether they’re implemented fully or not at all, they won’t change
users’ opinions about the app, or change how they use it.

Neutral features don’t affect satisfaction one way or another

4. A few well executed Innovations (Excitement Qualities) can make up for weaknesses in the other Kano categories.

Have you ever heard the phrase, “For every argument, there is an equal
and opposite argument that makes the same amount of sense?” I could
easily argue that Kano’s Basic Needs are the most important category
because they are they represent the “Must-Be’s” or threshold
requirements that need to be in your offering for anyone even to
consider it. Here is an opposite argument that makes sense as well;
Excitement Needs are the most important category because they
differentiate your offering from your competitors and give customers a
reason to select your offering when they have so many choices. Since no
one wants to compete on price, when done well, Excitement Needs often
solve this problem by allowing much higher margins because the customers
are willing to pay for new features or functions that add value.

The truth of the matter is that all 3 Kano categories (Basic,
Performance, and Excitement) are critical to the success and profits of
your offering. Some of the most profitable products and services have
either created a perfect balance of the requirements or strategically
included one or more Excitement Qualities that sometimes trump or
forgive a weakness in some Performance or even a Basic need. Example:
Google Drive documents not being able to save instantaneously when not
connected to the cloud. Fast saving is a Basic for most, but tolerated
with Google Drive documents because of all the other great benefits,
especially having only one shared. Careful detail must be paid attention
to make sure you uncover and execute on the right set of needs from all
three Kano categories. Missing important requirements from any of the
categories any may greatly endanger the success of your offering.

Curve 5: Anti-features

Anti-features are the features that users actively dislike.
(Remember Clippy?)
And the more these features are implemented, the greater the
dissatisfaction. Anti-features are like the mirror opposite of desired
features.

Anti-features are the ones that frustrate or annoy users.
Dissatisfaction is directly proportional to implementation

5. Knowing Kano’s categories is only half the battle

Kano did an excellent job describing the 5 classifications of customer
needs and how they influence satisfaction but one thing that Dr. Kano
did not talk about much is exactly how to get the requirements in each
of the 3 main categories; Performance, Basic, and Excitement. Knowing
WHAT the categories are is the easy part and only half the battle,
knowing HOW to gather them is the other half. Fortunately, there are
many very well documented methods to get at the Basic and Performance
Requirements as shown below:

Basic Needs (sources): Your experience, customer complaints,
competitive similarities, industry standards, government regulations,
function analysis, and FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis).

Performance Needs (sources): Classic VOC methods including customer
Interviews, observational research (ethnography), conversations,
surveys, focus groups, contextual inquiry, etc.

Excitement Quality, however, is a little more illusive and
challenging for most organizations since you can rarely count on your
customers to tell you where or how to innovate. So if this is true, how
can you come up with the great ideas for the Excitement Quality? We have
devoted the last 15+ years researching and developing practical
approaches for Innovation and Inventive Thinking, the HOW behind Kano’s
Excitement Quality.

图片 10

Kano Model

There are several compelling and practical methods being used to help
teams and organization come up with Innovations (Excitement Qualities).
Email us at the email link below with “Systematic Innovation Inquiry” in
the Subject Line and we will email back some great information on how to
get at Kano’s Excitement Quality. We use a framework that integrates
several “Inventive Thinking” Best Practices to develop new value and
innovations for your customers. You will see that the Kano Model is used
in Step 1, (Voice of the Customer) and in step 4, (Concept Generation)
we introduce over 36 methods to get at these new Innovations, Kano’s
Excitement Quality.

Putting it All Together

Looking at all of these features together not only provides a clear
pictorial representation of how features will be perceived, but also
helps you figure out strategic direction.

The complete Kano Model diagram

Desired Features:Resources should be invested heavily in these features,
because they are key to user adoption and retention, as well as
competitive advantage

Required Features:Resources should be invested heavily in these
features, but only until basic needs have been met.

Delightful Features:It’s fine to invest resources here, but not at the
expense of desired and required features. However, delightful features
are often key differentiators that can build loyalty and buzz.

Indifferent Features and Anti-features:Resources should be invested only
in identifying these so as not to waste cycles on building and
implementing them.

By now I hope you’re sold on the Kano Model. Then the next question is:
How do you find out which features belong to each category? That’s where
the Kano Analysis comes in.

The Kano Analysis

To find out which features belong where, we need to ask our users. But
remember, users are not usually great at identifying or expressing what
they really want and need. The Kano Analysis accounts for this by asking
questions in pairs: afunctional questionfollowed by adysfunctional
question. Let’s go back to Annelise’s suggestion of a map view for
Crunchrr. We could ask a question pair about this feature like this:

If Crunchrr let you see on a map where a brand of cereal is made, how
would you feel?

If Crunchrr did not let you see on a map where a brand of cereal is
made, how would you feel?

For both functional and dysfunctional questions, users must choose one
of the following answers:

– I like it that way

– I expect it that way

– I am neutral about it

– I can live with it that way

– I dislike it that way

You would prepare an entire questionnaire in this style for each of the
features in your backlog. Each user’s answers can then be analyzed by
plotting its outcome in the following table.

The analysis table tells you where a user would place a feature in the
Kano Model based on how the functional and dysfunctional responses
compare

It should be clear that if a user likes it when the feature is present
and dislikes it when it’s not, then that is a desired feature. The
designation ofquestionablehappens when the answers apparently contradict
each other. (This is often the result of the user not understanding the
question.)

Great. We’re almost done. The final piece is to aggregate all of the
survey responses to find the overall results for each feature.
(Alternatively, you could break this down even further and aggregate
responses based on personas.)

Coefficients

After you’ve aggregated all of the responses, you’ll calculate the
satisfaction and dissatisfaction coefficients. The satisfaction
coefficient is a number between 0 and 1: the closer to 1, the stronger
the influence on satisfaction. The dissatisfaction coefficient is a
number between 0 and -1: the closer the closer to -1, the stronger the
influence on dissatisfaction. We calculate the coefficients with these
formulas:

Let’s say that the aggregated responses for the map view breaks down
like this:

Desired: 5%

Required: 12%

Delightful: 4%

Indifferent: 23%

Anti-feature: 31%

Questionable: 25%

That would give you these results:

Satisfaction: (4 + 5) / (4 + 5 + 12 + 23) =0.2045

Dissatisfaction: (5 + 12) / (4 + 5 + 12 + 23) * (-1) = -0.3864

As you can see, the map view feature is having a significantly stronger
influence on dissatisfaction than on satisfaction. This clearly
indicates that we should leave it out of Crunchrr. Sorry, Annelise!
(Actually, if you saw these results in the real world, you wouldn’t even
need to calculate the coefficients. Seeing 31% anti-feature and 25%
questionable is enough to tell you not to include this feature. I used
these exaggerated figures to highlight the differences produced in the
coefficients.)

Other times, the coefficients will show little difference in influence.
Cases like those will require a judgement call or re-testing.

In Closing

A Kano Analysis is cheap and easy to perform and provides clear vision
into what users actually want and expect from your product. It also
provides hard data, which breaks everyone out of the trap of biased or
shortsighted thinking. There’s no need to argue and debate with internal
stakeholders about which features are in or out. The numbers don’t lie!

Brian O’Neill @brianeoneill is a designer in the San Francisco Bay Area,
currently at NVIDIA.

[1]These
curves go by many different names, depending on the source. I picked
these names arbitrarily. In the end, it doesn’t matter what they’re
called.

相关文章