© 2012 GETview
Limit ed. All right s reserved
17
r ange of ‘Must-be’ attr ibute have the lar gest range and it is lar ge than the other attr ibute. This evaluation r ule r ecommends the fir st taking those pr oduct r equir ements into
consider ation, w hich ar e allocated to the r equir ement Kano’s method categor y M because disr egar ding of such elementar y basic elements cr eates dissatisfaction Zanger and Baier ,
1999. The ‘Indiffer ent’ attr ibute has the least acuteness because it has only minor influence on the employee’s satisfaction. If this attr ibute did not being fulfill, the employees w ill does
not feel dissatisfy. Table 1 show s the six categor ies quality attr ibutes influenced to the customer satisfaction.
Table 1: Kano’s eval uat ion table F
U N
C T
IO N
A L
DYSFUNCTI ONAL 1.
Like 2.
Must-be 3.
Neutr al 4.
Live with 5.
Dislike 1. Like
Q A
A A
O
2. Must-be R
I I
I M
3. Neutr al R
I I
I M
4. Live with R
I I
I M
5. Dislike R
R R
R Q
A = Attr active ; M = Must- be; R = Rever se; O = One- dimensional ; I = Indiffer ent; Q = Questionable
a
Must-be Requir ements Thr eshold Basic attr ibutes. If these r equir ements ar e not fulfilled, the customer w ill be extr emely dissatisfied. The must-be r equir ements ar e
basic cr iter ia of a pr oduct. Fulfilling the must-be r equir ements w ill only lead to a state of “not dissatisfied”. Must-be r equir ements ar e in any case a decisive competitive
factor , and if they ar e not fulfilled, the customer w ill not be inter est ed in the pr oduct at all.
b
One-dimensional Requir ements Per for mance Linear. With r egar d to these r equir ements, customer satisfaction is pr opor tional to the level of fulfilment – the
higher the level of fulfilment, the higher the customer ’s satisfaction and vice ver sa. One-dimensional r equir ements ar e usually explicitly demanded by the customer .
c
Attr active Requir ements Exciter s Delighter s. These r equir ements ar e the pr oduct cr iter ia w hich have the gr eatest influence on how satisfied a customer w ill be w ith a
given pr oduct. Attr active r equir ements ar e neither explicitly expr essed nor expected by the customer . Fulfilling these r equir ements leads to mor e than pr opor tional
satisfaction. If they ar e not met, how ever , ther e is no feeli ng of dissatisfaction.
d
Indiffer ent Attr ibutes. The customer does not car e about this featur e. Means that the customer is not concer ned w ith this pr oduct attr ibute and is not ver y int er ested
w hether it is pr esent or not.
e
Questionable Attr ibutes. It is unclear w hether the customer expects this attr ibute. This situation occur s if ther e is a contr adiction in the customer s’ answ er s to the
pair ed questions. A questionable r ating indicates incor r ectly phr ased question, misunder standing of a question, or an incor r ect r esponse.
f
Rever se Attr ibutes: Means that some of the r espondents’ satisfaction decr eases w ith the existence of this r equir ement, but they also expect the r ever se of it.
iii Categor y Str ength CA Value. This categor y str ength CAT method is a suitable method in
deter mining the pr ior ities w ithin a r equir ements categor y. Fr om the value of CAT, it is also can be r anking in or der to know n w hich categor y have to be focus fir st. Usually, the
maximum value of CAT is placed at the fir st place w hich means it has the pr ior ity to be focus among the other r equir ement. Besides, the low er the per centage of the CAT value means
that the r equir ement that being pr ovided ar e satisfy the customer or employee feeling. The CAT index can be calculated using the CAT for mula as follow :
CAT = 1
st
most fr equently-given nomination – 2
nd
most fr equently nomination 4 iv
Categor y Fuzzy Kano. Lee and Huang 2009:4479 and 4481 said that traditional Kano questionnair e TKQ unable to sufficiently r eflect the complex thought of an individual since
Kano’s model ar e alw ays lack of consider ing the fuzzy and uncer tainty of mentality and affection w hen devising questionnair e. In addition, in Kano’s tr aditional evaluation sheet, all
quality attr ibute str engths ar e unequal; it is unr easonable and not precise to sum up
© 2012 GETview
Limit ed. All right s reserved
18
equivalently each r esponse fr equency of ever y quality attr ibute to evaluate the influences of quality attr ibutes Lee et al., 2011:180. Ther efor e, simply using a mode statistic as the
classification cr iter ion is not appr opr iate. It is necessar y to adopt a ‘continuous’ appr oach for Kano’s model to quantitatively analyse the aver age impact of a CR on the over all
customer satisfaction OCS Wu and Wang, 2012:536. To over come these difficulties, accor ding to Mikulic´ and Dar ko Pr ebežac 2011:50, it should be r ecognised that the key
issue that deter mines the Kano categor y of an attr ibute is not the per for mance of that attr ibute; r ather , it is actually the pr ovision or non-pr ovision of a mor e-or -less expected
benefit. On this, to fur ther incr ease the r eliability of attr ibute categor isations, Kano’s method should r efer to the pr ovision or non-pr ovision of the benefits to be expected thr ough the
pr ovision of an attr ibute r ather than the pr ovision of the attr ibute itself.
a Fuzzy Kano Questionnair e Lee and Huang, 2009:4481
Table 2: Fuzzy Kano’s evaluation tabl e Fuzzy Kano Questionnair e
Like Must-Be Neutr al
Live - W ith Dislike Functional
20 50
30 -
-
Dysfunctional -
- -
50 50
b Matr ix calculation to compar e and evaluate “need pr ofiles” based on functional and dysfunctional. On this, FI functional scor e: satisfaction degr ee assessing the existence
of the
∑need or suf iciency, DI dysfunctional score:
dissatisfaction degr ee assessing the inexistence of the need or insufficiency, and RI dissatisfaction degr ee r elated to
existence and measur ing a r ever se index Rejeb et al., 2008.
Table 3: Revision of Kano’s eval uat ion t able F
U N
C T
IO N
A L
DYSFUNCTI ONAL 1.
Like 2.
Must-be 3.
Neutr al 4.
Live with 5.
Dislike +2
+1 -1
-2 1. Like
+2 2. Must-be
+1 3. Neutr al
4. Live with -1
