This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 17 September 2013, At: 08:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for

Designing New Products
a
Gérson Tontini
a
Department of Business Management, Regional University of
Blumenau – FURB, Brazil
Published online: 12 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Gérson Tontini (2007) Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing
New Products, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18:6, 599-612, DOI:
10.1080/14783360701349351

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360701349351

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Total Quality Management
Vol. 18, No. 6, 599 –612, August 2007

Integrating the Kano Model and QFD

for Designing New Products

GÉRSON TONTINI
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

Department of Business Management, Regional University of Blumenau – FURB, Brazil

ABSTRACT Through a case study showing the development of a new mug of draft beer, this work
presents a method for integration of the Kano model in Quality Function Deployment – QFD.
Traditionally, QFD uses data about importance and customer’s satisfaction with different
requirements to identify the attributes that should be incorporated or improved in a product. As
customers tend to rate basic requirements with high importance, the traditional QFD method
tends to give higher priority to these requirements to the detriment of innovative ones. The Kano
model allows the identification of exciting requirements, usually associated with innovations.
Then, the integration of the Kano model in the QFD can allow innovative requirements to receive
the necessary attention in the product’s development process. Two methods, proposed in the
literature for this integration, are presented and their limitations analyzed. Finally, through data
collected with 289 potential consumers of draft beer mugs, the case study illustrates the proposed
method.

KEY WORDS : Kano model, quality function deployment, innovation, product design, industrial
design

Introduction
As the competition for new markets and customers increased, customer satisfaction also
became a key factor for business success. According to Reichfeld & Sasser (1990), an
increase in customer loyalty by 5% can increase the profit of a business by 100%.
Anderson & Mittal (2000), studying companies that are part of the Swedish Customer
Satisfaction Barometer, found that an increase of 1% in the customer satisfaction index
was associated with a 2.37% increase in the return over investment, while a decrease of
1% was associated with a decrease of 5.08% in the return over investment. These
results show that while increasing customer satisfaction is important, avoiding customer
dissatisfaction is critical. But how can customers become satisfied with a product or
service?

Correspondence Address: Gérson Tontini, Department of Business Management, Regional University of

Blumenau – FURB, Rua Antonio da Veiga 140, CXP 1507, CEP 89010-971, Blumenau, SC, Brazil.
Email: tontini@furb.br

1478-3363 Print/1478-3371 Online/07/060599–14 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14783360701349351
 600 G. Tontini

Customer satisfaction is related to the fulfillment of customer needs. The fulfillment of

those needs depends on the existence and performance of certain customer requirements in
the product or service. The impact of the different customer requirements on customer sat-
isfaction changes over time due to the fact that customers get used to them, due to the offer
of substitute products or due to movements of competitors introducing improvements in
the existing products. Then, in a competitive environment, it is not enough to find out
the importance of the different product attributes and incorporate those important attri-
butes in the product. It is also important to follow changes in customer needs and con-
stantly evaluate the product’s competitive position.
Quality Function Deployment, or simply QFD (Akao, 1990; Clausing, 1994; Cohen,
1995), has been an important tool in the translation of the voice of the customer (VOC)
into product’s specification. It has been widely used for product development and
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

quality improvement around the World. It is a customer-oriented approach, supporting

design teams in developing new products based on an assessment of customer needs. Basi-
cally, in the QFD, customer needs are translated into design attributes. The design attri-
butes are then deployed in process and quality requirements.
Most of the traditional techniques that aimed to find the relative importance between
requirements, including QFD, assume that customers have previous knowledge about
the product and its attributes (Deszca et al., 1999), hindering the introduction of inno-
vations. In addition, they assume that there is a linear relationship between attribute per-
formance and customer satisfaction, what may lead to wrong decisions about which
attributes should be improved or offered to increase customer satisfaction (Huiskonen &
Pirttilä, 1998; Tontini & Silveira, 2005). Also, there are some requirements that bring
more satisfaction than others. For example, since TV sets achieved a high degree of
reliability in the market, improving this reliability above the current level will bring less
satisfaction than improving other requirements, like image quality, sound or connectivity.
Therefore, it is very important to determine which requirements of a product or service
bring more satisfaction than others. The Kano model of customer satisfaction
(Kano et al., 1984) can identify which requirements of a product or service bring more
than proportional satisfaction to customers. In addition, it identifies which requirements
do not bring satisfaction when present, but bring dissatisfaction when they are not met.
By using the Kano model and integrating it in the QFD the design team can enhance the
understanding of customer needs, leading to superior product design.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, the QFD process is briefly introduced.
Then the Kano model of customer satisfaction (Kano et al., 1984) and the Customer Satis-
faction Coefficient (Berger et al., 1993) are described. The subsequent session discusses the
possible mistakes that the traditional use of importance and performance may lead to in the
designing process. Then, two methods presented in the literature for integration of the Kano
model in the QFD are analyzed and an alternative method proposed. Finally, to show the
application of the proposed method, a case study of the development of a new mug of
draft beer is presented. The initial explanations of QFD and the Kano model are necessary
to understand better the proposed method and the development of the case study.

Quality Function Deployment

QFD (Akao, 1990; Clausing, 1994; Cohen, 1995) is a design methodology based on cus-
tomer needs. To start the designing process in the QFD, the design team needs to listen to
 Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products 601

the Voice of the Customer (VOC). The VOC should contain the customer needs and
is expressed in customer words. Usually it is determined through personal interviews
and/or focus groups. Then, customer requirements are determined based on the identified
needs.
After the requirements were identified, a quantitative marketing research is conducted to
evaluate the competitive position of the product in the market (in terms of customer satisfac-
tion) and the importance that customers give to each requirement. Based on the competitive
analysis, a target for customer satisfaction is set for each requirement. Then, an improvement
ratio is calculated (target/current satisfaction). This improvement ratio is multiplied by the
importance that the customer gives to each requirement (improvement factor
importance)
and by the sales argument. The sales argument is sometimes used to amplify the weight of
requirements that reinforce the company’s sales strategy. The final relative weight of the
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

requirements is then calculated (Figure 1 shows a hypothetical example).

A set of design attributes that could fulfill the customer requirements is determined.
Then, customer requirements and design attributes are correlated in a matrix called
House of Quality, translating the voice of the customer into product specifications
(Figure 2). Relative weights for the design attributes are calculated based on the strength
of the correlation between design attributes and customer requirements, and on the relative
importance of the requirements. The specifications for the design attributes are defined
after doing a competitive analysis between the product being improved (or developed)
and its competitors or similar products. After determining product’s specifications and
their relative importance, other matrices are developed to determine process specifica-
tions, quality control specifications and material requirements.
The traditional QFD process assumes that the customers: (a) have previous experience
with the product or service being developed; (b) that they are capable of evaluating the
importance and their satisfaction with the product’s requirement; and (c) that the relation-
ship between importance and satisfaction are linear and independent. For products with
innovative requirements customers may neither be able to rate the importance of these
requirements nor to make a competitive evaluation. Also, several studies have shown

Figure 1. Customer requirements and priority definition

 602 G. Tontini
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

Figure 2. House of quality

that the relationship between importance and satisfaction (or performance) is not always
linear (Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Ting & Shen, 2002; Tontini & Silveira, 2005).

Kano Model of Customer Satisfaction

The Kano model of excitement and basic quality (Kano et al., 1984; Berger et al., 1993;
Matzler et al., 1996) brings a different perspective for the analysis of improvement oppor-
tunities in products and services because it takes into consideration the asymmetrical and
non-linear relationship between performance and satisfaction. The Kano model classifies
customers’ requirements into three categories (Figure 3):

(a) Basic Requirements. The basic requirements fulfill the basic functions of a product. If
they are not present or their performance is insufficient, customers will be extremely
dissatisfied. On the other hand, if they are present or have sufficient performance, they

Figure 3. Kano model of excitement and basic quality. Source: adapted from Matzler et al. (1996)
 Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products 603

do not bring satisfaction. Customers see them as prerequisites. For instance, for luxury
automobiles, ‘air bags’ are considered basic. A customer won’t feel satisfied if the
automobile has air bags, however he/she will not buy it if an air bag is not present.
(b) Performance Requirements. As for these requirements, satisfaction is proportional to
the performance level – the higher the performance, the higher the customer’s satis-
faction will be and vice-versa. Gas consumption in automobiles is an example of these
requirements. Usually customers explicitly demand performance requirements.
(c) Excitement Requirements. These requirements are key to customer satisfaction. If
they are present or have sufficient performance, they will bring superior satisfaction.
On the other hand, if they are not present or their performance is insufficient, custo-
mers will not get dissatisfied. For instance, a surprise gift at the end of a dinner in a
restaurant will certainly bring satisfaction, but it will not cause dissatisfaction if not
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

offered. These requirements are not demanded nor expected by customers.

Two other types of requirements may be identified in the Kano model: neutral and
reverse ones. Neutral requirements do not bring either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Reverse requirements bring more satisfaction if absent than if present.
This non-linear and asymmetrical relationship between requirement performance and
customer satisfaction is confirmed by other studies. Anderson & Mittal (2000) make an
extensive literature review exploring the connection of individual attribute performance,
customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and companies’ profit. Ting & Shen (2002) use
regression analysis to show the asymmetrical relationship between the performance of
different requirements in supermarkets and customer satisfaction.
The identification of excitement and basic requirements in the Kano model is based on a
questionnaire where the customer states whether he or she feels satisfied or dissatisfied
with a hypothetical situation (Figure 4). For each product requirement a pair of questions
is formulated. To each question the customer can answer in one of five different ways
(Kano et al., 1984). The first question, or functional question, identifies the reaction of
the customer if the product has the requirement or if the performance of the requirement
is sufficient. The second question, or dysfunctional question, identifies the reaction if the

Figure 4. Kano model questionnaire. Source: Matzler et al. (1996)

 604 G. Tontini

product does not have that requirement or if its performance is insufficient. Depending on
the customers’ answers to the functional and dysfunctional questions, the requirement may
be classified as an excitement, performance, basic, neutral or reverse factor.
To classify the requirements in each category better, Berger et al. (1993) proposed the
Customer Satisfaction Coefficient (CSC). CSC calculates the percentage of customers that
get satisfied with the positive question and the percentage that get dissatisfied with the
negative question. These two percentages are plotted in a scatter diagram divided in
four quadrants. The quadrants classify the attributes as neutral, excitement, performance
and basic factors.
The CS-coefficient is indicative of how strongly a product requirement may influence
customer satisfaction or, in case of its ‘non-fulfillment’, dissatisfaction. Figure 5 shows
an example of a scatter plot of the CS-Coefficient for eight requirements of banking ser-
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

vices: availability of online banking, free coffee at branches, free checking, insurance ser-
vices, phone banking, opening Sundays, ATM banking, and branches in supermarkets
(Tontini, 2003).
Considering the example of Figure 5, opening Sunday, free coffee and the existence of
insurance services are classified as excitement requirements; the location of branches in
supermarkets and online banking are classified as performance; free checking, phone
banking and ATM are classified as basic requirements.

Importance Rating 3 Kano Model Classification

Traditionally, the QFD process has used the importance rating and the performance (cus-
tomer’s satisfaction) compared to competitors to determine the most critical customer
requirements. It assumes that the most important requirements will bring more satisfaction
if improved. As discussed in the previous sections of this paper, it may not be true.
Besides, customers’ answers about the importance of product requirements are most
likely to be dependent on the customers’ earlier experiences with the product or service
(Parasuraman et al., 1985; Bitner, 1991). Huiskonen & Pirttilä (1998), and Tontini &
Silveira (2005) discuss some situations in which the traditional evaluation of importance

Figure 5. CS-Coefficient for a banking service in USA. Source: Tontini, 2003

 Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products 605

may lead to misinterpretations regarding the real customer requirements and, sometimes,
to inappropriate actions. These situations depend on how the requirement is classified
according to the Kano model, on the importance rating given by customers and on the per-
formance level of the requirement:

(a) Basic requirement, high importance, performance equal to competitors. In this case
an inappropriate action would be to raise the performance level of the attribute. It
would not increase customer satisfaction and therefore this action would not lead
to a competitive advantage.
(b) Basic requirement, low importance, superior performance. Satisfactory earlier
experiences may produce low importance ratings, what may weaken the attention
of the design team over the requirement. In this case dissatisfaction is caused even
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

if a minor decrease in the performance level is perceived, which may lead to competi-
tive disadvantage.
(c) Excitement requirement, high importance, equal or inferior performance. In situ-
ations where company’s performance in some important requirement is worse than
competitors, this requirement is usually regarded as critical and should be improved.
However, if this requirement is of the excitement type, there is no critical competitive
disadvantage being behind competitors. In this case resources could be allocated more
effectively by making improvement elsewhere.
(d) Excitement requirement, low importance, equal or inferior performance. In tra-
ditional surveys, excitement requirements may be rated as less important because
they often represent a requirement that customers do not have earlier experiences.
In this case, opportunity for competitive advantage may remain unnoticed.

Sauerwein (1999) demonstrates that customers tend to give more importance to basic
requirements, decreasing this importance to performance, excitement and neutral require-
ments respectively. Since superior performance in basic requirements do not bring
additional satisfaction to customers, the analysis through importance and performance
of customers’ requirements in the QFD may lead a company to concentrate efforts in attri-
butes that will not increase general satisfaction. Already the low importance customers
tend give to excitement requirements may lead a company not to improve or not offering
attributes that could bring a differential in the market. Besides the tendency of customers
giving more importance to basic requirements, Matzler et al. (2004) demonstrate that
importance may vary with performance. For basic requirements, importance decreases
as performance increases. For excitement requirements, importance increases with an
increase in customers’ evaluation of performance because they already know the benefits,
becoming used to them. It leads to another conclusion: the importance will be increasingly
lower the more innovative is the attribute. Since the benefits of an innovation are unknown
to customers, its introduction tends to be hindered if the analysis is based only on import-
ance and performance. In addition, if importance varies with performance, the decisions
made in the QFD matrix could be biased.
The four types of possible misinterpretations presented above are present in the QFD
process when it uses importance rating and current satisfaction. By using the Kano
model classification of customer requirements, the design team could identify the critical
requirements and the ones that could bring a competitive advantage. But how can the
design team integrate the Kano model into the QFD?
 606 G. Tontini

Integrating the Kano Model in the QFD

Matzler & Hinterhuber (1998) describe the utilization of the customer satisfaction
coefficient (Berger et al., 1993) as a supplementary tool in the QFD process. They say
that the product should conform to expectations in basic requirements, be competitive
in performance requirements and stand out regarding excitement requirements, but they
do not describe in detail ways of integrating the Kano model in the QFD process.
Tan & Shen (2000) present a method to integrate the Kano model in the QFD by intro-
ducing an adjustment in the improvement ratio according to the equation:

IRadj ¼ (IR0 )1=k (1)

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

where IRadj is the adjusted improvement ratio, IR0 is the original improvement ratio, and k
is an adjustment factor. The value of k varies according to the Kano category. The final
weight of a requirement is calculated by multiplying the raw importance by the adjusted
improvement ratio. The authors leave the definition of the values of k to the design team,
but suggest that one possible set of values would be k ¼ 0.5, 1 and 2 for basic, perform-
ance and excitement requirements, respectively. In addition, the authors state that the
adjustment factor is valid only for these types of requirements, not being applicable to
other possible categories in the Kano model.
The proposal of Tan & Shen (2000) increases the weight of basic requirements (k ¼ 0.5)
and decreases the weight of excitement requirements (k ¼ 2). In this case, the design team
will put extra effort in improving basic requirements and may lose the opportunity of
giving attention to excitement ones. Customers tend to rate excitement requirements as
less important due to lack of knowledge and previous experience with them. With
k ¼ 2 for the excitement requirements, the design team may end up with a product or
service that is excellent in basic requirements, but that will not bring superior satisfaction
to customers due to lack of excitement requirements. In addition, the Tan & Shen (2000)
approach does not decrease the problems that arise with the traditional importance rating.
On the contrary, their approach may increase the problems in some cases. For example, for
basic requirements, when the performance is equal to competitors, this method tends to put
even more emphasis on the decision to improve them.
Tan & Pawitra (2001) propose integrating the Kano model and SERVQUAL (Parasura-
man et al., 1988) in the QFD by ‘first determining the Kano category for each requirement.
Then, multiplier values of 4, 2, and 1 are assigned to the excitement, performance and basic
categories, respectively’ (Tan & Pawitra, 2001, p. 425). For each requirement, a SERVQ-
UAL predicted score, i.e. (Expected quality – Perceived quality)
Importance, is calcu-
lated and multiplied by 4, 2 or 1 depending on its classification in the Kano model. Some
considerations should be raised about this method. First, there is no research about how the
gap analysis in the SERVQUAL would be influenced by the Kano category of each custo-
mer requirement. Second, presently the determination of the Kano category parameters (i.e.
4, 2, and 1) is left to QFD practitioner’s expert opinion. According to Tan & Pawitra (2001,
p. 429), ‘it may be worthwhile to propose means for objectively determining these numeri-
cal values’. Setting these parameters as 4, 2 and 1 puts excessive emphasis on excitement
requirements to the detriment of performance and basic ones. Since, for non-innovative
requirements, customers tend to find everything important (Garver, 2003; Tontini &
Silveira, 2005), the multiplication of the SERVQUAL gap by the importance may not
 Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products 607

compensate for the resulting low weight given to basic requirements in this method. Even-
tually it could lead a design team to underestimate how critical a basic requirement is.

An Alternative Method
The use of the Customer Satisfaction Coefficients (Berger et al., 1993) directly in the QFD
house of quality (A-1 matrix) may decrease the problems that arise with the traditional
importance rating and the above-proposed methods for integrating the Kano model in
the QFD. In this method, the importance column in the QFD A-1 matrix is replaced by
the result of the following equation:

Adj.Factor ¼ Max(jSIj, jDIj) (2)

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

where SI and DI are the satisfaction and dissatisfaction indexes (Berger et al., 1993). The
adjustment factor is the higher absolute value of SI or DI, putting more weight on the
requirements that bring more satisfaction when present or that bring more dissatisfaction
when absent. In this case, excitement, performance and basic requirements will be taken
into consideration depending on the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that they could
bring to customers. The integration of the Kano model in the QFD using the adjustment
factor (equation (2)) has less impact from past experiences than the Tan & Shen (2000)
approach because it does not use the stated importance to calculate finals weights, and
the Kano model questionnaire asks customers to state their satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with a hypothetical situation. In addition, instead of the predefined values used in Tan &
Shen (2000) and Tan & Pawitra (2001), this method objectively sets the values of the Kano
categories’ parameters.

Integrating the Kano Model and QFD in the Design of a New Product:
The Case Study
A case study with the development of a new mug of draft beer was conducted by under-
graduate students of a Quality Planning Course (Kock et al., 2003) to evaluate the useful-
ness of the method proposed in this paper. The case study was carried out in the city of
Blumenau, located in the southern part of Brazil. Blumenau holds a large oktoberfest (a
beer festival) with approximately 600,000 visitors/year. Draft beer mugs are used in
these festivals to drink and carry the beer while walking and dancing. The current
models of mugs available in the market are generally made of ceramic, aluminum,
glass or plastic (Figure 6).
Customers’ requirements were identified by interviewing a focus group of consumers.
Then, each requirement was translated to identify attributes that could fulfill the require-
ments. Table 1 shows the requirements as stated by customers and the translated require-
ments and attributes. An ‘ergonomic’ body, a border that avoided dropping beer while
drinking and a format that makes it difficult to spill beer when full are requirements
that are new to customers.
To identify importance, satisfaction and the Kano categories for each requirement, a
non-probabilistic sample of 289 current and potential customers was taken. Sixty-four
percent, or 185 subjects, use draft beer mugs. Each subject was asked to rate the import-
ance (1 to 5 scale) and satisfaction (23 to þ3 scale) with each requirement level 1
 608 G. Tontini

Figure 6. Models and materials of draft beer mugs. Source: Kock et al. (2003)

(Table 1) for the draft beer mugs existent in the market. Then, respondents were asked to
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

rate their satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the existence or inexistence of the level 2
requirements in a Kano questionnaire. To decrease possible biases that could occur, the
confirmation and disconfirmation questions for each requirement were placed in a
random sequence in the questionnaire.
Berger’s customer satisfaction coefficient was used to classify the customer’s require-
ments according to the Kano model. Figure 7 shows the coefficients values, Kano classi-
fication and the scatter diagram with the results for the respondents who use draft beer
mugs with ‘some frequency’, ‘frequently’ or ‘always use it’.
Easy to drink, ergonomic body, resistance to impacts and non-spill are classified as exci-
tement requirements. A strip hook is classified as a performance requirement. Keeping the
beer cold is considered basic. Lightweight is a neutral requirement. The underlined
numbers showed in Figure 7 are the adjustment factors to be used in the QFD matrix.
Table 2 shows the adjustment factors, the stated importance and the current satisfaction
for each requirement. Although the subjects have close to neutral satisfaction in any
requirement, they responded that all are important or very important, with small differ-
ences in importance between requirements (standard deviation of standardized weights
of 0.056). These results confirm what is discussed in Garver (2003) and Tontini & Silveira
(2005), saying that customers tend to consider everything important. The direct use of the
stated importance in the QFD matrix in this case would lead to low discrimination in pri-
ority between customer requirements. The use of the adjustment factor as a substitute for

Table 1. Customer’s voice and requirements

Customers’ requirements Customers’ requirements

Customers’ voice Level 1 Level 2

Not easily breaking Resistant to impacts Resistance to impacts

Easy to carry while walking
(possible to put strips)
Not heavy
Keep the beer cold
Easy to hold in the hands
Do not drop beer while
dinking (easy to drink)
Do not drop beer
while walking
Easy to carry
Weight
Keep the beer cold
Easy to hold
Easy to turn to drink
Not spill beer while walking
Strip hook
Light weight
Keep the beer colder
Body format that makes it easy to
hold (ergonomic body)
Border that avoid spill while
drinking.
Format that makes it difficult
spill beer while full.
 Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products 609

Figure 7. Kano model classification and Berger’s Coefficients for draft beer mug requirements
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

importance increases the variance and the discrimination power (standard deviation of
standardized weights of 0.097).
Figure 8 shows the QFD Matrix with the adjustment factor replacing the importance.
Although lightweight is a neutral requirement for frequent users, when considered by
all subjects it was considered an excitement factor. Lightweight was then allowed to
stay in the QFD matrix.
For innovative products or products with requirements that customers are not aware of,
asking their satisfaction with these requirements is meaningless. In these cases, the current
customer satisfaction tends to be close to neutral and the competitive analysis based on
customers’ answers is not possible in the QFD matrix. In the case study presented in
this paper, as most of the subjects could not either remember the brand of their current
mug or to make a competitive evaluation, the competitive analysis for the customer
requirements was not included in the QFD matrix.
The mug dimensions, particularly wing dimensions and hand position diameter were
designed taking into consideration ergonomics and hand anthropometrics (Pheasant,
1996). To achieve the resistance and lightweight requirements, plastic or aluminum
were the choice of possible materials. A cluster analysis of the research data found that
aluminum was the most preferred material for frequent users. The 500 ml mug capacity
was set because it is the standard for draft beer mugs in Brazil. Figure 9 shows the

Table 2. Adjustment factor, stated importance and current satisfaction for customer requirements of
draft beer mugs

Adjust. Stated Current

Factors importance satisfaction

Keep beer cold Keep beer cold 0.74 4.48 0.71

Easy to hold Ergonomic Body 0.59 3.93 0.80
Easy to carry Strip hook 0.64 3.79 0.94
Easy to drink Easy to drink 0.60 3.77 0.83
Not spill beer Not spill beer 0.52 4.06 0.43
Light Weight Light weight 0.44 3.61 0.73
Resistance Resistance 0.52 4.00 0.57
Std. Deviation of relative weight 0.097 0.056
 610 G. Tontini
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

Figure 8. Proposed QFD - A1 matrix for the draft beer mug

conceptual model of the draft beer mug taking into consideration the design specifications
of the QFD – A1 matrix shown in Figure 8.
Since the ‘mug cap’ had a low importance weight and the design team considered that it
could become a reverse attribute, it was not included in the conceptual model. The require-
ment ‘avoid spilling beer while walking’ needs to be addressed in a different way, possibly
by the border format.
In order to test the acceptability of the new design, an exploratory study with a non-
probabilistic sample of 44 possible customers was conducted. Drawings with the new
design and the four other designs (Figure 6) were presented to the customers. The respon-
dents were asked to rank the designs from 1 to 5, in order of preference. A paired rank sign
test was conducted and the new design was preferred over any of the other four designs
with significance level ,0.05. The respondents were also asked to write what they
liked and what they did not like in the new design. Some respondents said they liked every-
thing while others said they liked more the traditional designs. Specifically, 23

Figure 9. Conceptual model for the design of the draft beer mug. Source: adapted from Kock
et al. (2003)
 Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products 611

respondents stated that they liked the ergonomic body, nine liked the rubber insulation and
five the ergonomic border. On the other hand, six respondents did not like the strip hook,
saying it is not necessary or that it should be more discrete. Eight respondents had the
impression that the wing is too big or too weak. These are problems that should be
addressed in the final design.

Conclusion
As described earlier in this paper, the traditional QFD approach uses importance ratings
and customer satisfaction with the company’s product and its competitors to establish pri-
orities among customer requirements and deploy them in the design process. This method
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

supposes that customers have previous knowledge or experience with the product and its
features.
Innovative products try either to fulfill unarticulated customers needs or to fulfill current
needs in different ways. Designing new products, particularly products that incorporate
innovative requirements, is a difficult task because customers are not used to these require-
ments and the company does not have competing products to evaluate. In these cases cus-
tomers tend to give lower importance to the innovative requirements, hindering their
adoption by the project team.
On the other hand, customers tend to give more importance to basic requirements. If the
performance in these requirements is equal to the competition, the company may decide to
improve something that would not greatly increase its competitiveness.
The Kano model can help businesses find which requirements they must fulfill (basic),
which requirements they should be competitive with (performance) and which require-
ments bring a differential in the eyes of the customer (excitement). Customer require-
ments related to incremental innovations tend to be classified as excitement ones in
the Kano model. Thus, the integration of the Kano model in QFD opens new perspec-
tives for the development of products with innovative features. Although the Kano
model may identify excitement requirements, its integration in QFD has not been
fully explored.
This paper analyzed the limitations of two methods published in the literature to inte-
grate the Kano model in the QFD and proposed an alternative one. The two methods pro-
posed in the literature put an emphasis on excitement requirements (Tan & Pawitra, 2001)
or on basic ones (Tan & Shen, 2000). It could lead to products that may fail to provide
adequate performance in basic requirements or to products that lack excitement require-
ments. The method proposed in this paper adequately treats customers’ requirements
according to their classification in the Kano model, adjusting the importance weight to
the impact on satisfaction or dissatisfaction that their presence or absence may cause to
customers. It was successfully used in the conceptual design of a draft beer mug with inno-
vative requirements.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank César Eduardo Kock, Fabiana Reinert, Fernanda Regina Bona
and Rafaela Cristina de Oliveira for their efforts in the development of the case study.
 612 G. Tontini

References
Akao, Y. (1990) Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design
(Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press).
Anderson, E. W. & Mittal, V. (2000) Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain, Journal of Service Research,
3(2), pp. 107 –1290.
Berger, C. et al. (1993) Kano methods for understanding customer-defined quality, Centre for Quality Manage-
ment Journal, Massachusetts, 2(4), pp. 3– 35.
Bitner, M. J. (1991) The evolution of the services marketing mix and its relationship to service quality, in:
S. W. Brown et al. (Eds) Service Quality, Multidisciplinary and Multinational Perspectives, pp. 23 –37
(USA: Lexington Books).
Clausing, D. (1994) Quality Development: A Step-by-step Guide to World-class Concurrent Engineering
(New York: SME Press).
Cohen, L. (1995) Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You (Reading, MA: Addison-
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:58 17 September 2013

Wesley).
Deszca, G. et al. (1999) Developing breakthrough products: challenges and options for market assessment,
Journal of Operations Management, 17, pp. 613–630.
Garver, M. S. (2003) Best practices in identifying customer-driven improvement opportunities, Industrial Mar-
keting Management, 32, pp. 455–466.
Huiskonen, J. & Pirttilä T. (1998) Sharpening logistics customer service strategy planning by applying
Kano’s quality element classification, International Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, pp. 253 –260.
Kano, N. et al. (1984) Attractive quality ands must-be quality, The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality
Control, 14(2), pp. 39– 48.
Kock, C. E. et al. (2003) Desenvolvimento de um novo caneco de chope, Quality Planning Course Project (Blu-
menau, Brazil: FURB).
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), pp. 25 –72.
Matzler, K. et al. (1996) How to delight your customers, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2, pp. 6–17.
Matzler, K. et al. (2004) The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer
satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis, Industrial Marketing Management,
33(4), pp. 271 –277.
Parasuraman, A. et al. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for further research,
Journal of Marketing, 49(4), pp. 41–50.
Parasuraman, A. et al. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of Service
Quality, Journal of Retailing, 62(1), pp. 12– 40.
Pheasant, S. (1996) Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work, 2nd edn (London, UK:
Taylor & Francis).
Reichfeld, F. F. & Sasser, W. E. (1990) Zero-defections: quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review,
Sept./Oct., pp. 105–111.
Sauerwein, E. (1999) Experiences with the reliability and validity of the Kano-method: comparison to alternate
forms of classification of product requirements, Transactions of the 11th Symposium on QFD (Michigan,
USA: QFD Institute).
Tan, K. C. & Shen, X. X. (2000) Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of Quality Function
Deployment, Total Quality Management, 11(8), pp. 1141–1151.
Tan, K. C. & Pawitra, T. A. (2001) Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD for service excellence
development, Managing Service Quality, 11(6), pp. 418–430.
Ting, S. C. & Shen, C. N. (2002) The asymmetrical and non-linear effects of store quality attributes on customer
satisfaction, Total Quality Management, 13(14), pp. 547–569.
Tontini, G. (2003) Determining the degree of satisfaction of customer requirements: a modified Kano method,
California Journal of Operations Management, 1(1), pp. 95–103.
Tontini, G. & Silveira, A. (2005) Identification of critical attributes of success in products and services: an
alternative to importance – performance analysis. In: 2005 BALAS Annual Conference, 2005, Madrid.
Proceedings of the 2005 BALAS Annual Conference, pp. 1 –20 (Madrid: Instituto de Empresa).