Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management (품질경영학회지)

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model

Kano 모델의 품질속성 분류를 위한 질문서 연구

  • Kim, Man-Ho (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Song, HaeGeun (Department of Systems Management Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Park, Young T. (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • 김만호 (성균관대학교 기술경영대학원) ;
  • 송해근 (성균관대학교 시스템경영공학과) ;
  • 박영택 (성균관대학교 기술경영대학원)
  • Received : 2013.03.16
  • Accepted : 2013.04.08
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This paper compares and discusses the influence on the quality classification of Kano's questionnaire which is used for the Kano model(Kano et al., 1984), the 3-point Likert-scale newly proposed by Kano and the 5-point Likert-scale presented in this study. Methods: For the comparison, the current study conducts a survey of 631 television viewers. The classification results of the three methods are then compared with those of direct classification which is adopted as a standard for classification of quality attributes. Results: The agreement rates between the results using conventional Kano's questionnaire and the results using direct classification is higher than the results using 3-point and 5-point Likert-scales. In addition, the attributes grouped as must-be or attractive in the direct classification appear to be classified as one-dimensional attributes in the Likert-scales. Conclusion: In comparison with the convensional Kano's questionnaire, the Likert-scale questions highly tend to classify the quatity attributes as one-dimensional. Although the classification results of the 3-point and 5-point Likert-scales are the same, the 5-point Likert-scale has the advantage to classify quality attributes in more detail.

Keywords

References

  1. Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., and Walden, D. 1993. "Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality." Center for Quality of Management Journal 2(4):2-36.
  2. Busacca, B., and Padula, G. 2005. "Understanding the relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction." Theory, measurement and implications. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23(6):543-561. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510624110
  3. Chen, J. K., and Lee, Y. C. 2009. "A new method to identify the category of the quality attribute." Total Quality Management 20(10):1139-1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360902781832
  4. Emery, C., and Tian, R. 2002. "Schoolwork as Products, Professors as Customers: A Practical Teaching Approach in Business Education." Journal of education for business 78(2):97-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599705
  5. Jang, H. Y., Song, H. G., and Park, Y. T. 2012. "Determining the importance values of quality attributes using ASC." Journal of Korean Society of Quality Management 40(4):589-598. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2012.40.4.589
  6. Kang, G. D., Ahn, S. H., Cheon, H. S., and Lee, W. Y. 2009. "The classification of logistics service quality through the utilization of Kano model." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 37(2):32-45.
  7. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsjui, S. 1984. "Attractive quality and must-be quality." Hinshitsu 14(2):147-156.
  8. Kano, N. 2001. "Life cycle and creation of attractive quality." Proceedings of the 4th QMOD Conference, Linkoping, Sweden 18-36.
  9. Lee, M. C. and Newcomb, J. F. 1997. "Appling the Kano methodology to meet customer requirements: NASA's microgravity science program." Quality Management Journal 4(3):95-106.
  10. Lim, J. H., Min, D. K., and Kim, K. J. 2003. "Fuzzy KANO Model: Fuzzy set-based classification of customer requirements." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 31(3):98-113.
  11. Lim, S. U., and Park, Y. T. 2010. "Potential customer satisfaction improvement index based on Kano model." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 38(2):248-260.
  12. Lofgren, M. and Witell, L. 2008. "Two decades of using Kano's theory of attractive quality: a literature review." Quality Management Journal 15(1):59-75. ASQ.
  13. Matzler, K., and Hinterhuber, H. H. 1998. "How to make produce development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into quality function development." Technovation 18(1):25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00072-2
  14. Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., and Schubert, A. K. 2004. "Employee satisfaction: does Kano's model apply?" Total Quality Management 15(9&10):1179-1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478336042000255569
  15. Mikulic, J. and Prebezac, D. 2011. "A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model." Managing Service Quality 2(1):46-65.
  16. Shin, A. R., and Ree, S. B. 2007. "A Study on the Development of Total Customer Satisfaction Coefficient based on Kano Model." Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers 20(4):479-487.
  17. Song, H. G. 2013. "Developing and utilizing the B-W model for managing quality attributes." PhD Dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University.
  18. Song, H. G. and Park, Y. T. 2012. "Wordings of the Kano model's questionnaire." Journal of Korean Society of Quality Management 40(4):453-466. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2012.40.4.453
  19. Witell, L. and Lofgren, M. 2007. "Classification of quality attributes." Managing Service Quality 17(1):54-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520710720674
  20. Yoon, J. W., and Lee, H. Y. 2009. "An empirical comparative analysis between Kano and Improved Kano methods." Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 37(4):31-42.

Cited by

  1. A critical review of Kano's wording and its impact on attribute classification: a case study of smartphone in Korea vol.29, pp.1-2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1150167