Skip to main content

Intro to Kano Analysis

Bloggers in the same "circle" as I have recently paid a fair amount of attention to Kano analysis. I wrote in a previous entry that true Kano analysis differs a bit from popular portrayals. What follows is an introduction to Kano analysis. I intend this introduction merely to explain what it is and what people do with it.

You use Kano analysis to help you decide what to put in your product. It helps you determine the relative importance of features or requirements.

With Kano analysis, you categorize possible attributes of your product as:
  • attractive - satisfies users when present but does not dissatisfy users when not present
  • one-dimensional - satisfies users when present and dissatisfies them when not present
  • must-be - taken for granted, but dissatisfies users when not present
  • indifferent - results in neither user satisfaction nor user dissatisfaction
  • reverse - dissatisfies users when present and satisfies them when not present
Informed Kano analysis requires researching your market. One way of obtaining quantitative data is to conduct a survey. Kano recommended using pairs of questions such as:

If the product has feature x, how would you feel?
1. I like it that way.
2. It must be that way.
3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.

If the product does not have feature x, how would you feel?
1. I like it that way.
2. It must be that way.
3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.
From the answers to the questionnaire, you use a somewhat complex algorithm for evaluating the importance of each feature.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the