What is the Kano Model?

The Kano Model, developed by Professor Noriaki Kano in the 1980s, is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction that classifies customer preferences into five categories. It helps teams understand which features will delight customers versus which are simply expected.

The Kano Model describes customer satisfaction as dynamic system in which feature expectations evolve over time. Attractive features often become Must-be requirements as markets mature—what delighted customers five years ago (touchscreens, wireless charging) becomes baseline expectation today. This temporal migration requires continuous reassessment to maintain competitive positioning.

The framework integrates seamlessly with Voice of Customer (VOC) collection and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) frameworks, translating qualitative customer language into quantitative requirement priorities that engineering teams can execute against.

Within Design for Six Sigma (DFSS), Kano analysis typically supports the Define and Measure phases by translating Voice of Customer insights into prioritized Critical-to-Quality (CTQ) requirements. These CTQs then feed QFD matrices and engineering specification development.

Kano Model Fundamentals

What Kano Evaluates: The model assesses how customer satisfaction responds to the presence or absence of specific product features, revealing nonlinear relationships that traditional importance ratings miss.

When to Apply: Use Kano analysis during product planning phases, roadmap prioritization sessions, or when entering new markets where customer expectations remain undefined.

Simple Example: A smartphone manufacturer surveys customers about fingerprint sensors. Without the feature (dysfunctional), customers are dissatisfied (Must-be). With it (functional), customers remain neutral—it meets expectations but doesn't excite. However, facial recognition (Attractive) generates delight when present but doesn't dissatisfy when absent. Kano reveals that while both features might receive high "importance" ratings in traditional surveys, they serve entirely different strategic purposes.

Kano Categories

Category classification reflects customer perception rather than engineering difficulty. Misclassification leads to poor prioritization—investing in One-dimensional performance improvements when customers actually require Must-be baseline functionality, or wasting resources on Indifferent features that generate no satisfaction impact.

Feature Migration Example: In 2010, smartphone GPS navigation was Attractive (delightful when present, not missed when absent). By 2015, it became One-dimensional (better accuracy = more satisfaction). Today, it's Must-be (absence causes immediate dissatisfaction). Understanding this lifecycle helps predict when to invest in emerging Attractive features before competitors.

Must-be Quality

Expected requirements. Their absence causes dissatisfaction, but their presence doesn't increase satisfaction.

Example: Car brakes, hotel cleanliness

One-dimensional

Linear relationship with satisfaction. Better performance = higher satisfaction.

Example: Battery life, processing speed

Attractive Quality

Delighters that exceed expectations. Their absence doesn't cause dissatisfaction, but their presence creates delight.

Example: Free upgrades, surprise gifts

Indifferent

Features customers don't care about. Neither presence nor absence affects satisfaction.

Example: Technical specs users don't understand

Reverse Quality

Features where more is worse. Their presence causes dissatisfaction.

Example: Complexity, too many options

Tool Features

Each feature provides specific analytical capabilities with methodological requirements. Dual questionnaire design captures satisfaction asymmetry by measuring both positive and negative responses, revealing nonlinear relationships that single-question surveys miss. Satisfaction coefficients (CS and DS) support quantitative prioritization but depend entirely on survey design quality—ambiguous questions or biased sampling invalidates coefficient reliability. Visual Kano diagrams support strategic decision communication but require stakeholder interpretation training to avoid misreading category positions. Collaboration features support consensus building but require controlled survey sampling to prevent demographic skew that distorts classification results.

Dual Questionnaire

Built-in functional and dysfunctional questions for each requirement. Standard Kano methodology.

Automated Classification

Automatically categorize responses using the standard Kano evaluation table.

Customer Satisfaction Coefficients

Calculate CS and DS coefficients to prioritize requirements by impact.

Customer Satisfaction (CS) and Dissatisfaction (DS) coefficients are calculated using response proportions: CS = (A + O) / (A + O + M + I) DS = −(M + O) / (A + O + M + I) These coefficients estimate how strongly a requirement increases satisfaction when present and decreases satisfaction when absent.

Visual Kano Diagram

Generate the classic Kano diagram showing requirement positioning.

Export Results

Export analysis to Excel, Word, or PowerPoint for stakeholder presentations.

Team Collaboration

Share questionnaires with team members and aggregate results.

Kano Model Assumptions

Valid Kano classification depends on specific methodological and sampling prerequisites. Violating these assumptions produces unreliable category assignments and misleading prioritization guidance.

Representative Sampling

Customer survey responses must represent target customer segments. Surveying only power users or early adopters skews classification toward sophisticated features that mainstream customers may find Indifferent or Reverse.

Unbiased Requirement Descriptions

Requirement descriptions must be clear and unbiased. Leading questions ("How would you like our advanced AI feature?") or technical jargon distort authentic customer perceptions and invalidate classification.

Sufficient Sample Size

Sample size must support reliable classification. While individual responses may vary, aggregate classification confidence increases with response volume—typically requiring 20-50 responses per customer segment for stable categorization.

Methodology Adherence

Survey responses must follow standard Kano evaluation methodology. Modified question formats or response scales break the classification algorithm and produce inconsistent results.

Model Limitations

Understanding Kano constraints prevents overreliance and ensures complementary analysis methods address gaps:

Financial Impact Ambiguity

Kano classification identifies satisfaction drivers but does not automatically estimate financial return or implementation cost. A Must-be feature may generate no satisfaction but prevent massive churn, while an Attractive feature may delight few customers. Combine with cost-benefit analysis for investment decisions.

Survey Sensitivity

Results remain highly sensitive to survey design quality and sampling bias. Poorly worded questions, leading examples, or unrepresentative samples produce incorrect classifications that misdirect development resources.

Strategic Analysis Boundaries

Does not replace detailed market segmentation, competitive analysis, or technical feasibility assessment. Kano reveals what customers want but not whether competitors already provide it or whether engineering can deliver it cost-effectively.

Temporal Dynamics

Requires periodic reassessment as customer expectations evolve. Annual or bi-annual resurveying captures category migration (Attractive becoming Must-be) that static analysis misses.

When NOT to Use Kano Model

Kano methodology provides inappropriate guidance for specific decision contexts where customer perception data conflicts with technical or operational constraints:

Technical Feasibility Prioritization

Highly technical engineering feasibility prioritization without VOC input should use technical readiness assessments rather than customer satisfaction models. Kano cannot determine if a feature is physically possible or economically viable to produce.

Data-Limited Environments

Situations lacking customer survey data—such as radically innovative products with no existing market—cannot apply Kano classification. Use scenario planning or conjoint analysis instead.

Operational Process Decisions

Short-term operational process optimization decisions requiring immediate implementation should use rapid improvement tools like Kaizen events rather than extended customer surveying.

Unstable Market Segments

Markets with highly unstable or undefined customer segments—such as emerging technology categories with shifting user bases—produce inconsistent Kano results that change before implementation completes.

Kano Questionnaire Method

The functional/dysfunctional pairing identifies satisfaction asymmetry that single-question surveys cannot detect. Functional questions measure response to feature presence, while dysfunctional questions measure response to feature absence. The combination reveals whether customers are delighted, satisfied, indifferent, or dissatisfied—enabling precise categorization.

Survey quality directly impacts classification reliability. Ambiguous or leading questions distort responses and produce Questionable classifications that invalidate analysis. Pilot testing questionnaires with 5-10 representative customers before full deployment identifies confusing language, technical jargon, or biased framing that corrupts data quality.

For each potential requirement, ask customers two questions:

Functional Question

"How would you feel if the product had [feature]?"

Dysfunctional Question

"How would you feel if the product did NOT have [feature]?"

Response options: Like it, Expect it, Don't care, Live with it, Dislike it

Kano Evaluation Table

Aggregated response classification determines final requirement category by cross-referencing functional and dysfunctional response pairs. Questionable (Q) responses typically indicate survey design problems or respondent confusion—high Q rates suggest ambiguous requirement descriptions or incompatible question pairing. Classification confidence increases with larger response samples; small samples (n<20) may produce unstable categorizations that shift with additional responses.

The table below maps customer responses to functional (feature present) and dysfunctional (feature absent) questions. The horizontal axis represents functional responses, while the vertical axis represents dysfunctional responses.

	Like	Expect	Don't Care	Live With	Dislike
Like	Q	A	A	A	O
Expect	R	I	I	I	M
Don't Care	R	I	I	I	M
Live With	R	I	I	I	M
Dislike	R	R	R	R	Q

A = Attractive, O = One-dimensional, M = Must-be, I = Indifferent, R = Reverse, Q = Questionable

Industry Applications

Kano methodology adapts across sectors to guide feature investment and differentiation strategy:

Software Product Roadmaps

SaaS companies use Kano to prioritize feature development—identifying Must-be security features, One-dimensional performance improvements, and Attractive AI-powered insights that differentiate from competitors.

Automotive Strategy

Auto manufacturers classify features by trim level. Must-be features (safety systems) are standard across all models. One-dimensional features (fuel economy) vary by segment. Attractive features (autonomous parking) appear in premium tiers before migrating downmarket.

Consumer Electronics

Electronics firms use Kano to time feature introductions. Water resistance evolved from Attractive (delightful differentiator) to One-dimensional (competitive comparison point) to Must-be (expected baseline) over five years.

Healthcare Experience

Hospital systems apply Kano to patient experience design. Cleanliness is Must-be (absence creates immediate dissatisfaction). Wait time reduction is One-dimensional (shorter waits = higher satisfaction). Personalized follow-up calls are Attractive (unexpected delight).

SaaS Release Planning

Software firms balance Must-be compliance features (GDPR tools), One-dimensional UX improvements (faster load times), and Attractive innovations (predictive analytics) across quarterly release cycles to maximize retention and acquisition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Kano Model and VOC analysis?

Voice of Customer (VOC) is the data collection process that gathers customer needs, complaints, and desires. Kano Model is the analysis framework that classifies those needs into satisfaction categories. You use VOC to gather input, then apply Kano to prioritize that input. VOC asks "what do customers want?" while Kano asks "how does this feature affect satisfaction?"

How often should Kano surveys be repeated?

Resurvey annually for fast-moving industries (consumer electronics, software) and bi-annually for stable markets (industrial equipment, healthcare). Additionally, resurvey when entering new market segments, after major competitor launches, or when product categories mature significantly.

Can Kano Model predict customer loyalty?

Indirectly. Must-be features prevent dissatisfaction that drives churn, while Attractive features create delight that drives advocacy. However, Kano alone doesn't measure loyalty directly—combine with Net Promoter Score (NPS) or customer lifetime value analysis for loyalty prediction.

How many survey responses are needed for reliable classification?

Minimum 20-30 responses per distinct customer segment for stable classification. Higher volumes (50+) increase confidence and enable statistical significance testing. Avoid making decisions on fewer than 15 responses unless targeting extremely narrow expert segments.

How do Kano categories change over time?

Categories follow a lifecycle: Attractive innovations become One-dimensional performance differentiators as competitors adopt them, eventually becoming Must-be expectations that customers assume standard. This migration drives the need for continuous surveying and innovation investment to identify new Attractive features.

What do Customer Satisfaction (CS) and Dissatisfaction (DS) scores mean?

CS measures how strongly a feature increases satisfaction when present. DS measures how strongly dissatisfaction increases when the feature is absent. Features with high CS but low DS often represent Attractive qualities, while features with high DS typically represent Must-be requirements.

Understand Your Customers

Free Kano Model analysis tool. Classify requirements and prioritize features for maximum satisfaction.

Launch Kano Analysis →

Kano Model Analysis Tool