1 / 17

Improving Data Quality through Two Dimensional Surveying: the Kano Method

Improving Data Quality through Two Dimensional Surveying: the Kano Method. Stephen M. Bauer PhD, & Vathsala I. Stone PhD RERC on Technology Transfer, University at Buffalo Center for Assistive Technology http://cosmos.buffalo.edu. Abstract.

zada
Télécharger la présentation

Improving Data Quality through Two Dimensional Surveying: the Kano Method

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving Data Quality through Two Dimensional Surveying: the Kano Method Stephen M. Bauer PhD, & Vathsala I. Stone PhD RERC on Technology Transfer, University at Buffalo Center for Assistive Technology http://cosmos.buffalo.edu

  2. Abstract The Kano Method is a unique way of conceptualizing, measuring and understanding customer defined quality for designing and developing products and services. • Uses a non-traditional, “two-dimensional” (2-D) survey method to capture in-depth data. • Strong basis for decision making. Demonstrably superior to “one-dimensional” (1-D) survey methods. • Applied especially to the design and improvement of products and services. Growing practice in private sector. • Potential application to decision-making in unexplored areas (e.g. education, health and social service). Poster presents the Kano rationale, describes the Method, and illustrates applications within and beyond product evaluation.

  3. User Surveys for Design Decisions Basis: CIPP Model (Stufflebeam, 1971) Implement Setup Recycle Design  new or improved products, services, curriculum… Design Evaluate Context Are “standard” 1-D surveys the best tools for this purpose? User Surveys

  4. Decision versus Precision Kano 2-D Survey Traditional 1-D Survey OR Yes / No Include / Exclude Pick This One / Pick That One Take Action / Don’t Take Action Change / Don’t Change Increase / Decrease Weigh Measure Find Range Find Percent Average

  5. Understanding Customer Satisfaction • Dr. Kano drew upon psychology research • Three basic types of design “Features”

  6. Little Interest Like It Don’t Like It 1 2 3 4 5 Example: Don’t Like It … …Like It • How would you feel if “your email program HAS a carbon copy function?” • How would you feel if “your email program LACKS a carbon copy function?” Don’t Like It … …Like It Kano Questions Standard Kano surveys use question pairs that either include or exclude some feature, function…(Y) from some product, service…(X). Question pairs have the form: • How would you feel if “…X HAS Y…” • How would you feel if “…X LACKS Y…” Each question employs the same 5-point response scale of the form:

  7. 5x5 Response Frame X LACKS Y 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 X HAS Y Standard method employs a 5x5 response frame and response pairs map to one of 25 cells in the frame. View “Reverse” as though the “X HAS Y” and “X LACKS Y” questions have been “flipped.” Not quite this simple though…

  8. Judgment with 1-D & 2-D Surveys Question Form …X HAS Y… Is Y Important? Question Form …X LACKS Y… Is Y Important? Feature Y is EXPECTED No Yes Error! is REVEALED Yes Yes is EXCITING Yes No Error! (Like It!) (Hate It!) (Hate It!) (Like It!) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 • 1D questions of form “X HAS Y” do not “catch” EXPECTED Features. • 1D questions of form “X LACKS Y” do not “catch” EXCITING Features. • 2D question pairs (Kano) “catch” both EXPECTED & EXCITING Features.

  9. 5x5 Response Frame X LACKS Y 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 X HAS Y Unfortunately, at least 16 of the 25 cells in the 5x5 response frame are undefined, unnecessary or ambiguous.

  10. 3x3 Response Frame X LACKS Y 1 2 3 4 5 X LACKS Y 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 X HAS Y X HAS Y “Subtract” Unneeded and Ambiguous Cells For decision making, added precision that contributes to ambiguous interpretation should be eliminated.

  11. Feature Importance Item Item … … 1 4 Item Item … … 2 5 Item Item … … 6 3 Little Interest Little Interest ExCiting ExCiting Revealed Revealed ExPected ExPected Example response distributions for items having great importance Example response distributions for items having little importance Exciting, Revealed and Expected characteristics are different – but they are all important. This suggests the following importance estimate: (C + R + P) / N  Importance, where N = # of Responses

  12. …Not Important… …No Opinion… …Important… Estimating Importance E.g. Design of a mainstream consumer product. 21 study participants. Kano method with 3 point response scale. 35 design features considered. Follow up “importance” survey of the form: • How important is it that X HAS Y ? Estimated item (feature) importance is highly correlated (r2 »0.948) with separate Importance Survey results. Note: study limited by small sample size and lack of “Reverse” (-) features.

  13. Response Averaging? X LACKS Y 1 2 3 3 2 1 X HAS Y Y is primarily an Expected Feature (3,2). In general, averaging (and related approaches) can cause incorrect interpretation of the data resulting in poor design decisions. Average (1.96, 1.82)  (2,2) Averaging incorrectly suggests that Y is a Feature of Little Interest.

  14. Use of Categories X LACKS Y 1 2 3 3 2 1 X HAS Y Primary category (1,2): Y is unexpected and disliked by most “customers.” Secondary category (2,3): Y is unexpected and liked by many “customers.” Simultaneously looking at two or more categories provides important guidance for design decisions. Consider a software application where some feature can be “switched” on / off by the user…

  15. Increasingly Exciting 0.5  Revealed Increasingly Expected Graphical Representation E.g. Design of an email product. 22 study participants. Kano method with 3 point response scale. 123 design features considered. 0.8 to 0.5 moderately important 0.0 to 0.5 gen. not important ≥ 0.8 important Feature tendency toward being exciting, revealed, or expected is ~ (1 + (C-P)) / 2 Note: study limited by small sample size. Analysis for “Reverse” (-) features requires an extension to this approach.

  16. Further Explorations 1) In practice, design decisions are often made whether to increase or decrease a feature, function… (Y) for some product, service… (X). Kano question pairs of the following form can be used for this purpose: • How would you feel if “X HAS MORE OF Y” ? • How would you feel if “X HAS LESS OF Y” ? 2)Response distributions can be evaluated for diffusion of innovation (technology transfer) and related phenomena.The common lifecycle for innovation is: Exciting (introduction of Feature)  Revealed (period of refinement)  Expected (perfected and pervasive)  Reverse Categories (obsolescence). 3)Response distributions can be used to study market segmentation (business) and related phenomena. 4)No Sense responses can be used to flag survey response errors and flawed question construction. It is clear that respondents should not like (hate) both the presence and absence of any Feature.

  17. Acknowledgement This is a presentation of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer, which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the Department of Education under grant number H133E0300025. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Education.

More Related