In today’s competitive marketplace, customer requirements (CRs) analysis is critically important in the development phase of a new product. One widely used effective tool for CRs analysis is Kano’s model. However, this model only considers crisp descriptions, ignoring the fact that CRs are imprecise and uncertain due to their linguistic origins. Moreover, it provides limited decision support for designers because it is a qualitative method based on discontinuous classification criteria. To tackle these problems, this paper proposes a continuous fuzzy Kano’s model to more accurately analyse CRs. A modified fuzzy Kano’s questionnaire is developed to deal with the imprecision and uncertainty in CRs. It is a self-administered paper questionnaire that consists of closed-ended questions. Furthermore, a continuous approach for fuzzy Kano evaluation is presented to quantitatively analyse CRs. Also, an evaluation index is introduced that allows CRs to be prioritized. A case study of mobile phone development is presented to evaluate the proposed method.
MatzlerK.HinterhuberH. H.How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 1998, 18(1), 25–38.
2.
JiaoJ.ChenC. H.Customer requirement management in product development: A review of research issues. Concurr. Engng Res. Appl, 2006, 14(3), 173–185.
3.
ChenC.WangL.Integrating rough set clustering and grey model to analyse dynamic customer requirements. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engng Mf, 2008, 222(2), 319–332.
4.
BarnettT. J.HardingJ. A.NurseA.Design and development of a classification system for knowledge management tools and methods. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engng Mf, 2010, 224(6), 981–993.
5.
AndersonE. W.MittalV.Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. J. Service Res, 2000, 3(2), 107–120.
6.
KumarV.VenkatesanR.ReinartzW.Knowing what to sell, when, and to whom. Harv. Bus. Rev, 2006, 84(3), 131–137.
7.
KanoN.SerakuN.TakahashiF.TsujiS.Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control, 1984, 14(2), 39–48.
XuQ.JiaoR. J.YangX.HelanderM.KhalidH. M.OpperudA.An analytical Kano model for customer need analysis. Des. Stud, 2009, 30(1), 87–110.
10.
EvansS.BurnsA.An investigation of customer delight during product evaluation: Implications for the development of desirable products. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engng Mf, 2007, 221(11), 1625–1638.
11.
LeeY.-C.HuangS.-Y.A new fuzzy concept approach for Kano’s model. Expert Syst. Appl, 2009, 36(3, Part 1), 4479–4484.
12.
LeeY.-C.SheuL.-C.TsouY.-G.Quality function deployment implementation based on fuzzy Kano model: An application in PLM system. Comput. Ind. Engng, 2008, 55(1), 48–63.
13.
ManskiC. F.The use of intentions data to predict behavior: A best-case analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc, 1990, 85(412), 934–940.
14.
ChanF. T. S.KumarN.ChoyK. L.Decision-making approach for the distribution centre location problem in a supply chain network using the fuzzy-based hierarchical concept. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engng Mf, 2007, 221(4), 725–739.
15.
LiangG.-S.WangM.-J. J.A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for facility site selection. Int. J. Prod. Res, 1991, 29(11), 2313–2330.
SireliY.KauffmannP.OzanE.Integration of Kano’s model into QFD for multiple product design. IEEE Trans. Engng Mgment, 2007, 54(2), 380–390.
18.
MatzlerK.HinterhuberH. H.BailomF.SauerweinE.How to delight your customers. J.Prod. Brand Mgment, 1996, 5(2), 6–18.
19.
FoldesiP.KoczyL. T.BotzheimJ.Fuzzy extension for Kano’s model using bacterial evolutionary algorithm. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Computational intelligence and intelligent informatics, Agadir, Morocco, 28–30 March 2007, 147–151, IEEE (Computer Society) Piscataway, New Jersey, US.
20.
TingS.-C.ChenC.-N.The asymmetrical and non-linear effects of store quality attributes on customer satisfaction. Total Qual. Mgment, 2002, 13(4), 547–569.
21.
LinS. P.YangC. L.ChanY. H.SheuC.Refining Kano’s ’quality attributes-satisfaction’ model: A moderated regression approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ, 2010, 126(2), 255–263.
22.
WangT.JiP.Understanding customer needs through quantitative analysis of Kano’s model. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Mgment, 2010, 27(2), 173–184.
23.
MatzlerK.BailomF.HinterhuberH. H.RenzlB.PichlerJ.The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis. Ind. Mark. Mgment, 2004, 33(4), 271–277.
24.
BorgianniY.CasciniG.RotiniF.Process value analysis for business process re-engineering. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engng Mf, 2010, 224(2), 305–327.
25.
SimonsonI.CarmonZ.O’CurryS.Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Mark. Sci, 1994, 13(1), 23–40.
26.
MarchJ. G.Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell J. Econ, 1978, 9(2), 587–608.
27.
RejebH. B.BolyV.Morel-GuimaraesL.Attractive quality for requirement assessment during the front-end of innovation. TQM J, 2011, 23(2), 216–234.
28.
TontiniG.Determining the degree of satisfaction of customer requirements: A modified Kano method. Calif. J. Oper. Mgment, 2003, 1(1), 95–103.
29.
MikulićJ.The Kano model - a review of its application in marketing research from 1984 to 2006. In The International Conference on Marketing Theory Challenges in Transitional Societies, Maribor, Slovenia, 2007, 87–96.
30.
TontiniG.Deployment of customer needs in the QFD using a modified Kano model. J. Acad. Bus. Econ, 2003, 2(1), 103–113.
31.
ChenC.-C.ChuanM.-C.An extended Kano model for deciding improvement priority of product attributes, Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Computers and industrial engineering, Awaji, Japan, 25–28 July 2010, 1–6, IEEE (Computer Society) Piscataway, New Jersey, US.
32.
MittalV.RossW. T.JrBaldasareP. M.The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. J. Mark, 1998, 62(1), 33–47.
33.
WangY. C.LeeC. M.Lew-TingC. Y.ChuhsingK. H.ChenD. R.ChenW. J.Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: Web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire. J. Adolescent Health, 2005, 37(4), 289–295.
34.
JenkinsC. R.DillmanD. A.Towards a theory of self-administered questionnaire design. Survey measurement and process quality. In (Eds LybergL.BiemerP.CollinsM.De LeeuwE.DippoC.SchwarzN.TrewinD.) Wiley, 1997, pp. 165–196, New York, US.
35.
SchumanH.PresserS.Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context, 1996 (Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, US).
36.
BowlingA.Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J. Public Health, 2005, 27(3), 281–291.
37.
DuboisD.PradeH.The three semantics of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst, 1997, 90(2), 141–150.
38.
TanK. C.ShenX. X.Integrating Kano’s modelin the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Qual. Mgment, 2000, 11(8), 1141–1151.
39.
ChenL. H.KoW. C.A fuzzy nonlinear model for quality function deployment considering Kano’s concept. Math. Comput. Model, 2008, 48(3-4), 581–593.
40.
ChenJ. K.LeeY. C.A new method to identify the category of the quality attribute. Total Qual. Mgment Bus. Excellence, 2009, 20(10), 1139–1152.
41.
ZhengP.NiL.Smart phone and next generation mobile computing, 2006 (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California).
42.
TaliuagaJ.BatesJ.SumnerJ.Feature fatigue: A necessary evil in portable devices, the 2009 Consumer Technology Research results, 2009 (Rockbridge Associates).
43.
AvantGo Inc.Research summary: 2003 Mobile Lifestyle Survey, AvantGo Inc., 2003.
