Kano Model Analysis - Research Paper Example

? Kano Model Analysis (Insert 15 December Executive Summary satisfaction is an increasing area of interest because of competitionbrought about by globalization. This paper relates to customer satisfaction in institutions of higher learning. It uses the Kano model, which is a derivative of Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene theory. The model divides satisfaction indicators into three. There are Must-be requirements, One-dimensional requirements, and Attractive requirements. The research utilised mixed methods. Qualitative methods helped in the identification of variables while quantitative methods were useful in measuring the extent of the variables indentified. The key findings of the project were that students value lighting and space. In addition, they do not care about background music of sophisticated temperature controls. It is incumbent upon administrators to ensure that building designs take into account these issues. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents 3 Aim of Research 4 Relevance of the Research Project 4 Structure of the Report 4 Chapter I - Theory 5 Chapter II - Research Method 8 The Benefits of the Research Method 8 Methodology 8 Possible Limitations 9 Significant Literature 10 Chapter III - Findings and Discussion 11 Key Findings 11 Discussion of Findings 12 Chapter IV - Conclusions 15 Recommendations 15 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 15 Bibliography 17 Appendix 18 The issue of consumer satisfaction is very crucial for the profitability of businesses. It is the subject of many research efforts because of the increasing need to offer competitive products and services to consumers. This paper presents the analysis of data obtained in an effort to determine the satisfaction of students by measuring the attributes of teaching facilities in higher education. Aim of Research The aim of the research project was to determine the relative significance of the factors that influence the degree of satisfaction of students in an institution of higher education. The researchers utilized a questionnaire based on the Kano Model. The model addresses a spectrum of issues that contribute to consumer satisfaction. Relevance of the Research Project In recent times, there has been an increase in the demand for higher education by students. The major drive has been “forces of globalization”, which have contributed towards a heightened awareness of the opportunities available for education globally (Morady & Siriner, 2011, p.35). In this sense, Institutions must remain aware of the issues that influence consumer choice of institutions of higher learning because there is a lot of competition for educational services. This is the reason why it is important to research the issues that influence the degree of satisfaction of students, who are the primary consumers of educational services, in the institutions. Structure of the Report This report carries a section that considers theories relevant to the study. It gives way to a discussion of the research method used in this project, its benefits and limitations. The next section concentrates on the findings of the project, which pave way for the concluding remarks, which include a set of recommendations. Chapter I - Theory The study of consumer satisfaction falls in the same general academic field that includes behavioural sciences, human psychology and consumer sciences. As with many other academic disciplines, there is no consensus on a single definition of consumer satisfaction. Giese and Cote (2002) summarized three basic areas that most of the definitions of consumer satisfaction cover as follows, 1) Consumer satisfaction is a response (emotional or cognitive); 2) the response pertains to a particular focus (expectations, product, consumption experience, etc.); and 3) the response occurs at a particular time (after consumption, after choice, based on accumulated experience, etc) (p.1). This summary sufficed for the needs of this research project because it captured the issues that the project sought to evaluate. The drive to satisfy consumers comes from the understanding that it is impossible to have long term profitability without satisfying consumers. In addition, when a business understands what the real needs of the consumers are, then it is easier to provide them with just what they need in a cost effective fashion (Underhill, 2000). The biggest mistake that any business can make is to provide a product that the company is not sure whether it will satisfy the needs of the consumers (Michman & Mazee, 2001). The model developed by Kano to help a business to determine significant factors in consumer satisfaction had very close relation to the Motivation-Hygiene Theory proposed by Herzberg (Hak et al., 2007). In this theory, Herzberg postulated that there are factors that cause employees to get motivated towards achieving the goals set for them at the workplace. He called these factors, “hygiene factors” (Tosi et al., 2000, p.30). On the other hand, he said that there are factors, which cause dissatisfaction among employees if the management fails to deal with them. Herzberg went on to clarify the absence of de-motivating factors did not mean that the employees would be motivated (Tosi et al., 2000). It only meant that they would not be de-motivated. In the same strain, he observed that the presence of motivation factors caused employees to seek proactively to deliver on targets regardless of the presence of de-motivators. Kano based his model shown in figure 1 below, on Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory as a special application of the theory to consumer satisfaction. In this sense, Kano assumed that the same motivational factors that made employees feel positively predisposed towards getting the job done had something to do with the motivation of consumers to buy certain products. In his model, Kano distinguished between “three types of product requirements which influence customer satisfaction in different ways when met” (Sauerwein et al., 1996, p.312). The three requirements are, “Must-be requirements”, “One-dimensional requirements” and “Attractive requirements” (Sauerwein et al., 1996, pp.312-313). The “Must–be” requirements relate to those that consumers assume to be a natural part of the product. Without them, the product will cause great dissatisfaction. An example here is the brakes of a car. These requirements do not contribute towards any special satisfaction from the product on the part of the consumer. One-dimensional requirements relate to those whose presence increases the satisfaction of the consumers proportionately. Finally, the Attractive requirements have a specific tendency to increase satisfaction disproportionately. These factors are the source of competitive advantage. Fig 1: Kano’s Model of Consumer Satisfaction (Sauerwein et al., 1996, p.313) The theory presented above provides the framework for the presentation of the research results related to this project. Chapter II - Research Method The development of the research instruments followed the requirements of the Kano Model. The implication of the Model was that the research utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods. The identification of variables to study was qualitative in nature. In research projects modelled under the Kano model, the researcher uses focus groups to identify the variables for study. After the variables are clear, quantitative techniques come into play to help in the quantification of the variables under study. The Benefits of the Research Method Mixed methods research is useful because it reduces the negative impact of either tradition. Qualitative techniques works best to help identify and define variables for a study because of their open-ended nature (Bernard, 2011). On the other hand, Quantitative techniques assist in the identification of the extent of influence of the variables (Bernard, 2011). The Kano model as part of the research method employed allows for the identification of variables that influence consumer satisfaction thereby providing a strong basis for product development decisions. Methodology In this project, the collection of data was by specially made questionnaires based on the Kano Model. The questionnaires had two variations of each question, “functional and dysfunctional” (Sauerwein et al., 1996, p.319). The functional versions required a positive answer while the dysfunctional variation required a negative answer. Data collection took place after the identification of the variables. The questionnaire had sixteen pairs of questions in total. Possible Limitations The research study limited itself to the state of buildings and did not consider the impact of other social systems in the institution such as clubs, societies, sports and recreation. It also did not evaluate the perceived satisfaction of the students with teaching learning and other support services. Significant Literature The most influential sources of literature used in the work were two journal articles. The first one was the article entitled, “The Kano Model, How to Delight your Customers” by Sauerwein et al.,(1996) and the second one was, “Defining Consumer Satisfaction” by Giese and Cote, (2002). The articles were very influential in the development of a philosophical framework to guide the project and also to determe the issues to consider during the presentation of the findings. Chapter III - Findings and Discussion This section relates to the findings made after analysing the data by use of the frequencies of responses. The Kano Model provided the basis for presentation of data using the three requirements of the model. The application of the model in data presentation in conjunction with the Kano Evaluation Table shown in Fig 2 made it possible to present the data under six areas. In addition, it allowed for interpretation of the data based in the satisfaction coefficients computed on the aggregate results. In some instances, the values were very close to each other. In those cases, the particular statistic appears in both categories. The complete results are in Table 1 in the appendix. Key Findings 1. The Attractive requirements of consumers of higher education included; the presence of windows (43.60%), sufficient natural lighting in the buildings (42.40%), sufficient natural lighting in the lecture rooms (41.67%), brightly coloured lecture rooms (40.64%), pleasant decoration in the lecture rooms (39.60%), and sufficient fresh air in the lecture rooms (35.60%). 2. The One-dimensional requirements uncovered by the research project were; sufficient seating space (43.60%), pleasant temperature in the lecture rooms (42.06%) and comfortable seating space in the lecture room (37.45%). 3. There was no Must-be requirement unearthed by the project. However, among the results, the most significant value generated from the analysis of data in this category was in the issue of sufficient space in the lecture room (31.20%). It was the second highest value generated under the question. 4. Amongst the questionable results obtained from the survey, the question relating sufficient natural lighting generated the greatest value at 1.19%. This was in keeping with the expectations of data analysis for questionable values based on the Kano Model which indicated that the value of questionable results are normally very low (Sauerwein et al., 1996). 5. The results relating to reverse situations showed that the question with the highest case of reversal was on the availability of quite background music in the lecture halls (30%). 6. The highest cases of indifference came from answers based on; the presence of background music in the lecture halls (69.20%), seating arrangements that would foster communication (65.46%), and the pleasant decoration of lecture halls (64.14%). The analysis of customer satisfaction coefficients revealed the following. 1. The issues that contributed most towards the satisfaction of consumers in institutions of higher learning were; sufficient natural lighting in lecture rooms (0.75), pleasant temperature in the lecture rooms (0.74), sufficient fresh air in the lecture rooms (0.71), and sufficient natural lighting in the building (0.71). On the other hand, the issue that contributed least towards customer satisfaction was bright colours in the lecture rooms. 2. Among the factors leading to dissatisfaction among the consumers, the greatest one was sufficient space in the lecture rooms (-0.76), pleasant temperature (-0.62), and comfortable seats in the lecture halls (0.52). The factor contributing least to the dissatisfaction of customers was bright colours in the lecture halls. Discussion of Findings According to Sauerwein et al., 1996, Attractive requirements are the source of compatitive advantage. The frequency analysis of the Attractive requirements did not show any statistically significant advantage in the first five values. Their range was very small. This may mean that it is not one particular aspect of the building and lecture hall design that brought satistfaction to the clients, but a set of factors. However, all the important factors bordered on lighting and ventillation. This means therefore that designers of buildings meant for higher education must be careful about the lighting qualities of the building and the ventillation. Further evidence to the fact that lighting and ventilation was a key factor in the satistafction of consumers is in the high ratings for the two items in the customer satisfaction coefficients. Among the requirements analysed, the aspects that fell under One-dimensional requirements seemed to validate the reasonable expections of any consumer. In this case, the respondents indicated that they prefer to have space. However, the more the space availed to each individual, the higher the cost of doing it. Beyond a certain limit, more space per individual does not necessarily increase their satisfaction. The same is true for the temparature. Human beings are comfortable within a certain temparature range. Hence, once the temparature is within the range, there is no further value generated from it by further optimization. These assertions agree with the extectations of the Kano Model which describe the One-dimensional requirements as those with diminishing returns. However, uncomfortable temparatures are an important source of dissatisfaction when analysed from the consumer satisfaction index presented in Table 4. In the area of Must-be requirements, it was interesting that none of the questions led to the identification of a Must-be requirement. The highest value under the category came from the availability of sufficient space in the lecture hall. It is important to note that there is a chance that higher education providers may seek to improve their bottom line by maximizing on space to the extent that the students feel as though the space is insufficient. The lack of a clear Must-be requirement shows that the building design of higher education facilities is not standardized. This is why the respondents have a problem identifying the absolute minimum consumer requirements in higher education buildings. From the other questions, it is conclusive that decoration of halls is not a necessity. In addition, background music will not create significant positive experiences for the students to warrant its introduction. These findings provide the basis for several conclusions, which managers of institutions ought to treat carefully if they hope to increase their customer satisfaction indices. Chapter IV - Conclusions The observations presented above pave way for the following conclusions which aim at providing the managers of institutions of higher learning with the information they need to improve customer satisfaction in their premises. Recommendations 1. Students value good lighting in their lecture rooms hence the management should always ensure that buildings incorporate natural lighting. This will increase customer satisfaction in the facilities. 2. Management must resist the urge to increase the number of students in the classes because there is a significant association of comfortable sitting space with a satisfying experience in the lecture halls. 3. Apart from the necessary equipment for air conditioning, there is diminishing value in investing in sophisticated temperature control equipment. The perceived value of comfortable temperature diminishes soon after the environment is comfortable. In this sense, institutional managers should not spend anything more than is necessary for temperature control. 4. Background music does not add much value to the overall satisfaction of students. Institutions should therefore avoid investing in this service because it is not worth it. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research This research project focussed on the conditions of the buildings and lecture halls. Therefore, it is incomplete as a measure of the overall satisfaction of students in higher education institutions. There is need for further research that will capture the indices relating to social services and service delivery to capture the full spectrum of issues that affect the satisfaction of students in the institutions of higher learning. Bibliography Bernard, H.R., 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Plymouth: Rowman Altamira. Giese, J.L. & Cote, J.A., 2002. Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Academy of Marketing and Science Review, 2000(1). Hak, T., Moldan, B. & Dahl, A.L., 2007. Scientific Indicators: A Scientific Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press. Michman, R.D. & Mazee, E.M., 2001. Specialty Retailers: Marketing Triumphs and Blunders. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Morady, F. & Siriner, I., 2011. Globalization, Religion & Development. London: Ijopec. Sauerwein, E., Bailom, F., Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H.H., 1996. The Kano Model: How to Delight Your Customers. Ninth International Working Seminar on Production Economics,Innsbruck/Igls/Austria, I, pp.313-27. Tosi, H.L., Mero, N.P. & Rizzo, J.R., 2000. Managing Organizational Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Underhill, P., 2000. Why We buy: The Science of Shopping. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Appendix Fig 2: The Kano evaluation Table (Sauerwein et al., 1996, p.318)   q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 q12 q13 q14 q15 q16 Q 1.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% A 41.67% 37.05% 15.60% 43.60% 31.35% 27.49% 37.25% 15.60% 39.60% 13.65% 23.20% 35.60% 40.64% 21.03% 40.80% 42.40% O 15.87% 37.45% 43.60% 23.60% 42.06% 4.78% 9.31% 3.20% 31.20% 2.01% 4.00% 29.20% 15.54% 5.56% 9.20% 28.40% R 0.40% 1.20% 1.20% 2.80% 0.79% 1.99% 7.69% 30.00% 0.40% 18.07% 1.60% 1.20% 0.80% 10.32% 1.60% 0.00% I 32.54% 11.16% 8.40% 25.20% 5.95% 64.14% 44.53% 50.00% 16.40% 65.46% 69.20% 18.00% 39.44% 62.30% 47.20% 22.00% M 8.33% 13.15% 31.20% 4.80% 19.84% 1.59% 0.81% 0.80% 12.00% 0.40% 1.20% 15.60% 3.59% 0.40% 1.20% 7.20% Table 2: Analysis Tables Table 3: Table of Results Table 4: Satisfaction Coefficients Read More