KANO ANALYSIS: A CRITICAL SURVEY SCIENCE REVIEW
Abstract
The Kano method gives a “compelling” answer to questions about features, but it is
impossible to know whether it is a correct answer. To put it differently, it will tell a story— quite
possibly an incorrect story. This is because the standard Kano questions are low quality survey
items, often paired with questionable theory and scoring. The concepts are based on durable
consumer goods and may be inapplicable for technology products.
We follow our theoretical assessment of the Kano method with empirical studies to examine
the response scale, reliability, validity, and sample size requirements. We find that Kano validity
is suspect on several counts, and a common scoring model is inappropriate because the items are
multidimensional. Beyond the questions about validity, we find that category assignment may be
unreliable with small samples (N < 200). Finally, we suggest alternatives that obtain similarly
compelling answers using higher quality survey methods and analytic practices.
impossible to know whether it is a correct answer. To put it differently, it will tell a story— quite
possibly an incorrect story. This is because the standard Kano questions are low quality survey
items, often paired with questionable theory and scoring. The concepts are based on durable
consumer goods and may be inapplicable for technology products.
We follow our theoretical assessment of the Kano method with empirical studies to examine
the response scale, reliability, validity, and sample size requirements. We find that Kano validity
is suspect on several counts, and a common scoring model is inappropriate because the items are
multidimensional. Beyond the questions about validity, we find that category assignment may be
unreliable with small samples (N < 200). Finally, we suggest alternatives that obtain similarly
compelling answers using higher quality survey methods and analytic practices.
Research Areas
