# How to combine the Importance Performance Matrix and the KANO Model?

#### Mikael

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
Hi

Do you think it would make sense to combine the Performance Importance matrix (Slack) with the KANO-model. For some priority cases I am working on this.

My first thought was to let the performance scale be like it is and then replace the importance scale with "linear, attractive and must be", but then it is not a scale anymore, right?
I tried this version on my whiteboard, it implies that I change the areas within the matrix (urgent actions etc.), any ideas on this?

Does it even make sense to combine them, does the order matter, it could be: must be, linear, attractive instead!?

Is it possible to integrate KANO's priority calculations into the matrix?

#### Stijloor

Super Moderator
A Quick Bump!

Can someone help?

Thank you very much!!

#### Steve Prevette

##### Deming Disciple
Super Moderator
Seems to me the commonality may be the vertical sclae for IPM is performance, while the vertical scale for Kano is customer satisfaction. If we assume these are both the same measure, then we have the IPM horizontal scale of importance, and the Kano horizontal scale of investment. Perhaps what we really have if we combine is a 3 dimensional modle of

Performance (aka customer satisfaction)
Importance (perceived benefit?)
Investment (cost)

This may imply that we have a internal cost and benefit view, and that combination may result in an external performance / customer satisfaction result.

#### Mikael

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
Thanks Steve, I follow you, but "the Kano horizontal scale of investment", where did that come from, perhaps my school book are a little old on the KANO-model!?
I mean of course there is a clear link to costs, but they did not use these words in the orignal model, right?

Though still relevant, for a 2D presentation, Cost/investment/ressources could be marked as small/large circles.

My point is that "Importance" for Slack = "Must be, Linear, and Attractive" for KANO-model!

#### Steve Prevette

##### Deming Disciple
Super Moderator
I must admit I am more familiar with KANO than the IPM. At least on the link I found, the important concept is - have you achieved excellent performance on stuff NOT important to the customer, versus is your performance lagging on stuff that is important to the customer.

I did not find a reference directly to linear, must be, or attractive, though perhaps that is an interpretation in the KANO model where there are non-linear reactions from effort taken by the supplier to reaction by the customer. Perhaps (I do not claim to be an expert in either) the connection is

IPM asks are you expending too much effort (gaining high levels of performance) on stuff not important to the customer, while KANO may ask - are you putting effort into items that are only dissatisfiers to the customer, and excellence in a dissatisfier never really garners satisfaction (?)

#### Mikael

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
"dissatisfier" - ah now I know why you do not follow my terminology, you make use of a newer presentation of the model, must be = dissatisfier. It have been some years since I was deap into the theory, so within a day or two I will find the original and new version and make a little translation with comments.

#### Steve Prevette

##### Deming Disciple
Super Moderator
Here's where I went: http: // www .uie. com/articles/kano_model - OBSOLETE BROKEN 404 LINK(s) UNLINKED

I used the term "dissatisfier" rather than "basic expectation", probably from other writings on "the elimination of defects (dissatisfiers) does not necessarily result in a good product". Dr. Ackoff would talk of the TV channel changer. It can eliminate defects, but can't create a better show to be on your TV.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Mikael

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
thx for the link, for now I just had a quick look at it, and please let me make it clear, that the first original paper in english was Kano (Noriaki) and co. from 1996 in the book ''Best on Quality'' vol. 7.

The correct words for the Quality elements are:

Attractive
One-Dimensional (sorry, I used linear, which was badly wrong ).
Must-Be
(Indifferent)
(Reverse)

Basic = Must-Be
Excitement = Attractive
Performance = One-dimensional

I think it is a lack of respect not to use the original words, unless you have a really good reason. Though Spool (author from the link) might translated from Japanese.
BTW in general I find it very misleading to show a coordination system, as there are no functions in the Kano model (ssh - Kano and co. also do this, but have other axis...).

I dont like the translation of Must-be/Basic to dissatisfier. If it was a dissatifier it would not make sense to calculate the ''dissatisfaction elimination effect'', because the dissatisfier(Must-be) element is a variable in this calculation.

I am a fan of reading original work, go to the source

#### Steve Prevette

##### Deming Disciple
Super Moderator
My apologies, intended no disrespect to the original work. With no other responses coming in, I took a stab at trying to understand the systems and found both concepts to be interesting, and tried to connect to other knowledge.