Kano Model

Use this skill to run Kano Model as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

• Classify features as must-be, performance, delighter, indifferent, or reverse.
• Kano categories shift over time; mark evidence age.
• Pair functional (present) and dysfunctional (absent) reactions. Qualitative logic: expected presence with disliked absence suggests must-be; satisfaction with presence and dissatisfaction with absence suggests performance; liked presence with acceptable/neutral absence suggests delighter; little reaction either way suggests indifferent; disliked presence with preferred absence suggests reverse.
• State mode: qualitative evidence gives tentative categories; a standardized survey uses paired response options and a documented evaluation mapping. These qualitative cues are not a substitute for that mapping. Retain contradictory pairs, subgroup differences and ties as mixed / unclear unless a stated grouping/aggregation rule resolves them; do not force one class or a universal tie-break.
• Basis: ASQ Kano model and Society of Sensory Professionals classification and paired questionnaire.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

• features or service attributes
• customer segment
• satisfaction evidence
• dissatisfaction evidence

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use without a defined customer context and evidence of how feature presence and absence affect satisfaction. Kano classification alone does not set roadmap priority, cost, or sequence.

Adjacent Methods

• jobs-to-be-done: understand the progress the customer is trying to make.
• user-journey-mapping: locate attributes and pain points across a chronological experience.

Step-by-Step Execution

Output Template

### 1. Scope And Evidence
Customer segment:
Decision:
Attributes tested:
Research basis:
Mode, response mapping, and grouping / aggregation rule:

### 2. Classification
| Attribute | Functional response | Dysfunctional response | Kano class | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 3. Investment Logic
| Attribute | Current performance | Priority | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 4. Refresh Plan
| Assumption | Validation | Owner | Timing | Reclassification trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

• Produce the method-specific outputs for Scope And Evidence, Classification, Investment Logic; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
• Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
• Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
• Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
• State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
• Preserve tentative, mixed / unclear and reverse reactions; for standardized survey claims, name the evaluation mapping used and handle inconsistent/questionable responses explicitly.
• Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.