Search

Kano Analysis.20090923

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

2 comments

Comments 1 - 2 of 2 previous next Post a comment

  • + ssehlhorst Scott Sehlhorst 2 months ago
    Thanks Justin! As you know, I ’heart’ pairwise testing (N-wise, really), so I’m thrilled that Hexawise is getting some benefit from thinking about the market problems in terms of Kano Analysis.

    Great point about ’more is better’ versus # of tests to achieve coverage. Definitely a more-is-better problem with diminishing returns there (either a function of CPU cycles or manual effort to review test results). Having thought about that particular problem before in the past, I wonder if a linear plot on a log scale might approximate the benefits. I remember some comparisons of pairwise test design algorithms in the past, that showed numbers of tests (versus parameters) from different algorithms, and the trivial differences between the ’best’ heuristics.

    Spending time figuring out ways to represent parameters with order-independence is worth a lot more than an X% reduction in the number of tests. Very cool, and happy to talk about this more on/offline. Scott @sehlhorst on twitter.
  • + JustinHunter JustinHunter 2 months ago
    Scott,


    As usual, excellent presentation. I also found the links at the end informative as well, particularly the links to your blog at tynerblain.


    Thanks to you, I’m starting to think about our software test design tool in explicitly Kano Analysis terms for the first time. Getting 100% pairwise coverage in as few tests as possible is a ’more is better’ type of feature. Being able to add inputs efficiently, intuitively navigating from ’main screen # 1’ to ’main screen # 3’, getting to see coverage neatly charted, being able to adjust coverage so that some targeted areas of the software application receive more coverage than others, being able to remove invalid pairs from the solutions, etc. are Delighters. Next step is to think about different users/buyers/stakeholders and map potential new capabilities to each of them. Thanks again.


    Justin


    ---------------------


    Justin Hunter


    Founder and CEO Hexawise test case design tool: http://www.hexawise.com


    ’More coverage. Fewer tests.’
Post a comment
Embed Video
Edit your comment Cancel

Notes on slide 1

In QFD, focus on interdependence of features – more specifically interdependence of designs or implementation ideas When designing a cell phone, there are tradeoffs between battery life and device size For understanding markets, tradeoffs are important, but guide problem emphasis, not implementation approaches For software, do you make a UI more comprehensive in capability, or easier to learn how to use?

Wikipedia says – characterize the features (inside out) instead of the needs (outside in).

Include ‘in the context of a target market segment’

yawn

Include example. Talk about diminishing returns (real world curve has decreasing slope)

This is an overview of what Kano is, and how designers / design engineers use it to frame their decisions.

Go To Market – For a particular market segment, reality is that there are table stakes , without which, your product simply won’t be considered viable Compliance – Must meet HIPAA Privacy Requirements for a health care information product Acceptance – The user must be able to view all of his previous entries Security – Must pass XSS attack test XYZ Integration – Must integrate with SFDC (automatic call-logger for sales reps)

Market Strategy – Your pricing and positioning will drive a strategy where, as a business, you (artificially) establish constraints that define how you choose to enter the market. Problem X – You may be targeting a particular persona in the market, for whom lacking a solution to problem X is a deal breaker. Competitor Y – You may be attacking an entrenched competitor (to win a recurring revenue stream, or market share bragging rights), and require an equivalent solution to an otherwise marginal problem, as it would prevent you from displacing an existing solution (at any price) Buyer Z – Buyers can be barriers to users (and value). You can either choose to placate them or work around them.

Not valuable to target personas – this is where the tyranny of analysts can trip you up. Just because a problem/solution/capability has made it into the analyst’s checklist does not mean it has value to your customers. Enough Trunk Space for a Stroller -> Teenage Boy Ability To Push FriendFeed Updates -> Mortuary When this happens, you have 3 choices Invest in building these ‘irrelevant’ features – but at what opportunity cost? Convince your buyers to ignore the analyst – but can you even get the meeting if you’re horribly unaligned? Educate the analyst that there is a nuance to the market, making his pet feature irrelevant.

Water Resistance 100m Depth-Tolerant will be boolean for a diver, irrelevant for a snorkler Can survive rain, swimming, diving (can be step-function, not always linear) Corrosion Resistance Water Salt Water Acid

75% 10 up 5 left

Find better example than Dyson Vacuum cleaner. Dyson – increasing capability (more is better) decreasing attractiveness of price. Makes sense for the market segment that finds more utility in “cleans better” than “costs less”

Resets customer expectations McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts were competing for coffee drinkers on the go. Starbucks came in with a variation of product and service that delighted customers. That lead to a change in expectations. McDonalds introduced McCafe but with speed of delivery (and combined with breakfast) for an incremental $1B Dunkin Donuts has focused on being a Starbucks-Krispy Kreme hybrid, focusing on how to be different from Starbucks, not more of the same. Meanwhile, Starbucks is considering becoming more like McDonalds in an effort to be more efficient – moving away from what gave them their brand identity.

Goal is different personas perceive the same problem differently

6 Favorites

Kano Analysis.20090923 - Presentation Transcript

  1. KANO ANALYSIS
    • Product Management View
    • 2009-09-23
    • Scott Sehlhorst, Tyner Blain
  2. Audio and Video
    • The (flash) video and (mp3) audio of the PMV seminar can be found at http://grandview.rymatech.com/pmv/webinars/2009/09/kano-analysis.php
    • Check it out, and check out the other webinars that PMV has done!
    • Now back to your regularly scheduled presentation.
  3. About the Author
    • Founded Tyner Blain 2005
    • agile Product Manager / Product Owner
    • 12 Years in Software
      • Product / Program Management / Ownership
      • Business Architecture / Analysis
      • Technical Consulting & Consulting Mgmt
      • Developer, Architect, Pre-sales
    • 8 Years as an Electromechanical Design Engineer
    • BSME Carnegie Mellon 1990 (yes, I’m old)
    • @sehlhorst on Twitter
  4. Agenda
    • Kano’s Roots
      • Where Kano Started
      • How Kano Works
    • Kano for Product Managers
      • How We Can Use Kano
  5. Why Does Kano Exist?
    • Professor Noriaki Kano Developed the Model
    • Created As Framework to Analyze Features
      • Insights Into Customer Satisfaction
      • Make Informed Design Decisions (Tradeoffs)
  6. Intro to Kano
    • A Model for Classification
      • Must Be / Must Not Be
      • Indifference
      • More Is Better
      • Customer Delight
  7. Must Be
    • Threshold Capability
    • Table Stakes
  8. Indifference
    • Nonplussed
  9. More Is Better
    • Marginal Utility
  10. Customer Delight
    • Exciters
  11. Kano Model
    • Must Be
    • Indifference
    • More Is Better
    • Customer Delight
  12. Kano for Product Management
    • A Feature Focus is Backwards
    • … But Kano Can Be Used to Understand your Market Problems
  13. How Product Managers Can Use Kano
    • Apply it To Understanding Market Needs
      • How do Personas Perceive Problems?
      • How is Your Competition Engaging?
  14. Must Be
    • External Forces
    • Boolean Criteria for Go-To-Market
      • Compliance W/ Regulations, Laws, Policies
      • Acceptance Criteria
      • Security
      • Integration W/ Other Applications
  15. Must Be
    • Internal Choices
    • Market Strategy
      • Must Provide Solution to Problem X
      • Must Match Capability of Competitor Y
      • Must Satisfy Buyer Perception Z
  16. Indifference
    • Solutions to Non-Valuable Problems
      • Might Be Valuable to Someone,
      • Just Not Your Target Personas
    • May Be Innovative, But Also Irrelevant
  17. More Is Better
    • Cell Phone Talk Time
    • More Relevant Search Results
    • Fuel Efficiency
  18. Realistic More Is Better
    • Diminishing Returns
      • More More Is Less Better
  19. Extreme More Is Better
    • Incremental Improvement Until Tipping Point
      • Enough More Redefines Market
  20. Extreme More Is Better
    • Extremely Favorable (Low) Pricing
      • Market Disrupting
    • Normal Pricing
      • More favorable pricing is Better
    • Extremely Unfavorable (High) Pricing
      • Must (Not) Be For A Given Market
  21. Customer Delight
    • Disrupts the Market.
      • “ Creates” and Solves A “New” Problem
    • McDonalds & Dunkin Donuts – Just Coffee
    • Starbucks – Premium Experience
    • McCafe – Premium Experience & Speed
    • Dunkin Donuts – Creating Starbucks / Krispy Kreme Hybrid
    • Starbucks – Considering Mimicking McDonalds
  22. Customer Delight
    • Blue Ocean Hook – Find An Unsolved Problem and Delight Customers With Solution
  23. But Which Customer Is Delighted ?
  24. Customer Delight Disrupts the Market
    • Amazon Kindle
      • ‘ On Demand’ Ordering
      • Read on Many Devices
    • Customer Delight Opportunities for Amazon
    • Became Must Be Problems for their Competition
  25. Market Strategy
    • Understand Your Personas (User and Buyer)
      • Who Cares About This Problem?
      • How Do They View This Problem?
    • Understand Your Competitors
      • How Do Their Solutions Compare?
      • How Should We Approach This Problem?
    • Market Disruption
      • Where are Customer Delight Opportunities?
  26. Recipe for Using Kano
    • Create ‘Blue Ocean’ Map of What Target Personas Care About
    • Classify Those Problems
    • Plot Competitive Offering
    • Plot Your Current Solution
    • Identify Desired Plot (Strategy, Priority)
    • Gaps Inform Product Roadmap
  27. Thanks Very Much!
    • Any Questions?
    • Scott Sehlhorst, Tyner Blain
    • http://tynerblain.com/blog/
    • @sehlhorst
  28. References
    • Where Kano Came From
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano_model
    • http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Kano_Analysis-263.htm
    • Kano and Prioritization
    • http://tynerblain.com/blog/2006/02/27/prioritizing-software-requirements-kano-take-two/
    • http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/magazine/4/3/0605ss
    • http://tynerblain.com/blog/2006/04/06/epicenter-software-design-37signals-applies-kano/
    • What’s Up with Starbucks, McDonalds, and Dunkin Donuts
    • http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/26/starbucks-dunkin-donuts-biz-cx_tvr_0227starbucks.html
    • http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_3_42/ai_n24238073/

+ Scott SehlhorstScott Sehlhorst, 2 months ago

custom

726 views, 6 favs, 2 embeds more stats

Product Management View (PMV) webinar on Kano Analy more

More info about this document

© All Rights Reserved

Go to text version

  • Total Views 726
    • 601 on SlideShare
    • 125 from embeds
  • Comments 2
  • Favorites 6
  • Downloads 0
Most viewed embeds
  • 123 views on http://tynerblain.com
  • 2 views on http://skidule.blogspot.com

more

All embeds
  • 123 views on http://tynerblain.com
  • 2 views on http://skidule.blogspot.com

less

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

Cancel
File a copyright complaint
Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

Categories

Tags

more

Looking for?

-->
Search
RSS Feed
What's new?

© 2009 SlideShare Inc. All Rights Reserved