Case Study: Evaluating candidate
features through usability testing
and the KANO model
Joseph Dickerson
Goals of the test
• Objective was to identify what (if any)
proposed mobile banking features should be
prioritized for the...
The KANO Model
• The KANO Model is used in product development and
looks at customer preferences in five key categories
– ...
Delighters
Baseline
Satisfiers
Detractors tend to occur when
a basic need is implemented
badly or a unneeded feature
“over...
Process
• 12 Participants were recruited based on legacy
personas
– All had to be current mobile banking users
• The parti...
Proposed features evaluated
• Click to Dispute (a transaction)
• Scan a bill (to pay it)
• Open a new account (through app...
Process
• After being walked through each feature the
participant was asked to rate the feature and discuss
their reaction...
Analysis Method
Negative Question
Like Expect Neutral Tolerate Dislike
PositiveQuestion
Like - Attractive Attractive Attra...
Results
• Had one “No-show”, so only 11 participant’s
feedback was captured
• Of the six features reviewed, only two featu...
Observations
• Search Transactions was a potential “Delighter”
– Many positive comments about the perceived usefulness
of ...
Recommended features and focus
• Based on these results, we recommended a
focus on adding Search Transactions for the
next...
Participant Responses
How would you feel if this feature existing in
your mobile banking app?
Participant Reaction
Feature...
Participant Responses
13
How would you feel if this feature didn't exist
in your mobile banking app?
Participant Reaction
...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Evaluating candidate features through usability testing and the KANO model

685 views

Published on

A deck detailing a case study on how UX and usability testing was used to evaluate candidate features for a mobile banking application roadmap

Published in: Technology, Design
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Hi Joe, a very nice and succinct case study.
    I noticed your process involves the participants being walked through a designed execution of the feature idea .. how much of an impact did that have on the user's responses? (eg. did any say something like 'I like the idea, but I wouldn't use it based on the screens I saw.')
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
685
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluating candidate features through usability testing and the KANO model

  1. 1. Case Study: Evaluating candidate features through usability testing and the KANO model Joseph Dickerson
  2. 2. Goals of the test • Objective was to identify what (if any) proposed mobile banking features should be prioritized for the next release of the product • This was done by testing the features with participants and using the KANO Model to the identify what features are positively (or negatively) received by participants
  3. 3. The KANO Model • The KANO Model is used in product development and looks at customer preferences in five key categories – Delighters (or “Attractive”) – Satisfiers (or “Value-Adds”) – Expected (or “Must-Have”) – Unimportant (or “Indifferent”) – Detractors
  4. 4. Delighters Baseline Satisfiers Detractors tend to occur when a basic need is implemented badly or a unneeded feature “overwhelms” an experience
  5. 5. Process • 12 Participants were recruited based on legacy personas – All had to be current mobile banking users • The participants were stepped through a series of screens, one set for each of the six proposed features – All features were described by the facilitator using the same objective verbiage – The order in which features were presented were different for each participant
  6. 6. Proposed features evaluated • Click to Dispute (a transaction) • Scan a bill (to pay it) • Open a new account (through app) • Setup a budget • Search Transactions • Deposit a Check (aka Remote Deposit Capture) – This was a “control” – we already know this feature scored highly with customers
  7. 7. Process • After being walked through each feature the participant was asked to rate the feature and discuss their reactions if it was offered by their bank – I like it – I expect it – I’m neutral – I can tolerate it – I dislike it • Then ask their reaction if it was NOT offered by their bank • The responses were then analyzed and classified using the KANO Model
  8. 8. Analysis Method Negative Question Like Expect Neutral Tolerate Dislike PositiveQuestion Like - Attractive Attractive Attractive One- Dimensional Expect Undesired Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant Must-Have Neutral Undesired Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant Must-Have Tolerate Undesired Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant Must-Have Dislike Undesired Undesired Undesired Undesired - 8 Responses were averaged and weighed for both questions and also analyzed based on persona mapping
  9. 9. Results • Had one “No-show”, so only 11 participant’s feedback was captured • Of the six features reviewed, only two features were indicated as “Must Haves” – Search Transactions – Deposit a Check • Two features were indicated as “Attractive” – Scan a bill (to pay it) – Setup a budget • Two features were indicated as “Unimportant” – Open a new account – Click to dispute (a transaction)
  10. 10. Observations • Search Transactions was a potential “Delighter” – Many positive comments about the perceived usefulness of this feature • Participants liked the idea of setting up a new account on the phone, but doubted they would use it • The majority of participants said they would never use the Click to Dispute (a Transaction) feature – they would call the bank’s support number to do this task • Scan a Bill (to pay it) was well received but many participants doubted they would use it • None of the features were perceived to be potential Detractors 10
  11. 11. Recommended features and focus • Based on these results, we recommended a focus on adding Search Transactions for the next release of the mobile banking product • Additional evaluation of Scan a Bill (to pay it) and Setup a Budget was needed • Open a New Account should be considered as a feature to be added to the tablet banking application
  12. 12. Participant Responses How would you feel if this feature existing in your mobile banking app? Participant Reaction Feature Like Expect Neutral Tolerate Dislike Click to Dispute (a transaction) 2 2 6 1 0 Scan a bill 6 1 3 0 1 Open a new account (through app) 2 0 6 0 3 Setup a budget 4 1 5 1 0 Search Transactions 8 2 1 0 0 Deposit a Check 4 6 1 0 0 12
  13. 13. Participant Responses 13 How would you feel if this feature didn't exist in your mobile banking app? Participant Reaction Feature Like Expect Neutral Tolerate Dislike Click to Dispute (a transaction) 0 1 8 0 2 Scan a bill 1 4 3 2 1 Open a new account (through app) 1 3 7 0 0 Setup a budget 2 4 3 1 1 Search Transactions 0 2 3 2 4 Deposit a Check 0 1 2 2 6

×