The Kano Model: Beyond Product Development Into Customer Experience Excellence

Introduction

It’s been a while since I obtained my Lean Six Sigma certification. While reviewing some documentation this week, I came across something that caught my attention. When I first heard about the Kano analysis model, I learnt that it was a useful tool for new product development. However, having spent years working in the CX implementation and advisory consultancy industry, I now view the Kano model from a different perspective.

Could it be applied to existing products and customers? Would it be valuable to use it outside the scope of product development? How would the Kano model fit in with the usual CX KPIs and science?

What Exactly Is the Kano Model?

Dr. Noriaki Kano developed his model in 1984, fundamentally challenging how we think about customer satisfaction. Unlike traditional models, which assume a linear relationship between product features and satisfaction, Kano’s model proved that customer satisfaction is non-linear and depends entirely on the type of feature in question.

The model categorises customer needs into distinct types, each of which has a dramatically different impact on satisfaction.

• Must-be requirements (basic needs): These are the hygiene factors of customer experience. Examples include working Wi-Fi in a hotel or accurate billing from your bank. When they are present, customers barely notice them; they are simply expected. However, when they are absent, they cause significant dissatisfaction and frustration. They are the foundations upon which customer relationships are built.
• Performance requirements (one-dimensional): This is where the traditional ‘more is better’ mindset actually applies. Faster internet speeds, quicker delivery times and better call quality all demonstrate this. The more you improve these features, the more satisfied your customers will be. This is also where most competitive battles are fought.
• Attractive requirements (delighters): These are the features that surprise and delight customers. Examples include free upgrades, personalised thank-you notes and unexpected conveniences that customers never thought to ask for. When present, they generate genuine excitement. If they are absent, customers aren’t disappointed because they never expected them in the first place.

The genius of Kano’s insight lies in recognising that treating all features equally is a recipe for mediocrity. Yet many organisations still treat every improvement to customer satisfaction as if it carries the same weight.

Reading the Satisfaction Curves

The chart above shows why it is important to understand the different types of features when developing a CX strategy. Each curve tells a different story.

The red ‘Must-be’ curve shows a steep increase in satisfaction when basic requirements are met, followed by a quick flattening off. Customers primarily notice these features when they are missing or broken — think of a hotel’s Wi-Fi or a bank’s security measures.

The green ‘Performance’ line shows a linear relationship, where greater investment leads to proportional satisfaction gains. This is where competitive battles are fought, such as faster delivery, better customer service response times or more comprehensive product features.

The orange Attractive curve initially remains flat, then rises dramatically. These features generate disproportionate satisfaction because they are unexpected. A personalised welcome gift or an unexpected upgrade, for example, can generate far more positive feelings than their cost might suggest.

The grey Indifferent line serves as a warning: some features simply don’t matter to customers, no matter how well they are executed. Understanding which features fall into this category prevents investment from being wasted.

The strategic insight is clear: equal investment across all features produces suboptimal results. Smart CX teams prioritise differently based on feature type.

A Brief Note on Kano Variations

It is worth noting that different sources present different numbers of Kano categories. Dr Kano originally identified three core types in 1984: ‘Must-be’, ‘Performance’ and ‘Attractive’ requirements. Later academic developments added two more: Indifferent (features that customers neither like nor dislike) and Reverse (features that can cause dissatisfaction when present).

While some frameworks use all five categories, the original three-category model is often more practical for strategic decision-making. Regardless of which version you encounter, the core insight remains the same: customer satisfaction is non-linear and depends entirely on the type of feature being evaluated.

The Traditional Kano Survey: Clever but Problematic

The standard Kano methodology uses a dual-question survey format for each feature under consideration.

• Functional question: ‘How would you feel if this feature were present?’
• Dysfunctional question: ‘How would you feel if this feature were absent?’

Respondents choose from five emotional responses: ‘I like it’, ‘I expect it’, ‘I am neutral’, ‘I can tolerate it’, or ‘I dislike it’.

By combining these answers, researchers can classify features into the appropriate Kano categories. This method is mathematically elegant and theoretically sound. However, as many CX professionals have discovered, this approach creates significant practical challenges.

Where Traditional Kano Surveys Stumble

From my position as a CX consultant, and having implemented numerous customer feedback programmes, I’ve observed several critical limitations with traditional Kano surveys:

The existing feature paradox: Try using traditional Kano questions to evaluate your current mobile banking app. You would ask customers: ‘How would you feel if mobile banking were available?’ But they already use it daily. This makes the question meaningless. Similarly, asking ‘How would you feel if mobile banking weren’t available?’ assumes that customers can imagine life without something that has become part of their routine. This creates a fundamental logical contradiction, producing confused responses rather than actionable insights.

Cultural and language barriers: When customers respond ‘I expect it’ to the ‘Absence’ question, they may mean two different things. Take contactless payments as an example. ‘I expect it’ could mean ‘I expect contactless payments to be available’ (so I’d be disappointed if they weren’t), or ‘I expect contactless payments to be unavailable’ (so I wouldn’t be bothered if they weren’t). This single phrase can misclassify a feature as either ‘Must-be’ or ‘Indifferent’ – a critical difference that affects strategic decisions.

Survey fatigue and bias: A proper Kano survey examining ten features requires twenty questions, plus demographic data. For a comprehensive evaluation of a service covering thirty features, customers would be asked to complete sixty questions. Response fatigue sets in rapidly, leading to pattern responses where customers stop considering each question carefully. Furthermore, asking about ‘improved’ or ‘enhanced’ versions introduces leading bias, which experienced researchers know undermines validity.

Blending Kano with Established CX Metrics

Kano’s real strength for CX professionals lies in its ability to provide a strategic context for interpreting traditional metrics.

NPS^* and Kano integration: Promoters (NPS 9–10) often praise your attractive features in their comments, while detractors (NPS 0–6) frequently cite failures that are a must-have. Performance improvements typically move Passives into Promoter territory.

CSAT enhancement: Customer satisfaction surveys gain depth when viewed through Kano categories. Low satisfaction often stems from must-be failures, while high satisfaction correlates with successful performance or attractive features.

Customer journey mapping: Each touchpoint can be analysed using Kano categories. For example, airport security is a ‘must-be’ (efficient when present and frustrating when slow), flight entertainment is a ‘performance’ feature (better content increases satisfaction), and cabin crew going above and beyond creates ‘attractive’ moments.

The Strategic Value for CX Teams

Understanding Kano categories can transform the way CX teams prioritise initiatives.

Risk mitigation first: Ensure that all ‘must-be’ requirements are executed flawlessly before investing in other areas. Even a single failure in this area can destroy relationships, regardless of how many attractive features you offer.

Competitive battlegrounds: Identify the performance features that matter most to your customers and invest in continuous improvement. This is where you compete directly with alternatives.

Differentiation opportunities: Attractive features create a competitive advantage and an emotional connection. They are your secret weapon for building loyalty that goes beyond price sensitivity.

Real-World Application: A Hospitality Example

Consider a hotel chain analysing customer experience.

Essential discoveries: Clean rooms, functioning Wi-Fi and hot water – these are things that guests expect without question. Failures in these areas generate immediate complaints and poor reviews.

Performance insights: Check-in speed, room temperature control and breakfast variety. Improvements in these areas directly correlate with higher satisfaction scores.

Attractive opportunities: Personalised welcome amenities, room upgrades and local area recommendations create memorable experiences that guests share with others.

The Evolution Challenge

Perhaps the most important thing for CX professionals to understand is that Kano categories are not static. Today’s attractive features become tomorrow’s performance requirements and eventually must-have expectations.

Consider the evolution of smartphone features: cameras were once attractive features that delighted early adopters. They then became performance features that drove purchase decisions, and are now must-have requirements that customers expect without question.

This evolution means that CX teams must regularly reassess their features and adjust their strategies accordingly.

Looking Forward

The enduring value of the Kano model lies not in its survey methodology, but in its fundamental insight into the nonlinear nature of customer satisfaction. For customer experience (CX) professionals, the model provides a strategic framework for prioritising initiatives, interpreting customer feedback and designing meaningful experiences.

By combining Kano’s theoretical principles with evidence-based analysis, CX teams can create targeted strategies that address must-have requirements, compete on performance features and surprise customers with attractive innovations, moving beyond generic satisfaction improvements.

The question isn’t whether the Kano model applies to customer experience — it’s how we can apply it more intelligently than traditional surveys allow. After all, there’s no need to ask customers hypothetical questions when their actual behaviour tells a much clearer story.

References

Kano, N., et al. (1984). “Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality.” Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.

^*Net Promoter^®, Net Promoter System^®, Net Promoter Score^® and NPS^® are registered trademarks of Bain & Company, Inc., Fred Reichheld and Satmetrix Systems, Inc.