Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 7
Kanos Theory of Attractive
Quality and Packaging
MARTIN LFGREN AND LARS WITELL, KARLSTAD UNIVERSITY
The traditional role of packaging in consumer products
has been to store and protect the content. Current con-
sumer and industry trends, however, suggest an
increasingly important role for packaging as a market-
ing vehicle. One question of immediate interest is how
packaging should be designed to be associated with
high quality from a customer perspective. The authors
believe that this type of investigation is needed since
there is relatively little theoretical work in the area of
packaging, and research in the area of packaging and
perceptions of quality has been sparse.
An empirical investigation of how customers experience
packaging in everyday commodities was conducted in
order to increase the authors knowledge of the role of
packaging in the perception of quality. The research
study was based on Kanos theory of attractive quality
and investigates how 24 quality attributes of packages
are perceived by customers. A questionnaire was
mailed to 1500 randomly chosen Swedes asking them
about their experiences of packaging in everyday com-
modities. The authors results provide evidence that
there are quality attributes of packaging, such as recy-
clable material and resealability, that are attractive to
customers and influence the decision to buy and use
the product.
Key words: customer satisfaction, empirical research,
quality attributes
2005, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
Packaging has traditionally been thought of as an
important part of the physical product (Brown 1950).
Changing customer expectations, however, as customers
become more demanding, means that the role of pack-
aging becomes more important, as it can be used to
provide information and functions. This may mean that
certain functions of the package are modified or inten-
sified, compared to the packages previous function of
merely protecting the merchandise, and facilitating
storage and transportation. This addition of new services
or functions to the packaging of the goods can be
viewed as a product transition on the goods-to-services
continuum. Since customers perceive goods and services
in different ways, such a transition makes it important
for organizations to reconsider what quality means and
how it is related to customer satisfaction. Companies
consequently need to develop, design, and provide
packaging with high customer-experienced quality.
One question of immediate interest is how improved or
modified packaging contributes to enhanced customer
satisfaction. In other words, how should packaging be
designed to increase the competitiveness of the product
and to have customers associate it with high quality?
Inspired by Herzbergs Motivator-Hygiene theory (M-H
theory), Professor Kano and his coworkers developed
the theory of attractive quality (Kano et al. 1984). The
theory is intended to help one better understand how
customers evaluate and perceive quality attributes. The
theory of attractive quality explains how the relation-
ship between the degree of sufficiency and customer
satisfaction with a quality attribute can be classified
into five categories of perceived quality: 1) attractive
quality; 2) must-be quality; 3) reverse quality; 4) one-
dimensional quality; and 5) indifferent quality. The
theory of attractive quality predicts that quality attributes
www.asq.org 7
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 8
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
are dynamic, that is, over time an attribute will change
from being a satisfier to a dissatisfier. The authors
believe that an operationalization of the theory of
attractive quality in the area of packaging can help
develop more knowledge of the role of packaging in
attractive quality creation. This knowledge is needed
since within quality management and marketing there
is relatively little research on packaging and customer
satisfaction (Underwood, Klein, and Burke 2001).
Meanwhile, consumer and industry trends suggest an
increasingly important role for packaging as a market-
ing vehicle (Underwood and Klein 2002).
An empirical investigation of how customers expe-
rience packaging in everyday commodities was con-
ducted in order to increase the knowledge of the role
of packaging in the perception of quality. The study
was based on the theory of attractive quality and
investigates how 24 quality attributes of packaging
are perceived by customers. The authors first present
an overview of product quality in general and Kanos
theory of attractive quality in particular. Then the
role of packaging for the perception of the quality of
a product is discussed. The next section of the article
presents the research methodology, and, finally, the
authors present the results of the study and discuss
their implications for managers.
PRODUCT QUALITY AND
QUALITY DIMENSIONS
Over the course of history, the definition of quality has
evolved and changed. In this section of the article, the
progression of the perspective on quality from two-
factor models to multidimensional models is
described. Walter A. Shewhart was one of the pioneers
in the industrial society concerned with the introduc-
tion and development of quality management.
Similar to the work of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and
Locke (1632-1704), he viewed quality from two related
perspectives: the objective side and the subjective side
of quality (Shewhart 1931). The first perspective
views quality as an objective reality independent of
the existence of man. In contrast, the subjective side
of quality considers what one thinks, feels, and senses
as a result of the objective reality.
8 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
J. M. Juran emphasizes that quality is the extent to
which a product successfully serves the purpose of the
user (Juran and Gryna 1988). The customers view of
quality is similarly derived from two distinctly different
dimensions: product performance and freedom from
deficiencies. Product performance is the degree to which
the products specifications are customized to meet the
needs of any given customer. Freedom from deficiencies
is simply how reliably the product meets its specifica-
tions. Similarly, Ishikawa and Lu (1985) view quality as
a two-dimensional concept, that is, backward-looking
quality and forward-looking. Defects and flaws in
quality are called backward-looking quality, while
attributes that can become a products sales point are
called forward-looking quality.
Often, quality is defined as a multidimensional con-
cept, where a product may be of high quality in one
dimension and of low quality in another (see, for
example, Feigenbaum 1991; Garvin 1987). Garvin
(1987) identifies eight dimensions for describing the
basic attributes of product quality: 1) performance;
2) features; 3) reliability; 4) conformance; 5) durability;
6) serviceability; 7) aesthetics; and 8) perceived quality.
Also, Feigenbaum (1991) recognizes that the quality
concept can be described using a spectrum of quality
attributes, such as reliability, serviceability, maintain-
ability, and attractability. High quality is the composite
of quality attributes that provides the intended functions
with the greatest overall economy (Feigenbaum 1991).
Service quality also is often viewed as a multidimen-
sional concept. See, for instance, SERVQUAL, which
explains service quality through five quality dimen-
sions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988).
One criticism concerning quality is that people
often consider all quality attributes to be equally
important, but the inability to assign relative impor-
tance will result in the creation of mediocre products.
Consequently, Kano et al. (1984) suggest a perspective
on quality where a quality attribute is defined in differ-
ent quality categories based on the relationship
between the physical fulfillment of a quality attribute
on a product and the perceived satisfaction of that
attribute. The relationships are not equal for all quality
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 9
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
Figure 1 An overview of the theory of attractive quality.
Customer Satisfaction
Very Satisfied
Not at All
Very Dissatisfied
attributes and they change over time. This perspective
on quality does not contain any general quality dimen-
sions; instead, product attributes are classified into five
categories according to the theory of attractive quality.
THE THEORY OF ATTRACTIVE
QUALITY
Inspired by Herzbergs M-H theory in behavioral science,
Kano and his coworkers developed the theory of attractive
quality. A distinction between satisfaction and dissatisfac-
tion was first introduced in the two-factor theory of job
satisfaction by Herzberg, Bernard, and Snyderman
(1959). In essence, the theory posits that the factors that
cause job dissatisfaction are different from the factors
that cause job satisfaction. The theory of attractive quality
is useful to better understand different aspects of how cus-
tomers evaluate a product or offering (Gustafsson 1998).
Over the past two decades this theory has gained exposure
and acceptance through articles in various marketing,
quality, and operations management journals. The
Attractive
One-Dimensional
Indifferent
Fully Degree of Achievement
Must-Be
Reverse
2005, ASQ
theory of attractive quality has been applied in strategic
thinking, business planning, and product development to
demonstrate lessons learned in innovation, competitive-
ness, and product compliance (Watson 2003).
According to Kano (2001), the theory of attractive
quality originated because of the lack of explanatory
power of a one-dimensional recognition of quality. For
instance, people are satisfied if the packaging of milk
extends the expiration date and dissatisfied if the packag-
ing shortens the expiration date. For a quality attribute
such as leakage, people are not satisfied if the package
does not leak, but they are very dissatisfied if it does.
The one-dimensional view of quality can explain the
role of expiration but not leakage. To understand the
role of quality attributes, Kano et al. (1984) present a
model that evaluates patterns of quality, based on cus-
tomers satisfaction with specific quality attributes and
their degree of sufficiency. On the horizontal axis in the
Kano diagram (see Figure 1) the physical sufficiency of
a certain quality attribute is displayed. The vertical axis
shows satisfaction with a certain quality attribute
www.asq.org 9
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 10
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
(Kano et al. 1984). The theory explains how the rela-
tionship between the degree of sufficiency and customer
satisfaction with a quality attribute can be classified into
five categories of perceived quality. According to Kano et
al. (1984), their ideas are similar to quality theories
suggested by Mizuno and Ishikawa. But instead of only
providing general concepts and nomenclature, Kano
and his coworkers provide a methodology for use.
The categories of perceived quality are:
Attractive quality. Attractive quality attributes
can be described as surprise and delight attributes;
they provide satisfaction when achieved fully, but
do not cause dissatisfaction when not fulfilled
(Kano et al. 1984). These are attributes that are not
normally expected, for example, a thermometer on
a package of milk showing the temperature of the
milk. Since these types of quality attributes often
unexpectedly delight customers, they are often
unspoken. An example of this is W. Edwards
Demings rather bantered statement: The customer
never asked Mr. Edison for a light bulb (Watson
2003). Researchers have emphasized the importance
of attractive quality creation (Kano 2001) since this
dimension has been somewhat neglected by quality
specialists, who have tended to focus on how to elim-
inate things gone wrong (Kano 2001). In a similar
sense, Cole (2001) suggests that the understanding
of continuous improvement should be widened to
continuous innovation and include concepts such as
exploration and discontinuous innovation.
One-dimensional quality. One-dimensional
quality attributes result in satisfaction when fulfilled
and dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (Kano et al.
1984). These attributes are spoken and are those with
which companies compete (Gustafsson 1998). For
example, a new milk package that is said to contain
10 percent more milk for the same price is likely to
result in customer satisfaction, but if it actually only
contains 6 percent more milk, it is likely that the cus-
tomer will feel misled, which results in dissatisfaction.
Must-be quality. Must-be quality attributes are
taken for granted when fulfilled but result in dissat-
isfaction when not fulfilled (Kano et al. 1984). In
the milk example, these attributes can be represented
10 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
by leakage. Customers are dissatisfied when the
package leaks, but when it does not leak the result is
not increased customer satisfaction. Since customers
expect these attributes and views them as basic, it is
unlikely that they are going to tell the company
about them when asked about quality attributes.
They assume that companies understand these
product design fundamentals (Watson 2003).
Indifferent quality. Indifferent quality refers
to aspects that are neither good nor bad, and, con-
sequently, they do not result in either customer
satisfaction or customer dissatisfaction.
Reverse quality. Reverse quality refers to a high
degree of achievement resulting in dissatisfaction
(and vice versa, a low degree of achievement resulting
in satisfaction) and to the fact that not all customers
are alike. For example, some customers prefer high-
tech products, while others prefer the basic model of
a product and will be dissatisfied if a product has too
many extra features (Gustafsson 1998).
The theory of attractive quality predicts that product
attributes are dynamic, that is, over time an attribute
will change from being indifferent, to attractive, to one-
dimensional, to must-be. Kano et al. (2001) provide
empirical evidence for the dynamics of the television
remote control that has followed a life cycle such as:
attractive qualityone-dimensional quality must-be
quality. By investigating customer perceptions of remote
controls through Kanos questionnaires in 1983, 1989,
and 1998, Kano (2001) shows that the remote control
was an attractive attribute in 1983, a one-dimensional
attribute in 1989, and a must-be item in 1998. Nilsson-
Witell and Fundin (2005) provide additional empirical
support for the early phases of this life cycle not covered
by Kano (2001), that is, that e-services are perceived as
indifferent before they are perceived as attractive.
For an e-service, which is a high-technology service,
the life cycle of a quality attribute is rather short, and
Nilsson-Witell and Fundin (2005) experience some
problems to provide definite classification for all quality
attributes. Since packaging in everyday commodities is
a mature product, the authors expect that they will be
able to classify most of the attributes in their empirical
investigation.
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 11
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
THE ROLE OF PACKAGING IN
THE PERCEPTION OF QUALITY
Packaging has traditionally been considered an impor-
tant part of the physical product in the sense that it
stores and protects its content. As a consequence of
changing customer expectations, packaging becomes
more important as it can be used to provide different
service dimensions (for example, information and func-
tions). Customers do not buy goods or services; they buy
the benefits that goods and services provide, that is,
customers search for solutions that serve their own value-
generating process (Grnroos 2000). The consequence
is that the traditional perspective of packaging needs to
be broadened and not limited to a box, a bottle, or a jar
in order to examine how packaging can contribute to
higher perceived quality and increased customer value.
Packaging is often important to the customers first
impression of a brand, its quality, or its value
(Harckham 1989). Research shows that customers
make choices between products within seconds when
they are shopping (Judd et al. 1989). Within those few
seconds the package needs to be a silent salesman
that markets the product, attracts the customer, and
holds the attention against the visual clamor of com-
petitive products (Judd, Aalders, and Melis 1989).
Already in 1950, George H. Brown of the University of
Chicago investigated the role of packaging appearance
at the point of purchase (Brown 1950). In his studies
of scouring cleanser, a brand that tried to exceed cus-
tomer expectations in packaging appearance did not
get payoff in increased customer satisfaction. At that
time, it seemed that packaging appearance was con-
sidered an indifferent quality attribute. According to
Kopalle and Lehmann (1995), advertising that a
brand has improved its quality raises the expectations
of perceived quality. A similar effect can be assumed to
exist when the design of a package is changed to com-
municate a new message, that is, to display a high-
quality product. An assumption made in this study is
that the role of packaging has changed from being
indifferent in the 1950s to being attractive today.
Positive first impressions at point of purchase will
not, however, last long if the package is not user friendly
and functional when the consumer brings it home. The
package must be easy to use, the information on it must
be relevant, it has to fit into storage spaces, and if the
product should be dosed the package has to facilitate
this, and so on.
In summary, one can say that consumers may
evaluate a product or offerings quality when they
purchase it or when they consume or use it (Zeithaml
1988). This means that the perception of quality is
created both at the point of purchase and during use.
Lfgren (2004) refers to this as the first and second
moments of truth. The first moment of truth is about
obtaining customers attention and communicating
the benefits of an offer. The second moment of truth
is about providing the tools the customer needs to
experience these benefits when using the product
(Lfgren 2004). Consequently, the quality attributes of
packaging need to be designed for displaying quality
both when on the shelf in a store and during use.
METHODOLOGY
In this section the empirical investigation of how cus-
tomers perceive packaging in the everyday commodity
business is described. This includes the authors sample,
the items used in the questionnaire, and how they have
operationalized the theory of attractive quality.
Population and Sample
Data were collected through a questionnaire that was
mailed to randomly chosen Swedes ages 16 to 79 asking
them about their experiences of packaging in everyday
commodities. Of the 1500 questionnaires sent, 708 were
returned, representing an overall return of 47 percent. Of
these 708 people, 250 answered after receiving a
reminder letter that was sent out two weeks after the
questionnaire. These answers were kept apart from the
others at the first stage, since people who respond later
are assumed to be similar to nonrespondents (Armstrong
and Overton 1977). No significant differences were
found, however, between the two groups. The response
rate indicates that even if packages are considered low
commitment goods, it is something that interests people.
The respondents received a lottery ticket worth $1.50,
www.asq.org 11
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 12
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
which could have affected the response rate. A notable
observation is that as many as 10 percent of the respon-
dents indicated that they have some kind of disability in
their hands that affects their ability to handle and use
packages. An in-depth investigation of the differences in
customer needs, and the perception of quality between
this group and the rest of the population, is conducted
concerning the role of packaging ergonomics.
Identifying Quality Attributes
of Packaging
To get out of the box and not get caught in tradi-
tional views of packaging, the authors used theories
from the area of product semantics when constructing
the Kano questionnaire. According to these theories, a
product (or an offer) can be divided into three entities
(Wikstrm 2002):
Ergonomic includes everything that has to do
with adaptations to the human physique and behav-
ior when using the product (for example, if a package
is user-friendly).
Technical the products technical function,
construction, and production (for example, if a
package is manufactured in a recyclable material).
Communicative the products ability to com-
municate with humans (that is, to transmit a mes-
sage and the products adaptation to the human
perception and intellect). Examples of quality
attributes in this entity are attributes that involve
the packages ability to communicate with humans
through text and symbols.
The authors believe that this division into three
entities provided a more nuanced view of customer
experienced quality with packaging. Overall, 24 quality
attributes (seven technical, nine ergonomic, and eight
communicative) were identified, used, and opera-
tionalized in the empirical investigation.
Items and Questionnaire
The questionnaire was divided into three parts: back-
ground questions (gender, age, education, and so on).
Kano pair questions, and an attributes-rating section.
12 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
Figure 2 A pair of customer requirement questions
in a Kano questionnaire.
If a package is 1. I like it that way.
manufactured in a 2. It must be that way.
recyclable material, 3. I am neutral.
how do you feel? 4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.
If a package is 1. I like it that way.
manufactured in 2. It must be that way.
a nonrecyclable 3. I am neutral.
2005, ASQ
material, how do
you feel?
4.
5.
I can live with it that way.
I dislike it that way.
In addition to the questionnaire, a letter that explained
the purpose of the survey was included.
The Kano questionnaire contained pairs of cus-
tomer requirement questions (Berger et al. 1993;
Kano et al. 1984). Each question had two parts:
How do you feel if that feature is present in the prod-
uct? (This is the functional form of the question.)
How do you feel if that feature is not present in the
product? (This is the dysfunctional form of the
question.) (Berger et al. 1993).
To each part of the question, the customer could
answer choosing one of five alternatives exemplified in
Figure 2. According to Berger et al. (1993), the wording
of the alternatives is the most critical choice made
in the Kano methodology. The chosen wording of
the alternatives adapted from Berger et al. (1993)
(that is, I like it that way, It must be that way, I
am neutral, I can live with it that way, I dislike it
that way) is similar to the Japanese version suggested
by Kano et al. (1984). The authors found that the word-
ing used by Berger et al. (1993) was the most suitable
for their investigation of Swedish consumers. They
believe, however, that the wording should be changed
depending on the respondents one is working with.
They also believe that there are different language
nuances in Japanese, English, and Swedish that need to
be considered both when wording the questionnaire
and when reading translations of questionnaires.
The classification of attributes described previously
is made based on the pair questions. Each quality
attribute can be classified into one of the six categories
shown in Figure 3.
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 13
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
Figure 3 Kano evaluation table (adapted from Berger et al. (1993)) .
Quality attribute Dysfunctional
1. like 2. must-be 3. neutral 4. live with 5. dislike
1. like Q A
2. must-be R I
Functional 3. neutral R I
4. live with R I
5. dislike R R
The category questionable contains skeptical
answers, and it is debatable whether the respondent
has understood the question (Kano et al. 1984). It
was suggested by Berger et al. (1993) that cells 2-2
and 4-4 in the Kano evaluation table be changed
from I to Q, since they believe, for example, that a
requirement that is rated as must-be functional cannot
simultaneously be rated as must-be dysfunctional.
Lee and Newcomb (1997) classify five combinations
of the 25 options as questionable (cell 1-1, 1-2, 2-1,
2-2, and 5-5).
In the last section of the questionnaire, the respon-
dents were asked to rate how they perceived the impor-
tance of the different quality attributes on a scale of 1
to 10. According to Berger et al. (1993), the idea is to
classify all quality attributes according to the theory of
attractive quality and then use importance weights as a
means of prioritizing the attributes within a quality
category. The suggestion is to fulfill all must-be quality
attributes and be competitive with market leaders, and
also to regard the one-dimensional quality attributes.
Moreover, some of the attractive quality attributes must
be included in order to delight customers.
To increase the content and face validity of the
authors empirical investigation, a pretest of the ques-
tionnaire was performed on colleagues and a test sam-
ple. In addition, the authors paid close attention to
experiences gathered in previous research using Kano
questionnaires, such as Kano et al. (1984) and Berger
et al. (1993). Judging by the returned questionnaires,
the authors believe that comprehension difficulties in
this study were limited by the thorough research work
done before administering the questionnaire.
A A O
I I M A = attractive
O = one-dimensional
I I M M = must-be
I = indifferent
I I M
2005, ASQ
R = reverse
R R Q Q = questionable
THE ANALYSIS
The first part of the analysis was concerned with classify-
ing the 24 quality attributes according to the theory of
attractive quality. Each quality attribute was classified
according to the evaluation table into either attractive
(A), one-dimensional (O), must-be (M), indifferent (I),
reverse (R), or questionable (Q). Lee and Newcomb
(1997) introduced two measurements to aid in the clas-
sification of quality attributes: category strength and
total strength. Category strength is defined as the percent
difference of the highest category above the next-highest
category. Total strength is defined as the total percentage
of attractive, one-dimensional, and must-be responses.
Matzler et al. (1996) provide a rule of classification for
when a certain quality attribute cannot be clearly
assigned to the various categories. The evaluation rule
M > O > A > I is very useful and basically says to be
modest in the classification. If two or more categories are
tied or close to tied, it may be an indication that more
information is needed. One may be dealing with two
market segments, or he or she may need to ask questions
about more detailed customer information (Berger et al.
1993). Lee and Newcomb (1997) use a classification
called combination to deal with such situations. In a
case where a quality attribute is classified as a combi-
nation, a definite classification was not possible.
A sensitivity analysis, including the changes sug-
gested by both Berger et al. (1993) and Lee and
Newcomb (1997), was performed to investigate the
effect of using different evaluation tables. The sensi-
tivity analysis was performed by comparing the results
of categorizing the 24 quality attributes by the three
www.asq.org 13
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 14
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
different evaluation tables. In 96 percent of the cases,
the overall classifications of the quality attributes were
similar. The only difference is that the classification of
additional functions will be considered an attractive
quality attribute instead of a combination of attractive
and indifferent. Overall, the classification of quality
attributes is independent of which evaluation table is
used in the classification process.
A calculation of an average (better and worse),
without losing the quality dimensions attractive, one-
dimensional, and must-be attributes, was performed as
suggested by Berger et al. (1993). These averages state
whether customer satisfaction can be increased by
meeting a certain quality attribute or whether fulfilling
this quality attribute merely prevents the customer
from being dissatisfied (Berger et al. 1993).
A+O O+M
Better = ___________ Worse = ___________
A+O+M+I A+O+M+I
The positive better numbers indicate that customer
satisfaction will increase by providing a quality attribute
and the negative worse numbers indicate that customer
satisfaction will decrease by not providing a quality
attribute (Berger et al. 1993). The maximum value of
better and worse is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the
greater the influence on customer satisfaction. A value
of about 0 signifies that a certain quality attribute has
little influence on customer satisfaction (Matzler et al.
1996). To get an overview of the 24 quality attributes in
the investigation, these values were plotted in a better
and worse diagram.
The classification of quality attributes was tested
through a statistical test. A t-test was conducted to
compare the proportions of customers classifying a
quality attribute to a specific quality category. This test
was possible since the conditions for approximation of
the multinomial distribution to the normal distribu-
tion were satisfied for this empirical investigation
(np(1-p) > 10). For the quality attributes that could
not be clearly classified, ANOVA analyses were used to
investigate whether there might be different market seg-
ments. In the analysis, a Kano variable containing the
classification of quality attributes was used as a depend-
ent variable, while the demographic variables, such
as gender, age, and family, were used as independent
14 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
variables. This analysis was intended to reveal whether
demographic differences could help one to understand
why the quality attributes could not be classified.
The questionnaire included a variable to better
understand people who have problems with handling
packages because of some disability in their hands. To
the authors surprise this group represented as much as
10 percent of the sample. They expected these people to
have higher demands compared to the rest of the sample
on packaging in general and on the ergonomic factors
in particular. A t-test was used to investigate differences
in the perception of the ergonomic factors of these
individuals compared to the rest of the population.
QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF
PACKAGING
The results of the empirical study are presented in
Table 1. By investigating the category strength, total
strength, and the number of questionable answers
together with the statistical test, a definitive classifica-
tion of 20 of the 24 quality attributes was possible.
The classification of these attributes is statistically sig-
nificant, that is, 19 of them at p < 0.01 and 1 of them
at p < 0.05. The values of the category and total
strength are satisfactory and the level of questionable is
rather low for all quality attributes, which is an indica-
tion that the respondents understood the questions,
that is, that the reliability of the study is high.
A first review of the classification of quality attributes
reveals that a majority of the attributes were classified as
one-dimensional (10 out of 24). The results, however,
also show that packages have quality attributes that
customers experience as must-be quality (six out of 24)
and attractive quality (three out of 24). The attributes
that are perceived as must-be are: protection leakage,
declaration of contents, instructions, open dating,
and appearance = content. The three attractive quality
attributes are: resealability, recyclable material, and
contain just the right quantity. Only one attribute,
nice-looking print, was thought to be indifferent.
None of the attributes investigated was seen as reverse
quality. Altogether, four of the quality attributes could
not be clearly classified into one group. Therefore,
these attributes were classified as combinations.
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 15

Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging

Table 1 An overview of the quality attributes of packaging.

Classification Stated
Quality attribute Classification agreement CS TS Q* t-test Better Worse importance

Technical entity

Protection Must-be 49.0 25.1 80.8 4.8 p < 0.01 0.33 -0.77 9.47

Leakage Must-be 67.2 40.2 95.3 1.6 p < 0.01 0.29 -0.96 9.82

Resealability Attractive 56.9 30.1 89.5 1.6 p < 0.01 0.85 -0.33 7.32

Recyclable material Attractive 41.2 13.2 80.6 0.7 p < 0.01 0.71 -0.40 7.50

Additional functions Combination A (46%) and 1.2 50.9 0.8 n.s. 0.52 -0.05 5.01
I (44.8%)

Attractive and nice looking print Indifferent 44.1 11.2 53.9 1.3 p < 0.01 0.46 -0.21 5.29

Hygienic One-dimensional 48.9 16 93.8 1.0 p < 0.01 0.62 -0.83 8.73

Ergonomic entity

Easy to grip One-dimensional 51.1 25.1 93.1 1.6 p < 0.01 0.68 -0.78 8.47

User-friendly One-dimensional 53.7 21.4 95.5 0.6 p < 0.01 0.63 -0.87 8.77

Easy to open Combination O (43.5%) and 1.4 94.5 0.7 n.s. 0.53 -0.86 8.99
M (42.1%)

Facilitates the sorting out of

household waste One-dimensional 37.1 12.9 79.1 0.7 p < 0.01 0.55 -0.62 7.69

Easy to empty completely One-dimensional 47.0 15.9 91.5 1.0 p < 0.01 0.61 -0.79 8.65

Easy to dose One-dimensional 44.1 17.5 91.0 1.0 p < 0.01 0.65 -0.71 7.79

Fit in storage spaces Combination A (39.1%) and 0.0 86.5 1.4 n.s. 0.79 -0.48 7.02
O (39.1%)

Contain just the right quantity Attractive 36.6 7.9 69.0 2.0 p < 0.01 0.60 -0.33 6.69

Easy to throw in the household One-dimensional 56.9 34.7 92.5 0.6 p < 0.01 0.79 -0.71 7.89
waste

Communicative entity

Declaration of contents Must-be 57.5 29.1 91.8 0.6 p < 0.01 0.35 -0.86 9.20

Instructions Must-be 39.8 7.5 88.6 1.0 p < 0.01 0.49 -0.73 8.67

Symbols One-dimensional 43.1 8.9 88.0 1.3 p < 0.01 0.55 -0.78 8.38

Open-dating Must-be 71.6 50.4 94.9 1.1 p < 0.01 0.24 -0.94 9.65

Aesthetically appealing Combination I (42.1%) and 1.6 55.9 1.4 n.s. 0.54 -0.16 5.80
A (40.5%)

Communicates product family One-dimensional 28.2 4.8 74.3 1.4 p < 0.01 0.53 -0.52 7.22
category
2005, ASQ

Communicates a certain brand One-dimensional 30.5 4.2 79.7 1.1 p < 0.05 0.54 -0.58 7.38

Appearance = content Must-be 45.1 16.4 86.1 0.7 p < 0.01 0.41 -0.74 8.34

www.asq.org 15
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 16
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
An overview of the 24 quality attributes is provided
in the better-worse diagram in Figure 4. Pairs of better
and worse points for each quality attribute have been
plotted in a two-dimensional graph (the negative sign
in front of worse has been ignored in the graph for
clarity). The focus of this analysis is on the three differ-
ent entities of quality attributes, that is, technical,
ergonomic, and communicative. The graph shows that
overall, these three entities have different roles in the
perception of quality.
The quality attributes in the technical entity can be
viewed as creators of attractive quality. Even though indi-
vidual attributes have been classified as must-be or indif-
ferent, the technical entity is important, because these
attributes can create a satisfaction advantage that distin-
guishes the product as truly unique in its competitive
market (Watson 2003). The attributes in the ergonomic
entity are basically viewed as one-dimensional quality.
These are the attributes that the customer can compare
between different brands and that are important during
product use. If the products package is not easy to use
or it is not easy to acquire dosages, the customer will
consider buying a different brand next time. In contrast
to the other two entities, the communicative entity is
positioned from the middle and out toward the must-be
corner of the better-worse diagram. The quality attrib-
utes that are further away from the middle, such as the
declaration of contents and instructions for usage,
are must-be attributes. Concerning the attributes that
communicate a brand or product family category (for
example, light-products), the population is divided
between all four categories of quality. For some groups,
these are the most important quality attributes, because
they are important for their image, and it helps them to
live their life according to a certain lifestyle. To the
whole population, the communicative entity contributes
little in creating customer satisfaction. On the contrary,
these attributes are important to eliminate dissatisfaction.
QUALITY ATTRIBUTES
CLASSIFIED AS COMBINATIONS
The ANOVA analyses of the four quality attributes that
were classified as combinations revealed that demo-
graphic variables, such as gender (p < 0.05) and age
16 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
Figure 4 An overview of the quality attributes in
a better-worse diagram.
1
Attractive One-Dimensional
0.9
0.8
Technical Ergonomic
0.7
0.6
Better
0.5
0.4
0.3
Communicative
0.2
0.1
Indifferent Must-Be
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Worse
2005, ASQ
Technical attributes
Ergonomic attributes
Communicative attributes
(p < 0.05), could partly explain why some of the
attributes could not be clearly classified. For instance,
aesthetics appears to be more important to young
people and females, while older people and men are
indifferent. Another example is that females consider
easy to open as a must-be attribute, while men view it
as a one-dimensional attribute. These differences
between males and females are strengthened by the
fact that females consider these two attributes to be
more important (p < 0.05) than do males. On the
contrary, variables such as number of kids and func-
tional ability of individuals had no explanatory
power. It should also be noted that the explanatory
power of the ANOVA analyses is about 5 percent.
Consequently, the demographic variables are not suf-
ficient to understand why some attributes cannot be
classified according to the theory of attractive quality.
Instead the authors believe that the life cycle of
quality attributes provides a better explanation of why
all quality attributes cannot be classified. Kano (2001)
presents a hypothesis that says the categorization of
quality attributes follows a life cycle such as: indifferent
quality attractive quality one-dimensional
quality must-be quality. There are four quality
attributes that are classified as combinations in Table 1
(additional functions, easy to open, fit in storage
spaces, and aesthetically appealing). Additional
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 17

Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging

functions may be a quality attribute that is transition- Figure 5 A comparison of the degree of
ing from indifferent quality to attractive quality and importance of ergonomic quality
easy to open seems to change from one-dimensional attributes between people with functional
quality to must-be quality. Similar observations can disabilities in their hands and the rest
be made regarding the quality attributes fit in storage of the population (p < 0.05).
spaces and aesthetically appealing. This result is
consistent with the results of Nilsson-Witell and 10
9
8

Importance
Fundin (2005) concerning that the transition of a 7
ns ns
quality attribute such as ordering cinema tickets 6
5
online from attractive to must-be can appear after the 4
3
customer has used the service more than five times. 2
1
0

en

s
te

ose

se
ly

tity
IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY

old

pace
letel
was
iend

ispo
to op

quan
to d
nd h

omp

ge s

to d
r

d
f
ATTRIBUTES

ehol
-

Easy
ip a

Easy
User

ight
pty c

stora

Easy
hous
to gr

the r
to em
If one looks at the importance ranking in Table 1 and

Fit in
ut of
Easy

just
compares it with the evaluation rule M > O > A > I of

Easy
ng o

tain
Matzler et al. (1996), one can see that this evaluation

Con
sorti
rule reflects the view of the customers. Customers believe
s the
that the must-be quality attributes are more important Disabled

2005, ASQ
litate

than the one-dimensional attributes, which, in turn, Rest

Faci

have a higher importance ranking than attractive and

indifferent quality attributes. The purpose, however, of
this ranking is to use the importance weights as a
means of prioritizing the attributes within each quality
category, that is, to show the relative importance of
each requirement for customers (Berger et al. 1993).
The most important must-be attributes are to avoid
leakage and to have clear open-dating information.
Among the one-dimensional attributes, user-friendly
and hygienic are considered to be the most important.
Resealability and recyclable materials have the
highest importance ranking of the attractive quality
attributes. One quality attribute that was ranked as very
important (8,99) was easy to open. Considering that
this attribute is a combination of M and O, the high-
importance ranking seems logical since must-be and
one-dimensional attributes are the two most important
according to the evaluation rule M > O > A > I
(Matzler et al. 1996). In the same way, it makes sense
that the other attributes that were classified as combi-
nations (additional functions, fit in storage spaces,
and aesthetically appealing) have significantly lower
scores, since they are combinations where either A and
I or both were involved.
PACKAGING ERGONOMICS
As mentioned previously, the questionnaire included a
variable to better understand people who have problems
with handling packages because of some disability in
their hands. This group represented as much as 10
percent of the authors sample. The most common
disabilities were reduced strength and achiness in the
hands. The authors expected these people to have higher
demands than the rest of the sample on packaging in
general and on ergonomic factors in particular. An
in-depth analysis of these individuals was performed
(see Figure 5).
A comparison between those who stated that they have
some form of disability in their hands that affects their
ability to handle packages and the rest of the sample
shows significant differences regarding ergonomic qual-
ity attributes. The disabled have higher scores on their
self-stated importance ranking of all ergonomic quality
attributes. This difference is significant (p < 0.05) for
all the attributes in this category except fit in storage
spaces and contain just the right quantity.

www.asq.org 17
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 18
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
An interesting observation is that six out of nine
attributes in the ergonomic category are classified as
one-dimensional quality. Of the three remaining, two
are combinations where one-dimensional quality is a
considerable part, and the last attribute is classified as
attractive quality. This implies that it is crucial for
packaging developers to focus on the ergonomic
aspects of packaging both to increase customer satis-
faction and to avoid customer dissatisfaction, especially
since many people experience problems when handling
packages. The importance of packaging ergonomics
has also been stressed in forecasts of packaging
demand trends (Olsmats 2002). In addition, there is a
demographic change leaning toward an older popula-
tion. Half of Europes adults will be over 50 years of age
by 2020 (Myerson 2003). This development calls for
packages (and products in general) to have user-
friendly ergonomic attributes that not only cater to the
young and healthy but also to the elderly. One example
of using this perspective in the development of new
products is provided by the Ford Motor Company. They
used inclusive design in their development of the Ford
Focus cars. Inclusive design can be viewed as a
process whereby designers ensure that their products
and services address the needs of the widest possible
audience (Myerson 2003). Regarding the development
of the Ford Focus, company representatives say that
none of their young and/or healthy customers have
complained about it being too easy to get in and out
of the car or to see the figures and so on, on the
instrument paneland the Ford Focus has been a
huge sales success in Europe (Myerson 2003).
CONCLUSIONS AND
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
When people are pushing their shopping carts down
the aisle of a supermarket, packaging is often impor-
tant to their first impression of a brand, its quality, or
value. Even in the store, consumers perceptions of
quality begin. The perception of quality is also affected
by a packages user-friendliness and functionality once
the consumer has brought it home. One can therefore
conclude that consumers may evaluate a product or
18 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
offerings quality when it is purchased or when it is
consumed and experienced.
In this article the authors have classified quality
attributes of packaging in everyday commodities
according to Kanos theory of attractive quality (Kano
et al. 1984). The starting point for their empirical study
was to divide a package into three entities according to
product semantics theories: a technical entity, an
ergonomic entity, and a communicative entity. They
can conclude that the quality attributes in the technical
entity can be viewed as creators of attractive quality.
Even though individual attributes have been classified
as must-be or indifferent, the technical entity is impor-
tant because these attributes can create unique value
for customers. The attributes in the ergonomic entity
are basically viewed as one-dimensional quality. If the
package of the product does not fulfill customer
demands in the ergonomic entity, that is, if the package
is not easy to use or functional, the customer will con-
sider buying a different brand next time. To the whole
population, the communicative entity contributes little
in creating customer satisfaction. On the contrary,
these attributes are important to eliminating dissatis-
faction. It should be mentioned, however, that there are
certain groups of people that view attributes, such as
communication of a brand and communication of a
certain product family category, as highly attractive.
As previous research also has shown (see, for exam-
ple, Berger et al. 1993; Kano 2001; Kano et al. 1984; Lee
and Newcomb 1997; Matzler et al. 1996; Tan 2000;
Watson 2003) the authors believe that several benefits
are obtained from using the Kano methodology. First,
the analysis shows that quality cannot be seen simply as
a one-dimensional construct. Having insight into which
quality attributes fall into which quality dimensions pro-
vides a better understanding of requirements and can
improve focus on the right requirements (Berger et al.
1993). For example, if a company is unable to fulfill the
must-be and one-dimensional quality attributes, it does
not matter how much effort it puts into the innovation
of exciting products and features (Watson 2003). It will
still have a problem with customer dissatisfaction.
According to Kano et al. (1984) emphasis is often placed
on must-be quality because of the misconception that
users satisfaction can be gained by simply reducing
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 19
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
defects and complaints. In addition, reduction of
defects and complaints, and improvement in safety and
reliability, are omitted based on the misconception that
users satisfaction can be gained as long as there are
additional functions and new designs. To be able to
retain and expand its customer base, an organization
needs to implement new attractive product attributes
that correspond to customer needs. The organization,
however, must also make the product reliable. This
requires a dual focus during product development,
which incorporates the voice of the customer early in
the process and subsequently breaks it down into differ-
ent subsystems to assure reliability.
A research study by Johnson and Nilsson (2003)
shows that the quality dimensions of customization
and reliability have different roles in driving customer
satisfaction along the goods-to-services continuum.
Reliability becomes relatively more important when
compared to customization as one moves from pure
goods to pure services. Since manufacturers of packages
are including more functions through packaging,
these traditional core goods are moving on the goods-
to-services continuum. The reliability of these packages
will increase in importance.
Kano (2001) suggests that quality attributes over the
product life cycle move as follows: indifferent
quality attractive quality one-dimensional
qualitymust-be quality. One example is a milk pack-
age with a thermometer. This would, after some time,
become a one-dimensional or must-be quality attribute
instead of an attractive quality attribute. Although no
direct tests were conducted on the dynamics of quality
attributes, the four attributes that have been classified as
combinations are examples that strengthen the sugges-
tion of dynamic attributes. For instance, aesthetically
appealing is one that moves from being indifferent
toward becoming an attractive quality attribute. Another
example is the addition of functions through packaging,
which also is on the edge of becoming an attractive
quality attribute. Both of these examples indicate that
the role of packaging is about to change and a greater
number of customers are starting to appreciate the more
service-like attributes of packaging.
By using the theory of attractive quality, companies
can classify quality attributes and gain an increasing
understanding of how customers experience their
products. Once the classification is made, importance
weights can be used as a means of prioritizing the
attributes within a quality category. For the authors
study of quality attributes of packaging in everyday
commodities the suggestion is to fulfill all must-be
quality attributes. In addition, packages should be com-
petitive with market leaders on the one-dimensional
quality attributes, especially user-friendly, hygienic,
and easy to empty completely. Moreover, in order to
delight customers the attractive quality attributes with
the highest importance ranking, such as resealability
and recyclable material, should be included in the
design. In this step of the design process it is important
to not forget the quality attributes that have been clas-
sified as combinations, since they can be important for
the customer, such as easy to open.
Finally, the authors conclude that the change of
customer expectations, as competition increases,
means that the role of packaging becomes more
important as it can be used to provide increased cus-
tomer value through provision of information and
functions. The results of this article also support the
current consumer and industry trends that suggest
an increasingly important role for packaging as a
marketing vehicle.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonre-
sponses in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14
(August):396-402.
Berger, C., R. Blauth, D. Boger, C. Bolster, G. Burchill, W. DuMouchel,
F. Pouliot, R. Richter, A. Rubinoff, D. Shen, M. Timko, and D. Walden.
1993. Kanos methods for understanding customer-defined quality.
The Center for Quality Management Journal 2, no. 4.
Brown, G. H. 1950. Measuring consumer attitudes toward products.
Journal of Marketing 14, no. 5:691-98.
Cole, R. E. 2001. From continuous improvement to continuous
innovation. Quality Management Journal 8, no. 4:7-21.
Feigenbaum, A. V. 1991. Total quality control: Fortieth anniversary
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garvin, D. A. 1987. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality.
Harvard Business Review 65, no. 6:101-09.
Grnroos, C. 2000. Service management and marketing A
customer relationship management approach, second edition.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
www.asq.org 19
Lofgren 6/22/05 10:41 AM Page 20
Kanos Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging
Gustafsson, A. 1998. Qfd Vgen Till Njdare Kunder I Teori
Och Praktik (in Swedish). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Harckham, A. 1989. The changing U.S. consumer. In Packaging
Strategy , ed. Arthur Harckham. W. Lancaster: Technomic
Publishing Company.
Herzberg, F., M. Bernard, and B. B. Snyderman. 1959. The moti-
vation to work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Ishikawa, K., and D. J. Lu. 1985. What is total quality control?
The Japanese way. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, M. D., and L. Nilsson. 2003. The impact of reliability and
customization on customer satisfaction for goods versus services.
Quality Management Journal 10, no. 1.
Judd, D., B. Aalders, and T. Melis. 1989. The silent salesman
Primer on design, production and marketing of finished package
goods. Singapore: Continental press.
Juran, J. M., and F. M. Gryna. 1988. Jurans quality control
handbook, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kano, N. 2001. Life cycle and creation of attractive quality.
Paper presented at the 4th International QMOD Conference
Quality Management and Organizational Development,
Linkpings Universitet, Sweden.
Kano, N., N. Seraku, F. Takahashi, and S. Tsjui. 1984. Attractive
quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu 14, no. 2:147-56.
Kopalle, P. K., and D. R. Lehmann. 1995. The effects of advertised
and observed quality on expectations about new product quality.
Journal of Marketing Research 32 (August):280-90.
Lee, M. C., and J. F. Newcomb. 1997. Applying the Kano
methodology to meet customer requirements: NASAs microgravity
science program. Quality Management Journal 4, no. 3:95-110.
Lfgren, M. 2004. Winning at the first and second moments of
truth An exploratory study. Managing Service Quality 15, no.
1:102-115.
Matzler, K., H. H. Hinterhuber, F. Bailom, and E. Sauerwein.
1996. How to delight your customers. Journal of Product and
Brand Management 5, no. 2:6-18.
Myerson, J. 2003. Inclusive packaging design Innovating for
people. Paper presented at the FaraPack Briefing, Leeds.
Nilsson-Witell, L., and A. Fundin. 2005. Dynamics of service
attributes: A test of Kanos theory of quality. International Journal
of Service Industry Management 16, no. 2.
Olsmats, C. 2002. The business mission of packaging
Packaging as a strategic tool for business development towards
the future. Ph.D. Diss., bo University.
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. 1985. A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing 49 (Fall):41-50.
20 QMJ VOL. 12, NO. 3/ 2005, ASQ
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berr y. 1988.
Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perception
of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64 (Spring):12-40.
Shewhart, W. A. 1931. Economic control of quality of manufactured
products. New York: D. Van Nostrand Inc.
Tan, K. C. 2000. Integrating Kanos model in the planning matrix of
quality function deployment. Total Quality Mangement 11, no. 8.
Underwood, R. L., and N. M. Klein. 2002. Packaging as brand
communication: Effects of product pictures on consumer responses
to the package and brand. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 10, no. 4:58-68.
Underwood, R. L., N. M. Klein, and R. R. Burke. 2001. Packaging
communication: Attentional effects of product imagery. The Journal
of Product and Brand Management 10, no. 7:403-22.
Watson, G. H. 2003. Customer focus and competitiveness. In Six
Sigma and Related Studies in the Quality Disciplines, ed. Kenneth
Stephens. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
Wikstrm, L. 2002. Produktens BudskapMetoder Fr Vrdering
Av Produkters Semantiska Funktioner Ur Ett Anvndarperspektiv
(in Swedish). Ph.D. diss. Chalmers tekniska hgskola.
Zeithaml, V. A. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality,
and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence.
Journal of Marketing 52 (July):2-22.
BIOGRAPHIES
Martin Lfgren is a doctoral candidate in business administration
at the Service Research Center (CTF) at Karlstad University,
Sweden. He has been an associate at CTF since November
2001 and teaches courses in marketing and quality manage-
ment. In his doctorate work he studies packaging from a service
perspective. The focus in this work is on how packaging can
contribute to improve customer perceived value. He may be
contacted at the Service Research Center, Karlstad University,
Karlstad SE-651 88, Sweden, +46 54 700 19 75 or by e-mail
at Martin.Lofgren@kau.se.
Lars Witell (previously Nilsson) is assistant professor of marketing
at the Service Research Center at Karlstad University, Sweden.
He currently works with a variety of companies on issues per-
taining to customer orientation, customer satisfaction, and
Kanos theory of attractive quality. Witell earned his doctorate in
quality technology and management at Linkping University,
Sweden. His research on quality practice, customer satisfaction,
and product development has been published in the Quality
Management Journal, International Journal of Technology
Management, International Journal of Ser vice Industr y
Management, Journal of Quality Management, and A sian
Journal on Quality. He may be contacted at the Ser vice
Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad SE-651 88,
Sweden, +46 54 700 21 34 or by e-mail at Lars.Witell@kau.se.