International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial and Energy Engineering 2010

23-24 December, 2010, Khulna, BA#GLADESH

MIE10-040

A simulating functional and dysfunctional answer of customer from given Kano

evaluation for Product Development
Md Mamunur Rashid 1,*
1
Faculty, Bangladesh Institute of Management, 4, Sobhanbag, Dhaka-1207(bim.org.bd), BANGLADESH and
Presently working at Graduate School of Kitami Institute of Technology, Kitami, Hokkaido 090-8507, JAPAN.

ABSTRACT
Voice of Customers (VoCs) is important for product development. Kano model links VoCs with product attribute (KE).
VoCs regarding KE is considered functional form (FF) and dysfunctional form (DF) of Kano model. Both FF and DF (Like,
Must-be, Neutral, Live-with and Dislike) are important to select the Kano evaluations (KE). These FF and DF of customer
have been applied for selection KE. The choices KE have been outlined by Attractive, One-dimensional, Must-be,
Indifferent, Reverse, and Questionable. In the presented computer system can be simulated the FF and DF for a given KE by
Monte-Carlo simulation method and adapted with Kano model for product development. This system cans compliance KE
to VoCs (FF and DF). As a result it is reduced the uncertainty of producer regarding customer needs and product attributes.

Keywords: Voice of Customers, Computer Simulation System, Kano Evaluation, Product Attribute.

1. Introduction raises a fundamental question that is how many

Voice of Customers (VoCs) is now challenging issue for
product development [1]. The first step to develop a
product is to identify a set of customer needs. Besides of
these, in quality function deployment (QFD) of first
house, customer requirements (CRs) are considered
arbitrary basis. In this regard, Kano model is a enhanced
method for selecting CRs. Using Kano model, a product
developer can identify whether or not a product attribute
is attractive, must-be, or alike. To do so, it is important
to obtain customers' opinions using a prescribed
questionnaire. All most cases, questionnaire is a vehicle
to know the VoCs regarding product development.
Kano model links VoCs with Product attribute (KE).
Many Researchers have been worked on Kano model
for Product development [2,3]. Among traditional,
analytical, quantitative methods [4-17] were used for
customer needs analysis for innovative and new product
development. VoCs for specific product attribute and
market niche is normally survey regarding. Yet,
researcher could not be developed generic unknown
customer evaluation by computer system or traditional
system regarding Kano model. In this regards, Ullah and
Tamaki, 2010 [18] presented a proposition that the
respondents of unknown answers might have selected
the states randomly from the functional/dysfunctional
answer of Kano model. Although a numerical method
for customer needs analysis is presented [19] to simulate
functional and dysfunctional answer independently and
then subsequently simulate Kano Evaluation for
different aspects. For this purpose, Kano model [7] is
adapted with computer for customer
functional/dysfunctional answer evaluation from
consider given Kano evaluations randomly. Therefore,
this presented system is simulating functional and
dysfunctional answer of customer from given Kano
evaluation. In effects, this computer system was applied
to prove the assumption regarding product attribute
(KE) is acceptable or not with field survey. As well,
maximum customers should be asked to make a reliable
conclusion for any product attribute regarding Kano
model. For this purpose, we have study must-be
attribute [20] of bicycle for minimum numbers of
respondents. In this paper, we will be going to show the
generic results related to the abovementioned issue
regarding Kano model based all product attributes and
discuss the system into a real-life product development
process for maximum number of respondents.
Present paper deal with the computational issues
relevant to above scenario. The remainder of this paper
is organized as follows: section 2 shows methods for
general settings of the simulation process; section 3
discusses a method to simulate the
functional/dysfunctional answers from given Kano
evaluation the proposed simulation process and section
4 for results and discussions.
2. Methods
For n-event simulation process is defined by Eq. (1). In
(1), E=(E1,…,En) is the event vector,
P= (Pr(E1),…,Pr(En)) is the probability vector, and
S= (S1,…,S#) is the simulated event vector.
Input :
E = (E1 , L, E n ) //event vector
P = (Pr (E1 ), L, Pr (E n )) //probability vector
# //number of iterations
Calculate :
For i = 1, L, n (1)
CPr (Ei ) = Pr(E1 ) + L + Pr (Ei ) // cumulative probability
End For

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +88-02-8117405~07 Ext.114

E-mail address: mamun87245@gmail.com; dse10831@std.kitami-it.ac.jp
Simulate :
For k = 1, L , #
generate rk //rk is a random number in the interval [0,1]
Kano Model
If rk [0, CPr(E1 )) Then S k = E1 Classification of Customer Needs
High satisfaction (Delighted)
Else
For i = 2, L , n 1 (1) Attractive (A)
If rk [CPr(Ei 1 ), CPr(Ei )) Then S k = Ei One-dimensional (O)
End For
If rk [CPr(En 1 ), CPr(En )] Then S k = En Indifferent (I)
End For Performance fully absent
(Dysfunctional)
Performance fully present
(Functional)

Output : Must be (M)

S = (S1,L ,S k ,L ,S # ) //simulated event vector

The probability (strictly speaking the relative frequency)
Reverse (R)
of events E1,…,EN in S denoted by Pr (.) can be
Low satisfaction (Disgusted)
determined using the formulation defined by Eq. (2).

Input :
Fig.1 Kano model for customer satisfaction
S = (S 1 ,L ,S k ,L ,S N ) //simulated event vector
A Kano questionnaire is described in Table 1:
Calculate :
For i = 1, L , n Table1 Kano questionnaire
count i = 0 Functional Side Dysfunctional side
For k = 1,L , N If the processor speed of If the processor speed of
(2) computer is very high , how computer is not very high ,
If S k = E i Then count i = count i + 1
do you feel? how do you feel?
End For
count i An ideal Answer:
Pr (E i ) = //probability of E i in S I like it that way I like it that way
N
It must be that way It must be that way
End For I am neutral I am neutral
Output : I can live with that way I can live with that way
P = (Pr (E 1 ),L , Pr (E n )) //simulated probability vector I dislike it that way I dislike it that way

Therefore, simulation Error (summation of absolute From Table 1, a customer (respondent) can select one of
difference between given and simulated probabilities of the answer out of Like, Must-be, Neutral, Live-with,
each event) can be defined by the expression in Eq. (3). and Dislike from the functional side stating his/her level
of satisfaction. The customer also can to select one of
n the answer (out of the same choices) from dysfunctional
Error = Pr (E i ) P r (E i ) (3)
i=1
side stating his/her level of satisfaction. A customer
selects “I like it that way” from the functional side (the
3. Relationship among Kano Evaluation, Functional processor speed of computer is very high) and “I can
and Dysfunctional Answers live with that way” from dysfunctional sides (the
In this section is illustrated the relationships among processor speed of computer is not very high). This
Kano evaluation (KE) or product attribute, Functional combination makes the underlying attribute an
(FA) and Dysfunctional (DFA) Answers. For this Attractive attribute (KE) according to Kano evaluation
purpose sub-section 3.1 describes the Kano model; sub- Table 2 Kano evaluation table adapted from Berger et al.
section 3.2 shows a relationship of KE from FA and (1993) [8]
DFA and their events, probability and cumulative Dysfunctional Answer (DFA)
probability; sub-section 3.3 shows logical structure and Functional Answer (FA) Like (L) Must-be (M) Neutral (N) Live-with (Lw) Dislike (D)
rules of the system and sub-section 3.4 shows at a Like (L) Q A A A O
glance computations method for the relationship among
Must-be (M) R I I I M
KE, FA and DFA.
Neutral (N) R I I I M
Live-with (Lw) R I I I M
3.1 Kano model
Kano model [7] defines the relationship between Dislike (D) R R R R Q
product attributes and customer satisfaction. Five types Attractive (A),Indifferent (I),Must-be (M),One-dimensional (O),Questionable (Q),Reverse ( R )
of product attributes of this model are: Must-be (M), Table 2. However, at the same time as responding to
One-dimensional (O), Attractive (A), Indifferent (I) and Kano questionnaires the respondents are allowed to
Reverse (R) as schematically illustrated in Fig.1. choose any combination of the answer from FA and
DFA. In the similar way any respondents can choose
any combination from FA and DFA. Any combination
makes an attribute among, KE {A, O, M, I, R, Q}.

MIE10-040- 2
Thus the combination of FA and DFA is used to identify those events. Generally, an event is a set of outcomes to
the status of the attributes (KE) in term of: M, O, A, I, R which a probability is assigned. Events of FA, DFA and
and Q. KE are considered from above Table. These are
Customer perceptions are depended on attribute present described in Tables 5-6. Following table shows the both
or absent. Table 3 shows the perceptions of customers, FA and DFA events, probability vector Pr (.) and
when attribute is present, while when attribute is absent. cumulative probability CPr (.):
Table 5. Events, Probability and Cumulative Probability
Table 3 Five categories of product attributes based on of FA and DFA
Kano et al. (1984) [7]
KE When attribute When attribute Events (E) Frequency, f Probability, Pr (.) Cumulative Probability, CPr (.)
is present? is absent? Like (L) 5 0.2 0.2
One- Satisfied Dissatisfied Must-be (M) 5 0.2 0.4
dimensional Neutral (N) 5 0.2 0.6
Must-be No feeling Dissatisfied Live-with (Lw) 5 0.2 0.8
Attractive Satisfied No feeling Dislike (D) 5 0.2 1
Indifferent No feeling No feeling Following table shows the KE events, probability vector
Reverse Dissatisfied Satisfied Pr (.) and cumulative probability CPr (.).
Questionable Nothing Nothing
Beside of five types of product attribute, Questionable Table 6 Events, Probability and Cumulative Probability
(Q) attribute is occurred, when one selects “Like” or of KE
“Dislike” from both FA and DFA; as a result this
answer does not make any sense. It is also existed in the Events (E) Frequency, f Probability, Pr (.) Cumulative Probability, CPr (.)
Kano model. Attractive (A) 3 0.12 0.12
Indifferent (I) 9 0.36 0.48
Must-be (M) 3 0.12 0.6
3.2 Relationship among FA, DFA and KE
One-dimensional (O) 1 0.04 0.64
Table 4 is a straightforward outline of Kano model.
Questionable (Q) 2 0.08 0.72
This is a real picture of relationship among FA, DFA Reverse ( R) 7 0.28 1
and KE. It is also shown frequency 25 for each FA,
DFA and KE regarding events, which are defined in 3.3 Rules of the system
Tables 5-6. This rule was applied for selection of the The following table representation of FA, DFA and KE
simulated KE {A, O, M, I, R, Q} from simulated FA events and probability of Kano model are derived from
and DFA, which is described in subsection 3.3. tables 7. Accordingly second column of table 7
Table 4: Relationship among FA,DFA and KE represents the customer Kano evaluation and then next
Sl KE FA DFA column shows the frequency of Kano evaluation. 4th -
1 Questionable (Q) Like Like 6th column shown the Functional answer (FA) and 7th-
2 Attractive (A) Like Must-be
9th column shown the dysfunctional answer with
3 Attractive (A) Like Neutral
4 Attractive (A) Like Live-with
probability and cumulative probability of respective
5 One-dimensional (O) Like Dislike Kano evaluation.
6 Reverse ( R) Must-be Like
7 Indifferent (I) Must-be Must-be Table 7 A Kano rule in tabular form with events
8 Indifferent (I) Must-be Neutral probability
9 Indifferent (I) Must-be Live-with Sl. 4o. Customer Kano Evaluation (KE) Frequency,f Functional Answer (FA) Probability Cumulative Probability Dysfunctional Answer (DFA) Probability Cumulative Probability
1 Attractive 1 Like 0.333 1 Live-with 0.333 0.333
10 Must-be (M) Must-be Dislike 2 Attractive 1 Like 0.333 Must-be 0.333 0.666
3 Attractive 1 Like 0.333 Neutral 0.333 1
11 Reverse ( R) Neutral Like Frequency for Attractive = 3
4 One-dimensional 1 Like 1 1 Dislike 1 1
12 Indifferent (I) Neutral Must-be Frequency for One-dimensional = 1
5 Must-be 1 Live-with 0.333 0.333 Dislike 0.333 1
13 Indifferent (I) Neutral Neutral 6 Must-be 1 Must-be 0.333 0.666 Dislike 0.333
7 Must-be 1 Neutral 0.333 1 Dislike 0.333
14 Indifferent (I) Neutral Live-with Frequency for Must-be= 3
8 Indifferent 1 Live-with 0.111111111 0.3333 Live-with 0.11111111
15 Must-be (M) Neutral Dislike 9 Indifferent 1 Live-with 0.111111111 Must-be 0.11111111
16 Reverse ( R) Live-with Like 10 Indifferent 1 Live-with 0.111111111 Neutral 0.11111111
11 Indifferent 1 Must-be 0.111111111 0.666 Live-with 0.11111111
17 Indifferent (I) Live-with Must-be 12 Indifferent 1 Must-be 0.111111111 Must-be 0.11111111
13 Indifferent 1 Must-be 0.111111111 Neutral 0.11111111
18 Indifferent (I) Live-with Neutral 14 Indifferent 1 Neutral 0.111111111 1 Live-with 0.11111111 0.333
19 Indifferent (I) Live-with Live-with 15 Indifferent 1 Neutral 0.111111111 Must-be 0.11111111 0.666
16 Indifferent 1 Neutral 0.111111111 Neutral 0.11111111 1
20 Must-be (M) Live-with Dislike Frequency for Indifferent= 9
21 Reverse ( R) Dislike Like 17 Reverse 1 Dislike 0.142857143 0.571428571 Live-with 0.14285714 0.142857143
18 Reverse 1 Dislike 0.142857143 Must-be 0.14285714 0.285714286
22 Reverse ( R) Dislike Must-be 19 Reverse 1 Dislike 0.142857143 Neutral 0.14285714 0.428571429
20 Reverse 1 Dislike 0.142857143 Like 0.14285714
23 Reverse ( R) Dislike Neutral 21 Reverse 1 Live-with 0.142857143 0.714285714 Like 0.14285714
24 Reverse ( R) Dislike Live-with 22 Reverse 1 Must-be 0.142857143 0.857142857 Like 0.14285714
23 Reverse 1 Neutral 0.142857143 1 Like 0.14285714 1
25 Questionable (Q) Dislike Dislike Frequency for Reverse = 7
24 Questionable 1 Dislike 0.5 0.5 Dislike 0.5 0.5
Probability provides the real knowledge when outcome 25 Questionable 1 Like 0.5 1 Like 0.5 1
Frequency for Questionable = 2
of events is uncertain. In the present study, events Total Kano Evaluation= 25

probabilities are equivalent to relative frequency of

MIE10-040- 3
According above table is directed for making following for the proposed simulation process and representation
logical structure in graphical form of Kano Evaluation of the relationship among KE, FA and DFA of Kano
(KE). These can be Attractive (A), One-dimensional model. The proposed simulation process is constructed
(O), Must-be (M), Indifferent (I), Reverse (R) and the selection of the simulated KE for simulated FA and
Questionable (Q). Generic Logical structure of Kano simulated DFA as described below:
Model is shown in Fig.2 Input Steps:
Step 1: Choices of events and probability vector of KE
KE=Attractive v One-dimensional v Must-be v Indifferent v Reverse v Questionable of Kano model, KE {A, O, M, I, R, Q}
according to table 6.
Step 2: Determine the number of iterations.
Calculate:
FA=Like v Must-be v Neutral v Live-with v Dislike Step 3: Generate a set of random inputs in the interval
[0, 1].
Step 4: Applied the concept of cumulative probability of
DFA=Like v Must-be v Neutral v Live-with v Dislike the events according to table 6.
Step 5: Simulated events vector according to Eq.1.
Fig. 2 Generic Logical Structure of Kano Model Outputs: 1-3
Step 6. Simulated events of KE of customer according
Generic Rule for logic tree is following: If FA= (Like to Eq.(1) then calculated simulated probability
Must-be Neutral Indifferent Reverse Dislike) and vector according to Eq.(2).
DFA= (Like Must-be Neutral Indifferent Step 7. Simulated events of FA from Output 1 and
Reverse Dislike) then KE= (Attractive One- according to Table7 then calculated simulated
dimensional Must-be Indifferent Questionable). probability vector according to Eq.(2).
Row numbers 1-3 of table 7 are shown quantitative Step 8. Simulated events of DFA from Output 1 and
logical form of attractive attribute of Kano Evaluation according to Table7 then calculated simulated
(KE) between linkage with functional form (FA) and probability vector according to Eq.2.
dysfunctional form (DFA) of voice of customers 0.4

(VoCs). In table 7 is also shown in row numbers in 1-3 0.35

functional answer is absolutely like, while dysfunctional 0.3

Probability
0.25

answers are live-with, must-be and neutral. 0.2

Computation of Logical Structure for attractive attribute E = (A, M, I, O, R, Q) 0.15

is shown in Fig.3. 0.1

0.05

0
Attractive (A) Indifferent (I) Must-be (M) One-dimensional (O) Questionable (Q) Reverse ( R )

Events
Input
E = (A, M, I, O, R, Q) Simulate Kano Evaluation (KE)
0.25
Probability

0.4

0.2
Simulate
0.3 5

Simulate Kano Evaluation (KE)

Probability

0.3
Simulated Probability

0.2 5

0.2

0.1 5
S1 Functional
0.15

0.1 0.1
Must-be (M) 0.0 5

0
Answer (FA)
Attra ct ive (A) In dif ferent (I ) Must- be(M) One-dim ensiona l(O) Questiona ble (Q) Revers e ( R ) 0.05
Events
S= (L,M,N,Lw,D)
Simulate Functional Answer (FA) 0
Kano Rule Like (L) Must-be (M) Neutral (N) Live-with (Lw) Dislike (D)

Must-be/Neutral/Live-with
Output-1 Kano Rules Output-2
Must-be
FA/KE=1/3
0.25
Simulate Dysfunctional Answer (DFA)
Must-be Neutral Live-with Simulate
Probability

0.2

All=DFA/FA=1/3 Dislike Dysfunctional 0.15

Dislike
Answer(DFA) 0.1

S= (L,M,N,Lw,D)
0.05

0
Like (L) Must-be (M) Neutral (N) Live-with (Lw) Dislike (D)

Fig. 3 Computation of Logical Structure for attractive Output-3

attribute
Fig.4 Customer need analysis numerical simulation
Similarly, we can show logical structure for one- model
dimensional, must-be, indifferent, reverse attributes .
4. Results and Discussion
3.4 Simulation process for selection FA and DFA
from KE Following scenario 1 shows customer needs analysis on
In this simulation process, event vectors, probability Kano evaluation based. What happens of scenario 1 is
vector, cumulative probability has been applied. Their the system input equal probability vector (0.16667) of
applications are shown in Fig. 4 according to steps 1-8. choices incorporated of succeeding steps. The outputs of
This figure also shows a customer need analysis model simulated event probabilities are shown in lower portion

MIE10-040- 4
of Table 7. All simulated evaluation outputs probability Table 8 Result of Successive Simulations for
range 0.15815~ 0.1723 are consistent of the system Scenario 2
Successive Simulation
input value 0.1667 The scenario shows that probability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Simulation Results of Functional Answer (FA)
of simulated functional answer in Table 7, Like Like
Must-be
0.2023
0.1991
0.20125 0.20035
0.19665 0.19555
0.2042 0.1996
0.19385 0.204
0.1972
0.2014
0.20035
0.19955
0.202
0.1965
0.20165
0.1973
0.2036
0.1979
attribute range is 41.335%~42.205%; Must-be, Neutral Neutral
Live-with
0.20245
0.2039
0.2002 0.19895
0.20075 0.2022
0.20185 0.1994
0.1999 0.19925
0.19795
0.2039
0.2019
0.20245
0.2037
0.19825
0.1982
0.2015
0.2037
0.19625

and Live-with are likely equal around 13.41%, where Dislike

Summation
0.19225
1
0.20115 0.20295
1 1
0.2002
1
0.19775
1
0.19955
1
0.19575
1
0.19955
1
0.20135
1
0.19855
1

as Dislike attributes range is 17.435~18.085%. Like 0.19655

Simulation Results of Dysfunctional Answer (DFA)
0.2003 0.19435 0.2075 0.20325 0.1966 0.2016 0.19945 0.20165 0.1985
Must-be 0.1978 0.20085 0.2037 0.19935 0.1967 0.2001 0.19835 0.20255 0.1987 0.20055
Table 7 Result of Successive Simulations for Neutral 0.2034 0.20345 0.19775 0.19665 0.1989 0.2044 0.20085 0.20165 0.2012 0.2036
Live-with 0.2002 0.19485 0.20565 0.1971 0.2016 0.2021 0.20295 0.2036 0.19675 0.2024
Scenario 1 Dislike
Summation
0.20205
1
0.20055 0.19855
1 1
0.1994
1
0.19955
1
0.1968
1
0.19625
1
0.19275
1
0.2017
1
0.19495
1
Simulation
Simulation Results of Kano Evaluation (KE)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attractive 0.12135 0.1222 0.11965 0.12125 0.11885 0.1205 0.1208 0.1241 0.1184 0.12265
Simulated Functional Probabilities (FA)
Indifferent 0.366 0.3578 0.3659 0.3517 0.3599 0.36455 0.3629 0.3616 0.3588 0.3618
Like 0.4186 0.42205 0.4141 0.41335 0.4147 0.4138 0.42105 0.41755 0.42025 0.421 Must-be 0.1211 0.12085 0.11735 0.12015 0.12035 0.1191 0.11965 0.1174 0.11735 0.11805
Must-be 0.1357 0.1344 0.13355 0.13725 0.13535 0.1361 0.1321 0.1352 0.13 0.132 One-dimensional 0.04255 0.03985 0.0414 0.04065 0.0396 0.03825 0.0382 0.03795 0.04155 0.03985
Neutral 0.135 0.1329 0.1342 0.1375 0.13385 0.1358 0.13375 0.1346 0.13665 0.134 Questionable 0.0768 0.07905 0.0791 0.0809 0.08075 0.0779 0.07975 0.07735 0.0845 0.07815
Live-with 0.13575 0.13355 0.1397 0.1373 0.1364 0.13345 0.13115 0.1358 0.13875 0.134 Reverse 0.2722 0.28025 0.2766 0.28535 0.28055 0.2797 0.2787 0.2816 0.2794 0.2795
Dislike 0.17495 0.1771 0.17845 0.1746 0.1797 0.18085 0.18195 0.17685 0.17435 0.178 Summation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Simulated Dysfunctional Probabilities (DFA) Indifferent and Reverse 0.6382 0.63805 0.6425 0.63705 0.64045 0.64425 0.6416 0.6432 0.6382 0.6413
Like 0.18025 0.18575 0.1744 0.1774 0.1793 0.1777 0.17895 0.1807 0.17765 0.181
Must-be 0.13275 0.1324 0.1336 0.13495 0.13405 0.1343 0.13285 0.13275 0.1361 0.135 This result ensures that the simulation provides the
Neutral 0.1363 0.1331 0.1341 0.1342 0.1356 0.13405 0.13335 0.13205 0.13305 0.138
Live-with 0.13185 0.1326 0.1322 0.13595 0.133 0.13745 0.13675 0.13295 0.1389 0.135 consistent deterministic result not uniquely
Dislike 0.41885 0.41615 0.4257 0.4175 0.41805 0.4165 0.4181 0.42155 0.4143 0.411
Simulation of Kano Evaluation (KE) deterministic. This proposition of Ullah and Tamaki
Attractive 0.16575 0.1628 0.16595 0.1634 0.16725 0.16675 0.17065 0.1664 0.16865 0.17
Indifferent 0.16355 0.167 0.1643 0.1723 0.1633 0.1682 0.15815 0.1622 0.16845 0.167 [18] is suitable. They also conclude generic unknown
Must-be 0.1687 0.16095 0.17325 0.16615 0.17005 0.1642 0.16695 0.1706 0.1659 0.163
One-dimensional 0.1696 0.1703 0.1666 0.1686 0.16315 0.1665 0.16745 0.1668 0.1691 0.166 customer evaluation “Indifferent or Reverse”. This
Questionable 0.1638 0.17385 0.1674 0.1641 0.16915 0.16635 0.16665 0.1685 0.1618 0.168
Reverse 0.1686 0.1651 0.1625 0.16545 0.1671 0.168 0.17015 0.1655 0.1661 0.166 study shows that always the probability of indifferent
The scenario also shows that simulated dysfunctional attribute range 0.3517~0.366 is greater than Reverse
answer in Table 7, Like attributes range is attribute range 0.2722~0.28535. It shows that this
17.44%~18.575%, Must-be, Neutral and Live-with are proposition of Ullah and Tamaki, 2010 [18] regarding
likely equal around 13.335%, where as Dislike Kano model based generic customer evaluations is not
attributes range is 41.10%~42.57%.. It is shown that the completely appropriate. While, Indifferent attribute is
presented computer system consistent regarding Monte- predominated for generic unknown customer evaluation.
Carlo simulation method with Kano model. Above The following figure shows the evaluations of virtual
scenario facilities us to consider system input as a KE customers for real life situations.
probability, which is described in table 6 for the
scenario 2 has been constructed in Fig.2. A method is 0.45
P
developed for uncertain customer need analysis [17]. In r
0.4
Attractive
their study out of 25 individuals, only 14 of them o 0.35
One-dimensional
submitted a Kano questionnaire with their answers on b 0.3 Must-be
a
time. 11 individuals, i.e. 44% of the answers were b
0.25 Indifferent

unknown or technically uncertain. Their study was i 0.2 Reverse

l Questionable
constrained to finding this unknown customer i
0.15

evaluation. Their next study [18] made a proposition for t 0.1

y
generic unknown customer evaluation. In this case all 0.05

states (Like, Must-be, Neutral, Live-with, and Dislike) 0

1 10 100 1000
are equally likely occur in the simulated answer. Number of Iterations , N
According to table 5 is also shown equal probability of
FA and DFA. This FA and DFA are considered the Fig. 5 Virtual Customer Evaluations
generic unknown customer evaluation. The result of
successive simulations for scenario 2 is presented table This system facilitates to consider average probability
8. Table 8 shows that all states (Like, Must-be, Neutral, from 10 successive simulations. This system runs for
Live-with, and Dislike) simulated probability range the iteration numbers (virtual customers) of 10,
0.1927~0.206 are consistent with 0.20 of table 5 and 25,50,100,200,500,1000 and 2000. The system shows
proposition of Ullah and Tamaki [18]. vulnerability up to iteration numbers 200. After 200
iterations, the system consistency is appeared for
A deterministic system is a system in which no generic case. This number can be considered for
randomness is involved of the system. A deterministic minimum needed respondents for generic any product
model thus produces the same output for a given evaluations for real life product development process
starting condition In the presented study, random inputs decision making. . If we can study specific case, this
gave deterministic result, because of the last row of number can also vary [19].
Table 8 shows that simulated probability range Moreover, suppose a producer is considered 0.80
combined of Indifferent and Reverse is 0.6361~0.6463, probabilities for one dimensional and others 0.2 for a
which is consistent with 0.64. product attribute, what happens for customer functional
answer (satisfaction) with customer dysfunctional
answer (dissatisfaction) for this product. This system
can to evaluate functional answer (FA) and
dysfunctional answer (DFA) regarding above product

MIE10-040- 5
attribute (KE) information. This systems can evaluate
easily any kind of customer requirements (FA and DFA)
from product attribute (KE).Therefore, real life
situations, a producer can use this system for evaluate
their product attribute. This system can also compare
the field survey result and proposed standard for product
decision making.
5. Conclusion
A simulation model is presented to know the simulated
functional answer (FA) and dysfunctional answer
(DFA) from a given Kano evaluation (KE). It has also
been found that the selection of choice of generic
unknown customer evaluation is predominately
indifferent attribute than others product attributes. This
study also ensures that the simulation provides the
consistent deterministic result. Moreover, this study
shows that maximum 200 customers might be asked to
take decision in real life situations for product
development.
REFERE4CES
[1] Browning T.R., On Customer Value and
Improvement in Product Development Processes,
Systems Engineering, Vol.6, No.1, pp. 49-61,
(2003).
[2] Chen C.C. and Chuang M.C., Integrating the Kano
Model into a Robust Design Approach to Enhance
Customer Satisfaction with Product Design,
International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol.114, No.2, pp.667-681(2008).
[3] Li Y., Tang J., Luo X. and Xu J., An Integrated
Method of Rough Set, Kano's Model and AHP for
Rating Customer Requirements' Final Importance,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No.3
pp.7045-7053,(2009).
[4] Xu Q., Jiao R.J., Yang X., Helander M., Khalid
H.M and Opperud A., An Analytical Kano Model
for Customer Need Analysis, Design Studies,
Vol.30, No.1, pp. 87-110, (2009).
[5] Wang T. and Ji P. , Understanding Customer Needs
through Quantitative Analysis of Kano’s Model,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol.27, No.2 pp.173-184, (2010).
[6] Chen H.-C., Lee T.-R. Lin H-Y. and Wu H.-C.,
Application of TRIZ and the Kano Method to
Home Life Industry Innovation, International
Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol.7, No.1,
pp.64-84,(2010).
[7] Kano N., Seraku N., Takahashi F. and Tsuji S.,
Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality, Hinshitsu,
Vol.14, No.2, pp.39-48 (In Japanese) (1984).
[8] Berger C., Blauth R., Boger D., Bolster C., Burchill
G., Du-Mouchel W., Pouliot F., Richter R.,
Rubinoff A., Shen D., Timko M. and Walden D.
Kano's methods for Understanding Customer-
defined quality, The Center for Quality
Management Journal, Vol.2, No.4, pp.2-36,(1993).
[9] Matzler, K. and Hinterhuber, H.H., How to Make
Product Development Projects More Successful by
Integrating Kano’s Model of Customer Satisfaction
into Quality Function Deployment, Technovation,
Vol.18, No.1 (1998), pp.25–38.
[10] Jiao J. (R.) and Chen C-H., Customer Requirement
Management in Product Development: A Review
of Research Issues, Concurrent Engineering,
Vol.14, No.3 (2006), pp.173-185.
[11] Raharjo H., Brombacher A.C., Goh T.N. and
Bergman B., On Integrating Kano's Model
Dynamics into QFD for Multiple Product Design,
Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
in press. (2009), DOI: 10.1002/qre.1065.
[12] Gronroos C., A Service Quality Model and Its
Marketing Implications, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18, No.4 (1984), pp.36-44.
[13] Lin S-P. Yang C.-L. Chan Y.-H. and Sheu C.,
Refining Kano’s Quality Attributes Satisfaction
Model: A Moderated Regression Approach,
International Journal of Production Economics,
Accepted 23 march
2010,http:www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe.
[14] Lee Y.-C., Hu H.-Y., Yen T.-M. And Tsai C.-H.,
Kano’s Model and Decision Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory Applied To Order Winners
and Qualifiers Improvement: A Study of the
Computer Industry, Information Technology
Journal, Vol.7, No.5 (2008), pp.702-714.
[15] Lee, Y.-C., Sheu L.-C., Tsou, Y.-G., Quality
Function Deployment Implementation Based On
Fuzzy Kano Model: An Application in PLM
System, Computer & Industrial Engineering, Vol.
55 (2008), pp.48-63.
[16] Lee Y-C. and Huang S-Y., A New Fuzzy Concept
Approach for a New Fuzzy Concept on Kano's
Model, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.36,
No.3 (2009), pp.4479-4484.
[17] Ullah, A.M.M.S. and Tamaki J., Uncertain
Customer Needs Analysis for Product
Development: A Kano Model Perspective,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse
Manufacturing, Sapporo, Japan (2009-12).
[18] Ullah A.M.M.S. and Tamaki J., Analysis of Kano-
Model-Based Customer Needs for Product
Development, System Engineering, Accepted
March 23, 2010, DOI10.1002/sys.20168.
[19] Rashid M. M., Ullah A.M.M.S., Tamaki J. and
Kubo A., A Virtual Customer Needs System for
Product Development, Proceedings of the JSPE
Hokkaido chapter Annual Conference ,04
September , 2010.
MIE10-040- 6