ISSN 1229-1889(Print) ISSN 2887-9005(Online) J Korean Soc Qual Manag Vol. 41, No. 2: 209-220, June 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.7469/jksqm.2013.41.2.209 Kano 모델의품질속성분류를위한질문서연구 김만호 * 송해근 ** 박영택 * * 성균관대학교기술경영대학원 ** 성균관대학교시스템경영공학과 Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model Man-Ho Kim * HaeGeun Song ** Young T. Park * * Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University ** Department of Systems Management Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University Abstract Purpose: This paper compares and discusses the influence on the quality classification of Kano's questionnaire which is used for the Kano model(kano et al., 1984), the 3-point Likert-scale newly proposed by Kano and the 5-point Likert-scale presented in this study. Methods: For the comparison, the current study conducts a survey of 631 television viewers. The classification results of the three methods are then compared with those of direct classification which is adopted as a standard for classification of quality attributes. Results: The agreement rates between the results using conventional Kano's questionnaire and the results using direct classification is higher than the results using 3-point and 5-point Likert-scales. In addition, the attributes grouped as must-be or attractive in the direct classification appear to be classified as one-dimensional attributes in the Likert-scales. Conclusion: In comparison with the convensional Kano's questionnaire, the Likert-scale questions highly tend to classify the quatity attributes as one-dimensional. Although the classification results of the 3-point and 5-point Likert-scales are the same, the 5-point Likert-scale has the advantage to classify quality attributes in more detail. Key Words : Kano Model, Classification, Quality Attributes 1) Received 16 March 2013, revised 8 April 2013, Accepted 8 April 2013 Corresponding Author(Ytpark@Skku.Edu) c 2013, The Korean Society For Quality Management This Is An Open Access Article Distributed Under The Terms Of The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (Http://Creativecommons.Org/Licenses/By-Nc/3.0) Which Permits Unrestricted Non-Commercial Use, Distribution, And Reproduction In Any Medium, Provided The Original Work Is Properly Cited.
210 J Korean Soc Qual Manag Vol. 41, No. 2: 209-220, June 2013 1. 서론 Kano 모델은제품이나서비스의품질속성의충족정도가고객의주관적만족도에미치는영향도에따라품질유형을매력적, 당연적, 일원적, 무관심속성으로분류 (Kano et al., 1984) 하여다양한산업분야에널리활용되고있다 (Löfgren and Witell, 2008). 이모델이소개된이후질문서의워딩이복잡하다는지적에따라 (Berger et al., 1993; Mazler et al., 2004; Mikulic, 2011; Song and Park, 2012), Kano 모델의품질유형분류방식을개선하기위한연구들이진행되어왔다. 예를들어 Kano(2001) 는질문서를단순화하기위해 3점리커트척도 (Likert-scale) 의품질차원결정방식을소개하였는데, 이후 3점에서 7점의다양한리커트척도를적용한품질유형분류방식이소개되었다 (Emery and Tian, 2002; Matzler et al., 2004; Busacca and Padula, 2005; Chen and Lee, 2009). 또한 Kano 모델의신뢰성검증을위해, 이모델을다른기법들즉, 중요도그리드, 직접질문법, 페널티-리워드대조분석법, 또는 Kano의 3점리커트척도에의한분류방법과실증적으로비교분석하였으나 (Witell and Löfgren, 2007; Mikulic and Prebeac, 2011), 방법들간의일관된결과의도출에는실패하였고, 각각의장 단점분석에만머물러있다. 이러한결과는이론적근거가다른방법론들을동일한기준으로비교분석하기때문이다. 예를들어중요도그리드기법 (Mikulic and Prebez ac, 2011) 과페널티- 리워드대조분석법은회귀분석과같은통계적추론을근거로하고있으므로최빈값에의한품질유형분류방식인 Kano 모델과단순비교하기에는무리가있다. Witell and Löfgren(2007) 과 Yoon and Lee(2009) 는 Kano 질문서와 Kano가새로제안한 3점리커트척도 (Kano, 2001) 질문서를직접분류법 (Emery and Tian, 2002) 에의한결과와비교하였다. Kano 질문서가 3점리커트척도보다직접분류결과와더높은일치율을보이는것으로나타났으나, 일반적으로많이사용되는 5점리커트척도는고려하지않았다. 본논문에서는 Kano 모델에서품질속성의분류를위해사용되어온 Kano 질문서와이해가용이한방식으로 Kano가제안한 3점리커트척도를본연구가제안하는 5점리커트척도와비교하여 Kano 모델의개선방안을검토한다. 이를위해 631명의대학생을대상으로 TV 사례를실증분석하여품질유형분류의기준으로채택한직접분류방법과일치율에의한비교분석을실시하였다. 본연구에서는 5점리커트척도를이용하여품질속성을보다세부적으로분류하는방법을함께검토하였다. 2. 이론적배경 2.1 문헌고찰 본연구에서는 Kano 모델의활용현황을확인하기위해 2007년까지심사를거치는 (peer-reviewed) 저널에게재된 Kano 관련 33편의문헌 (Löfgren, 2008) 을포함하여미국의 ISI(Institute for Scientific Information) 등재학술지를중심으로 Kano 모델의선택답변이확인된논문 50편을대상으로문헌탐색을실시하였다. 그결과 39편의논문이 Kano의 5가지선택답변 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 을사용하였으며 11편은 3점에서 7점의다양한리커트척도를적용한것으로나타났다. 국내의경우 2000년이후학술진흥재단등재학술지에서 Kano 설문지가포함된 7편의논문을확인할수있었으며, 이들은모두김연성등 (1999) 에서소개한일본어를한글로번역한 5가지선택답변방식 ( 마음에든다 / 좋다, 당연
Kim et al. : Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model 211 하다, 아무런느낌이없다, 하는수없다, 마음에안든다 / 싫다 ) 을사용하였다 (Lim et al., 2003; Shin and Ree, 2007; Kang et al., 2009; Yoon and Lee, 2009; Lim and Park, 2010; Jang et al., 2012; Song and Park, 2012). 이상에서살펴본바와같이 Kano 모델에서제안한품질속성의분류를위해전통적인 Kano 질문서외에도다양한리커트척도가사용되어왔으나, 3점리커트척도외에는비교 검토를위한실증적연구가없었다. Witell and Löfgren(2007) 의온라인티켓 (Ticket) 예매서비스에대한실증연구에서 3점리커트척도에의한결과는일원적속성을유도한다고하였으나, 이유에대한구체적토의가없었다. 2.2 5 점품질속성분류를위한질문서비교대안 Kano 모델의워딩문제점을해결하기위해 Kano(2001) 가소개한 3점리커트척도 ( 만족, 보통, 불만족 ) 는지나친단순화로인해결과가왜곡될수있다는지적이있어왔다 (Witell and Löfgren, 2007; Yoon and Lee, 2009). 이에따라본연구에서는 3점리커트척도보다많은고객정보의획득이가능하면서이해가용이한 5점리커트척도 ( 매우만족, 만족, 보통, 불만족, 매우불만족 ) 에의한품질유형분류방법을적용한다. Table 1. Three questionnaires for classifying quality attributes Kano's questionnaire Kano's 3-point Likert-scale 5-point Likert-scale 1.I like it that way 2. It must be that way 3.I am neutral 4.I can live with it that way 5. I dislike it that way 1. Satisfied 2. Neutral 3. Dissatisfied 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3.Neutral 4. Dissatisfied 5. Very dissatisfied Kano 모델의충족및불충족질문에대해 5점리커트척도의만족도수준을적용하면 Song(2013) 에서와같이품질속성을보다세분화할수있다. (a) 일원적 (One-dimensional) 속성 Figure 1. One-dimensional quality attributes (1a-1) 높은일원적 (O H: Highly One-dimensional) 속성 - 충족정도가현재보다개선또는악화될경우고객
212 J Korean Soc Qual Manag Vol. 41, No. 2: 209-220, June 2013 만족도에매우많이영향을미치는속성. (1a-2) 낮은일원적 (O L: Less One-dimensional) 속성 - 충족정도가현재보다개선또는악화될경우고객만족도에미치는영향이 O H 속성보다작은속성. (1b-1) 매력적경향이있는일원적 (O A: One-dimensional with attractive tendency) 속성 - 개선시고객만족에미치는영향이악화시고객불만에미치는영향보다더큰속성. (1b-2) 당연적경향이있는일원적 (O M: One-dimensional with must-be tendency) 속성 - 악화시고객불만족에미치는영향이개선시고객만족에미치는영향보다더큰속성. (b) 매력적 (Attractive) 속성 Figure 2. Attractive quality attributes (2a) 높은매력적 (A H: Highly attractive) 속성 - 충족정도가현재보다악화되더라도고객불만족에아무런영향을미치지않지만개선시고객만족에매우많이영향을미치는속성. (2b) 낮은매력적 (A L: Less attractive) 속성 - 충족정도가현재보다악화되더라도고객불만족에아무런영향을미치지않지만개선시고객만족에 A H 속성보다작은영향을미치는속성. (c) 당연적 (Must-be) 속성 Figure 3. Attractive quality attribute (3a) 높은당연적 (M H: Highly must-be) 속성 - 충족정도가현재보다개선되더라도고객만족에아무런영향을
Kim et al. : Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model 213 미치지않지만악화시고객불만족에매우많이영향을미치는속성. (3b) 낮은당연적 (M L: Less must-be) 속성 - 충족정도가현재보다개선되더라도고객만족에아무런영향을미 치지않지만악화시고객불만족에 M H 속성보다작은영향을미치는속성. 5점리커트척도에의한품질유형분류는 Kano 모델의충족및불충족질문에대한선택답변을만족도의수준 (5개의등간척도 ) 으로제시하기때문에 Kano 질문서의워딩에내재된모호성을완화해줄뿐아니라, 3점리커트척도에서와같은지나친단순화 (Witell and Löfgren, 2007) 에의한품질속성분류의왜곡도막을수있다. 더욱이 5점리커트척도는 Kano 모델보다다양한품질유형에대한정보를얻을수있는장점이있다. 예를들어긍정적질문 ( 만약 TV의화면크기가크다면 ) 에대하여응답자가 매우만족 을선택하고, 부정적질문 ( 만약 TV의화면크기가작다면 ) 에대해 매우불만족 한다면, TV의화면크기속성은 5점리커트척도평가표에의하여높은일원적 (O H) 속성으로분류되고, 선택답변에따라 O L, O A, O M 등으로세분화될수있다. Figure 4. A paired question and the evaluation table of the 5-point Likert-scale <Figure 4> 에서 S 는 회의적인 (Skeptical) 의첫글자로어떤속성이충족되어도만족 ( 또는불만족 ) 불충족되어도만족 (or 불만족 ) 하다고답변한것이기때문에응답자가질문을제대로이해하고답변한것인지의심스러운결과를뜻한다 (Kano et al., 1984). 이처럼 Kano 모델은 S 를확인하여분리함으로써신뢰성있는결과를도출할수있다. 2.3 직접질문법에의한품질속성분류 본연구에서는 Kano 모델과 5점리커트및 3점리커트척도의비교기준으로직접분류법을도입하였다. 이방법은 Emery and Tian(2002) 이학교과제 / 프로젝트에대한교수자와학습자의기대치비교연구에서처음사용되었다. Kano 모델의일원적, 당연적, 매력적품질유형을각각만족요인 (Satisfier), 기본요구사항 (Basic need), 감동요인 (Delighter) 으로나타내고학교수업관련요구속성에대해교수자가먼저브레인스토밍기법으로분류한후그결과를학생들입장에서직접재분류하도록한데서직접분류법 (Direct question 또는 Direct classification) 으로인용되었다 (Witell and Löfgren, 2007; Mikulic and Prebezac, 2011). 이방법은응답자에게 Kano 모델의기본개념 ( 품질유형 ) 을설명한뒤각품질속성별로적합한유형을직접질문하여매력적, 일원적, 당연적, 무관심, 역 ( 逆 ) 중에서선택하도록한다. TV의음질을예로들면 TV의음질은어떤
214 J Korean Soc Qual Manag Vol. 41, No. 2: 209-220, June 2013 품질유형입니까 와같이직접질문하여품질유형을분류한다. 이방법은응답자들이 Kano 모델을잘이해하고있을경우신뢰성있는결과를도출할수있다 (Mikulic and Prebezac, 2011). 직접질문법은서로의견교환이가능한토의방법들 ( 패널토론이나포커스그룹인터뷰 ) 과다르며응답자개인의주관적판단에만의존한다. 일반적으로 Kano 모델에의한설문조사설계시직접질문법에의한설문은마지막으로실시하는것이바람직하다. 3. 연구방법 3.1 TV 사례에대한요구속성도출 본연구에서는 Jang et al.(2012) 에서소개한 TV의품질속성을사례연구대상으로사용하였으며, 23개품질속성들을소개하면 <Table 2> 와같다. Quality attributes Picture quality Description The better the picture quality, the better the detail of each image viewed. Better picture quality also reduces eye strain and fatigue Screen size The larger the screen, the more realistic the viewing experience becomes; much like watching a movie at the theatres Explosion proof Electronic devices can cause fires and explosions Internet connectivity Allows TV sets to connect to the internet to be used like a personal computer Fall deterrence TV sets can be damaged or cause injuries when tipped over due to impacts 3D view Technology enabling 3D viewing of images Reception quality If the reception is bad, TV viewing may be interrupted intermittently or disabled Connectivity with other media sources Energy efficiency Olfactory function Foldable/Rollable Virtual display Sound quality Thickness 3D sound Weight 2D-3D conversion Cell-phone remote Load time between channels Twin view remote Picture in picture Video recorder Smart TV Table 2. Quality attributes of TV set (Jang et al., 2012) The ability to plug and play movies or picutres from media sources such as cameras, camcorders, and cell-phones If the energy efficiency of a TV set is bad, it consumes more energy Technology allowing TV sets to emit smells that link to the image being viewed on the screen For purposes of easy storage and mobility Does not require a physical screen or backdrop to display images. Images will be displayed in mid-air The better the sound quality, the more realistic the sound becomes The thinner the screen, the less space it takes up, and can be mounted on a wall like a picture frame Sound is projected from various angles to make the viewing experience more realistic Less weight allows for easier installation and movement The optional function to convert standard 2D into 3D images The ability to use your cell-phone as a TV remote The time between switching channels and actual images being displayed on the screen The ability to watch what is being displayed on the TV screen on a small screen embedded in the remote The ability to watch multiple programs on the same screen at the same time The ability to prerecord programs for later view The ability to access a TV app. store, like a smart phone
Kim et al. : Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model 215 3.2 설문및데이터수집 TV 사례분석을위해 <Table 2> 의선택답변을이용한 3개의설문서 (Kano 모델, 3점리커트척도, 5점리커트척도 ) 와직접분류법을위한질문서를작성하였다. 설문조사는 2학기에걸쳐 631명의대학및대학원재학생들을대상으로실시하였다. 방법은 Kano 모델, 3점및 5점리커트척도에의한설문을먼저실시한후학기말에 Kano 모델이론수업을수강한대학생을대상으로직접질문법을위한설문조사를실시하였다. 실증적비교분석을위한최종 161명 (Kano 질문서 ), 157명 (3점리커트척도 ), 157명 (5점리커트척도 ), 155명 ( 직접분류 ) 에대한유효한응답자정보는다음과같다. Table 3. Respondents of the survey Types Respondents Male Female Marital status TV viewing time Married Single 1hour 1-2hours 2-3hours Kano s model 161 77.6% 22.4% 14.9% 85.1% 67.1% 26.7% 4.3% 3-point Likert-scale 157 79.6% 20.4% 15.3% 84.7% 64.3% 27.4% 7.0% 5-point Likert-scale 158 77.2% 22.8% 15.8% 84.2% 67.7% 27.2% 3.8% Direct classification 155 77.4% 22.6% 16.1% 83.9% 67.7% 26.5% 4.5% 이상과같이비교대상이되는방법들의응답자정보는유사하게나타났다. 3.3 분석방법 본연구에서는방법들간의일치율비교를위해 Lee and Newcomb(1997) 이제시한차원강도 (CS: Category Strength; 최빈값과그다음으로빈도수가높은값의비율의차이 ) 의개념을적용하였다. Lee and Newcomb(1997) 은 CS가 6% 이하일경우혼합 (Combination) 속성으로분류하고두유형의성격을구분할수없는것으로규정지었다. 예를들어 <Table 4> 에서 TV의요구속성중하나인화면크기의경우 매력적 이전체 161명에서 72명 (44.7%) 으로가장높게나타났고, 일원적 이 63명 (39.1%) 으로두번째로높게나왔기때문에, CS는 5.6%(; 44.7%-39.1%) 로서 6% 이하이기때문에매력적 (A) 속성과일원적 (O) 속성의혼합으로분류하고 혼합 (A/O) 로표기하였다. 혼합속성의일치여부판정은혼합으로나타난두속성중어느하나가일치하면해당속성이일치하는것으로판단하였다. 또한 5점리커트척도에의한분류결과에서 O H, O L, O A, O M 은모두일원적, A H, A L 은매력적, M H, M L 은당연적으로간주하여비교하였다. 23개의 TV 품질속성에대하여전통적 Kano 모델의 5가지선택답변과 3점리커트척도, 본논문에서제안한 5점리커트척도및직접분류방법에따라품질속성을분류한결과가 <Table 4> 에정리되어있으며, 직접분류법과의일치율을정리하였다. 또한이표의 5점리커트척도분류열 (Column) 에서세부분류결과는괄호안에명기하였다.
216 J Korean Soc Qual Manag Vol. 41, No. 2: 209-220, June 2013 Quality classification results Agreement with direct method Quality attributes Kano Kano 3-point 5-point Direct classification Likert-scale Likert-scale 3-point 5-point questionnairtionnaire ques- Likert-scale Likert-scale Picture quality O O O(O H) 혼합 (O/M) Screen size A/O O O(O L) 혼합 (O/A) Explosion proof M O O(O H) M X X Internet connectivity A A A(A L) A Fall deterrence M O O(O L) M X X 3D view A A A(A L) A Reception quality M O O(O H) M X X Connectivity with other media sources A A/O O(O L) A X Energy efficiency O O O(O L) 혼합 (M/O) Olfactory function I I (I) I Foldable/Rollable A A A(A L) 혼합 (A/I) Virtual display A A A(A L) A Sound quality O O O(O L) 혼합 (O/M) Thickness A/O O O(O L) 혼합 (O/A) 3D sound A A A(A L) A Weight A O O(O L) O X 2D-3D conversion A A A(A L) A Cell-phone remote A A A(A L) 혼합 (I/M) X X X Load time between channels O O O(O L) M X X X Twin view remote A A A(A L) A Picture in picture A A A(A L) A Video recorder A A A(A L) A Smart TV A A A(A L) A Attributes' hit number (Hit rate) Table 4. Comparison results of the questionnaires - - - 20(87%) 18(78%) 17(74%) 4. 결과및분석 <Table 4> 의분석결과 3점및 5점리커트척도는 Kano 모델에비해일원적속성 (O) 이많이나오는것으로관찰되었다. 구체적으로 Kano 질문서에서당연적으로분류된속성들은리커트척도법에서모두일원적으로분류되었으며, Kano 질문서에서매력적으로분류된속성들은 3점및 5점척도법에서모두매력적으로남거나일원적으로바뀌었다. 이러한결과는 3점리커트척도를 Kano 모델과비교한 Witell and Löfgren(2007) 과 Yoon and Lee(2009) 에서도동일하게나타났다.
Kim et al. : Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model 217 Witell and Löfgren(2007) 은 3점리커트척도에서일원적속성으로쏠리는이유를평가표에포함된일원적 (O) 의비율때문이라고하였으나, 평가표에서 O셀의비율이 11%(1/9) 인 3점리커트척도와 16%(4/25) 인 5점리커트척도모두 O로분류된속성이 11개로동일하므로분류표내에서셀의비율이품질유형에영향을미치는것은아님을알수있다. 주목할점은 5점리커트척도의경우 Kano 모델보다품질유형을상세히분류할수있으며, 상대적으로중요한품질유형을확인할수있다. 예를들어 O H 로분류된 화질, 화재 폭발위험, 방송수신율 은모두만족과불만족에큰영향을미치므로다른속성들보다중점관리가필요하다. 더욱이 O H 로분류된속성들이 Kano 모델에서모두당연적 ( 또는당연적과혼합 ) 으로분류된것은당연적속성이다른유형보다중요하다는주장 (Berger et al., 1993; Matzler 1998; Jang et al., 2012) 을뒷받침한다. 직접분류와의일치율비교에서 3점및 5점리커트척도는일치율이각각 78%, 74% 로유사하게나타났으며, Kano 모델과의일치율은 87% 로비교적높게나타났다. 본연구에서는방법들간일치율이통계적으로차이가있는지분석하기위해다음과같은 Fong(1996) 이제안한공식을활용하였다. (1) 여기서, a 와 b 는빈도수, * 두비교집단의 n 이동일 Fong(1996) 에의하면공식 (1) 을만족할경우비교대상이되는두집단의빈도수는통계적으로유의한차이가없는것으로판단한다. <Table 4> 의일치율결과로부터 Kano 모델 (20) 과 3점리커트척도 (18), 5점리커트척도 (17) 에대해공식 (1) 을계산하면모두통계적인차이가없는것으로나타났다. Kano 모델과직접분류결과가일치하는 20개속성에대하여정리하면 <Table 5> 와같다. Table 5. Agreed results of the Kano model and direct classification Types Attractive(A) One-dimensional(O) Must-be(M) Indifferent(I) Quality attributes that agreed between the Kano's questionnaire and direct method Screen size, Internet connectivity, 3D view, Connectivity with other media sources, Foldable/Rollable, Virtual display, 3D sound, 2D-3D, conversion, Twin view remote, Picture in picture, Video recorder, Smart TV Picture quality, Energy efficiency, Sound quality, Thickness Explosion proof, Fall deterrence, Reception quality Olfactory function 이상과같이편안한화면시청과관련있거나 TV의첨단기능들은모두매력적속성으로나타났다. 참고로이동성과관련된 TV의무게도 Kano 모델에서고객들이매력적 ( 직접분류에서일원적 ) 으로생각하는것으로나타났다. 안전및 TV의기본기능 (basic need) 들은당연적속성으로, 그리고 좋다 / 나쁘다, 높다 / 낮다 등과같은측정가능한성능 (performance) 속성들은일원적으로분류되었다. 또한 Kano 모델과직접분류에의한결과모두향기분출기능은무관심으로나타났다.
218 J Korean Soc Qual Manag Vol. 41, No. 2: 209-220, June 2013 5. 결론및토의 본연구에서는품질속성분류를위해널리활용되어온 Kano 모델과 3점및 5점리커트척도에의한분류결과를직접질문법과비교분석하였다. TV 사례에대한실증분석결과 Kano 모델의분류결과가직접질문법과일치율이가장높은것으로나타났으나, 그차이가통계적으로유의하다고할수는없었다. 본연구가비교대상으로고려한직접분류법은 Kano 이론을학습한응답자를대상으로하기때문에이모델을잘알고있을경우신뢰성있는결과를도출할수있으나, 응답자집단에대한교육및학습이선행되어야하므로실무적용에한계가있다. 반면, Kano 모델과리커트척도법의경우설문대상에대한제약이없으며설문결과에의문 (Sceptical) 이있는문항을식별하는방법론을제시하여직접분류법만큼신뢰성있는결과를기대할수있다. 또한 5점리커트척도에의한분류결과는 Kano 모델보다품질유형을세부적으로분류할수있으며, 고객만족또는불만족에상대적으로영향을많이미치는중요한속성을도출할수있는장점이있다. REFERENCES Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., and Walden, D. 1993. Kano s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal 2(4):2-36. Busacca, B., and Padula, G. 2005. Understanding the relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction. Theory, measurement and implications. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23(6):543-561. Chen, J. K., and Lee, Y. C. 2009. A new method to identify the category of the quality attribute. Total Quality Management 20(10):1139-1152. Emery, C., and Tian, R. 2002. Schoolwork as Products, Professors as Customers: A Practical Teaching Approach in Business Education. Journal of education for business 78(2):97-102. Jang, H. Y., Song, H. G., and Park, Y. T. 2012. Determining the importance values of quality attributes using ASC. Journal of Korean Society of Quality Management 40(4):589-598. Kang, G. D., Ahn, S. H., Cheon, H. S., and Lee, W. Y. 2009. The classification of logistics service quality through the utilization of Kano model. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 37(2):32-45. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsjui, S. 1984. Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu 14(2):147-156. Kano, N. 2001. Life cycle and creation of attractive quality. Proceedings of the 4th QMOD Conference, Linkoping, Sweden 18-36. Lee, M. C. and Newcomb, J. F. 1997. Appling the Kano methodology to meet customer requirements: NASA s microgravity science program. Quality Management Journal 4(3):95-106. Lim, J. H., Min, D. K., and Kim, K. J. 2003. Fuzzy KANO Model: Fuzzy set-based classification of customer requirements. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 31(3):98-113. Lim, S. U., and Park, Y. T. 2010. Potential customer satisfaction improvement index based on Kano model. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 38(2):248-260. Löfgren, M. and Witell, L. 2008. Two decades of using Kano s theory of attractive quality: a literature review. Quality Management Journal 15(1):59-75. ASQ. Matzler, K., and Hinterhuber, H. H. 1998. How to make produce development projects more successful by integrating Kano s model of customer satisfaction into quality function development. Technovation 18(1):25-38. Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., and Schubert, A. K. 2004. Employee satisfaction: does Kano s model apply? Total Quality Management 15(9&10):1179-1198.
Kim et al. : Comparing the Questionnaires for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model 219 Mikulic, J. and Prebezac, D. 2011. A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Managing Service Quality 2(1):46-65. Shin, A. R., and Ree, S. B. 2007. A Study on the Development of Total Customer Satisfaction Coefficient based on Kano Model. Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers 20(4):479-487. Song, H. G. 2013. Developing and utilizing the B-W model for managing quality attributes. PhD Dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University. Song, H. G. and Park, Y. T. 2012. Wordings of the Kano model's questionnaire. Journal of Korean Society of Quality Management 40(4):453-466. Witell, L. and Löfgren, M. 2007. Classification of quality attributes. Managing Service Quality 17(1):54-73. Yoon, J. W., and Lee, H. Y. 2009. An empirical comparative analysis between Kano and Improved Kano methods. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 37(4):31-42.