See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233835238

Kano's Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging

Article  in  Quality Management Journal · January 2005

DOI: 10.1080/10686967.2005.11919257

CITATIONS READS

147 28,297

2 authors:

Martin Löfgren Lars Witell

Karlstads Universitet Linköping University
25 PUBLICATIONS   1,991 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   6,520 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Customer Experience Design and Management View project

Service Growth in Product Firms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lars Witell on 13 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kano’s Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging in the Quality

Experience*

By

Martin Löfgren
Service Research Center
Karlstad University
SE-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
Phone: +46-54-7001975
Fax: +46-54-836552
Email: Martin.Lofgren@kau.se

Lars Nilsson
Service Research Center
Karlstad University
SE-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
Phone: +46-54-7002134
Fax: +46-54-836552
E-mail: Lasse.Nilsson@kau.se

Working Paper 2004

* Working paper. Please do not quote or reproduce without permission of the authors. Authors’ names are

in alphabetical order as they contributed equally to the paper.

 Kano’s Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging in the Quality

Experience

ABSTRACT

The traditional role of packaging in consumer products has been to store and protect the

content. Current consumer and industry trends, however, suggest an increasingly important

role for packaging as a strategic tool as well as a marketing vehicle. One question of

immediate interest is how packaging should be designed to be competitive and associated

with high quality from a customer perspective. We believe that this type of investigation is

needed since there is relatively little theoretical work in the area of packaging, and that

research in the area of packaging and perceptions of quality so far has been quite sparse.

An empirical investigation of how customers experience packaging in everyday

commodities is conducted in order to increase our knowledge of the role of packages in the

perception of quality. The research study is based on Kano’s Theory of Attractive Quality and

investigates how 24 quality attributes of packages are perceived by customers. Our results

provide evidence that there are quality attributes of the package such as recyclable material

and resealability that are attractive to customers during the decision to buy and use the

product. Implications for the role of packages in attractive quality creation are discussed.

Key words: Customer Satisfaction, Quality Attributes, Empirical Research.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Packaging has traditionally been seen as an important part of the physical product

(Brown, 1950). The change of customer expectations, however, as customers become more

demanding, means that the role of packaging 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 intensified, compared to the package’s previous function of merely protecting the

merchandise, and facilitating storage and transportation. This addition of new services or

functions to the package of the goods can be viewed as a transition of a product 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 packages 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 be competitive and associated with high

quality from a customer perspective?

Inspired by Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory (M-H Theory), Professor Kano and

his co-workers developed The Theory of Attractive Quality (Kano et al., 1984). It is a theory

intended to better understand different aspects of how customers evaluate and perceive quality

attributes. The Theory of Attractive Quality explains how the relationship between the degree

of sufficiency, and customer satisfaction with a quality attribute, can be classified into five

categories of perceived quality: ‘attractive quality’, ‘must-be quality’, ‘reverse quality’, ‘one-

dimensional quality’, and ‘indifferent quality’. The Theory of Attractive Quality predicts that

quality attributes are dynamic, i.e., over time an attribute will change from being a satisfier to

a dissatisfier. We believe that an operalization of The Theory of Attractive Quality in the area

of packaging can contribute to developing more knowledge of the role of packaging in

2
attractive quality creation. This knowledge is needed since within quality management and

marketing there is relatively little research in the area of packaging and customer satisfaction

(Underwood, et al., 2001). Meanwhile, consumer and industry trends suggest an increasingly

important role for packaging as a strategic tool (Olsmats, 2002) as well as a marketing vehicle

(Underwood and Klein, 2002).

An empirical investigation of how customers experience packaging in everyday

commodities is conducted in order to increase our knowledge of the role of packages in the

perception of quality. The research study is based on the theory of Attractive Quality (Kano et

al., 1984) and investigates how 24 quality attributes of packages are perceived by customers.

A questionnaire was mailed to 1500 randomly chosen Swedes aged 16-79 asking them about

their experiences of packaging in everyday commodities. Our results provide evidence that

show quality attributes of the package that are attractive to customers during the decision to

buy and use the product, such as recyclable material and resealability. There are also,

however, must-be quality attributes such as no leakage and declaration of contents. The

implications of the results will be discussed in greater detail in the last section of the paper.

PRODUCT QUALITY AND QUALITY DIMENSIONS

Walter A. Shewhart was one of the pioneers in the industrial society concerned with the

introduction 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 and 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 we think, feel, and sense as a result of the objective reality.

Juran emphasizes that quality is the extent to which a product successfully serves the

purpose of the user (Juran and Gryna, 1988). The customer’s view of quality is similarly

derived from two distinctly different dimensions; product performance and freedom from

3
deficiencies. Product performance is the degree to which the product’s specifications are

customized to meet the needs of any given customer. Freedom from deficiencies is simply

how reliably the product meets its specifications. Similarly, Ishikawa and Lu (1985) view

quality as a two-dimensional concept, i.e., backward-looking quality and forward-looking

quality. Defects and flaws in quality are called backward-looking quality, while attributes that

can become a product’s sales point are called forward-looking quality. One criticism

concerning quality is that people often consider all quality attributes equally important, but

the inability to assign relative importance will result in creating mediocre products.

Often, quality is defined as a multidimensional concept, where a product may be of high

quality in one dimension and of low quality in another (see e.g. 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 different quality attributes, such

as reliability, serviceability, maintainability, and attractability. High quality is the composite

of quality attributes which provides the intended functions with the greatest overall economy

(Feigenbaum, 1991). Service quality, as well, is often viewed as a multi-dimensional concept.

See for instance SERVQUAL that explains service quality through five quality dimensions

(tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) (Parasuraman, et al., 1985,

Parasuraman, et al., 1988).

Kano et al., (1984) present one model for the way in which a product attribute affects

customer satisfaction. This model displays 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 attributes and they also change over time. This

4
perspective on quality does not contain any general quality dimensions; instead, product

attributes are classified into five categories according to The Theory of Attractive Quality.

THE THEORY OF ATTRACTIVE QUALITY

Inspired by Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory (M-H Theory) in behavioral science,

Professor Kano and his co-workers developed The Theory of Attractive Quality. A distinction

between satisfaction and dissatisfaction 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 customers evaluate a product or offering (Gustafsson, 1998). Over the past two

decades this theory has gained increasing exposure and acceptance and it has been applied in

strategic thinking, business planning, and product development to demonstrate lessons learned

in innovation, competitiveness, 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 a package of milk extends the expiry date of milk and dissatisfied if the

package shortens the expiry date of milk. For a quality attribute such as leakage, people are

not satisfied if the package does not leak, but are very dissatisfied if it does. The one-

dimensional view of quality can explain the role of expiry dates but not leakage. To

understand the role of quality attributes, Kano et al., (1984) present a model that evaluates

patterns of quality, based on customers’ 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 and the vertical axis shows the

satisfaction with a certain quality attribute (Kano, et al., 1984). The theory explains how the

relationship between the degree of sufficiency, and customer satisfaction with a quality

5
attribute, can be classified into five categories of perceived quality: ‘attractive quality’, ‘one-

dimensional quality’, ‘must-be quality’, ‘indifferent quality’ and ‘reverse quality’. According

to Kano et al., (1984) their ideas are similar to quality theories suggested by Mizuno and

Ishikawa, but in addition to theory, Kano and his co-workers also provide us with a

methodology for use.

- Insert Figure 1 about here -

Attractive quality attributes can be described as surprise and delight attributes, and

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 e.g., a thermometer on

a package of milk showing the temperature of the milk. Since this type of quality attributes

often unexpectedly delight customers, they are just as often unspoken. An example of this is

the late Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s 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, Yamada, 1998) since it seems like this dimension has

been neglected by quality specialists who have tended to focus on how to eliminate things

gone wrong (Kano, 2001).

One-dimensional quality attributes result in satisfaction when fulfilled and result in

dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (Kano, et al., 1984). These attributes are spoken and are the

ones with which companies compete (Gustafsson, 1998). For example, a new milk package

which is said to contain 10% more milk for the same price is likely to result in customer

satisfaction, but if it actually only contains 6% more milk, it is likely that the customer feels

misled which results in dissatisfaction.

Must-be quality attributes are taken for granted when fulfilled but result in

dissatisfaction when not fulfilled (Kano, et al., 1984). In our example with the package of

milk these attributes can be represented by leakage. Customers are dissatisfied when the

6
package leaks, but when it does not leak the result is not increased customer satisfaction.

Since the customer expects these attributes and views them as basic, it is not likely 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).

There are two more quality dimensions; indifferent quality attributes and reverse quality

attributes (Kano, et al., 1984). The first one refers to aspects which are neither good nor bad

and consequently they do not result in either customer satisfaction or customer dissatisfaction.

The latter 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, i.e., over

time an attribute will change from being attractive, to one-dimensional, to must-be, to

indifferent. Kano et al., (2001) provide empirical evidence for the dynamics of the remote

control for a television that has followed a life cycle such as the following: Indifferent

qualityÆAttractive qualityÆOne-dimensional qualityÆMust-Be quality. By investigating

customer perceptions of remote controls through Kano 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 in 1998 the remote control had turned into a must-be item.

THE ROLE OF PACKAGING IN THE PERCEPTION OF QUALITY

Packaging has traditionally been seen as an important part of the physical product in the

sense that it stores and protects its content. The change of customer expectations, however, as

customers become more demanding, means that the role of packaging becomes more

important as it can be used to provide different service dimensions (e.g., information and

7
functions). Customers do not buy goods or services. They buy the benefits that goods and

services provide, i.e., customers search for solutions that serve their own value-generating

process (Grönroos, 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 increase the perceived quality and customer value.

The package often is important to the customer’s first impression of a brand, its quality,

or 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” who markets the product, attracts the customer, and

hold the attention against the visual clamour of competitive products (Ibid.). Already in 1950,

Professor Brown at the University of Chicago investigated the role of packaging appearance

at the point of purchase. In his studies of scouring cleanser, a brand that tried to exceed

customer expectations in packaging appearance did not get payoff in increased customer

satisfaction. At that point in time, it seemed that packaging appearance was considered 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 communicate a new

message, i.e., 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 very long if the

package is not user-friendly and functional once the consumer has brought it home. The

package must be easy to use, the information on it must be relevant so that the consumer does

not misuse the product, it has to fit into storage spaces, and if the product should be dosed the

package has to facilitate this etc.

8
 In summary, we can say that consumers may evaluate a product’s or offering’s quality

when they purchase it (buying a beverage) or when they consume it (drinking a beverage)

(Zeithaml, 1988). This means that the perception of quality is created both at point of

purchase and during usage. The consequence is that the quality attributes of packages need to

be designed for displaying quality both when on the shelf in a store, and during usage in the

home of the customer.

THE EMPIRICAL STUDY

In this section the empirical investigation of how customers perceive packaging in the

everyday commodity business is described. This includes our sample, the items used in the

questionnaire, and how we have operationalized The Theory of Attractive Quality.

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

Data collection was conducted through a questionnaire that was mailed to randomly

chosen Swedes aged 16-79 asking them about their experiences of packaging in everyday

commodities. There were a total of 1500 questionnaires sent, with 708 returned, representing

an overall return of 47 percent. Of these 708 persons, 250 answered after receiving a reminder

letter that was sent out two weeks after the questionnaire. Those persons’ answers were at the

first stage kept apart from the others’, since persons who respond later are assumed to be

similar to nonrespondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). No significant differences were,

however, found between how the two groups had answered the questionnaire. 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 1.5 USD, which can

have affected the response rate. A notable observation is that as many as 10 percent of the

respondents indicated that they have some kind of disability in their hands that affect their

ability to handle and use packages. An in-depth investigation of the differences in customer

9
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

Customer interviews are useful for discovering customers’ spoken wants and needs.

Matzler et al., (1996) refers to these as visible product requirements and customer problems.

When investigating unspoken product requirements, customer interviews obviously are not

sufficient. As mentioned previously in this paper, attractive requirements are often unspoken

since they are unexpected and must-be requirements, as well because they are regarded as

product design fundamentals by customers. For this reason we believe that the Kano

methodology is superior to customer interviews when investigating unspoken quality

attributes.

To get “out of the box” and not get caught in traditional views of packages, we 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; an

ergonomic, a technical, and a communicative entity (Wikström, 2002). The first of these

include everything that has to do with adaptations to the human physique and behaviour when

using the product (e.g., if a package is user-friendly). Technical entity means the product’s

technical function, construction, and production (e.g., if a package is manufactured in a

recyclable material). The product’s ability to communicate with humans (i.e., to transmit a

message and the product’s adaptation to the human perception and intellect) belongs to the

communicative entity (Ibid.). Examples of quality attributes in this entity are attributes that

involve the package’s ability to communicate with humans through text and symbols.

We believe that this division into three entities provided us with a more nuanced view

of customer experienced quality with packages. In total, 24 customer requirements (7

10
technical, 9 ergonomic, and 8 communicative) were identified, used, and operationalized in

the empirical investigation.

ITEMS AND QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire was divided into three parts: background questions (gender, age,

education etc.), Kano pair questions, and a section where the importance of different quality

attributes were rated. In addition to the questionnaire, a letter of introduction that explained

the purpose of the survey was included.

The Kano questionnaire contains pairs of customer requirement questions (Berger, et

al., 1993, Kano, et al., 1984). Each question has two parts: How do you feel if that feature is

present in the product (functional form of the question) and how do you feel if that feature is

not present in the product (dysfunctional form of the question) (Berger, et al., 1993). To each

part of the question, the customer can answer choosing one of five alternatives exemplified in

Figure 2 below. 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) (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 choice of wording was made after discussions with colleagues who

have great experience working with questionnaires and after a pretest with students. We found

that the wording used by Berger et al., (1993) was the most suitable for our investigation of

Swedish consumers. We believe, however, that the wording could be changed depending on

the respondents you are working with. We also believe that there are different language

nuances in Japanese, English, and Swedish that need to be taken into consideration both when

choosing the wording of the questionnaire, and when reading translations of questionnaires.

- Insert Figure 2 about here -

11
 The classification of attributes described previously in this section, is made based on the

pair questions. Each quality attribute can be classified into one of the six categories shown

below in Figure 3.

- Insert Figure 3 about here -

The category “questionable” contains skeptical answers and it is debatable whether or

not the respondent has understood the question (Kano, et al., 1984). It has been suggested by

Berger et al., (1993) that cells 2-2 and 4-4 in the Kano Evaluation Table should be changed

from “I” to “Q” since they believe that, for example, 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)1. A sensitivity analysis including both the changes suggested by Berger et al., (1993)

and those suggested by Lee and Newcomb (1997) was performed to investigate the effect of

using different classification schemes.

In the last section of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to rate how they

perceived the importance of the different quality attributes (importance from 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 to 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 have to be included in order to

delight customers.

The questionnaire was tested prior to the investigation, first on colleagues, and then on a

student group in business administration at Karlstad University in Sweden. In addition to this

we paid close attention to experiences gathered in previous research using Kano

1
The first figure represents the functional form and the second represents the dysfunctional form.

12
questionnaires, such as Kano et al., (1984), and Berger et al., (1993). Judging by the returned

questionnaires, we believe that comprehension difficulties in this study have been limited by

the thorough research work preceding the administering of the questionnaire.

ANALYSIS

The first part of the analysis was concerned with classification of the 24 quality

attributes according to The Theory of Attractive Quality. Each quality attribute was classified

according to the classification scheme into either attractive, one-dimensional, must-be,

indifferent, reverse, or questionable. Lee and Newcomb (1997) introduced two measurements

to aid in the classification of quality attributes; category strength and total strength. The

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: You may be dealing with two market segments, or you 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 the

cases where a quality attribute has been classified as a combination, a definite classification

has not been possible.

A calculation of an average, without losing the quality dimension’s 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).

13
 A+O O+M
Better= Worse= -
A+O+M+I A+O+M+I

The positive better numbers indicate that customer satisfaction will be increased by

providing a quality attribute and the negative worse numbers indicate that customer

satisfaction is decreased 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 higher the influence

on customer satisfaction. A value of about 0 signifies that a certain quality attribute has a low

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 has been tested through a statistical test. A t-test

was conducted to compare the proportions of customers classifying a quality attribute to a

specific quality class. This test is possible since the conditions for approximation of the

multinomial distribution to the normal distribution are 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 if there might be different market segments. In the

analysis, a Kano variable containing the classification of quality attributes was used as a

dependent variable while the demographic variables, such as sex, age, and family were used

as independent variables. This analysis was intended to reveal if demographic differences

could help us 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 due to some disability in their hands. To our surprise this group

represented as much as 10 percent of our sample. We 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. An in-depth analysis of the perception of the ergonomic factors of these

individuals was performed.

14
 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 classification of 20 of the 24 quality attributes has been possible.

The classification of these attributes is statistically significant and except for the first quality

attribute (protection), the level of questionable is rather low.

A first review of the classification of quality attributes reveals that a majority of the

attributes were classified as one-dimensional. The results, however, also show that packages

have quality attributes that customers experience as must-be quality and attractive quality.

Only one attribute was regarded to be an indifferent quality and that is ‘nice looking print’.

None of the attributes investigated were seen as reverse quality. Altogether 4 of the quality

attributes could not be clearly classified into one group. Therefore these attributes were

classified as combinations. We performed a sensitivity test including both the changes

suggested by Berger et al., (1993) and those suggested by Lee and Newcomb (1997) but none

of them changed the overall classification of the quality attributes. The only actual difference

is that the classification of additional functions will be considered an attractive quality

attribute instead of a combination of attractive and indifferent.

- Insert Table 1 about here -

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 different entities of quality attributes, i.e.,

technical, ergonomic, and communicative. The graph shows that these three entities, on an

overall basis, have different roles in the perception of quality.

- Insert Figure 4 about here -

15
 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 important because these attributes can create a satisfaction advantage that

distinguishes 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 usage of the product. If the package of the product 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 towards

the must-be corner of the better-worse diagram. The quality attributes 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

(e.g., 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 demographic variables, such as gender and age, could partly explain why some

of the attributes could not be clearly classified. On the contrary, variables such as number of

kids and functional ability of individuals had no explanatory power. 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

16
females are strengthened by the fact that females consider these two attributes to be more

important (p < 0.05) than do males.

Kano (2001) presents a hypothesis that says that the categorization of quality attributes

follows a life cycle such as the following: Indifferent qualityÆAttractive qualityÆOne-

dimensional qualityÆMust-Be quality. There are four customer requirements that have been

classified as combinations in Table 1 (additional functions, easy to open, fit in storage spaces,

and aesthetically appealing). ‘Additional functions’ may be a customer requirement that is

moving from indifferent quality to attractive quality and ‘easy to open’ seems to change from

one-dimensional quality to must-be quality. Similar observations can be made regarding the

customer requirements ‘fit in storage spaces’ and ‘aesthetically appealing’. Since we have

only conducted one study at one point of time we can not say that we have found broad-based

support for this hypothesis. The results, however, indicate that it is likely that the life-cycle

hypothesis presented by Kano (2001) is valid and it provides us with an explanation as to why

these customer requirements could not be clearly classified into one quality dimension.

IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

If we look at the importance ranking in Table 1 and compare it with the evaluation rule

‘M > O > A > I’ of Matzler et al., (1996) we see that this evaluation rule well reflects the view

of the customers. The customers believe that the must-be quality attributes are more important

than the one-dimensional attributes which in turn 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, i.e.,

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’ had the highest

17
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. In the same way, it makes sense that the

other attributes that were classified as combinations (additional functions, fit in storage

spaces, and aesthetically appealing) had significantly lower scores since they are

combinations where either A and I or both were involved.

PACKAGING ERGONOMICS

As mentioned previously in this paper, the questionnaire included a variable to better

understand people that have problems with handling packages due to some disability in their

hands. This group represented as much as 10 percent of our sample. The most common

disabilities were reduced strength and ache in the hands. We 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.

- Insert Figure 5 about here -

A comparison between those who have stated that they have some form of disability in

their hands that affect their ability to handle packages, and the rest of the sample, shows

significant differences regarding ergonomic quality attributes. The disabled have higher

scores on their self-stated importance ranking of all ergonomic quality attributes. This

difference is significant for all the attributes in this category with the exception of ‘fit in

storage spaces’ and ‘contain just the right quantity’.

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 packages both to increase customer satisfaction and to avoid customer

18
dissatisfaction, especially since so many people are experiencing problems when handling

packages. The importance of packaging ergonomics has also been stressed in forecasts of

packaging demand trends (Olsmats, 2002). In addition to this, there is a demographic change

leaning towards an older population. Half of Europe’s 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 do not only cater to the young and the healthy but also

the elderly. One example of using this perspective in the development of new products is

provided by the automotive company Ford. 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). In respect to the development of the Ford Focus, representatives of the company 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 etc. on the instrument panel…and the Ford Focus

has been a huge sales success in Europe (Myerson, 2003).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR QUALITY PRACTICE

When we are pushing our shopping carts down the aisle of a supermarket, packaging is

often important to our first impression of a brand, its quality, or value. Even in the store

consumers’ perception of quality begins. The perception of quality is also affected by a

package’s user-friendliness and functionality once the consumer has brought it home for use.

We can therefore conclude that consumers may evaluate a product’s or offering’s quality

when it is purchased or when it is consumed and experienced.

In this paper we have classified quality attributes of packages in everyday commodities

according to Kano’s Theory of Attractive Quality (Kano, et al., 1984). The starting point for

our 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. We can

19
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 important because these attributes can create a satisfaction

advantage that distinguishes 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 attributes that the customer can compare between different brands and that are

important during usage of the product. If the package of the product is not easy to use or

functional, the customer will consider buying a different brand next time. The communicative

entity differs from the other two entities in terms of the classification of quality attributes. To

the whole population, the communicative entity contributes little in creating customer

satisfaction. On the contrary, these attributes are important to eliminating dissatisfaction. It

should be mentioned though 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 e.g. Berger, et al., 1993, Kano, 2001, Kano, et

al., 1984, Lee and Newcomb, 1997, Matzler, et al., 1996, Tan, 2000, Watson, 2003) we

believe that several benefits are obtained from using the Kano methodology. First of all the

analysis shows that quality not can be seen simply as a one-dimensional construct. Having

insight into which quality attributes fall into which quality dimensions, provides 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 the one-dimensional

quality attributes, it does not matter how much effort they put into the innovation of exciting

products and features (Watson, 2003). They will still have a problem with customer

dissatisfaction. Researchers have, however, also emphasized the importance of attractive

quality creation (Kano, 2001, Yamada, 1998) since it seems like this dimension has been

20
neglected by quality specialists who have tended to focus on how to eliminate quality

problems (Kano, 2001). According to Kano et al., (1984) emphasis is often placed on “must-

be quality” only due to the misunderstanding that users’ satisfaction can be gained by simply

reducing defects and complaints. In addition, reduction of defects and complaints, and

improvement in safety and reliability, are omitted based on the misunderstanding that users’

satisfaction can be gained as long there are additional functions and new designs. To be able

to retain and expand their customer base, an organization needs to implement new attractive

product attributes that correspond to customer needs. However, the organization 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 different 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 we move from pure goods to

pure services. Since manufacturers of packages are starting to include 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 according

to the following: Indifferent qualityÆAttractive qualityÆOne-dimensional qualityÆMust-Be

quality. One example is milk packages with thermometers. 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

suggestion of dynamic attributes. For instance, ‘aesthetically appealing’ is one that moves

from being indifferent towards becoming an attractive quality attribute. Another example is

21
the addition of functions through packages 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 larger proportion of the customers are starting to appreciate the more service-

like attributes of packages.

Finally we can conclude that the change of customer expectations, as customers become

more demanding, means that the role of packaging becomes more important as it can be used

to provide information and list functions. The result of this paper also supports the current

consumer and industry trends that suggest an increasingly important role for packaging as a

strategic tool as well as a marketing vehicle.

22
 REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. S., and Overton, T., S. 1977. "Estimating Nonresponses in Mail Surveys."

Journal Of Marketing Research 14, no. August: 396-402.

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." 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.

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.

Grönroos, C. 2000. Service Management and Marketing - a Customer Relationship

Management Approach. Second ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Gustafsson, A. 1998. Qfd - Vägen Till Nöjdare Kunder I Teori Och Praktik. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Harckham, A. 1989. "The Changing U.S. Consumer." In Packaging Strategy, edited by

Arthur Harckham, W. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Company. Reprint.

Herzberg, F., Bernard, M., and Snyderman, B. B. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York:

Wiley.

Ishikawa, K., and Lu, D. J. 1985. What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

23
Johnson, M., D., and Nilsson, L. 2003. "The Impact of Reliability and Customization on

Customer Satisfaction for Goods Versus Services." Quality Management Journal 10,

no. 1.

Judd, D., Aalders, B., and Melis, T. 1989. The Silent Salesman - Primer on Design,

Production and Marketing of Finished Package Goods. Singapore: Continental press.

Juran, J. M., and Gryna, F. M. 1988. Juran's Quality Control Handbook. Fourth ed. 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 Organisational

Development, Linköpings Universitet, Sweden

Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsjui, S. 1984. "Attractive Quality and Must-Be

Quality." Hinshitsu 14, no. 2: 147-56.

Kopalle, P., K., and Lehmann, D., R. 1995. "The Effects of Advertised and Observed Quality

on Expectations About New Product Quality." Journal Of Marketing Research 32, no.

August: 280-90.

Lee, M., C., and Newcomb, J., F. 1997. "Applying the Kano Methodology to Meet Customer

Requirements: Nasa's Microgravity Science Program." Quality Management Journal

4, no. 3: 95-110.

Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H., H., Bailom, F., and Sauerwein, E. 1996. "How to Delight Your

Customers." Journal of Product & Brand Management 5, no. 2: 6-18.

Myerson, J. 2003. "Inclusive Packaging Design - Innovating for People." Paper presented at

the FaraPack Briefing, Leeds

Olsmats, C. 2002. "The Business Mission of Packaging - Packaging as a Strategic Tool for

Business Development Towards the Future." Åbo University.

24
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. 1985. "A Conceptual Model of Service

Quality and Its Implications for Future Research." Journal of Marketing 49, no. Fall:

41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. 1988. "Servqual: A Multiple-Item Scale

for Measuring Consumer Perception of Service Quality." Journal of Retailing 64, no.

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 Kano's Model in the Planning Matrix of Quality Function

Deployment." Total Quality Mangement 11, no. 8.

Underwood, R., L., and Klein, N., M. 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., Klein, N., M., and Burke, R., R. 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, edited by Kenneth Stephens, S:. Milwaukee: ASQ

Quality Press. Reprint.

Wikström, L. 2002. "Produktens Budskap - Metoder För Värdering Av Produkters

Semantiska Funktioner Ur Ett Användarperspektiv." Chalmers tekniska högskola.

Yamada, S. 1998. "Idea Generation in Attractive Quality Creation."

Zeithaml, V., A. 1988. "Consumer Peceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End

Model and Sythesis of Evidence." Journal of Marketing 52, no. July: 2-22.

25
 TABLES AND FIGURES

Customer Satisfaction

Very Satisfied

Attractive

One-Dimensional

Indifferent

Not At Fully Degree of

All Achievement
Must-Be

Reverse

Very Dissatisfied

Figure 1: An overview of The Theory of Attractive Quality.

26
 If a package is manufactured 1. I like it that way.
in a recyclable material, how 2. It must be that way.
3. I am neutral.
do you feel?
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.

If a package is manufactured 1. I like it that way.

in a non-recyclable material, 2. It must be that way.
how do you feel? 3. I am neutral.
4. I can live with it that way.
5. I dislike it that way.

Figure 2: A Pair of Customer Requirement Questions in a Kano Questionnaire.

27
Quality Attribute
Dysfunctional

1. like 2. must-be 3. neutral 4. live with 5. dislike

1. like Q A A A O
2. must-be R I I I M
Functional 3. neutral R I I I M
4. live with R I I I M
5. dislike R R R R Q

Figure 3: Kano Evaluation Table (Adapted from Berger et al., 1993).

28
 1
Attractive One-Dimensional

0,9

0,8

Ergonomic
Technical
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

Technical Attributes
Ergonomic Attributes
Communicative Attributes

Figure 4: An overview of the quality attributes in a Better-Worse diagram.

29
 Importance

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Easy to grip and hold

User-friendly

Easy to open

Facilitates the sorting out of

household waste

Easy to empty completely

Easy to dose

Fit in storgae spaces

ns

Contain just the right quantity

ns

Easy to dispose
Rest
Disabled

between people with functional disabilities in their hands and the rest of the population.

30
Figure 5: A comparison of the degree of importance of ergonomic quality attributes
View publication stats

Table 1: An Overview of the quality attributes of packaging.

Quality attribute Classification Classification Agreement CS TS Q* t-test Better Worse Stated Importance

Protection Must-be 49,0 25,1 80,8 4,8 p < 0.01 0,33 -0,77 9,47
Technical Entity

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 I (44,8%) 1,2 50,9 0,8 n.s. 0,52 -0,05 5,01
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

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
Ergonomic Entity

Easy to open Combination O (43,5%) and M (42,1%) 1,4 94,5 0,7 n.s. 0,53 -0,86 8,99
Facilitates the sorting out of household One-dimensional 37,1 12,9 79,1 0,7 p < 0.01 0,55 -0,62 7,69
waste
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 O (39,1%) 0,0 86,5 1,4 n.s. 0,79 -0,48 7,02
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 waste One-dimensional 56,9 34,7 92,5 0,6 p < 0.01 0,79 -0,71 7,89

Declaration of contents Must-be 57,5 29,1 91,8 0,6 p < 0.01 0,35 -0,86 9,20
Communicative Entity

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 A (40,5%) 1,6 55,9 1,4 n.s. 0,54 -0,16 5,80

Communicates product family category One-dimensional 28,2 4,8 74,3 1,4 p < 0.01 0,53 -0,52 7,22
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

31