Product Feature Mix Based on the Kano Model
Prioritizing features objectively based on how important a feature is to customers and the level of satisfaction it would create.
When considering new product features to offer, the strategic decision-making process on what feature to offer, why to offer it, and when to offer it is often subjective. The Kano Model is an analysis tool that makes this process more objective by quantifying how important a feature is to customers (when it is offered or not), and the level of satisfaction it would create (based on how competitive it is, compared to other options in the market or compared to work-arounds). The output of the Kano Model answers the why and when (in terms of prioritization) by classifying features into five categories—with the first three as key categories of interest:
- Table stakes features
- Performance features
- Delighter features
- Indifferent
- Reverse
Let’s see what this looks like by using cell phones (and more specifically, the iPhone) as an example.
Note: The Kano Model does not answer the question of what features to consider. Identifying those often come from brainstorming sessions (i.e., design sprints), analytics, and voice of the customer (or VoC).
Getting in the Game in Order to Compete
When Apple entered the cell phone market with its first generation iPhone in 2007, the iPhone needed to be able to make and receive calls and text (as table stakes features). If the iPhone didn’t have those features, it ceases to be a cell phone; no rational customer would have bought that first generation iPhone. Essentially, “table stakes features” is the entrance fee to play the game.
Competing Based on Performance
When you think about all the cell phones offered by OEMs (i.e., Apple, Samsung, Motorola), they all need battery in order to power the device. If your cell phone didn’t have a source of power (the battery), you wouldn’t be able to use the device as intended, and you would therefore be dissatisfied. Some might think that the battery is a table stakes feature. However, the existence of battery alone is not enough. If the device battery life only lasts for 2 hours, you would be dissatisfied and not take the device. Conversely, if the battery life lasts for 12 hours, you’d that that instead. Likewise, if the battery life lasts for 16 hours (at no extra cost to you), you would be even more satisfied with this performance feature and take that instead.
Bottom-line: Assuming all else is equal, you’d take more performance over less performance. Therefore, performance features are almost always expressed in quantitative terms and included in the competitive positioning of the product.
Competing Based on Differentiation
Competing based on performance is not always advisable. Suppose you bought a five-seater car and it came with five seatbelts, you would be satisfied because your basic seatbelt needs were met. However, let’s suppose you bought that same car and it came with more seatbelts (let’s say 100 seatbelts) because the manufacturer was trying to satisfy you in performance terms. I don’t know about you… but, I would be extremely unhappy with 100 seatbelts in my car.
When competing based on table stakes and performance features is not appropriate or enough, another option is to compete based on differentiation.
What made the first generation iPhone different from all other phones? It was an iPod (along with the benefits of iTunes ecosystem), a phone, and a legit mini-computer all-in-one (but without the expected clunky experience of using a mouse, keyboard, and 13" monitor). This was a delighter… something unique and unexpected… a “surprise & delight”. Looking back at history, this wildly successful cash cow from Apple was so successful that it became the gold standard for competitors to copy.
And this leads me to an important point about delighters. Delighters don’t stay as delighters. Fast-forward to today, what made the iPhone unique and differentiated in 2007 is now today’s table stakes features. If a new cell phone entrant is not a smartphone (but rather just a phone that can only make and receive calls and text), it ceases to be a competitive cell phone.
The Game Plan For Feature Prioritization
Now that we have candidate features classified as either table stakes, performance, or delighter, how do we prioritize them on the roadmap? By definition, we should always prioritize table stakes features over all other features since the lack of one or more table stakes features will cause customer dissatisfaction.
But playing in the game is not enough. As former head coach of the New York Jets eloquently said, “You play to win the game! Hello?? You play to win the game! You don’t play to just play it.”
In the process of competing, some may not have the discipline to hold off prioritizing delighters over performance features. After all, an all-in-one smartphone (delighter) is a lot sexier than a 16-hour battery life (performance feature). But remember… the lack of delighter will not cause dissatisfaction. But, a sub-par performance feature (or lack thereof) will cause dissatisfaction.
If you have unlimited resources and you can afford to pursue all your features, amazing! For many, the realities of scarcity sets in, and this is where the Kano Model shines. With the Kano Model, we have an objective view on which ideas to say “no” to—which is what product strategy is all about! There are a ton of great ideas out there. Which great ideas do you say no to?
Note: In the end, your ability to play in the game and complete is highly dependent on whether your product team is a high-performance product team. If your team only has the capacity and ability to execute on table stakes features (even if the features are best-in-class), your product is not going to be competitive and it will fail. Conversely, if your the team has the capacity and ability to execute on table stakes and performance features (and build them as best-in-class), the product will (of course) be in a better position to be competitive. Taking one step further… if your team can execute on a mix of table stakes, performance, and delighter features (and implement them very well), your product will not only be competitive, but also be differentiated (and positioned to win).
Final Thoughts: An Objective Tool Because of an Objective Process
The Kano Model is an objective tool because the process of classifying a feature as table stakes, performance, or delighter objectively comes from research. If the product manager and other stakeholders are just using intuition to classify candidate features, then the value of the Kano Model is lost because the process is again subjective. Again… which great idea do you say no to?