Managing Service Quality: An International Journal

Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD for service excellence development
Kay C. Tan Theresia A. Pawitra
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kay C. Tan Theresia A. Pawitra, (2001),"Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD for service excellence
development", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Iss 6 pp. 418 - 430
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006520
Downloaded on: 12 May 2015, At: 18:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8724 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Birdogan Baki, Cigdem Sahin Basfirinci, Ilker Murat AR, Zuhal Cilingir, (2009),"An application of integrating SERVQUAL and
Kano's model into QFD for logistics services: A case study from Turkey", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol.
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

21 Iss 1 pp. 106-126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555850910926272

X.X. Shen, K.C. Tan, M. Xie, (2000),"An integrated approach to innovative product development using Kano’s model and
QFD", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 91-99 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060010298435
Francis Buttle, (1996),"SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 1 pp.
8-32 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569610105762

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 507905 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Introduction
Research and concepts
The SERVQUAL model is used widely to
Integrating SERVQUAL measure service quality. Its original service
and Kano's model into dimensions were determined by Parasuraman
et al. (1985), with subsequent refinements and
QFD for service industry-specific adaptations. Zeithaml et al.
excellence (1983) augmented SERVQUAL to further
differentiate between service quality and
development customer satisfaction. This was in response to
the public use of these two terms as
Kay C. Tan and interchangeable. The fact is, customers assess
Theresia A. Pawitra service quality by comparing the service level
that they receive, against both the service level
that they would have preferred (or desired),
and the service level that they are willing to
The authors accept (adequate). Customer satisfaction, on
the other hand, is assessed from a comparison
Kay, C. Tan is Associate Director of the Office of Quality
of what services were expected (predicted)
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

Management, National University of Singapore,

versus what customers perceive that they have
Singapore.
actually received. Bolton and Drew (1991)
Theresia A. Pawitra is a Lecturer at the Department of
further reasoned that, in a dynamic framework,
Industrial Engineering, University of Surabaya, Surabaya,
customer satisfaction with a specific service
Indonesia.
encounter depends on pre-existing or
contemporaneous attitudes about service
Keywords
quality. They also showed how customer post-
Customer satisfaction, Service quality, Tourism attitudes depend on customer satisfaction.
The above conciseness in defining customer
Abstract service and the user-friendly format of
SERVQUAL have helped made it into an
With increasing market competition, it is not sufficient for
industry standard (Llosa et al., 1998).
organizations to rely solely on continuous improvement in
However, for service excellence development,
order to maintain and develop their competitive edge.
There is a need to begin a strategic move towards
three areas for further improving
innovation. This paper proposes an integrated approach
SERVQUAL can be identified. First,
involving SERVQUAL, Kano's model, and quality function
SERVQUAL assumes a linear relationship
deployment. The approach aims to help organizations to
between customer satisfaction and service
evaluate customer satisfaction, to guide improvement attribute performance. The implication is that
efforts in strengthening their weak attributes, and to low customer satisfaction results from low
expedite the development of innovative services through attribute performance, and that this should be
the identification of attractive attributes and embedding the focus for improvement. This deduction
them into future services. A case study is presented to was gathered from publications of
evaluate the image of Singapore from the Indonesian SERVQUAL applications. The norm has
tourists' perspective. Several strong and weak attributes been for organizations to focus on low
of Singapore tourism were identified and analyzed. customer satisfaction and low attribute
Strategies to improve the weak attributes were identified. performance. This assumption is not
necessarily correct, however. Paying more
attention to a particular service attribute
Electronic access
(e.g. customer assurance) may not always lead
The research register for this journal is available at to higher customer satisfaction if there is
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers satiation or if that attribute is taken for
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is granted. Complimentarily, customer
available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft satisfaction can sometimes be greatly
improved with only a small improvement of a
service attribute that is unexpected or
Managing Service Quality
Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . pp. 418±430 delightful. For example, customers may take
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0960-4529 courteous sales personnel as a given service
418
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

attribute when shopping at departmental (1) Tangibles ± physical facilities, equipment,

stores. But high empathy in this context may and the appearance of personnel.
not lead to high customer satisfaction. On the (2) Reliability ± ability to perform the
other hand, an extra 15 ml of perfume, as a promised service accurately and
bonus in the purchase of cosmetics, may lead dependably.
to high customer satisfaction. SERVQUAL's (3) Responsiveness ± willingness to help
use of a linear scale in its assignment of customers and to provide prompt service.
prioritization for improving service attributes (4) Assurance ± knowledge and courtesy of
may, therefore, not be appropriate in certain employees and their ability to convey
cases. trust and confidence.
A second area for improvement concerns (5) Empathy ± caring and individualized
SERVQUAL as a continuous improvement attention to customers.
and innovation tool. SERVQUAL as defined
SERVQUAL defines customers' evaluation of
by Parasuraman et al. (1988), is a concise
quality as a function of the gap (difference)
multiple-item scale with good reliability and
between expected service and perceived
validity that can be used to better understand
service. Parasuraman et al. (1988) identified
the service expectations and perceptions of
the following five gaps that can result in
consumers. Its use in service development is,
unsuccessful service delivery:
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

essentially, as a continuous improvement tool.

(1) Gap between customer expectation and
However, with increasing market pressure,
management perception. This may result
continuous improvement may not be
from a lack of understanding of what
sufficient in maintaining a competitive edge.
customers expect from a particular
Many organizations are strategically moving
service.
towards innovation in order to achieve
(2) Gap between management's perception and
increase competitiveness (McAdam et al.,
service quality specifications. This gap
2000). Shen et al. (2000) affirmed this new
results when there is a discrepancy
paradigm in stating that customer needs and
between what management perceives to
expectations have to be met and exceeded
be the customers' expectations and the
through product innovation. SERVQUAL
actual established service quality
was not designed to address the element of
specifications.
innovation.
(3) Gap between service quality specifications
Third, SERVQUAL provides important
and service delivery. Even when guidelines
information on the gaps between predicted
or specifications exist for performing
service and perceived service. However, it is
excellent service, its delivery may not be
not able to address how the gaps can be
up to standard due to poor employee
closed. It would be good if SERVQUAL can
performance, resulting in this gap.
be integrated with other service quality tools
(4) Gap between service delivery and external
that are more focused on reducing the service
communication. Customer expectations
gaps.
are established by promises made by a
This paper aims to develop an integrated
service provider's promotional messages.
approach that can resolve the above three
This gap measures the consistency
issues. The suggested approach is to integrate
between the quality image portrayed in
SERVQUAL and the Kano model into
promotional activities and the actual
quality function deployment (QFD) in order
quality services offered.
to further service excellence. The following
(5) Gap between perceived service and delivered
sections briefly review these three methods.
service. This gap results when one or more
of the previous gaps occur.

SERVQUAL In 1993, Zeithaml et al. addressed what they

viewed as a lack of consensus among
SERVQUAL is used as a diagnostic researchers on the enlarged definition base of
technique for uncovering broad areas of an customer service. They expanded
organization's service quality strengths and SERVQUAL to include the relationships
weaknesses. The model by Parasuraman et al. among customer service expectation, service
(1988) consists of the following five level antecedents, perceived service, service
dimensions: quality, customer satisfaction, and other
419
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

intervening factors. Their research made a service refers to the minimum level of service
major contribution to the study of service that customers are willing to accept.
marketing (Dion et al., 1998). Figure 1 The most important part of Zeithaml et al.'s
depicts their latest refinements to (1993) model is that they further
SERVQUAL where customer service was differentiated service quality from customer
divided into the following four main sections: satisfaction. While service quality is a function
(1) the expected service component; of the perceived service gaps, customer
(2) the antecedents of desired service; satisfaction results from comparing predicted
(3) the antecedents of adequate service; and service to perceived service. Predicted service
(4) the antecedents of both the predicted and is the level of service that customers believe
the desired services. they are likely to get, while perceived service is
how they feel after receiving the service. The
Zeithaml et al. defined two additional gaps in
present research differentiated service quality
service quality. One is the perceived service
from customer satisfaction.
superiority gap which arises from a difference From the widespread applications
between desired service and perceived service. published, the benefits of SERVQUAL can be
Desired service is that which customers want summarized as follows:
or desire before encountering a service. . It is good at eliciting the views of
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

Perceived service is the customers' perception customers regarding service encounters,

of the service level received. The other gap is e.g. customer relative importance,
the perceived service adequacy gap which expectations, and satisfaction.
arises from a difference between perceived . It is able to alert management to consider
service and adequate service. Perceived the perception of both management and
service was previously defined. Adequate customers.

Figure 1 Nature and determinants of customer service expectation

420
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

. Addressing the service gaps can serve as a This research focused on how to improve
basis for formulating strategies and tactics service quality and at the same time provide
in order to ensure the fulfillment of input into an innovation process. Kano's
expectations. model is proposed to be integrated into
. SERVQUAL is able to identify specific SERVQUAL in order to eliminate the
areas of excellence and weaknesses. linearity assumption (discussed in the
. It is able to prioritize areas of service introduction section) and to also provide
weaknesses. innovative inputs. Kano's model categorizes
. It provides benchmarking analysis for the attributes of a product or service based on
organizations in the same industry. how well the attributes are able to satisfy
. SERVQUAL can trace the trend of customer needs (Kano et al., 1984). It is,
customer relative importance, expectation, therefore, able to help SERVQUAL to
and perception, if applied periodically. prioritize the improvement of an
organization's weaknesses based on the
Despite SERVQUAL's wide use by academics
category of need that can lead to the highest
and practitioners in various industries and in
customer satisfaction. Kano's model can,
different countries, a number of studies had
additionally, enable SERVQUAL to focus on
questioned its conceptual and operational
the attractive attributes that are most favored
bases. In particular, one criticism concerned
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

in the product/service innovation process.

the operationalization of the perceived quality
The following section describes how Kano's
concept. Babakus and Mangold (1989),
model categorizes the attributes of a product
Carman (1990), Finn and Lamb (1991), and
or service based on their ability to satisfy
Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that the
customer needs.
estimation of customer perception may already
include perception minus the expectation
mental process. In other words, respondents
may already have mentally compared their Kano's model
perceptions to their expectations when they are
Kano et al. (1984) developed a model to
asked to rate their perception of an
categorize the attributes of a product or
organization. The second criticism pertains to
service based on how well they are able to
SERVQUAL's dimensions. SERVQUAL
satisfy customer needs. The following are the
applications in different industries reveal that
popularly named Kano customer need
the five dimensions may not cover aspects of
categories (see also Figure 2):
customer service present in all service . The must-be or basic needs. For these
encounters. For example, Finn and Lamb
needs, customers become dissatisfied
(1991) discussed that the service emphases are
when performance of the product
different when evaluating ``product'' services
attribute is low. However, customer
(e.g. department store) than when evaluating
``pure'' services (e.g. bank). Figure 2 Kano's model
In addition to the above criticisms, Kuei
and Lu (1997) raised several issues pertaining
to the practical application of SERVQUAL:
. How can the five service gaps be
measured?
. Is it necessary to react to all service
quality indicators or to only those that are
below expectation?
. What opportunities exist for further
service quality improvement?
. How should potential service quality
improvement projects be evaluated?
. Which department is responsible for
service quality examination and
evaluation?
. Who is responsible for the various service
quality gaps?
421
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

satisfaction does not rise above neutral . It provides valuable guidance in the
even with a high performance of the following trade-off situation. If two
product attribute. For instance, having product attributes cannot be promoted
unfriendly sales assistants causes simultaneously due to technical or
customer dissatisfaction. Having friendly financial reasons, the attribute that has
sales assistants, however, does not raise greater influence on customer
the level of customer satisfaction. satisfaction, can be determined.
. The one-dimensional or performance needs. . The use of Kano's model can lead to
For these needs, customer satisfaction is a developing a wide range of product/
linear function of the performance of the service differentiation by examining the
product attribute. High attribute attractive attributes. The attractive
performance leads to high customer attributes are the key to beating the
satisfaction. For example, in consumer competition in the marketplace.
shopping, a discount is likely to be a
Despite the above benefits, Kano's model is
performance need where ± within limits ±
restricted by several limitations (Bharadwaj
larger discounts result in higher customer
and Menon, 1997). The first is that it
satisfaction.
classifies, but does not quantify either the
. The attractive or excitement needs. For these
numerical or the qualitative performance of
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

needs, customer satisfaction increases

the attributes. The second is that the model
super-linearly with increasing attribute
does not provide an explanation of what
performance. There is, however, not a
drives customers' perceptions, why the
corresponding decrease in customer
particular attributes are important to the
satisfaction with a decrease in attribute
customers, and what the customers'
performance. For instance, a cosmetics
behavioral intentions are.
customer may not be dissatisfied if there
Considering the functions of Kano's model,
is no free bonus, but may be more
integrating it into SERVQUAL can help the
satisfied if a bonus is provided.
latter to prioritize which service gaps to focus
Considering Kano's model, one sees how it efforts on. The entire service development
may not be enough to merely satisfy process can be further improved if periodic
customers by meeting only their basic and measurements can be systematically deployed
performance needs. In a highly competitive into pragmatic ways for improvement. This is
marketplace, organizations need to adopt where quality function deployment can be
strategies and to create product attributes useful.
targeted specifically at exciting customers and
over-satisfying them.
Shen et al. (2000) discussed another QFD
important implication of Kano's model
concerned with the timely delivery of QFD was developed in Japan, by Yoji Akao,
products and services. Kano's model posited in 1972. He called it hin shitsu kino ten kai.
that attributes that had once been attractive, Lockamy and Khurana (1995) provided the
over time, become one-dimensional. With following translation: hin shitsu means
further time, they are taken for granted and quality or feature or attribute, kino means
fall into the category of meeting only function or mechanization, and ten kai
customers' basic needs. Thus, the timely and means deployment, diffusion, development,
continual development and introduction of or evolution. QFD has been defined as a
products with innovative and novel attributes system for translating customer requirements
are important. into appropriate technical requirements at
Based on publications of Kano's model, every stage of a product's life cycle, from
Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) summarized product conception to sales to service (Akao,
its following benefits: 1990).
. Kano's model promotes understanding of In order to translate the voice of the
product/service requirements. The customer into the process of developing
attributes that have the greatest influence products and services, a matrix format is
on customer satisfaction can be used. The first matrix, called the House of
identified. Quality (HOQ), is a product-planning matrix
422
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

used to depict customer requirements, Bouchereau and Rowlands (1999) and

technical measures, target values, and Shen et al. (2000):
competitive analyses (Eureka and Ryan, . There can be ambiguity in the voice of the
1994). An HOQ is made up of several parts as customer.
discussed below. . There is the need to input and analyze
As Figure 3 shows, the left room of an large amounts of subjective data.
HOQ lists the customer needs or . The manual input of customer survey
requirements called the ``Whats''. ``Whats'' information into the HOQ is time
are phrases that customers use to describe consuming and difficult.
their needs. The needs are translated into . The HOQ can become large and complex.
corresponding ``Hows'' as shown in the upper . Setting target values in the HOQ is
room below the roof. The function of the imprecise.
``Hows'' is to translate the ``Whats'' into terms . Strengths between relationships are
that are measurable. After the "Whats" and sometimes ill-defined.
the ``Hows'' have been identified, the next
. QFD analysis often stops after the initial
step is to specify their relationships in the HOQ, and the links between the four
body or correlation matrix of the HOQ. The phases are not formed.
correlation matrix shows the extent to which
. QFD is only qualitative.
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

each ``How'' affects each ``What''.

. QFD assumes that the relationship
Other rooms of a basic HOQ include the between customer satisfaction and
roof which maps out the interdependencies product/attribute performance is linear.
between pairs of ``Hows''. The priorities As will be seen later, the incorporation of
assigned to the customer needs and the SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD is
competitive assessments are recorded in the able to overcome some of the above limitations.
two rooms on the right side of the house.
The scientific publications on QFD point to
its benefits as outlined in Table I (see ReVelle Integrating Kano's model into SERVQUAL
et al., 1998; Bouchereau and Rowlands,
1999). Despite the benefits, there are also the Kano's model categorizes product/service
following limitations as reported by attributes based on their relationships with

Figure 3 The house of quality

423
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

Table I Tangible and intangible benefits of QFD

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits
1 Significant reduction in start-up and engineering 1 Improves customer satisfaction
costs by 30 per cent
2 Elimination of most late engineering changes 2 Facilitates multidisciplinary teamwork
3 Early identification of high-risk areas 3 Provides a basis for improvement planning
4 Up-front determination of product process 4 Establishes and maintains documentation
requirements
5 Significant reduction in development time by up to 5 Creates a transferable storehouse of engineering
50 per cent knowledge
6 More efficient allocation of resources 6 Encourages transfer of training to other projects via
all team members
7 Applicable in both service and manufacturing 7 Strengthens good relationships between customers
industries and the company
Source: Reproduced from ReVelle et al. (1998)

customer needs, i.e. must-be, one- customer-need relationship. It might also

Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

dimensional, or attractive attributes. illuminate the pattern of predicted and

Referring to Figure 2, customers take must-be perceived service as well as the time-
attributes for granted when their needs are dependent relationship between attribute
fulfilled. However, they will likely become performance and customer satisfaction.
dissatisfied if the must-be attributes do not Figure 4 proposes a framework that
meet their basic needs. Unlike the must-be illustrates how Kano's model can be
attributes, the one-dimensional attributes will integrated into SERVQUAL. The first step
lead to customer satisfaction when fulfilled involves identification of the service
and customer dissatisfaction when not attributes. This information can be obtained
fulfilled. In contrast to these two categories, through interviewing customers and
the absence of attractive attributes does not understanding their complaints. Next is the
cause dissatisfaction because customers do gathering of customer satisfaction data. This
not expect them. However, good achievement is commonly achieved through surveys where
of these attributes delights customers. Kano's customers are asked to rate their prediction
model, therefore, deems that the relationship and perception of each service attribute.
between attribute performance and customer Additionally, customers are asked to assign
satisfaction is not solely linear. and prioritize the level of importance of each
Introducing the Kano categories into attribute. Customer satisfaction is then
SERVQUAL can counter the linearity calculated by multiplying the level of
problem. Furthermore, the prioritization for importance with the gap between predicted
improvement of the weak attributes can be service and perceived service. One result of
based on which Kano category each attribute using the SERVQUAL method is an
falls into. Logically, the weak attributes in the identification of the organizations' strong and
attractive category should receive attention weak attributes.
first. Weak attributes in the one-dimensional Concurrently with the SERVQUAL
and then the must-be categories should questionnaire, customers' opinions regarding
receive succeedingly lower priorities. the functional and dysfunctional aspects of
Kano's model can also help address the the attributes are assessed also. This
innovation issue against SERVQUAL. information is gathered via a Kano
Because attractive attributes are a source of questionnaire where the attributes are
customer delight, this is one area where categorized as must-be, one-dimensional,
efforts for improvement should be targeted. attractive, indifferent, questionable, or
The integrated approach would improve reverse. The first three categories have already
the utility of either method used separately. been defined and are primarily what
According to Bharadwaj and Menon (1997), organizations seek from the Kano analysis.
Kano's model does not evaluate attribute Indifferent is the situation where customers
performance. Integrating it with SERVQUAL are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied whether
will better characterize the product-attribute/ the attribute is dysfunctional or is fully
424
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

Figure 4 Framework to integrate Kano's model into SERVQUAL

Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

functional. Questionable is the situation SERVQUAL as discussed in the introduction

where there is a contradiction in the section (i.e. closing the service gaps) is
customer's answer to the Kano question. addressed. As explained, QFD serves as a
Finally, reverse is where an organization's a planning process for translating customer
priori judgment of functional or dysfunctional needs into appropriate organizational
is the reverse of what its customer feels. requirements. Hence, it can provide product/
The proposed integrated approach should service design guidance for improving the
result in a classification of the organizations' weak attributes determined through the use of
strengths and weaknesses into the various SERVQUAL and the Kano model.
Kano categories. The following guidelines are In linking SERVQUAL to QFD, Kuei and
offered for downstream service development Lu (1997) assigned the gap scores resulting
activities (see Figure 4): from SERVQUAL, to be the importance
. Utilize the strong attractive attributes as ratings in the HOQ. The rationale here is that
inputs into innovativeness. the larger the gap, the higher should be the
. Maintain performance of the strong priority for improvement. However, as
must-be and one-dimensional attributes. discussed previously, using only the
. Create customer fulfillment on as many numerical value of the gap as the importance
as possible of the weak must-be rating may not be sufficient for determining
attributes, or be at least equal to the best- the priority for improvement. The
in-class competitors. relationship between customer satisfaction
. Be competitive on the weak one- and attribute type (i.e. must-be, performance,
dimensional attributes. exciting) needs to be determined also. This is
. Avoid allocating resources to improving where Kano's model is useful to QFD.
the weak indifferent attributes as Figure 5 proposes a framework that
customer satisfaction is unlikely to illustrates how Kano's model and
improve here. SERVQUAL can be integrated into QFD for
a better understanding of customers' voices.
Integration of the Kano model involves first
Integration of Kano's model and determining the appropriate Kano category
SERVQUAL into QFD for each attribute. Then, multiplier values of
``4'', ``2'', and ``1'' are assigned to the
By integrating SERVQUAL into QFD, the attractive, one-dimensional, and must-be
third and last area of improvement for categories, respectively. The idea is to
425
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

Figure 5 Framework for the integration of Kano's model and SERVQUAL into QFD
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

magnify the importance of higher-return An illustrative case study

attributes in increasing overall customer
satisfaction. This case study involved the evaluation of
To achieve a high degree of customer Singapore's services and facilities as a holiday
satisfaction, an organization needs to know its destination. In keeping the illustration simple,
performance on satisfying each and every only seven key attributes gathered from a
customer need. For each need, a survey of 500 Indonesian tourists were
SERVQUAL predicted service score is fed considered. (The Singapore Tourism Board
into the HOQ as a target value. This value (2000) reported that Indonesian tourists
informs of when customer satisfaction has not accounted for 45 per cent of all tourists who
be fulfilled, or has been satiated or over- entered Singapore in 1998.) The survey
employed a SERVQUAL and a Kano
fulfilled. SERVQUAL interacts with Kano's
questionnaire. The former aimed to measure
model in that the over-fulfillment of customer
tourist satisfaction and to describe the image
needs due to high performance of the
of Singapore; the latter was used to classify
attractive attributes is desirable. The same
Singapore tourism's service attributes into the
cannot necessarily be said for the one-
various Kano categories.
dimensional attributes, and even less so for
A sample of Indonesian tourists was
the must-be attributes. Figure 6 shows the
selected between June and August 2000,
HOQ with the integrated approach.
during the time of the Great Singapore Sale
The benefits of the proposed integrated
(this is an annual national sales event). Target
approach include:
respondents were those tourists who had
. It provides a basis for improvement
visited Singapore for leisure and had stayed
planning.
on for at least three days.
. There is a prioritization of action plans as
After completing administration of the
per the customers' voices.
SERVQUAL questionnaire, the level of
. There is enhanced documentation,
importance scores, predicted service scores,
communication, and teamwork.
and perceived service scores, were identified.
The next section presents a case study to The service gaps and the tourist satisfaction
illustrate the integrated approach. scores were then calculated. Next, the strong
426
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

Figure 6 Structure of the house of quality with integrated approach

Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

and the weak attributes of Singapore as a its Kano category (see last column of
destination for Indonesian tourists were Table III).
identified. Table III presents the importance scores,
Concurrently with the SERVQUAL service and satisfaction scores, and the Kano
questionnaire, the functional and categories of the attributes. This information
dysfunctional forms of the service attributes indicates where resources should or should
were also assessed through a Kano not be targeted. Take Interesting
questionnaire. For instance, the functional international art exhibitions and
form of the attribute Convenient performances as an example. This attribute
accommodation would be ``How would you registered one of the largest negative tourist
feel if the accommodation is convenient?''. satisfaction scores (± 0.98). However,
The dysfunctional form of the attribute would developing more art exhibitions and
be ``How would you feel if the performances for Indonesian tourists would
accommodation is not convenient?''. For both probably not be a wise strategy because they
question forms, respondents chose from one are likely to be indifferent to this attribute.
of the following: ``I enjoy it that way'', ``I Efforts, however, should be directed at the
expect it that way'', ``I am neutral'', ``I dislike attractive and one-dimensional attributes with
it, but I can live with it that way'', or ``I dislike low satisfaction scores (i.e. ``Availability of
it, and I cannot accept it'' (Centre for Quality wide variety of products'', score is ± 0.62;
Management, 1993). ``Convenient accommodation'', score is ±
With the aid of Table II, the responses to 0.99). These ``category of need'' information
the functional and dysfunctional questions led would not be evident if only SERVQUAL was
to the classification of each response into one used. Similarly, if only the Kano model was
of the following Kano categories: must-be, used, there would be no indication of the
one-dimensional, attractive, indifferent, extent of the positive/negative service gaps.
questionable, or reverse. Inevitably, there Referring again to Table III, low predicted
would be some disagreement among subjects service scores do not necessarily imply
as to which attribute falls into which Kano unsatisfactory performance. The perceived
category. In resolving this, the arithmetic service scores need to be considered also in
mode of the Kano categories for each deciding whether performance is up to
attribute was determined. The arithmetic standard. Also important are the service gaps
mode for each attribute was chosen to define (perceived service score-predicted service
427
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

Table II The Kano evaluation table

Dysfunctional
Customer need Like Must-be Neutral Live with Dislike
Functional Like Q A A A O
Must-be R I I I M
Neutral R I I I M
Live with R I I I M
Dislike R R R R Q
Notes: A = attractive, O = one-dimensional, M = must-be, Q = questionable, R = reverse, I = indifferent

Table III Case study results of Indonesian tourist to Singapore

Perceived Predicted Tourist
Level of service service satisfaction Kano
Attribute importance score score score category
Uniqueness of local blend of multicultural
heritage 3.63 3.89 3.57 1.16 A
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

Modern local life style 3.45 3.95 3.71 0.82 I

Easiness to find world-class brand name
products and services 3.82 4.30 4.17 0.50 A
Plentiful nightlife 3.24 3.78 3.58 0.65 A
Interesting international art exhibitions
and performances 3.05 3.46 3.78 ± 0.98 I
Availability of wide variety of products 4.40 4.45 4.59 ± 0.62 A
Convenient accommodation 4.52 4.32 4.54 ± 0.99 O
Notes: A = attractive, O = one-dimensional, I = indifferent. Tourist satisfaction score = Level of importance 6
(Perceived service score ± Predicted service score)

score) which may be due to high perceived adjusted importance as a substitute for the
service scores or to low predicted service importance of the ``Whats'' (see Column 3 of
scores. Finally, the tourist satisfaction scores Figure 7). Take the example of ``Availability of
are a function of the level of importance wide variety of products''. In the traditional
scores multiplied by the service gaps. HOQ, its importance is 0.62, while it becomes
Figure 7 presents the HOQ with the Kano 2.48 (0.6264) after incorporation of the
and SERVQUAL elements incorporated. One Kano analysis. This customer need has now
attractive and one one-dimensional attribute assumed greater priority for improvement.
are featured: ``Convenient accommodation'' As a consequence of adjusting the
(±0.99), and ``Availability of wide variety of importance scores of the ``Whats'', the
products'' (± 0.62). Only negative scores are importance scores of the ``Hows'' are affected
considered and their absolute values are used. also. For example, as shown in Figure 7, the
The other attribute with a negative score following strategies for meeting tourist needs
(i.e. ``Interesting international art exhibitions are affected by the customer need of
and performances'', score of ± 0.98) was not ``Availability of wide variety of products'':
included in the ``Whats'' list because it . Column 9 ± Attract world-class players
belonged to the indifferent Kano category. (28.26).
The ``Hows'' of Figure 7 are Singapore . Column 16 ± Facilitate international
Tourism Board's (2000) strategic thrusts for companies to invest (22.32).
the twenty-first century.
In the traditional HOQ, the importance of
each ``How'' is influenced by the importance Practical benefits and implications of
of each ``What''. The introduction of the Kano the integrated approach
categories with multipliers ``4'', ``2'', or ``1''
change the importance scores for the effected The integrated approach creates value out of
``Hows''. The integrated approach uses the the data that cannot be attained through the
428
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

Figure 7 Case study example of house of quality with integrated approach

Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

use of either method alone. It is worthwhile, increased also, especially for construction
especially for practitioners, to note the of the HOQ (see Figure 7).
minimal amount of adaptation required of (2) In order to achieve the intended results,
either method. To begin with, SERVQUAL's sound knowledge of all three tools,
customer satisfaction data are enriched with especially QFD, is needed.
Kano categorization information which makes
it richer for analysis by the marketing and
product innovation departments. Also, there Recommendations for future research
can be better targeting of resources to, first
and foremost, the attractive attributes. In its present form, the integrated approach
Customer indifference to weak attributes is requires much manual work both for data
determined also. The result is a better input and output. It should be possible to
prioritization plan for improving product/ develop a computer program that will
service attribute performance. calculate the SERVQUAL scores, determine
Moving on to the integrating with QFD, the appropriate Kano categories, and have
information on customer satisfaction and them in a format ready for input into a HOQ.
service performance can be translated into Another recommendation for future
specific and detailed working instructions and research involves identification of the Kano
procedures. The importance scores of the category parameters (i.e. ``4'', ``2'', and ``1'').
customer needs receive an improved Presently, this is left to the QFD practitioner's
reprioritization. The entire approach to expert opinion. It may be worthwhile to
introducing and managing new services can propose a means for objectively determining
be made more focused (i.e. attention to these numerical values. Its purpose would be
attractive service attributes), all leading to a to reduce ambiguity for attributes that
comparatively higher likelihood of success. straddle between two categories.
With the expanded benefits, the following One final recommendation might be to
two issues require managing: consider incorporation of the customers'
(1) The data gathering process is lengthened future voices. Perhaps forecasting-based
(approximately 20 to 30 minutes) due to approaches or fuzzy trend analysis may be
the use of two questionnaires. Likewise, useful in addressing the time dimension
data analysis and interpretation has involved in the voice of the customer.
429
 Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into QFD Managing Service Quality
Kay, C. Tan and Theresia A. Pawitra Volume 11 . Number 6 . 2001 . 418±430

References Kano, N., Seraku, K., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984),

``Attractive quality and must-be quality'', Hinshitsu
Akao, Y. (1990), QFD: Integrating Customer Requirements (Quality, The Journal of the Japanese Society for
into Product Design, Productivity Press, Quality Control), Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 39-48.
Cambridge, MA. Kuei, C. and Lu, M.H. (1997), ``An integrated approach to
Babakus, E. and Mangold, W. (1989), ``Adapting the service quality improvement'', International Journal
SERVQUAL scale to health care environment: An of Quality Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-36.
empirical assessment'', in Bloom, P., Winer, P., Llosa, S., Chandon, J. and Orsinger, C. (1998), ``An
Kassarjian, H., Cammon, D., Weitz, B., Speckman, R., empirical study of SERVQUAL's dimensionality'', The
Mahajan, V. and Levy, M. (Eds), Enhancing Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 16-44.
Knowledge Development in Marketing, AMA, Lockamy, A. III and Khurana, A. (1995), ``QFD: Total
Chicago, IL. Quality Management for new product design'',
Bharadwaj, S. and Menon, A. (1997), ``Discussion in International Journal of Quality and Management,
applying the Kano methodology to meet customer
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 73-84.
requirements: NASA's micro gravity science
Matzler, K. and HInterhuber, H.H. (1998), ``How to make
program'', Quality Management Journal, Vol. 4
product development projects more successful by
No. 3, pp. 107-9.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), ``A multistage model integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction
of customers' assessments of service quality and into quality function deployment'', Technovation,
value'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
pp. 375-84. McAdam, R., Stevenson, P. and Armstrong, G. (2000),
Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H. (1999), ``Analytical ``Innovative change management in SMEs: beyond
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

approaches to QFD'', Manufacturing Engineering, continuous improvement'', Logistics Information

December, pp. 249-54. Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 138-49.
Carman, J. (1990), ``Consumer perceptions of service Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1985), ``A
quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL conceptual model of service quality and implications
dimensions'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, for future research'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,
pp. 33-55. pp. 41-50.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), ``Measuring service Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1988),
quality: a reexamination and extension'', Journal of ``SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring
Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 55-68. consumer perceptions of service quality'', Journal of
Centre for Quality Management (1993), ``A special issue
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
on Kano's methods for understanding customer-
ReVelle, J.B., Moran, J.W. and Cox, C.A. (1998), The QFD
defined quality'', The Center for Quality
Handbook, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 3-35.
Shen, X.X., Tan, K.C. and Xie, M. (2000), ``An integrated
Dion, P.A., Javalgi, R. and Dilorenzo-Aiss, J. (1998), ``An
approach to innovative product development using
empirical assessment of Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman service expectation model'', The Kano's model and QFD'', European Journal of
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 94, pp. 66-86. Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 91-9.
Eureka, W.E. and Ryan, N.E. (1994), The Customer-Driven Singapore Tourism Board (2000), Tourism 21: Visions of a
Company: Managerial Perspective on QFD, ASI Tourism Capital, Author, Singapore.
Press, Dearborn, MI. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., and Parasuraman, A. (1993),
Finn, D. and Lamb, C. (1991), ``An evaluation of the ``The nature and determinants of customer
SERVQUAL scales in a retailing setting'', Advances satisfaction of services'', Journal of the Academy of
in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 483-90. Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

430
 This article has been cited by:

1. Nirmalya Bandyopadhyay. 2015. Classification of service quality attributes using Kano’s model: a study in the context of the
Indian banking sector. International Journal of Bank Marketing 33:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Durdana Ozretic-Dosen, Ines Zizak. 2015. Measuring the quality of banking services targeting student population. EuroMed
Journal of Business 10:1, 98-117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Ching-Chan Cheng, Ming-Chun Tsai, Shu-Ping Lin. 2015. Developing strategies for improving the service quality of casual-
dining restaurants: New insights from integrating IPGA and QFD analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
26, 415-429. [CrossRef]
4. Muhammad Asif. 2015. A critical review of service excellence models: towards developing an integrated framework. Quality
& Quantity 49, 763-783. [CrossRef]
5. Tuure Tuunanen, Hena Govindji. 2015. Understanding flow experience from users’ requirements. Behaviour & Information
Technology 1-17. [CrossRef]
6. Reza Salehzadeh, Arash Shahin, Ali Kazemi, Ali Shaemi Barzoki. 2015. Proposing a new approach for evaluating the
situational leadership theory based on the Kano model. International Journal of Public Leadership 11:1, 4-20. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
7. Ling-Zhong Lin, Huery-Ren Yeh, Ming-Chao Wang. 2015. Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for Taiwanese Ban-
Doh banquet culture. Tourism Management 46, 245-262. [CrossRef]
8. Youngjung Geum, Eunji Noh, Yongtae Park. 2015. Generating new service ideas: the use of hybrid innovation tools to reflect
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

functional heterogeneity of services. R&D Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

9. Wisdom Wardy, Behannis Mena, Sinee Nongtaodum, Hong Kyoon No, Witoon Prinyawiwatkul. 2014. Exploring the Drivers
of Purchase Intent and Consumer Satisfaction of Chicken Eggs Using Principal Component Analysis and the Kano Model.
Journal of Sensory Studies 29:10.1111/joss.2014.29.issue-6, 463-473. [CrossRef]
10. Cigdem Basfirinci, Amitava Mitra. 2014. A cross cultural investigation of airlines service quality through integration of
Servqual and the Kano model. Journal of Air Transport Management . [CrossRef]
11. Tuure Tuunanen, I-Te Kuo. 2014. The effect of culture on requirements: a value-based view of prioritization. European
Journal of Information Systems . [CrossRef]
12. Ching-Chan Cheng, Ming-Chun Tsai, Chien-Lin Lin. 2014. Quality education service: put your feet in their shoes. Current
Issues in Tourism 1-16. [CrossRef]
13. Shwetank Avikal, Rajeev Jain, P.K. Mishra. 2014. A Kano model, AHP and M-TOPSIS method-based technique for
disassembly line balancing under fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing . [CrossRef]
14. Muhammad Asif, Henk J. de Vries. 2014. Creating ambidexterity through quality management. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence 1-16. [CrossRef]
15. Sang-Gun Lee, Chang-Gyu Yang, Sin-Bok Lee, Jae-Beom Lee. 2014. A study on the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction in web portal usage. Service Business . [CrossRef]
16. Wen-Chang Ko, Liang-Hsuan Chen. 2014. An approach of new product planning using quality function deployment and
fuzzy linear programming model. International Journal of Production Research 52, 1728-1743. [CrossRef]
17. Nachiappan Subramanian, Angappa Gunasekaran, Jie Yu, Jiang Cheng, Kun Ning. 2014. Customer satisfaction and
competitiveness in the Chinese E-retailing: Structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to identify the role of quality
factors. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 69-80. [CrossRef]
18. Mu-Chen Chen, Chia-Lin Hsu, Chih-Ming Hsu, Ying-Yi Lee. 2014. Ensuring the quality of e-shopping specialty foods
through efficient logistics service. Trends in Food Science & Technology 35, 69-82. [CrossRef]
19. Lars Witell, Martin Löfgren, Jens J. Dahlgaard. 2013. Theory of attractive quality and the Kano methodology – the past,
the present, and the future. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24, 1241-1252. [CrossRef]
20. Long-Sheng Chen, Pao-Chung Chang. 2013. Extracting knowledge of customers’ preferences in massively multiplayer online
role playing games. Neural Computing and Applications 23, 1787-1799. [CrossRef]
21. Wenming Zuo, Qiuping Huang, Chang Fan, Zhenpeng Zhang. 2013. Quality management of B2C e-commerce service based
on human factors engineering. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 12, 309-320. [CrossRef]
22. Damir Krešić, Josip Mikulić, Katarina Miličević. 2013. The Factor Structure of Tourist Satisfaction at Pilgrimage
Destinations: the Case of Medjugorje. International Journal of Tourism Research 15:10.1002/jtr.v15.5, 484-494. [CrossRef]
23. H. C. Yadav, Rajeev Jain, A. R. Singh, P. K. Mishra. 2013. Aesthetical design of a car profile: a Kano model-based hybrid
approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 67, 2137-2155. [CrossRef]
24. Hatice Camgöz‐Akdağ, Mehveş Tarım, Subash Lonial, Alim Yatkın. 2013. QFD application using SERVQUAL for private
hospitals: a case study. Leadership in Health Services 26:3, 175-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 25. H.C. Yadav, Rajeev Jain, Sandarbh Shukla, Shwetank Avikal, P.K. Mishra. 2013. Prioritization of aesthetic attributes of car
profile. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43, 296-303. [CrossRef]
26. Hae-Geun Song. 2013. A modified Importance-Satisfaction analysis using Kano's model. Journal of the Korea Safety
Management and Science 15, 241-248. [CrossRef]
27. Jithendran Kokkranikal, Jiju Antony, Hasib Kosgi, Erwin Losekoot. 2013. Barriers and challenges in the application of Six
Sigma in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62:3, 317-322. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
28. Arash Shahin, Masoud Pourhamidi, Jiju Antony, Sung Hyun Park. 2013. Typology of Kano models: a critical review of
literature and proposition of a revised model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 30:3, 341-358.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Amy M. Gregory, H. G. Parsa. 2013. Kano's Model: An Integrative Review of Theory and Applications to the Field of
Hospitality and Tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 22, 25-46. [CrossRef]
30. Heung-Yeop Jang, HaeGeun Song, Young T. Park. 2012. Determining the Importance Values of Quality Attributes Using
ASC. Journal of the Korean society for quality management 40, 589-598. [CrossRef]
31. Sumeyra Duman Kurt, Banu Atrek. 2012. The classification and importance of E‐S‐Qual quality attributes: an evaluation of
online shoppers. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 22:6, 622-637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Christer Strandberg, Olof Wahlberg, Peter Öhman. 2012. Challenges in serving the mass affluent segment: bank customer
perceptions of service quality. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 22:4, 359-385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Dayu Jin, Kah‐Hin Chai, Kay‐Chuan Tan. 2012. Organizational adoption of new service development tools. Managing Service
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

Quality: An International Journal 22:3, 233-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

34. Kuo-Chien Chang, Mu-Chen Chen, Chia-Lin Hsu. 2012. Identifying Critical Brand Contact Elements of a Tourist
Destination: Applications of Kano's Model and the Importance-satisfaction Model. International Journal of Tourism Research
14:10.1002/jtr.v14.3, 205-221. [CrossRef]
35. Elizabeth Cudney, Cassandra C. Elrod, Anusha Uppalanchi. 2012. Analyzing Customer Requirements for the American
Society of Engineering Management Using Quality Function Deployment. Engineering Management Journal 24, 47-57.
[CrossRef]
36. Markus Hartono, Tan Kay Chuan. 2011. How the Kano model contributes to Kansei engineering in services. Ergonomics
54, 987-1004. [CrossRef]
37. Sangeeta Sahney. 2011. Delighting customers of management education in India: a student perspective, part I. The TQM
Journal 23:6, 644-658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Sang-Gun Lee, Sin-Seok Lee, Ju-Young Kang. 2011. Finding Smartphone's Factors which Affect Satisfaction or
Dissatisfaction based on KANO Model. The Journal of Information Systems 20, 257-277. [CrossRef]
39. Sangeeta Sahney. 2011. Delighting customers of management education in India: a student perspective, part II. The TQM
Journal 23:5, 531-548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Gülçin Büyüközkan, Gizem Çifçi, Sezin Güleryüz. 2011. Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP
methodology. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 9407-9424. [CrossRef]
41. Mu‐Chen Chen, Kuo‐Chien Chang, Chia‐Lin Hsu, I‐Ching Yang. 2011. Understanding the relationship between service
convenience and customer satisfaction in home delivery by Kano model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 23:3,
386-410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Josip Mikulić, Darko Prebežac. 2011. Evaluating hotel animation programs at Mediterranean sun-and-sea resorts: An impact-
asymmetry analysis. Tourism Management 32, 688-696. [CrossRef]
43. Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, Harika Karpuzcu. 2011. Comparing perceived and expected service using an AHP model: an
application to measure service quality of a company engaged in pharmaceutical distribution. OPSEARCH 48, 136-152.
[CrossRef]
44. Ruben Gregorio, Peter Cronemyr. 2011. From expectations and needs of service customers to control chart specification
limits. The TQM Journal 23:2, 164-178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Sia Mal Kong, Kanesan Muthusamy. 2011. Using service gaps to classify quality attributes. The TQM Journal 23:2, 145-163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Ankur Chaudha, Rajeev Jain, A. R. Singh, P. K. Mishra. 2011. Integration of Kano’s Model into quality function deployment
(QFD). The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 53, 689-698. [CrossRef]
47. Josip Mikulić, Darko Prebežac. 2011. A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 21:1, 46-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Kuo-Chien Chang, Mu-Chen Chen. 2011. Applying the Kano model and QFD to explore customers' brand contacts in the
hotel business: A study of a hot spring hotel. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 22, 1-27. [CrossRef]
 49. Qingliang Meng. 2011. Analysis of Logistics Service Attributes Based on Quantitative Kano Model: A Case Study of Express
Delivering Industries in China. Journal of Service Science and Management 04, 42-51. [CrossRef]
50. Long-Sheng Chen, Cheng-Hsiang Liu, Chun-Chin Hsu, Chin-Sen Lin. 2010. C-Kano model: a novel approach for
discovering attractive quality elements. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21, 1189-1214. [CrossRef]
51. Cecilia Garibay, Humberto Gutiérrez, Arturo Figueroa. 2010. Evaluation of a Digital Library by Means of Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) and the Kano Model. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, 125-132. [CrossRef]
52. Joaquín Alegre, Jaume Garau. 2010. TOURIST SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION. Annals of Tourism Research
37, 52-73. [CrossRef]
53. Liang-Hsuan Chen, Wen-Chang Ko. 2009. Fuzzy approaches to quality function deployment for new product design. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 160, 2620-2639. [CrossRef]
54. Arash Shahin, Mohamed Zairi. 2009. Kano model: A dynamic approach for classifying and prioritising requirements of airline
travellers with three case studies on international airlines. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 20, 1003-1028.
[CrossRef]
55. Youngjung Geum, Hyeonju Seol, Sungjoo Lee, Yongtae Park. 2009. Application of fault tree analysis to the service process:
service tree analysis approach. Journal of Service Management 20:4, 433-454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Andreas Andronikidis, Andreas C. Georgiou, Katerina Gotzamani, Konstantina Kamvysi. 2009. The application of quality
function deployment in service quality management. The TQM Journal 21:4, 319-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Miao Zhao, Ruby Roy Dholakia. 2009. A multi‐attribute model of web site interactivity and customer satisfaction. Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal 19:3, 286-307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by SURABAYA UNIVERSITY At 18:28 12 May 2015 (PT)

58. Birdogan Baki, Cigdem Sahin Basfirinci, Ilker Murat AR, Zuhal Cilingir. 2009. An application of integrating SERVQUAL
and Kano's model into QFD for logistics services. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21:1, 106-126. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
59. Bindu Narayan, Chandrasekharan Rajendran, L. Prakash Sai, Ram Gopalan. 2009. Dimensions of service quality in tourism
– an Indian perspective. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 20, 61-89. [CrossRef]
60. Hendry Raharjo, Aarnout C. Brombacher, T. N. Goh, Bo Bergman. 2009. On integrating Kano's model dynamics into QFD
for multiple product design. Quality and Reliability Engineering International n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
61. Josip Mikulić, Darko Prebežac. 2008. Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impact range‐performance analysis
and impact‐asymmetry analysis. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 18:6, 559-576. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
62. Chun-Chih Chen, Ming-Chuen Chuang. 2008. Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance
customer satisfaction with product design. International Journal of Production Economics 114, 667-681. [CrossRef]
63. John C. Crotts, Bing Pan, Andrew E. Raschid. 2008. A survey method for identifying key drivers of guest delight. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20:4, 462-470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Gérson Tontini. 2007. Integrating the Kano Model and QFD for Designing New Products. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 18, 599-612. [CrossRef]
65. Wan-I Lee, Tien-Hsiang Chang, Pei-Ju Chao. 2007. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF
HEALTHCARE SERVICE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION- AN EXAMPLE OF HOSPITALS IN TAIWAN.
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 24, 81-95. [CrossRef]
66. Anna‐Karin Jonsson Kvist, Bengt Klefsjö. 2006. Which service quality dimensions are important in inbound tourism?.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 16:5, 520-537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Ashok Kumar, Jiju Antony, Tej S. Dhakar. 2006. Integrating quality function deployment and benchmarking to achieve
greater profitability. Benchmarking: An International Journal 13:3, 290-310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. V.R. Pramod, S.R. Devadasan, S. Muthu, V.P. Jagathyraj, G. Dhakshina Moorthy. 2006. Integrating TPM and QFD for
improving quality in maintenance engineering. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 12:2, 150-171. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
69. Barry Berman. 2005. How to Delight Your Customers. California Management Review 48, 129-151. [CrossRef]
70. E. Grigoroudis, O. Spyridaki. 2003. Derived vs. stated importance in customer satisfaction surveys. Operational Research 3,
229-247. [CrossRef]
71. K.C. Tan, M. Xie, Y.N. Li. 2003. A service quality framework for Web‐based information systems. The TQM Magazine
15:3, 164-172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Robert Redfern, Caroline L. Davey. 2003. Supply chain market orientation in new product development in the UK. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 7:1, 65-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Y. N. Li, K. C. Tan, M. Xie. 2002. Measuring web-based service quality. Total Quality Management 13, 685-700. [CrossRef]