Interpret Kano Evidence for an Invoicing Portal
Audit the question pairs and sample, preserve segment distributions and make a decision that includes obligations, effort and risk.
26 minutes
Scenario
A product team must choose the next invoicing-portal release. It surveyed export, automatic payment matching and an animated dashboard, but the sponsor wants to build whichever item receives the most Attractive classifications.
- Your role
- Product researcher reviewing the Kano study
- Method
- Kano Model
Evidence pack
Export
Reliable CSV export is Must-be for 68% of both segments and is required by portability commitments.
Matching
Automatic matching is Attractive for 54% of small firms and One-dimensional for 61% of finance teams.
Dashboard
The animation is Indifferent for 57%; its item also combines animation and real-time alerts.
Sample
Forty small firms and forty experienced finance users completed the paired survey.
Pilot
Six pilot interviews found that 'automatic' implied different confidence thresholds.
Delivery
Export repair takes two weeks; matching needs an eight-week experiment; the dashboard takes four weeks.
Constraints
- Keep response distributions and sample limits visible.
- Treat portability as a gate outside Kano classification.
- Do not classify the compound dashboard item without rewriting and repiloting it.
Case steps
Work through each prompt using the evidence pack. These guided cases support self-directed practice; server-scored attempts are not available yet.
Audit the segment, sample and three attribute question pairs.
Interpret the distributions without turning the modal category into a universal label.
Recommend release and experiment choices using Kano plus duty, effort and risk.
Define owner, evidence to collect and a review trigger.