Single Blog

Kano Model

The Kano Model is a method used to understand how different product features affect customer satisfaction. It helps businesses decide which features they must include, which ones will improve customer experience, and which ones will surprise and delight users.

This model is based on two factors:

• Implementation values (horizontal axis) – How well a feature meets customer needs.
• Customer satisfaction (vertical axis) – How happy or unhappy customers are with or without the feature.

The Kano Model classifies features into three main categories:

1. Must-Have Features (Basic Needs) – These are the most important features. If they are missing, customers will be dissatisfied and may not even consider using the product. However, if these features are present, they don’t necessarily increase satisfaction—they are just expected. 
2. Performance Features – These features have a direct impact on customer satisfaction. The better these features are, the more satisfied the customer will be. If they are poorly implemented, satisfaction decreases. 
3. Delighter Features (Excitement Factors) – These are unexpected features that customers don’t necessarily ask for, but when provided, they create a positive surprise. They don’t cause dissatisfaction if missing, but they significantly boost customer happiness when included. 

To identify these features, companies use Kano surveys, where customers are asked how they would feel if a feature were present or absent. This helps businesses prioritize features based on customer expectations.

Pros of the Kano Model

• Companies sometimes focus too much on exciting features and forget the basic ones. The Kano Model helps balance both by showing which features truly matter to customers.
• Since the model is based on customer feedback, businesses can make smarter choices about what to improve or add to their product.
• By understanding customer expectations, businesses can get a good idea of which features will be successful in the market.

Cons of the Kano Model

• To get accurate results, businesses need to survey a large number of customers, which can take a lot of time and effort.
• Some people might not know how a new feature will benefit them, so their feedback may not always be accurate.

Story Mapping

Story mapping is a simple and effective way to decide what features to build in a product. Instead of relying only on opinions from the team or stakeholders, this method focuses on the user’s experience. It helps teams understand how users interact with the product and what should be built first.

This framework is structured along two key areas:

• User Journey (Horizontal Axis): This represents the different steps a user takes while using the product. It starts from basic actions like signing up and setting up a profile and moves through more advanced features and interactions.
• Task Prioritization (Vertical Axis): Within each stage of the journey, tasks are arranged in order of importance. The most critical features are placed at the top, while less important ones go below. Tasks that are not needed right away are placed in a “Backlog” for future development.

Teams then divide these tasks into different releases and sprints, ensuring a clear and organized development process that keeps user needs at the center.

PROS of Story Mapping

•  By focusing on key user actions, teams can quickly determine what features are necessary for an initial launch.
• Since story mapping is based on the user journey, it ensures the product is built in a way that makes sense to users.
• This method involves the whole team, allowing everyone to contribute ideas and align on priorities.

CONS of Story Mapping

• Does Not Consider Business and Technical Factors: Story mapping mainly focuses on the user experience and does not include other important factors like business goals, technical challenges, or market conditions.

The MOSCOW Method

The MoSCoW method is a straightforward product prioritization framework that helps teams determine which features are most important to stakeholders and users. It categorizes features into four groups, ensuring that development efforts are focused on what truly matters. The name “MoSCoW” is not related to the city—the extra “O”s were added to make the acronym easier to remember.

This method divides features into the following priority levels:

• Must-Have: These are essential features that the product cannot function without. If any of these are missing, the product cannot be launched, making them the most urgent to develop.
  • Example: “Users MUST log in to access their account.”
• Should-Have: These features are important but not urgent. While they add value, the product can still function without them in the short term.
  • Example: “Users SHOULD have an option to reset their password.”
• Could-Have: These are additional features that improve user experience but are not essential. They can be included if resources allow, but are not a priority.
  • Example: “Users COULD save their work directly to the cloud from our app.”
• Won’t-Have: These are the lowest-priority features that will not be included in the current development phase but may be considered for future updates.
  • Example: Features planned for later releases.

The MoSCoW method is flexible, allowing teams to adjust priorities over time. A feature that is a “Won’t-Have” today might become a “Must-Have” in the future based on changing requirements.

PROS of the MOSCOW Method

• Simple and Easy to Use: The categories are clear, making it easy for both technical and non-technical stakeholders to understand.
• Helps Communicate Priorities: Teams can quickly convey which features are essential and which can wait.
• Improves Resource Allocation: By classifying features, teams can manage time and resources more effectively.

CONS of the MOSCOW Method

• Overestimating Must-Have Features: Teams may label too many features as essential, making it harder to prioritize effectively.
• More of a Release Planning Tool Than a Prioritization Method: While useful for planning releases, it does not consider business impact or technical complexity.

Opportunity Scoring

Opportunity Scoring, also known as Opportunity Analysis, is a product prioritization framework that comes from Anthony Ulwick’s Outcome-Driven Innovation concept. This method is based on the idea that customers buy products to complete specific tasks. While customers may not always know the best solutions, their feedback is still valuable in understanding what needs improvement. The goal is to identify the most important product outcomes and focus on the areas where user satisfaction is low.

Opportunity Scoring uses a Satisfaction and Importance graph to measure and rank different opportunities. The process involves:

1. Defining Key Outcomes: The product team first creates a list of ideal outcomes that the product or a particular feature should deliver.
2. Surveying Customers: Customers are asked two key questions:
   • How important is this feature or outcome to you? (Rated on a scale)
   • How satisfied are you with the current solution? (Rated on a scale)
3. Plotting Responses on a Graph: The collected data is mapped onto a Satisfaction vs. Importance graph, where importance is on one axis and satisfaction on the other.
4. Identifying Priorities: The most critical features are those that score high in importance but low in satisfaction. These features indicate gaps in the product that need immediate attention and should be prioritized for upcoming sprints.

This structured approach helps teams focus on areas that matter most to users, ensuring that product improvements are guided by real customer needs rather than assumptions.

PROS of Opportunity Scoring

• This method makes it easy to identify which product features need improvement and where the biggest opportunities for innovation lie.
• The Satisfaction and Importance graph makes it easy to categorize and prioritize features, helping teams make data-driven decisions.

CONS of Opportunity Scoring

• In surveys, customers may overestimate or underestimate the importance of certain features, which can sometimes lead to misleading prioritization.

To be continued….