Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Voice of Customer Analysis/Evidence
Method evidence record

Voice of Customer Analysis

Voice of Customer (VoC) analysis is a structured method for hearing what customers actually need, in their own words, and turning that into a prioritized, organized set of requirements for product development. Abbie Griffin and John Hauser established its modern foundations in their 1993 Marketing Science article, which examined the customer-needs component of Quality Function Deployment and answered practical questions: how many customers to interview, how to extract needs from verbatims, how to structure them, and whether one-on-one interviews or focus groups are more efficient. Their key empirical findings — that needs accumulate toward saturation, that a modest number of interviews uncovers most needs, and that one-on-one interviews are at least as productive per dollar as focus groups — turned VoC from an art into a repeatable research process. The method distills raw customer statements into solution-free need statements, organizes them into a primary-secondary-tertiary hierarchy through customer sorting, and assigns importance weights using survey priorities, an idea closely tied to importance-performance thinking. Those weighted, structured needs then feed Quality Function Deployment, where they are mapped onto engineering attributes to drive design decisions.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Voice of Customer Analysis (Structured Customer-Needs Elicitation and QFD Linkage)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / marketing-science
  • Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The Voice of the Customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1-27. · DOI 10.1287/mksc.12.1.1
  • Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79. · DOI 10.1177/002224297704100112
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyImportance-Performance Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.See alsoKano Modelmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyPerceptual Mappingmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account