手法を比較

	Importance-Performance Analysis	カノモデル
分野	Marketing Science	ヒューマンコンピュータインタラクション
系統	Process / pipeline	Hypothesis test
提唱年	1977	1984
提唱者	John A. Martilla & John C. James	Noriaki Kano
種類	Two-dimensional diagnostic grid for prioritizing attribute improvements	Two-dimensional model categorizing product/service features by satisfaction impact
原典	Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.	Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsjui, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 147–156.
別名	IPA, Importance-Performance Mapping, Action Grid Analysis, Quadrant Analysis	Kano Analysis, Attractive-Performance-Basic Model
関連	3	3
概要	Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) is a simple, durable diagnostic for deciding where to focus improvement effort by combining how much customers care about each attribute with how well the offering performs on it. John Martilla and John James introduced it in a 1977 Journal of Marketing note, using automobile-dealer service data to show that satisfaction depends jointly on the salience of attributes and judgments of actual performance. The technique plots each attribute as a point on a two-dimensional grid — importance on one axis, performance on the other — divided into four quadrants by crosshairs, and reads off a managerial action for each quadrant. The headline insight is that high-importance, low-performance attributes are where to 'concentrate here,' while resources poured into low-importance, high-performance attributes represent 'possible overkill.' Because it rests on a clear conceptual link between salient-attribute importance and performance, IPA pairs naturally with structured customer-needs work such as the Voice of the Customer. Its visual action grid makes priorities legible to managers without statistical training, which is why it has spread far beyond its original marketing context.	The Kano Model is a framework for categorizing product or service features based on their impact on customer satisfaction. Developed by Noriaki Kano, this model distinguishes three types of features: basic (must-have) features that satisfy minimally but cause significant dissatisfaction if absent; performance features that increase satisfaction proportionally with their level; and attractive (delightful) features that exceed expectations and generate disproportionate satisfaction. By classifying features using the Kano Model, product teams prioritize development efforts, balance risk and innovation, and design experiences that delight rather than merely satisfy.