Over the past several years, I have done quite a bit of work with clients that has used the Kano methodology.  For those of you who are not familiar with this method, it is designed to test the attractiveness of a potential product feature by testing the new feature in comparison against the status quo.  You can find out a bit more about the Kano method by going to this past of the website. 

Lately, for some different clients, we’ve developed a new twist on the Kano methodology.  I’ve taken to calling it the Contrarian Kano.  It is applicable for use when the introduction of one feature may result in some consequences that are less attractive, and you want to test for the down-side risks that are associated with those less attractive consequences.
 
How might such a situation develop?  We’ve seen two different models:

1. In one instance a client serves two different customer groups, and the proposed change will necessarily impact both groups – one groups positively and the other group negatively.  Testing the same feature in both groups allows us to assess the downside risk for Group A, which can then be rationally counter-balanced against the benefit to the Group B.
2. Another situation that warrants the use of a Contrarian Kano feature is with testing a possible side effect that is associated with the introduction of a new feature (e.g., the risk of injuries associated with deployment of a steering column air bag).  The Contrarian Kano feature tests the undesired consequences as a “feature” with the goal of determining the degree of aversion to the negative consequences.

​The implementation of the Kano proceeds identically to a normal Kano, with the feature presented in a straightforward fashion.  At the analysis stage, we focus on looking at the number of Reversals to determine the degree to which the negative feature is producing substantial push back from the target audience.

A recent news brief in Science magazine (Volume 355, Issue 6320, page 16) highlighted concerns that many statisticians have regarding continued data availabilty from the constitutionally-mandated census as well as the American Community Survey (ACS).  Efforts to gear up for the 2020 census are underway, and will require a significant funding authorization from Congress this year.

While eliminating the census is problematic -- simply because it is mandated by the constitution -- the 70 item ACS send to 3.5 million homes annually is perhaps in greater trouble.  This study is the replacement to the old long-form census questionnaire, and is used to allocate almost $500 billion in federal program dollars.  The proposed director of OMB is not a fan of the ACS; he voted to defund the study in the past.  

I know that in my work I have often used census and related data from the Department of Commerce to conduct analyses to assist my clients.  Defunding these efforts is not, in my opinion, a prudent step.

For more information see the original article in Science magazine.