Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

How to determine a minimum viable product in

app-based lean start-ups: Kano-based approach

Sungjoo Lee & Youngjung Geum

To cite this article: Sungjoo Lee & Youngjung Geum (2020): How to determine a minimum viable
product in app-based lean start-ups: Kano-based approach, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2020.1770588

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1770588

Published online: 27 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1770588

How to determine a minimum viable product in app-based lean

start-ups: Kano-based approach
Sungjoo Leea and Youngjung Geumb*
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Ajou University, Worldcup-ro 206, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon
16499, Republic of Korea; bDepartment of Industrial & Information Systems Engineering, Seoul
National University of Science and Technology, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 139-743,
Republic of Korea

According to the ‘lean start-up’ concept, companies should develop their products or
services with the minimum amount of effort and do the iterative release to shorten the
life cycle. Therefore, defining a proper minimum viable product (MVP) is critical for
companies who want to succeed in a lean start-up process. Despite the importance,
however, how to determine an MVP has not been addressed in the previous literature.
Therefore, this article suggests a systematic approach to determine an MVP using the
Kano-based approach. In this approach, each function is evaluated from both
customers’ and companies’ perspectives based on the revised Kano evaluation table.
The results of customer-side Kano analysis and company-side Kano analysis are
integrated to suggest the desirable MVP types: core to be MVP, feasible to be MVP,
and next priority to MVP. A case study is also provided for better comprehension.
The target start-up business is the service to measure and manage fine dust
concentration. As a result, two functions are determined to be core to be MVP, and
one function is derived as feasible to be an MVP, and eight functions are turned out
to be next priority to MVPs, which are not urgent as company expected. This article
contributes to the fields of the lean start-up in that it is one of the first attempts to
provide a methodological support for determining MVPs in a systematic way.
Keywords: lean start-up; minimum viable product; MVP; innovation; Kano model

1. Introduction
Markets have now become online and mobile, enabling companies to provide a high level
of customisation based on easier access to customers’ information, purchasing patterns, and
preferences. Hence, many start-ups have been able to launch their products quickly. Start-
up companies, different from traditional big corporations, are young, technology-intensive,
but operate under extreme uncertainty (Avnimelech & Teubal, 2006; Miski, 2014).
With the rise in start-ups, the ‘lean start-up’ concept has also emerged, by applying the
lean manufacturing concept to entrepreneurial challenges to bring lean thinking to the start-
up innovation system (Ries, 2009). According to the lean start-up concept, companies
should develop their products or services with a minimum amount of initial effort or
funding at the first stage and do the iterative product/service release to shorten the life
cycle (Croll & Yoskovitz, 2013; Miski, 2014). This is very effective in the current start-
up environment where there is extreme uncertainty; hence, various kinds of business
tests are required for innovation. The assumption is that the organisation is merely guessing
its customers’ wants and needs that may or may not be correct (Bieraugel, 2015), which
means that continuous testing is required to clarify customers’ needs.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 S. Lee and Y. Geum

For this reason, determining a minimum viable product (MVP) has been a critical task
for companies in order to lead the success of a lean start-up business. An MVP, as the term
suggests, is the product whose goal is to test the fundamental business hypothesis. It is a
version of a new product that allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated
learning about customers with the least effort (Lenarduzzi & Taibi, 2016). Once an MVP
is prepared, companies have to execute a build-measure-learn process to make it effective.
As a result, how an MVP is determined has become a critical question in start-up business
practice, for which practical guidelines are necessary. Addressing this issue, several studies
have been conducted. Ries (2011) suggested three types of engines to be considered:
sticky, viral, and paid. The sticky engine of growth measures customer retention. The viral
engine is related to network externality. Finally, the paid engine of growth relies on customer
equity, which is calculated as the difference in the lifetime revenue from each customer and
the cost of acquiring an additional customer (Moogk, 2012; Ries, 2011). Lenarduzzi and
Taibi (2016) identified the common definitions of MVP and the key factors for identifying
it from a literature review. Using current studies on lean start-ups, they developed a classifi-
cation schema for characterising the definition of MVP in lean start-ups and a set of common
key factors. Pease et al. (2014) developed a lean design for developing world method that
integrates human-centred design, traditional product development methods, and lean start-
up method. Many studies emphasise that an MVP can eliminate several parts of the business
model that create complexity, allowing the company to work more effectively (Blank, 2014).
Though previous studies have identified some important engines for testing MVPs
(Moogk, 2012; Ries, 2011) or key factors for building MVPs (Lenarduzzi & Taibi,
2016), very few of them have dealt with how to determine an MVP in practice. Even if
several studies provided a theoretical discussion on key factors for MVPs, a practical
approach is surprisingly sparse; a methodological support for determining an MVP is
still a void in the literature and is focused in this study.
The foundation for the development of an MVP is to collect feedback on a product to be
put on a market from various stakeholders. For its correct development, on the one hand,
customers’ feedback is essential not to spend much time and resources on less wanted
product attributes. On the other hand, a start-up needs to prioritise product attributes by
itself considering its business strategies and core value to be delivered to customers and sta-
keholders. Thus, integrating the opinion of both companies’ perspective and customers’
perspective is required in determining MVPs. Generally, customer–company discrepancy
exists in the perception of the product attributes. In other words, how customers feel
from a certain product is sometimes significantly different from developers’ perspectives.
Therefore, firms have tried to incorporate customers’ choices to the R&D development
process for integrating those two perspectives (Lee et al., 2017; Suryadi & Kim, 2019).
Given this nature of building an MVP, we formulate a research question as follow:
RQ: How can an MVP be determined considering both customers’ and company’s
perspectives?
In an attempt to answer those questions, this article suggests a systematic approach to deter-
mine an MVP using the Kano-based approach, which is a technique to classify quality attri-
butes into six categories: must-be, attractive, one-dimensional, indifferent, questionable,
and reversal (Kano, 1984). Since the model not only classifies different attributes of
certain products/services, but also explains innate characteristics and key determinants of
products, it can be actively used for determining the ‘minimum viable’ product. Prioritising
and balancing the must-be and attractive attributes in the start-up business is a good starting
point for determining an MVP.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 3

The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on lean
start-ups and the Kano model. Section 3 details the research framework. Section 4 outlines
a case study for better comprehension. Finally, Section 5 summarises the contributions and
limitations.

2. Literature review
2.1. Lean start-up
Generally, start-ups deal with early phase innovation. According to Avnimelech and Teubal
(2006), start-ups can be classified into: prototype stage (∼2 years old), initial sales stage (2–
4 years old), sales growth stage (3–6 years old), and product expansion stage (5–10 years
old). They are young, technology-intensive, and operate under extreme uncertainty (Avni-
melech & Teubal, 2006; Miski, 2014).
According to the lean start-up concept, companies should develop their products or ser-
vices with minimum amount of initial effort or funding at the first stage and perform the
iterative product/service release to shorten the life cycle (Croll & Yoskovitz, 2013;
Miski, 2014; Ries, 2011). They should build an MVP and undertake the build-measure-
learn process to make it effective.
Therefore, the lean start-up can be considered a collection of tools and techniques that
are useful for entrepreneurs to build their companies faster and at a lower cost (Harms,
2015). It can also be considered entrepreneurial learning if we define learning as ‘(a) rela-
tively permanent change in knowledge or skill produced by experience’ (Harms, 2015;
Weiss, 1990, p. 172). This is also in line with hypothesis-driven entrepreneurship (Eisen-
mann et al., 2012) because lean start-ups continuously test their hypothesis (Harms,
2015). What is common to both these concepts is that companies should develop their
product in a short time with minimum requirements, test/experiment their product in the
market, and learn from customer feedback. This lean start-up process has been adopted
by many innovative programmes, such as university entrepreneurship programmes, accel-
erators, and entrepreneurial organisations (York & Danes, 2014).
According to Ries (2011, pp. 8, 9), there are five principles for explaining lean start-ups:

(1) Entrepreneurs are everywhere – any person or institution to develop new products
under extreme uncertainty is an entrepreneur and lean start-up approach can work
in a company of any size.
(2) Entrepreneurship is management – start-ups require a kind of management specifi-
cally geared to its context of extreme uncertainty.
(3) Validated learning – start-ups exist to learn how to build a sustainable business, so
frequent experimentation is necessary.
(4) Build-Measure-Learn – the fundamental activity is to turn ideas into products,
measure customer response, and assess whether to pivot or persevere.
(5) Innovation accounting – new kinds of accounting designed for start-ups are
required.

As shown in these five principles, the lean start-up concept also emphasises the ‘build-
measure-learn’ loop to reflect customer feedback (Ries, 2011). This is basically an iterative
process that maximises learning and allows for significant changes throughout the process,
called ‘pivots’ (Ries, 2011; York & Danes, 2014).
Therefore, the MVP concept is critical for success in lean start-ups. Several researchers
have tried to characterise MVPs. Lenarduzzi and Taibi (2016) summarised the literature on
4 S. Lee and Y. Geum

the MVP concept. The term ‘minimum’ can be explained in many ways: minimum func-
tionalities/features, minimum requirements, smallest possible implementation, minimum
effort, and minimum value organisation.
A lean start-up is basically a toolset for experimental entrepreneurship, which empha-
sises experimentation rather than formal planning (Harms & Schwery, 2020). Due to its
experimentation, lean start-ups have become very popular in both academia and practice.
Harms and Schwery (2020) defined lean start-up capability (LSC), developed an operatio-
nalisation for it, and measured LSC-performance in relationships. Yang et al. (2019) ana-
lysed the effect of search and execution activities in lean start-ups on entrepreneurial
effectuation cognition and causation cognition. Bocken and Snihur (2019) suggested that
lean start-ups have significant potential for business model innovation, which is novel
and has high impact. Hwang and Shin (2019) conducted a case study for Samsung’s trans-
formation process and found three implications for global firms. First, a clear role mapping
is required for innovation success. Second, lean start-ups should be adapted considering the
methodological limitations and managerial characteristics. Third, proper corporate coordi-
nation is required for scaling up (Hwang & Shin, 2019). Ghezzi (2019) conducted a quan-
titative study on 227 digital start-ups to identify how they utilise the lean start-up concept
and its advantages and disadvantages. In this article, we find that many digital entrepreneurs
adopt a lean start-up approach, but are modestly satisfied with its outcome, which shows
that lean start-up methods need to be further modified.

2.2. Kano model

Figure 1 explains the basic concept of the Kano model. Kano outlines three types of product
requirements with regard to the relationship between requirement fulfilment and customer
satisfaction (1984). The first type is the must-be requirement. If this requirement is not

Figure 1. Kano model (Berger et al., 1993).

 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 5

fulfilled by the product, the customer will be extremely dissatisfied and would not want to
buy it. However, even if it is fulfilled, customer satisfaction would not increase because cus-
tomers take it for granted. The attractive requirement is the opposite of the must-be require-
ment. Customers would not express dissatisfaction even if this requirement is not fulfilled.
However, if it is fulfilled, customers would be very satisfied with the product. Therefore, it
can be understood as a delighter for customers. The third type is the one-dimensional attri-
bute, which means that customer satisfaction is proportional to the level of fulfilment.
To determine Kano characteristics, customers need to take two kinds of a Kano survey:
functional and dysfunctional. According to the survey results, each requirement is then
classified into a type, as shown in Table 1.
By characterising each requirement into several types, the Kano model is widely used in
new product development and quality management to enhance customer satisfaction (Chen
et al., 2010; Florez-Lopez & Ramon-Jeronimo, 2012; Lin et al., 2015; Zhao & Dholakia, 2009).
The Kano model has been integrated with other techniques to enhance customer satis-
faction and improve evaluation quality. Wongrukmit and Thawesaengskulthai (2014) inte-
grated the Kano model and SEREVQUAL scale for categorising and prioritising hospital
service quality attributes. Bu and Park (2016) applied the fuzzy method to the Kano
model to minimise the overriding effect of its indifferent category. Gustavsson et al.
(2016) incorporated a view of multiple patient roles into the application of the Kano
model and identified a wide range of patient needs. Kim et al. (2017) suggested a new
method to integrate customers’ disparate technology readiness, by suggesting an integrated
Kano matrix, which is composed of two types of respondents: innovative customers and
pragmatic customers. Lo et al. (2017) integrated the Kano model and quality function
deployment to incorporate project management guides into the new product development
process. Madzík (2018) suggested a new approach by modifying the process of categoris-
ation to minimise the discrepancy between ‘calculated’ and ‘real’, considering the difficul-
ties for customers and accuracy for producers. Madzík and Kormanec (2018) also suggested
a method for integrating Kano and failure mode and effect analysis to support a non-linear
relationship between the individual components of the risk priority number. Materla et al.
(2019) conducted a massive literature review on the Kano model in healthcare applications,
which reveals that many techniques have been used in collaboration with it.

3. Research framework
3.1. Overall process
As stated earlier, Lenarduzzi and Taibi (2016) showed that the term ‘minimum’ can be
explained in many ways: minimum functionalities/features, minimum requirements,

Table 1. Kano evaluation table (Kano, 1984).

Dysfunctional form
Like Expect Neutral Accept Dislike
Functional form Like Q A A A O
Expect R I I I M
Neutral R I I I M
Accept R I I I M
Dislike R R R R Q
Note: Q: Questionable; R: Reverse; I: Indifferent; O: One-dimensional; M: Must-be; A: Attractive.
6 S. Lee and Y. Geum

smallest possible implementation, minimum effort, and minimum value organisation. We

focus on only minimum functionality/feature because the Kano model is used for customer
needs analysis. Since customer needs are expressed in the form of functionalities or fea-
tures, we focus on the functionality aspect of ‘minimum’. Another reason for focusing
on functionalities/features is that it is the most commonly discussed in the literature (Lenar-
duzzi & Taibi, 2016). Further, it is also related to other categories, such as minimum effort
or smallest possible implementation.
Our main assumption is that there is a discrepancy of perception in the Kano character-
istics between the customers and the companies. Customers generally find a new function as
attractive, when it is new in the market. At the very least, they perceive it as more than sat-
isfactory. However, the company’s perspective is different. Generally, companies and man-
agers who launch new products/services can evaluate the necessities and attractiveness of
each function and determine whether to include each function or not.
Figure 2 shows the overall process of our work. First, the target products/services are
decomposed to identify each function. The next step is to apply the Kano model to each
decomposed function. The Kano model is applied for both companies and customers, to
reflect the discrepancy in the customer–company consideration of an MVP. Then, we inte-
grate the company and customer results of the Kano analysis. Based on this result, the pre-
ferred level of MVP is identified.
We evaluate the function from two perspectives because, as we noted in the assumption,
how a company perceives a function is different from how customers perceive it. In lean
start-ups, companies launch MVPs to check the validity of the business model and test
the market. Therefore, determining MVPs is related to how each function is critically
related to the business model of the new product/service, as well as how each function is
critically related to the competitive advantages of the product/services. Since companies
invest significant amounts of time and effort in new concept development, they include
functions that are not critical to the new business model.
Therefore, an MVP should be defined from two perspectives, as shown in Table 2. From
the company’s perspective, functions that are critically related to their business model and
competitive advantage should be included in the MVP. From the customer’s perspective,

Figure 2. Overall process.

 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 7

Table 2. Two perspectives of Kano analysis for determining MVPs.

Criteria Evaluation How Kano evaluation is used
Company- Competitive How each function is critically . Kano evaluation table is
side advantage related with gaining modified.
competitive advantages . Only considers must-be
requirement
Customer- Function How each function is related with . The original Kano
side attractiveness customer satisfaction according evaluation table is used with
to its fulfilment two-step evaluation
. Considers both must-be &
attractive requirements

must-be functions are essential to the product/service. However, the attractive function
determines the success of the product, which is related to the newness and attractiveness
of the product/service. Generally, customers find functions that are newly added or
newly introduced attractive (Kano, 2001; Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005). Therefore, func-
tions that are evaluated as attractive by customers are again evaluated on their strength of
attractiveness, which helps firms evaluate the importance to be accorded to them in the
MVPs.

3.2. Detailed procedures

3.2.1. Decomposing product/service functions
The first step is to decompose the target product/service to derive the functions. Decompo-
sition can vary according to the product/service. Generally, products should be decomposed
according to their functions or modules. Service decomposition is based on the path of cus-
tomer action, which the customer follows (Geum et al., 2009).

3.2.2. Conducting company-side Kano analysis

For companies, respondents (R&D managers and developers) were asked to evaluate their
perception of functions via two kinds of questions. The first type of question (formulated in
a positive way) asks whether our business will succeed or not only when this function is
equipped. The second type (formulated in a negative way) asks the opposite, as shown
in Table 3. The questionnaires are designed to check the importance of the functions to
the business model and competitive advantages (over their competitors).

Table 3. Company-side Kano analysis.

Importance to Question for Kano evaluation Answer
Business model (1) Our business (our product/service) will work Strongly agree/Agree/
test as a killer application only when this function Neutral/Not Agree/
is equipped. (or not equipped) Strongly not agree
Competitive (2) This service has a competitive advantage
advantage over the other competitors if this function is
equipped. (or not equipped)
8 S. Lee and Y. Geum

Based on the survey result, the characteristics of each function are identified using the
revised Kano evaluation table, as shown in Figure 3. Note that the contents of the Kano
evaluation table have been changed to reflect the company’s questionnaires. After evaluat-
ing each function on two aspects: evaluating the importance of the function for its business
model and for achieving competitive advantages, the two results are integrated to extract the
must-be from the company’s perspective. Three types of must-be functions are defined:
urgent, critical, and acceptable.
After the Kano evaluation for the two questionnaires on the business model and com-
petitive advantage, the two results are integrated to identify the final characteristics of
company-side MVPs. As a result, the functions that were considered must-be in the pre-
vious steps are again classified into three categories: (1) key business enabler, (2) suggestive
guides, and (3) candidate players, according to the level of urgency and priority of each
requirement/function, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Revised Kano evaluation table.

Figure 4. Integrated results for company-side Kano analysis.

 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 9

(1) Key business enabler: When a function is evaluated as urgent in terms of its business
model regardless of its competitive advantages, it is called ‘key business enabler’.
Since the primary purpose of identifying MVPs is to test the validity of the business
model, a key business enabler is critically important for MVP determination.
(2) Suggestive guides: When the importance of the business model is not considered
urgent (critical and acceptable) but its importance for competitive advantage is con-
sidered urgent. This type can be a differentiating factor over the competition. Thus,
it is likely to be included in MVP determination. Functions that fall into this cat-
egory are not involved in creating business models themselves, but are rec-
ommended to be included in the MVP because they contribute positively to
product and service differentiation. For this reason, this study calls it ‘suggestive
guides’.
(3) Candidate players: When the importance of both competitive advantage and
business model is critical and acceptable. Since this type is not closely associated
with the genuine characteristics of an MVP, the functions in this category can just
be candidates for MVPs.

3.2.3. Conducting customer-side Kano analysis

The customer-side Kano analysis also identifies the characteristics of each function. Gen-
erally, customers generally find a new function attractive. According to the Kano model
(Kano, 2001; Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005), the characteristic of each attribute
changes over time. When a product/service is first launched in the market, new functions
are generally attractive requirements because the customers did not expect them.
However, customers get accustomed to it and take it for granted over time. Therefore, cus-
tomers tend to perceive new functions as attractive. However, new product functions can
still be must-be, despite the newness of the product concept and its business model. There-
fore, we run a two-step Kano analysis, as shown in Table 4.
The first step is conducted based on the general Kano analysis, where customers are
asked to evaluate their preferences for certain product/service attributes. When the first
step is finalised, the must-be attribute, which should be included regardless of its impor-
tance, is included in the MVPs. Then, in the second step, one-dimensional functions
related to customer satisfaction are extracted and tested. The second step measures the pri-
ority of one-dimensional functions. Since many functions can be considered a one-dimen-
sional requirement that increases or decreases satisfaction by their degree, those to be
included in the MVPs should be determined according to their importance to potential cus-
tomers. Thus, the level of importance is measured using a 5-point Likert scale, based on
which the one-dimensional attributes are classified into two groups – the first with the
higher priority, named ‘Basic One-dimensional’, and the second with the lower priority
named ‘Advanced One-dimensional’. The functions are assigned to the first group if

Table 4. Two-step Kano analysis from the customer’s perspective.

Step Purpose Method
First step To extract the must-be and one-dimensional functions Original Kano
analysis
Second To measure the strength of attractiveness for one-dimensional 5-point Likert Scale
step functions
10 S. Lee and Y. Geum

their importance level is greater than or equal to four. Conversely, the attractive functions
are not included in the MVPs because customer satisfaction does not decrease without
them, so they can be considered at a later stage of product development.

3.2.4. Integrating company- and customer-side results of Kano analysis

The customer-side Kano analysis results are integrated to determine the MVP. Figure 5
shows how the MVP is determined based on the integration results.
First, Core to be MVP is defined when the result of the company-side evaluation is key
business enabler and that of the customer-side is must-be, basic one-dimensional, and
advanced one-dimensional. This means that the result of the company-side analysis is
defined as core to be MVPs regardless of the customer-side analysis. This is natural
because the primary purpose of MVP is to test the business model. However, when the
result of company-side analysis is suggestive guides or candidate players, functions can
be core to be MVP when the customer-side result is must-be. Regardless of the
company-side result, when customers take a certain function for granted and feel dissatis-
fied when it is missing, that function should be included in the MVP.
Second, when the result of the company-side analysis is suggestive guides and that of
the customer-side analysis is basic one-dimensional, it is called feasible to MVP. Even if the
function is not mandatory for both the company’s side and customer’s side, it can be feas-
ible to MVP, since customers should not be dissatisfied. Furthermore, this function is
regarded as important by customers, and thus, can be included in the MVP according to
the business circumstances.
Finally, when the result of company-side analysis is suggestive guides but that on cus-
tomer-side is advanced one-dimensional, it is defined as next priority to MVP, since it is
relatively less important to customers. Further, when the result is candidate players for
the company side and basic one-dimensional and advanced one-dimensional for the custo-
mer-side, it is also assigned as next priority to MVP. Therefore, the priority for determining
the MVP should be core, feasible, and next priority to MVPs. Table 5 shows the expla-
nation on MVP candidates.

4. Case study
4.1. Background
The proposed approach was applied to a start-up company in Korea preparing for a new
business – a device measuring fine dust concentration and sounding an alarm along with

Figure 5. Final integrated matrix for determining MVP.

 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 11

Table 5. Explanation on MVP candidates.

Type Company-side Customer-side Explanation
Core to be Key business Must-be/Basic one- Critical to test the business model,
MVP enabler dimensional/Advanced thus, should be included in MVP
one-dimensional
Suggestive guides/ Must-be Critical to customers, since
Candidate customers take it for granted by
players default
Feasible to Suggestive guides Basic one-dimensional Important to satisfy or dissatisfy
be MVP customers, since it is prioritised
relatively high by the customers
Next Suggestive guides Advanced one- Important to satisfy or dissatisfy
priority to dimensional customers, since it is prioritised
MVP relatively low by the customers
Candidate players Basic one-dimensional; Acceptable for achieving business
Advanced one- model and competitive
dimensional advantages, while customer
satisfaction increases with the
level of this function

a service to share the information with others. Fine dust has been one of the biggest pro-
blems in Korea and is now a social issue; people wear masks or stay indoors to protect
themselves. The company assumes that parents with small children would like to know
the fine dust concentration wherever their children are even when they are not present.
Accordingly, the basic function of the device is as follows. The device carried by children
measures the fine dust concentration regularly and shares the information with others,
usually with their parents. The parents send an alarm to their children, when necessary,
to tell them to wear their masks or the device can sound the alarm by itself when fine
dust concentration is over a certain point. In addition to these basic functions, the
company identified several other functions that can facilitate a more effective use of the
device as shown in Table 6. The functions need to be prioritised in their development.

4.2. Company side of Kano analysis

First, the survey for the company-side Kano analysis was conducted. The survey question-
naire was distributed to three top managers on the 25th September 2019 and their responses
were received on the 30th September 2019. However, the answers were so varied that only
one was analysed (see Table 7); this indicates that the notion of an MVP can vary among
managers; hence, it would be useful to let the stakeholders come to an agreement on a desir-
able MVP. Table 7 presents the company-side Kano analysis results. According to the
business model test, two functions (F1 and F3) correspond to Type 1 (urgent), three func-
tions (F4, F9 and F11) were assigned to Type 2 (critical), three other functions (F2, F6 and
F10) were in Type 3 (acceptable), and the remaining three functions (F5, F7 and F8) were
not associated with any of the three types. As for the competitive advantage analysis, two
functions (F3 and F6) were in Type 1, four functions (F1, F9, F10 and F11) were in Type 2,
four other functions (F2, F4, F5 and F8) were in Type 3, and the remaining one (F7) was not
associated with any of the three types. As a result, key BM enablers include F1 and F3, sug-
gestive guides has F6, and candidate players include F2, F4, F9, F10, and F11. Accord-
ingly, the key functions the company needs to develop for its MVP include, measuring
fine dust concentration and sharing the value.
12 S. Lee and Y. Geum

Table 6. Function description for the new product.

Function Description
F1 [Measure fine dust concentration value] The device measures fine dust concentration in
real time
F2 [Visualise the fine dust concentration value] The device visualises the measured value of
fine dust concentration
F3 [Share the fine dust concentration value] The fine dust concentration value is shared with
other customers who are predetermined (usually parents), via a mobile phone app
F4 [Sound an automatic alarm] The device sounds an alarm (i.e. sound, vibration, or LED
light) automatically when the value is over a certain point
F5 [Sound an alarm by users] Any of those who receive the information from the device can
make the device sound an alarm (i.e. sound, vibration, or LED light) when necessary
F6 [Check if a mask is worn] The device recognises whether a mask is worn by the user and
this information is shared with others (usually parents), via a mobile app
F7 [Provide video] The device provides videos on fine dust and animations on how to use it to
attract the attention of users (usually children) and support their use of the device
F8 [Develop a fine dust map] The business collects information generated by the users and
develops a map to present the level of fine dust in each region
F9 [Device] The business provides a compact device to measure and visualise the value of
fine dust
F10 [Mask] The business offers a small mask for children
F11 [Case] The business offers a case for storing the device and the mask

Table 7. Company-side analysis results.

Competitive advantage
Business model test Type 1 (Urgent) Type 2 (Critical) Type 3 (Acceptable)
Type 1 (Urgent) F3 F1
Type 2 (Critical) F9, F11 F4
Type 3 (Acceptable) F6 F10 F2
Note: None: F5, F7, F8.

4.3. Customer-side of Kano analysis

To implement the company-side Kano analysis, a survey questionnaire for the 11 functions
was developed and distributed to potential buyers in South Korea. The survey was con-
ducted by a professional service provider, Embrain (www.embrain.co.kr), and a total of
33 responses were collected between 7th and 9th September 2019. Among the responses,
eight were from those who were not interested in fine dust issues and were removed from
the database; only 25 responses were analysed to classify the 11 functions into 6 categories
of the Kano model.
Despite the small sample size, a stratified sampling approach was adopted, and hence,
the responses were obtained across all regions in South Korea from 52% male and 48%
female respondents with their ages ranging from 36 to 45 years. All of them had at least
one child – 24% had one, 52% had two, and 24% had more than three children. The cus-
tomer-side of Kano analysis results indicates that most of the functions (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
F6, F8, F10 and F11) other than two (F7 and F9) correspond to one-dimensional require-
ments. Conversely, F7 was found to be an indifferent requirement, whereas F9 was an
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 13

attractive requirement. Then, for the nine one-dimensional functions, further analysis was
conducted to measure their strength of importance. Table 8 summarises the priority test
results. Adopting 4.0 as the cut-off criterion, two functions (F1 and F6) become basic
one-dimensional requirements, while the remaining six (F2, F3, F4, F5, F8, F10 and
F11) are advanced one-dimensional requirements.
Note that the Kano model is a scalable method, so there is no problem in analysing cus-
tomers’ preferences even if the number of customers increased. The target of our case study
is only 25 participants, so we treat these customers homogeneously. However, when the
number of customers increased, it is possible to make customer segments and analyse
how customer preferences are different according to the target segments.

4.4. Integrating company- and customer-side Kano analysis results

The results of integrating the company- and customer-side Kano analyses are shown in
Figure 6. The core MVP for the company needs to include two functions – measuring
fine dust concentration (F1) and sharing the value with others (F3). The next priority is
given to develop a function that can check whether the mask is worn (F6). Then, the
next priority functions to be included in an MVP are, in the order of importance recognised

Table 8. Prioritisation of one-dimensional functions.

Rank Functions Min Max Mean Std
1 F1 2.00 5.00 4.00 0.76
F6 1.00 5.00 4.00 0.87
3 F10 2.00 5.00 3.84 0.80
F2 1.00 5.00 3.84 0.85
F8 2.00 5.00 3.84 0.94
6 F5 2.00 5.00 3.80 0.82
7 F4 1.00 5.00 3.68 1.03
8 F11 1.00 5.00 3.60 0.96
F3 1.00 5.00 3.60 1.04

Figure 6. Final integrated matrix for the case study.

14 S. Lee and Y. Geum

by potential users: offering a mask (F10), visualising the fine dust concentration (F2),
giving an automatic alarm to notify high value of fine dust concentration (F4), and offering
a case for storing the device and mask (F11). The development of the other functions (i.e.
F5, F7, F8 and F9) can be delayed within the limited time and budget.

4.5. Implications
The basic idea of this study is to suggest a method for determining MVPs, considering both
customers’ and company’s perspectives. This case study consisted of a relatively simple
example because it was designed for illustration purpose. However, this study can be
very useful in the following cases.
First, sometimes customer–company discrepancy exists in the perception of the product
attributes. In other words, how customers feel from a certain product is sometimes signifi-
cantly different from developers’ perspectives. In some cases, the company is too confident
for their product, and hesitates to cut attractive functions to provide an MVP.
Second, when there is a strong need for prioritisation due to increased functionality and
increased complexity, this study can contribute to the systematic prioritisation. If the
product is very complex, many people often find it difficult to evaluate the product and con-
sider most functions unnecessary or vice versa.
Third, this study can be effectively applied when there is a conflict between internal
departments. There is a plethora of examples that members of the R&D and marketing
departments have conflict, so R&D-marketing integration is an important issue (Boles &
Link, 2017; Chirumalla et al., 2018). This is because marketing managers generally look
into customers and markets, whereas R&D managers focus more on knowledge, skills,
and capabilities to develop innovative products or services (Chirumalla et al., 2018).
Fourth, this study can be effectively used when customers’ preferences are different
according to the customer segment. In this case, the company can decide which segment
is useful for their target customer group.

5. Conclusion
Start-ups in this rapidly changing business environment face uncertain customer needs and
fierce potential competition along with limited resources. Thus, they should develop their
products or services using the minimum amount of effort to test whether their offerings
are truly attractive to potential buyers before too much effort is spent. To implement a
lean start-up concept, a company needs to define the scope of its MVP, and a few practical
approaches are available to determine MVP in practice. Nevertheless, little attention has
been given to develop such approaches in academia with most studies addressing the impor-
tance of MVP and key factors for identifying it.
To fill this gap, this article develops a systematic approach for determining MVP. For
this purpose, we adopted the Kano model, which classifies customer requirements into
several categories; it helps to identify the features that should be included in a
product. However, unlike the traditional Kano model that considers only customer
needs, the proposed approach incorporates both the customer and company perspectives,
combined to find a set of functions that should be offered in the MVP. This approach can
help a start-up prioritise the candidate functions for its business by balancing the desired
attributes for customers. This is one of the early attempts to develop guidelines for deter-
mining an MVP and can be complementary to the existing studies emphasising the
concept of MVP.
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15

This article has the following limitations. First, the proposed approach has been applied
only to a single case. More applications are needed to validate its usability in various con-
texts. Furthermore, there must be some contexts where the proposed approach can create
more value than other contexts; identifying such contexts is important to ensure its effective
use. Second, the Kano analysis process can be elaborated by incorporating more techniques
to support better decision-making. For example, customers may find it difficult to evaluate
product or service functions without enough information about them; how should this infor-
mation about those functions be better described during the customer-side Kano survey
needs to be investigated. Similarly, top managers might have different perspectives on
their business, leading to different results on the company-side Kano analysis results;
how can several managers involved in the analysis arrive at an agreement needs further
study. These questions should be answered by future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the
Korea government [no. 2017R1E1A1A01077324].

References
Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2006). Creating venture capital industries that co-evolve with high
tech: Insights from an extended industry life cycle, perspective of the Israeli experience.
Research Policy, 35(10), 1477–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.017
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R.,
Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., & Walden, D. (1993). Kano’s methods for Understanding
customer-defined quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 4, 3–36.
Bieraugel, M. (2015). Managing library innovation using the lean startup method. Library
Management, 36(4/5), 351–361.
Blank, S. (2014). What drones and crop dusters can teach about minimum viable product. Harvard
Business Review Digital, 2–4. Articles 2/19/2014.
Bocken, N., & Snihur, Y. (2019). Lean startup and the business model: Experimenting for novelty and
impact. Long Range Planning. Article 101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101953
Boles, J., & Link, A. N. (2017). On the R&D/marketing interface in knowledge intensive entrepre-
neurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(3), 943–952.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0429-0
Bu, K., & Park, S. Y. (2016). Are consumers in collectivist culture mostly indifferent to sports lesson
programs? A DAQ simulation on the Kano fuzzy model. Journal of Business Research, 69(5),
1656–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.034
Chen, L. S., Liu, C. H., Hsu, C. C., & Lin, C. S. (2010). C-Kano model: A novel approach for dis-
covering attractive quality elements. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
21(11), 1189–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2010.529347
Chirumalla, K., Oghazi, P., & Parida, V. (2018). Social media engagement strategy: Investigation of
marketing and R&D interfaces in manufacturing industry. Industrial Marketing Management,
74, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.10.001
Croll, A., & Yoskovitz, B. (2013). Lean analytics: Use data to build a better startup faster. O’Reilly
Media, Inc.
Eisenmann, T. R., Ries, E., & Dillard, S. (2012). Hypothesis-driven entrepreneurship: The lean
startup. Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management Case, No. 812-095.
Florez-Lopez, R., & Ramon-Jeronimo, J. M. (2012). Managing logistics customer service under
uncertainty: An integrative fuzzy Kano framework. Information Sciences, 202, 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.03.004
16 S. Lee and Y. Geum

Geum, Y., Seol, H., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2009). Application of fault tree analysis to the service
process: Service tree analysis approach. Journal of Service Management, 20(4), 433–454.
Ghezzi, A. (2019). Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup approaches:
Effectuation, bricolage and opportunity creation in practice. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 146, 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.017
Gustavsson, S., Gremyr, I., & Kenne Sarenmalm, E. (2016). Using an adapted approach to the Kano
model to identify patient needs from various patient roles. The TQM Journal, 28(1), 151–162.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2013-0050
Harms, R. (2015). Self-regulated learning, team learning and project performance in entrepreneurship
education: Learning in a lean startup environment. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 100, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.007
Harms, A., & Schwery, B. (2020). Lean startup: Operationalizing lean startup capability and testing its
performance implications. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(1), 220–223.
Hwang, S., & Shin, J. (2019). Using Lean Startup to Power Organizational Transformation: Creating
an internal division that implemented concepts from Lean Startup helped a consumer elec-
tronics firm foster an entrepreneurial mindset among employees. Research-Technology
Management, 62(5), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.1638224
Kano, N. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for
Quality Control, April, 39–48.
Kano, N. (2001, September 12–14). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality. In S. M. D. Park & J.
J. Dahlgaard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Quality Management and Organizational
Development (QMOD) Conference (pp. 18–36). Linkopings Universitet.
Kim, J., Geum, Y., & Park, Y. (2017). Integrating customers’ disparate technology readiness into
technological requirement analysis: An extended Kano approach. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 28(5–6), 678–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1105102
Lee, S., Cho, C., Choi, J., & Yoon, B. (2017). R&D project selection incorporating customer-per-
ceived value and technology potential: The case of the automobile industry. Sustainability, 9
(10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101918
Lenarduzzi, V., & Taibi, D. (2016, August). Mvp explained: A systematic mapping study on the defi-
nitions of minimal viable product. In G. A. Papadopoulos, C. Gravino, & M. Höst (Eds.), 2016
42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (pp.
112–119). IEEE.
Lin, L. Z., Yeh, H. R., & Wang, M. C. (2015). Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for Taiwanese
Ban-Doh banquet culture. Tourism Management, 46, 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.05.007
Lo, S. M., Shen, H. P., & Chen, J. C. (2017). An integrated approach to project management using the
Kano model and QFD: An empirical case study. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 28(13–14), 1584–1608. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1151780
Madzík, P. (2018). Increasing accuracy of the Kano model – a case study. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 29(3–4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1194197
Madzík, P., & Kormanec, P. (2018). Developing the integrated approach of Kano model and failure
mode and effect analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–23. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1509699
Materla, T., Cudney, E. A., & Antony, J. (2019). The application of Kano model in the healthcare
industry: A systematic literature review. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
30(5–6), 660–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1328980
Miski, A. (2014). Development of a mobile application using the lean startup methodology.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 5(1), 1743–1748.
Moogk, D. R. (2012). Minimum viable product and the importance of experimentation in technology
startups. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(3), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.22215/
timreview/535
Nilsson-Witell, L., & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: A test of Kano’s theory of
attractive quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), 152–168.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230510592289
Pease, J. F., Dean, J. H., & Van Bossuyt, D. L. (2014, August). Toward a market-based lean startup
product design method for the developing world. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information
 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 17

in Engineering Conference. Volume 2A: 40th Design Automation Conference. American

Society of Mechanical Engineers.https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2014-34150
Ries, E. (2009). Minimum viable product: A guide. Startup Lessons Learned. Retrieved May 20,
2020, from http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-product-guide.
html.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create
radically successful businesses. Crown Books.
Suryadi, D., & Kim, H. M. (2019). A data-driven methodology to construct customer choice sets
using online data and customer reviews. Journal of Mechanical Design, 141(11). https://doi.
org/10.1115/1.4044198
Weiss, H. M. (1990). Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 171–221).
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wongrukmit, P., & Thawesaengskulthai, N. (2014). Hospital service quality preferences among
culture diversity. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(7–8), 908–922.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.906115
Yang, X., Sun, S. L., & Zhao, X. (2019). Search and execution: Examining the entrepreneurial cogni-
tions behind the lean startup model. Small Business Economics, 52(3), 667–679. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187-017-9978-z
York, J. L., & Danes, J. E. (2014). Customer development, innovation, and decision-making biases in
the lean startup. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 24(2), 21–40.
Zhao, M., & Dholakia, R. (2009). A multi-attribute model of web site interactivity and customer sat-
isfaction: An application of the Kano model. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 19(3), 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520910955311