Quality assessment of graduate services: Kano model application to a Peruvian university

Figures & data

Figure 1. Method of classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Source: adapted from Witell and Löfgren (2007) and Madzík and Pelantová (2018).

Figure 2. The Kano diagram.

Table 1. Examples of functional and dysfunctional items by dimension

Teaching	How do you feel when teachers are responsive and accessible?
	How do you feel when teachers are neither responsive nor accessible?
Administrative services	How do you feel when administrative staff are accessible during office hours?
	How do you feel when administrative staff are inaccessible during office hours?
Academic facilities	How do you feel when virtual classrooms are equipped with instructional materials?
	How do you feel when virtual classrooms are not equipped with instructional materials?
Continuous improvement	How do you feel when the university continues to improve its ranking and research performance?
	How do you feel when the university does not continue to improve its ranking and research performance?
Leadership quality	How do you feel when leaders (President, Vice-Provosts, Deans, or Directors) use strategies to build knowledge, skills and attitudes consistent with educational objectives?
	How do you feel when leaders (President, Vice-Provosts, Deans, or Directors) do not use strategies to build knowledge, skills and attitudes consistent with educational objectives?
Internationalisation	How do you feel when the university promotes international activities?
	How do you feel when the university does not promote international activities?

Table 2. Calculation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels using the Kano model

Characteristic	Calculation
Satisfaction level (SL)	(Attractive + one-dimensional) / (Attractive + one-dimensional + mandatory + indifferent)
Dissatisfaction level (DL)	(Mandatory + one-dimensional) / (Attractive + one-dimensional + mandatory + indifferent)

Source: Barrios-Ipenza et al., 2021, p. 8.

Table 3. Demographic data

Variables	n	%
Age
18–29	73	22
30–49	205	63
50–59	40	12
60+	8	2
Gender
Male	134	41
Female	192	59
Type of programme
Specialisation	198	61
Master’s	128	39

Table 4. Results for the teaching dimension

ID	Attributes	Classif.	SL	DL
TE1	The teachers are responsive and accessible.	O	0.694	−0.804
TE2	The content of the course develops the knowledge of the students.	O	0.786	−0.936
TE3	The teachers follow good teaching practices.	O	0.785	−0.882
TE4	The teachers strictly follow the curriculum or syllabus.	O	0.552	−0.601
TE5*	Student performance is continuously evaluated.	O	0.608	−0.504
TE6	The department has sufficient academic staff.	O	0.691	−0.803
TE7	The teachers treat all students in an equal manner.	O	0.753	−0.903
TE8	Collects feedback to provide better services.	O	0.732	−0.765

Notes: O: One-dimensional. SL: Satisfaction Level. DL: Dissatisfaction Level.

*One of the attributes with the greatest impact on student satisfaction. The fulfilment of the attribute yields a higher degree of satisfaction than the dissatisfaction caused by its non-compliance.

Table 5. Results for the administrative services dimension

ID	Attributes	Classif.	SL	DL
AS1*	The administrative staff provides error-free work	O	0.643	−0.972
AS2	The administrative staff provides service without delay.	O	0.730	−0.873
AS3	The administrative staff is courteous and willing to help.	O	0.766	−0.935
AS4	The administrative staff maintains accurate and retrieval records.	O	0.715	−0.925
AS5	The administrative staff is accessible during office hours.	O	0.694	−0.886
AS6	Students are promptly informed of changes.	O	0.769	−0.901

Notes: O: One-dimensional. SL: Satisfaction Level. DL: Dissatisfaction Level.

*One of the attributes with the greatest impact on student dissatisfaction. The non-compliance with the attribute results in a higher degree of dissatisfaction than the degree of satisfaction caused by its fulfilment.

Table 6. Results for the academic facilities dimension

ID	Attributes	Classif.	SL	DL
IA1	Virtual classrooms are equipped with instructional materials.	O	0.745	−0.892
IA2	Computer/science laboratories are well-equipped.	O	0.720	−0.854
IA3	The information centre has adequate academic resources.	O	0.746	−0.847
IA4	The information centre is electronically equipped (virtual library)	O	0.752	−0.800
IA5	The virtual campus environment helps to study well	O	0.767	−0.860
IA6	The university has a suitable virtual platform.	O	0.748	−0.920
IA7*	The platform is properly maintained.	O	0.701	−0.947

Notes: O: One-dimensional. SL: Satisfaction Level. DL: Dissatisfaction Level.

*One of the attributes with the greatest impact on dissatisfaction. The non-compliance with the attribute results in a higher degree of dissatisfaction than the degree of satisfaction caused by its fulfilment.

Table 7. Results for the continuous improvement dimension

ID	Attributes	Classif.	SL	DL
CI1*	The number of students seeking admission continues to increase.	I	0.471	−0.273
CI2	The institutional infrastructure continues to improve.	O	0.774	−0.629
CI3	My conceptual and technical skills continue to improve over the period of my stay at the institution.	O	0.813	−0.813
CI4	Institution ranking and research performance continue to improve.	O	0.831	−0.742

Notes: O: One-dimensional. I: Indifferent. SL: Satisfaction Level. DL: Dissatisfaction Level.

*One of the attributes with the greatest impact on student satisfaction. The fulfilment of the attribute yields a higher degree of satisfaction than the dissatisfaction caused by its non-compliance.

Figure 3. Classification of attributes of the teaching dimension.

Figure 4. Classification of attributes of the administrative services dimension.

Figure 5. Classification of attributes of the academic facilities dimension.

Figure 6. Classification of attributes of the continuous improvement dimension.

Figure 7. Classification of attributes of the leadership dimension.

Figure 8. Classification of attributes of the internationalisation dimension.

Table 8. Results for the leadership dimension

ID	Attributes	Classif.	SL	DL
LD1	The Institution leaders (President, Vice-Provosts, Deans, or Directors) reinforce the need for quality education.	O	0.744	−0.859
LD2	The Institution leaders try to create an environment that is conducive for learning.	O	0.749	−0.854
LD3	The Institution leaders use strategies to build knowledge, skills and attitudes consistent with educational objectives.	O	0.785	−0.826
LD4*	The Institution leaders are responsive to the needs of the students.	O	0.773	−0.900

Notes: O: One-dimensional. SL: Satisfaction Level. DL: Dissatisfaction Level.

* The non-compliance with the attribute results in a higher degree of dissatisfaction than the degree of satisfaction caused by its fulfilment.

Table 9. Results for the internationalisation dimension

ID	Attributes	Classif.	SL	DL
IN1*	The university promotes international activities.	O	0.784	−0.604
IN2*	The university has teachers from abroad.	A	0.739	−0.361

Notes: O: One-dimensional. A: Attractive. SL: Satisfaction Level. DL: Dissatisfaction Level.

*One of the attributes with the greatest impact on student satisfaction. The fulfilment of the attribute yields a higher degree of satisfaction than the dissatisfaction caused by its non-compliance.

Witell, L. & Löfgren, M. 2007, ‘Classification of quality attributes’, Managing Service Quality, 17(1), pp. 54–73.

 Google Scholar

Madzík, P. & Pelantová, V., 2018, ‘Validation of product quality through graphical interpretation of the Kano model: an explorative study’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(9), pp. 1956–75.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barrios-Ipenza, F., Calvo-Mora, A., Criado-García, F. & Curioso, W.H., 2021, ‘Quality evaluation of health services using the Kano model in two hospitals in Peru’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), pp. 6159–75.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar