NASA Lean Six Sigma Management Office November 07, 2008 LaRC Cafeteria Kano Survey Brief

NASA Lean Six Sigma 2 Background LaRC Exchange Council formed a blue ribbon panel to improve cafeteria services This panel was set up to  Develop and administer a center wide needs assessment survey  Conduct focus groups  Develop a Cafeteria Strategic Business Plan based on the results of the the survey and subsequent focus groups Kano Survey and Analysis was the methodology chosen to address the survey needs  Cafeteria key features were used to develop survey

NASA Lean Six Sigma 3 What is a Kano Survey and Analysis? “Voice Of the Customer” tool used to confirm and categorize Critical To the Customer (CTC’s) requirements Allows mapping of CTC’s into different dimensions of customer satisfaction Questions are written as “pairs” - functional and dysfunctional  The results of each pair are then classified based on the response 1.Must-be - “Givens” or “table stakes”. Will create significant dissatisfaction if these expectations are not met 2. Attractive – Provide unexpected excitement and satisfaction – the “wow” factor. These features can delight the customer 3. One Dimensional – “More / less is better” 4. Indifferent – Produce a “who cares?” reaction if the feature is there or not.

NASA Lean Six Sigma 4 What does a Kano survey question look like? 1a. If the cafeteria offered Home Style hot lunches, how do you feel? I Like it that way I expect it that way I am neutral I can live with it that way I dislike it that way 1b. If the cafeteria did not offer Home Style hot lunches, how do you feel? I Like it that way I expect it that way I am neutral I can live with it that way I dislike it that way How important is the home style lunch feature? Totally Unimportant Very Important

NASA Lean Six Sigma 5 Survey Statistics and Demographics Survey Statistics  Population 3500  Surveys635  Error+/- 3.5%  Confidence95%

NASA Lean Six Sigma 6 Executive Summary – Survey Results One Dimensional Home Style Hot Lunch Vegetable Entre Made to Order Sandwiches Soup, Salad Fruit Bar < $6 for lunch < 5 min to select and Pay Attractive < $3 Breakfast Discount Cards Market Segmentation Smoothies (Female – Attractive) Food and beverage throughout day (Female – Attractive) Indifferent Low Carb hot items Make your own sandwiches Self Serve ice cream Smoothies Off Peak time discounts Exhibition Cooking International Buffett Pizza Cooked to order items Latte and Espresso Focus Group Call in order Grab and Go Items Credit / Debit card payment

NASA Lean Six Sigma 7 Survey Results – Home Style Hot Lunch? Importance Ranking  Male – 6  Female – 6  Overall – 5 Classification  Male – One Dimensional  Female – One Dimensional  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify as One Dimensional Feature One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 8 Survey Results – Vegetable Entrees Importance Ranking  Male – 7  Female – 4  Overall – 7 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – One Dimensional  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify as One Dimensional Feature One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 9 Survey Results – Low Carb Hot Items Importance Ranking  Male – 16  Female – 8  Overall – 11 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” reaction if the feature is there or not

NASA Lean Six Sigma 10 Survey Results – Hot Sandwiches Importance Ranking  Male – 5  Female – 5  Overall – 4 Classification  Male – One Dimensional  Female – One Dimensional  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify One Dimensional One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 11 Survey Results – Make Your Own Sandwiches Importance Ranking  Male – 20  Female – 18  Overall – 19 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” reaction if the feature is there or not Note – Very large number “R”s. Interpret as customers view not having this feature as a positive

NASA Lean Six Sigma 12 Survey Results – Made To Order Sandwiches Importance Ranking  Male – 4  Female – 7  Overall – 6 Classification  Male – One Dimensional  Female – One Dimensional  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify as One Dimensional One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 13 Survey Results – Grab And Go Sandwiches etc... Importance Ranking  Male – 9  Female – 9  Overall – 8 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” reaction if the feature is there or not Note – A focus group should be considered here due to it’s rank and the % that view it as a positive feature

NASA Lean Six Sigma 14 Survey Results – Call In Orders Importance Ranking  Male – 13  Female – 11  Overall – 12 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Attractive  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” reaction if the feature is there or not Note – A focus group should be considered here due to the % that view it as a positive feature

NASA Lean Six Sigma 15 Survey Results – Soup, Salad, and Fruit Bar Importance Ranking  Male – 3  Female – 1  Overall – 2 Classification  Male – One Dimensional  Female – One Dimensional  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify as One Dimensional One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 16 Survey Results – Self Serve Ice Cream Importance Ranking  Male – 19  Female – 19  Overall – 20 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 17 Survey Results – Smoothies Importance Ranking  Male – 21  Female – 16  Overall – 21 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” Note – Could be considered “Attractive” to females. Market segment consideration should be given

NASA Lean Six Sigma 18 Survey Results – < 5 Minutes To Select Food And Pay Importance Ranking  Male – 2  Female – 3  Overall – 3 Classification  Male – One Dimensional  Female – Attractive  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify as One Dimensional One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 19 Survey Results – < $3 For Breakfast Importance Ranking  Male – 8  Female – 13  Overall – 9 Classification  Male – Attractive  Female – Attractive  All – Attractive Overall Recommendation  Classify as Attractive Attractive - Provides unexpected excitement and satisfaction – the “wow” factor. These features can delight the customer

NASA Lean Six Sigma 20 Survey Results – < $6 For Lunch Importance Ranking  Male – 1  Female – 2  Overall – 1 Classification  Male – One Dimensional  Female – One Dimensional  All – One Dimensional Overall Recommendation  Classify as One Dimensional One Dimensional – “More / less is better”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 21 Survey Results – Discount Cards Importance Ranking  Male – 10  Female – 14  Overall – 14 Classification  Male – Attractive  Female – Attractive  All – Attractive Overall Recommendation  Classify as Attractive Attractive - Provides unexpected excitement and satisfaction – the “wow” factor. These features can delight the customer

NASA Lean Six Sigma 22 Survey Results – Off Peak Time Discounts Importance Ranking  Male – 15  Female – 20  Overall – 16 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 23 Survey Results – Credit Or Debit Card Payment Importance Ranking  Male – 11  Female – 10  Overall – 10 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” Note – A focus group should be considered here due to the % that view it as a positive feature

NASA Lean Six Sigma 24 Survey Results – Food & Beverage Throughout The Day Importance Ranking  Male – 12  Female – 12  Overall – 13 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Attractive  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?” Note – Is considered “Attractive” to females. Market segment consideration should be given

NASA Lean Six Sigma 25 Survey Results – Exhibition Cooking Importance Ranking  Male – 22  Female – 23  Overall – 23 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 26 Survey Results – International Buffet Importance Ranking  Male – 17  Female – 21  Overall – 18 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 27 Survey Results – Pizza Importance Ranking  Male – 14  Female – 15  Overall – 15 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 28 Survey Results – Cooked To Order Items Importance Ranking  Male – 18  Female – 17  Overall – 17 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 29 Survey Results – Latte And Espresso Importance Ranking  Male – 23  Female – 22  Overall – 22 Classification  Male – Indifferent  Female – Indifferent  All – Indifferent Overall Recommendation  Classify as Indifferent Indifferent – Produces a “who cares?”

NASA Lean Six Sigma 30 Survey Results – Self Stated Importance Rankings

NASA Lean Six Sigma 31 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 32 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 33 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 34 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 35 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 36 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 37 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 38 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 39 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 40 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 41 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 42 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 43 Write In Comments

NASA Lean Six Sigma 44 Write In Comments