Statistics > Methodology
[Submitted on 28 Jan 2025]
Title:A totally non-compensatory multi-criteria method for evaluating and improving level of satisfaction (LoS): proposal and application on Airport Terminal of Passengers
View PDFAbstract:To evaluate and assign a service according customer's level of satisfaction (LoS) is a relevant issue in operations management. This is a typical situation in which the evaluators, have passed by heterogeneous experiences along their life which implies they could consider different variables when evaluating a product. Despite it, the models for measuring Los usually consider a homogeneous set of criteria when facing LoS evaluation. This study applies a totally non-compensatory modeling that allows each customer to select the criteria, from a whole set of aspects, the customer wants to use for evaluating LoS. The proposal was tested in evaluating LoS regarding the services provided by Airport Terminal of Passengers (ATPs) in Brazil, with data collected in a survey involving 19,240 passengers, interviewed at 15 Brazilian international airports. The data collected was imputed into ELECTRE TRI ME algorithm to obtain the a credibility degree of sorting the instances. The values of credibility degree were them used to obtain groups of ATPs. Finally, the statistical modes of the evaluations in each group were analyzed and compared. The proposal allowed a full non-compensatory approach to obtain the credibility degree even when considering perceptions from several evaluators that could use different criteria. As a result, it was identified, for each cluster of ATP, the criteria sets to be improved and even those to be prioritized. The pioneer modeling proposed in this article for evaluating LoS plus its instancing in ATPs terminals represents an original advance in the establishment of a multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) model to assess the quality of services and fills a relevant gap for a full non-compensatory approach able to classify the LoS in the airport context, considering perceptions of multiple evaluators even if they use different criteria in their evaluations.
Submission history
From: Helder Gomes Costa [view email][v1] Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:23:01 UTC (212 KB)
References & Citations
Bookmark
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.