Figure 1.
Overview of the main stages of the current study.
Figure 1.
Overview of the main stages of the current study.
Figure 2.
Breakdown of the questionnaire’s third section.
Figure 2.
Breakdown of the questionnaire’s third section.
Figure 3.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S1 to S7 on customer service.
Figure 3.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S1 to S7 on customer service.
Figure 4.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S8 to S13 on quality of service provided.
Figure 4.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S8 to S13 on quality of service provided.
Figure 5.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S8 to S13 on support documentation.
Figure 5.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S8 to S13 on support documentation.
Figure 6.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S19 to S21 on technical support.
Figure 6.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S19 to S21 on technical support.
Figure 7.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S22 to S24 on billing and payment.
Figure 7.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S22 to S24 on billing and payment.
Figure 8.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S22 to S24 on online services and tools.
Figure 8.
Percentage breakdown of responses to statements S22 to S24 on online services and tools.
Figure 9.
Percentage breakdown of responses to the statement included in the third section of the questionnaire.
Figure 9.
Percentage breakdown of responses to the statement included in the third section of the questionnaire.
Figure 10.
Percentage breakdown of response trends in the third section of the questionnaire.
Figure 10.
Percentage breakdown of response trends in the third section of the questionnaire.
Figure 11.
Percentage breakdown of response to the third section of the questionnaire by gender, age, academic qualifications, and employment status.
Figure 11.
Percentage breakdown of response to the third section of the questionnaire by gender, age, academic qualifications, and employment status.
Figure 12.
Responses from participant one in the second section of the questionnaire.
Figure 12.
Responses from participant one in the second section of the questionnaire.
Figure 13.
A graphical interpretation of participant one’s responses across study areas (customer service, quality of service provided, support documentation, technical support, billing and payment, and online services and tools) in the best-case and worst-case scenarios. The blue, gray, and white colored areas correspond to exergy, vagueness, and anergy. (1) very dissatisfied, (2) dissatisfied, (3) slightly dissatisfied, (4) slightly satisfied, (5) satisfied, and (6) very satisfied.
Figure 13.
A graphical interpretation of participant one’s responses across study areas (customer service, quality of service provided, support documentation, technical support, billing and payment, and online services and tools) in the best-case and worst-case scenarios. The blue, gray, and white colored areas correspond to exergy, vagueness, and anergy. (1) very dissatisfied, (2) dissatisfied, (3) slightly dissatisfied, (4) slightly satisfied, (5) satisfied, and (6) very satisfied.
Figure 14.
A schematic representation of the neural network model designed to predict customers’ overall opinions regarding the lab’s services. The inputs include the values of exergy (EX), vagueness (VA), and anergy (AN) across all study areas, customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5), technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3). The inputs are evaluated in both the best-case scenario (BCS) and worst-case scenario (WCS), and on both scales, from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6). (* The data provided are for participant 1 and are used as an illustration).
Figure 14.
A schematic representation of the neural network model designed to predict customers’ overall opinions regarding the lab’s services. The inputs include the values of exergy (EX), vagueness (VA), and anergy (AN) across all study areas, customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5), technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3). The inputs are evaluated in both the best-case scenario (BCS) and worst-case scenario (WCS), and on both scales, from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6). (* The data provided are for participant 1 and are used as an illustration).
Table 1.
Breakdown of the areas and statements featured in the second section of the questionnaire.
Table 1.
Breakdown of the areas and statements featured in the second section of the questionnaire.
Customer service | S1 | Staff friendlily and approachability. |
S2 | Easiness of contact. |
S3 | Response time to requests. |
S4 | Service availability. |
S5 | Service flexibility (to meet my needs). |
S6 | Effectiveness in the clarification of questions. |
S7 | Clarity in answers to questions. |
Quality of service provided | S8 | Explanation of the testing process. |
S9 | Sampling. |
S10 | Number and type of tests available. |
S11 | Reliability of results. |
S12 | Appropriateness of delivery times. |
S13 | Delivery deadlines. |
Support documentation | S14 | Clarity in the presentation of the commercial proposals |
S15 | Clarity in the presentation of analysis reports |
S16 | User-friendliness of the format of analysis reports. |
S17 | Helpfulness of guidelines provided for interpreting test results. |
S18 | Inclusion of all relevant legal and regulatory information in the documentation. |
Technical support | S19 | Availability of technical support. |
S20 | Expertise of the technical support team. |
S21 | Solutions provided by technical support. |
Billing and payment | S22 | Clarity and transparency of billing information. |
S23 | Ease of the payment process. |
S24 | Flexibility of payment options offered. |
Online services and tools | S25 | Usability of the laboratory’s online portal. |
S26 | Response time for appointment requests via email. |
S27 | Effectiveness of the email scheduling process. |
Table 2.
Breakdown of participants by gender, age group, academic qualification, and employment status.
Table 2.
Breakdown of participants by gender, age group, academic qualification, and employment status.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics | Class | Frequency |
---|
N | % |
---|
Gender | Female | 153 | 37.1 |
Male | 259 | 62.9 |
Age (years old) | <25 | 22 | 5.3 |
[25, 45] | 114 | 27.7 |
[46, 65] | 168 | 40.8 |
>65 | 108 | 26.2 |
Academic qualifications | Basic education | 153 | 37.1 |
Secondary education | 144 | 35.0 |
High education | 89 | 21.6 |
Post-Graduate education | 26 | 6.3 |
Employment status | Student | 11 | 2.7 |
Employed | 183 | 44.4 |
Unemployed | 41 | 10.0 |
Retired | 177 | 42.9 |
Table 3.
Translating participant one’s responses across study areas (customer service, quality of service provided, support documentation, technical support, billing and payment, and online services and tools) to an expanded Likert scale.
Table 3.
Translating participant one’s responses across study areas (customer service, quality of service provided, support documentation, technical support, billing and payment, and online services and tools) to an expanded Likert scale.
Area | Statements | Expanded Likert Scale 11-Levels * |
---|
Downward Trend | Upward Trend | |
---|
![Applsci 14 07626 i001]() | ![Applsci 14 07626 i001]() | |
---|
6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Vagueness |
---|
Customer service | S1 | ✕ | | | | | | | | | | | |
S2 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S3 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S4 | ✕ | | | | | | | | | | | |
S5 | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | |
S6 | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | | | | | |
S7 | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | | | | | |
Quality of service provided | S8 | ✕ | | | | | | | | | | | |
S9 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S10 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S11 | | | | | | | | | | | | ✕ |
S12 | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | |
S13 | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | |
Support documentation | S14 | ✕ | | | | | | | | | | | |
S15 | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | | | | | |
S16 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S17 | | | | | | ✕ | | | | | | |
S18 | | | | | | | | | | | | ✕ |
Technical support | S19 | ✕ | | | | | | | | | | | |
S20 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S21 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
Billing and payment | S22 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S23 | | | | | | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | |
S24 | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | | | | | |
Online services and tools | S25 | | | | | | | | | | | | ✕ |
S26 | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | | | |
S27 | | | | | ✕ | ✕ | | | | | | |
Table 4.
Calculating exergy, vagueness, and anergy for Support Documentation (SD–5) in the best-case scenario, for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6).
Table 4.
Calculating exergy, vagueness, and anergy for Support Documentation (SD–5) in the best-case scenario, for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6).
Statement | SD–5–Scale (6) → (1) | SD–5–Scale (1) → (6) |
---|
S14 | | |
| |
| |
S15 | | |
| |
| |
S16 | | |
| |
| |
S17 | | |
| |
| |
S18 | | |
| |
| |
Table 5.
Calculating exergy, vagueness, and anergy for support documentation (SD–5) in the worst-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6).
Table 5.
Calculating exergy, vagueness, and anergy for support documentation (SD–5) in the worst-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6).
Statement | SD–5–Scale (6) → (1) | SD–5–Scale (1) → (6) |
---|
S14 | | |
| |
| |
S15 | | |
| |
| |
S16 | | |
| |
| |
S17 | | |
| |
| |
S18 | | |
| |
| |
Table 6.
Values of EXergy (EX), VAgueness (VA), and ANergy (AN) concerning participant one, for all areas included in the study (i.e., customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5 technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3)) in the best-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.
Table 6.
Values of EXergy (EX), VAgueness (VA), and ANergy (AN) concerning participant one, for all areas included in the study (i.e., customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5 technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3)) in the best-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.
| Scale (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) * | | Scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) * |
---|
| EX | VA | AN | | EX | VA | AN |
---|
CS–76-1 | 0.080 | 0 | 0.492 | CS–71-6 | 0.044 | 0 | 0.385 |
QSP–66-1 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.329 | QSP–61-6 | 0.126 | 0 | 0.542 |
SD–56-1 | 0.056 | 0 | 0.544 | SD–51-6 | 0.206 | 0 | 0.194 |
TS–36-1 | 0.009 | 0 | 0.324 | TS–31-6 | 0.018 | 0 | 0.648 |
BP–36-1 | 0.083 | 0 | 0.250 | BP–31-6 | 0.018 | 0 | 0.648 |
OST–36-1 | 0.462 | 0 | 0.538 | OST–31-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 7.
Values of EXergy (EX), VAgueness (VA), and ANergy (AN) concerning participant one, for all areas included in the study (i.e., customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5 technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3)) in the worst-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.
Table 7.
Values of EXergy (EX), VAgueness (VA), and ANergy (AN) concerning participant one, for all areas included in the study (i.e., customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5 technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3)) in the worst-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.
| Scale (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) * | | Scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) * |
---|
| EX | VA | AN | | EX | VA | AN |
---|
CS–76-1 | 0.080 | 0.056 | 0.436 | CS–71-6 | 0.044 | 0.052 | 0.333 |
QSP–66-1 | 0.005 | 0.167 | 0.162 | QSP–61-6 | 0.126 | 0.103 | 0.439 |
SD–56-1 | 0.056 | 0.239 | 0.305 | SD–51-6 | 0.206 | 0.016 | 0.178 |
TS–36-1 | 0.009 | 0.000 | 0.324 | TS–31-6 | 0.018 | 0.056 | 0.592 |
BP–36-1 | 0.083 | 0.065 | 0.185 | BP–31-6 | 0.018 | 0.056 | 0.592 |
OST–36-1 | 0.462 | 0.538 | 0 | OST–31-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 8.
Confusion matrix of the ANN model for predicting customers’ overall opinions on the lab’s services in both scenarios.
Table 8.
Confusion matrix of the ANN model for predicting customers’ overall opinions on the lab’s services in both scenarios.
| | Predict | Training | Test |
---|
Target | | Very dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Slightly dissatisfied | Slightly satisfied | Satisfied | Very satisfied | Very dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Slightly dissatisfied | Slightly satisfied | Satisfied | Very satisfied |
---|
Best-case scenario | Very dissatisfied | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Dissatisfied | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Slightly dissatisfied | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Slightly satisfied | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
Satisfied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 75 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 36 | 5 |
Very satisfied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 133 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 68 |
Worst-case scenario | Very dissatisfied | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Dissatisfied | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Slightly dissatisfied | 0 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Slightly satisfied | 0 | 0 | 4 | 77 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 36 | 3 | 0 |
Satisfied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 105 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 52 | 4 |
Very satisfied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 18 |