A Holistic Quality Improvement Model for Food Services: Integrating Fuzzy Kano and PROMETHEE II
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Fuzzy Kano Model
- Attractive elements (A) result in customer satisfaction. These attributes have a significant impact on customer satisfaction. However, their absence does not generate dissatisfaction;
- One-dimensional elements (O) result in satisfaction when met and dissatisfaction when not met. These elements are considered “the more, the better” attributes;
- Must-be elements (M) are taken for granted when met, but cause dissatisfaction when they are not. Customers expect these elements and thus consider them prerequisites;
- Indifferent elements (I) do not lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Clients do not consider whether these elements are present or not;
- Reverse elements (R) cause more satisfaction due to their absence than due to their presence. A high degree of service performance for these attributes results in dissatisfaction.
- Functional question: How do you feel when a food truck offers a readable and visually appealing menu?
- Dysfunctional question: How do you feel when a food truck offers an illegible and visually unappealing menu?
2.2. PROMETHEE II
2.3. Integration of the Kano Model and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods
3. Proposed Model
3.1. Step 1—Determine Service Attributes
3.2. Step 2—Collect Customer Data
3.3. Step 3—Analyze Customer Data: Apply Fuzzy Kano Analysis
3.4. Step 4—Determine Improvement Actions for Each Service Attribute: Application of 5W2H
- Cost (C1) refers to the total cost of implementing an alternative. Minimizing C1 is preferable for enhancing the overall efficiency, as more complex implementations incur higher expenses due to increased resource and management requirements;
- Time (C2) indicates the time to implement the alternative. Minimizing C2 is desirable, as greater complexity leads to longer implementation times;
- Impact on satisfaction (C3) refers to customer perception, expressed as (“pleasure minus repulsion”), which reflects the effect of enhancing a specific quality attribute through an alternative and its subsequent impact on customer satisfaction. Maximizing C3 is preferable, as higher values indicate a greater positive impact on customer satisfaction;
- Impact on strategic alignment (C4) ranges from an aligned strategy to a non-aligned strategy to the objectives of the business. Maximizing C4 is crucial, as higher scores reflect a stronger alignment of alternatives with strategic goals, enhancing the potential to achieve the organization’s objectives;
- Personnel qualification (C5) represents the qualification level of the personnel involved in the implementation of the alternatives, ranging from fully qualified to unqualified. Maximizing C5 is advantageous because higher scores indicate a more skilled and knowledgeable workforce, which enhances the effectiveness of the implementation process.
3.5. Step 5—Evaluate Improvement Actions: Application of PROMETHEE II
3.6. Step 6—Perform a Sensitivity Analysis and Determine a Subset of Final Improvement Actions
3.7. Step 7—Implement
3.8. Step 8—Future Extensions
4. Application of the Model
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Villanueva, M.C.C.; Alejandro, A.F.; Ga-an, M.L.L.P. Measuring the Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty of Selected Fast-Food Restaurants during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2023, 11, 1181–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, S.-H.; Nyam-Ochir, A. The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction, Revisit Intention, and Recommendation Using DINESERV Scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gopi, B.; Samat, N. The Influence of Food Trucks’ Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Its Impact toward Customer Loyalty. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3213–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. J. Mark. 1985, 49, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lizarelli, F.L.; Osiro, L.; Ganga, G.M.D.; Mendes, G.H.S.; Paz, G.R. Integration of SERVQUAL, Analytical Kano, and QFD Using Fuzzy Approaches to Support Improvement Decisions in an Entrepreneurial Education Service. Appl. Soft Comput. 2021, 112, 107786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guak, J.-W.; Oh, J.-E.; Cho, M.-S. A Study on the Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction with Institutional Foodservice during COVID-19. Foods 2022, 11, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Violante, M.G.; Vezzetti, E. Kano Qualitative vs Quantitative Approaches: An Assessment Framework for Products Attributes Analysis. Comput. Ind. 2017, 86, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lupo, T.; Bellomo, E. DINESERV along with Fuzzy Hierarchical TOPSIS to Support the Best Practices Observation and Service Quality Improvement in the Restaurant Context. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 137, 106046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.H.I.; Kang, H.-Y.; Lin, C.Y.; Chen, J.-S. A Novel Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment Framework. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 2017, 14, 44–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schifeling, T.; Demetry, D. The New Food Truck in Town: Geographic Communities and Authenticity-Based Entrepreneurship. Organ. Sci. 2021, 32, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Liu, Y. Sensitivity Analysis of the Parameters for Preference Functions and Rank Reversal Analysis in the PROMETHEE II Method. Omega 2024, 128, 103116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, P.; Verçosa, L.; Melo, F.; Silva, V.; Filho, C.B.; Bezerra, B. Artificial Intelligence-Based Methods for Business Processes: A Systematic Literature Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, H.; Choi, E.-K.; Yoon, B.; Joung, H.-W. Understanding Food Truck Customers: Selection Attributes and Customer Segmentation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, Y.H.; Kim, H.; Severt, K. Consumer Values and Service Quality Perceptions of Food Truck Experiences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 79, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeil, P.; Young, C.A. Customer Satisfaction in Gourmet Food Trucks: Exploring Attributes and Their Relationship with Customer Satisfaction. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2019, 22, 326–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafieizadeh, K.; Alotaibi, S.; Tao, C.-W.W. How Do Authenticity and Quality Perceptions Affect Dining Experiences and Recommendations of Food Trucks? The Moderating Role of Perceived Risk. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isoni Auad, L.; Cortez Ginani, V.; dos Santos Leandro, E.; Stedefeldt, E.; Costa Santos Nunes, A.; Yoshio Nakano, E.; Puppin Zandonadi, R. Brazilian Food Truck Consumers’ Profile, Choices, Preferences, and Food Safety Importance Perception. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valente, G.M.; Stangarlin-Fiori, L.; Seiscentos, L.d.O.; de Souza, V.V.; Opolski Medeiros, C. Profile of Food Truck Consumers and Their Opinion about Food Safety. Nutr. Food Sci. 2019, 50, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzberg, F.M.; Mausner, B.; Syderman, B.B. The Motivation to Work; Routledge: London, UK, 1993; p. 113. [Google Scholar]
- Kano, N. Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality. Hinshitsu 1984, 14, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Kano, N. Life Cycle and Creation of Attractive Quality. In Proceedings of the 4th QMOD Conference, Linkoping, Sweden, 12–14 September 2001; pp. 12–14. [Google Scholar]
- Berger, C.; Blauth, R.; Boger, D. An Experiment Kano’s Methods for Understanding Customer-Defined Quality. Cent. Qual. Manag. J. 1993, 2, 2–36. [Google Scholar]
- Albuquerque, A.P.G.; Melo, F.J.C.; Medeiros, D.D. Airline Quality Assessment towards Strategic Tourism Management Improvements. Tour. Rev. 2022, 77, 570–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirgizov, U.A.; Kwak, C. Quantification and Integration of Kano’s Model into QFD for Customer-Focused Product Design. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 2022, 19, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Jiao, R.J.; Yang, X.; Helander, M.; Khalid, H.M.; Opperud, A. An Analytical Kano Model for Customer Need Analysis. Des. Stud. 2009, 30, 87–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, S.-P.; Yang, C.-L.; Chan, Y.; Sheu, C. Refining Kano’s ‘Quality Attributes–Satisfaction’ Model: A Moderated Regression Approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 126, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.-F. A Novel Approach to Regression Analysis for the Classification of Quality Attributes in the Kano Model: An Empirical Test in the Food and Beverage Industry. Omega 2012, 40, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slevitch, L. Kano Model Categorization Methods: Typology and Systematic Critical Overview for Hospitality and Tourism Academics and Practitioners. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2024; ahead of print. 10963480241230957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikulić, J.; Prebežac, D. A Critical Review of Techniques for Classifying Quality Attributes in the Kano Model. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2011, 21, 46–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-H.; Wang, J. Combining Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Kano to Optimize Product Varieties for Smart Cameras: A Zero-One Integer Programming Perspective. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 22, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy Sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-C.; Huang, S.-Y. A New Fuzzy Concept Approach for Kano’s Model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 4479–4484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, C.-M.; Li, S.; Chen, K.-S.; Li, M.; Lo, W. A Methodological Framework for New Product Development in Fuzzy Environments. Systems 2024, 12, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, M.M.; Ullah, A.S. A Possibilistic Approach for Aggregating Customer Opinions in Product Development. Systems 2016, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brozović, M.; Kovačević, D.; Bota, J. Consumer Satisfaction With Packaging Materials: Kano Model Analysis Approach. Teh. Vjesn. 2021, 28, 1203–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Ilic, J.; Guiné, R.P.F.; Tomasevic, I. Can We Understand Food Oral Processing Using Kano Model? Case Study with Confectionery Products. J. Texture Stud. 2020, 51, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shokouhyar, S.; Shokoohyar, S.; Safari, S. Research on the Influence of After-Sales Service Quality Factors on Customer Satisfaction. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 56, 102139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djekic, I.; Dimitrijevic, B.; Smigic, N. Consumer Complaints Associated with Food Quality. J. Consum. Prot. Food Saf. 2022, 18, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Wang, H.; Xu, B. Using Fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE for Market Risk Assessment of New-Build River Cruises on the Yangtze River. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banihabib, M.E.; Chitsaz, N.; Randhir, T.O. Non-Compensatory Decision Model for Incorporating the Sustainable Development Criteria in Flood Risk Management Plans. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuzkaya, G.; Sennaroglu, B.; Kalender, Z.T.; Mutlu, M. Hospital Service Quality Evaluation with IVIF-PROMETHEE and a Case Study. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2019, 68, 100705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brans, J.-P. L’ingénierie de La Décision: L’élaboration D’instruments d’aide a La Décision; Université Laval, Faculté des Sciences de L’administration: Quebec, QC, Canada, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. A Preference Ranking Organization Method. The PROMETHEE Method for MCDM. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brans, J.P.; Mareschal, B.; Vincke, P. PROMETHEE: A New Family of Outranking Methods in Multicriteria Analysis. In Proceedings of the Operational Research’84; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 477–490. [Google Scholar]
- Mareschal, B.; Brans, J.-P. Geometrical Representations for MCDA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1988, 34, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brans, J.P.; Mareschal, B. Promethee V: Mcdm Problems With Segmentation Constraints. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 1992, 30, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brans, J.-P.; Mareschal, B. The PROMETHEE VI Procedure: How to Differentiate Hard from Soft Multicriteria Problems. J. Decis. Syst. 1995, 4, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greco, S.; Figueira, J.; Ehrgott, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 187–219. [Google Scholar]
- Mareschal, B.; De Smet, Y.; Nemery, P. Rank Reversal in the PROMETHEE II Method: Some New Results. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Singapore, 8–11 December 2008; pp. 959–963. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, A.; Gupta, A.; Mehra, A. Best Criteria Selection Based PROMETHEE II Method. OPSEARCH 2021, 58, 160–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zopounidis, C. Multicriteria decision aid in financial management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1999, 119, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, B.M.; Andersson, M.G.; van den Borne, B.H.P.; Focker, M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Food Safety Risk Management: The Case of Dioxins in Baltic Fish. Foods 2022, 11, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Causil, O.M.; Morais, D.C. A Multicriteria Group Decision-Making Model for Selecting a Perishable Food Packaging System Using an Outranking Method. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, 13 December 2021; pp. 467–471. [Google Scholar]
- Casas-Rosal, J.C.; Segura, M.; Maroto, C. Food Market Segmentation Based on Consumer Preferences Using Outranking Multicriteria Approaches. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2023, 30, 1537–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fofan, A.C.; Oliveira, L.A.B.d.; Melo, F.J.C.d.; Jerônimo, T.d.B.; Medeiros, D.D.d. An Integrated Methodology Using PROMETHEE and Kano’s Model to Rank Strategic Decisions. Eng. Manag. J. 2019, 31, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.; Avikal, S.; Rashmi, R.; Ram, M. A Kano Model, AHP and TOPSIS Based Approach for Selecting the Best Mobile Phone under a Fuzzy Environment. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2020, 37, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoghi, M.; Rostami, G.; Khoshand, A.; Motalleb, F. Material Selection in Design for Deconstruction Using Kano Model, Fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS Methodology. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batwara, A.; Sharma, V.; Makkar, M.; Giallanza, A. An Empirical Investigation of Green Product Design and Development Strategies for Eco Industries Using Kano Model and Fuzzy AHP. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, T.-C.; Muniroh, M.; Fau, K.H. An Integrated Kano Model, Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process, and Decision Matrix for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Palm Oil Industries Indonesia, a Case Study. Processes 2021, 9, 1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, J.; Li, Z.; Dou, Y.; Teng, Y.; Yuan, M. Contractor Selection for Green Buildings Based on the Fuzzy Kano Model and TOPSIS: A Developer Satisfaction Perspective. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023, 30, 5073–5108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, T.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.; Herrera, F. An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Kano-Prospect-TOPSIS Based QFD Model: Application to Chinese e-Commerce Service Design. Appl. Soft Comput. 2021, 111, 107665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, S. Hybrid Kano-DEMATEL-TOPSIS Model Based Benefit Distribution of Multiple Logistics Service Providers Considering Consumer Service Evaluation of Segmented Task. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 213, 119292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, L.; Wu, Z.; Xiang, W.; Goh, M.; Xu, Z.; Song, W.; Ming, X.; Wu, X. A Novel Kano-QFD-DEMATEL Approach to Optimise the Risk Resilience Solution for Sustainable Supply Chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 1714–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, B.-W.; Huang, Z.; Xiong, L. Application of the Kano Model and DEMATEL Technique to Explore Sustainable Promotion Strategies for Thai-Chinese Temples as Tourist Attractions. Religions 2020, 11, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, N.; Singh, A.R. Sustainable Supplier Selection Criteria Classification for Indian Iron and Steel Industry: A Fuzzy Modified Kano Model Approach. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2020, 13, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, D.C.; Marques, R.C.; Nunes, A.M.; Figueira, J.R. Customers Satisfaction in Pediatric Inpatient Services: A Multiple Criteria Satisfaction Analysis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021, 78, 101036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albuquerque, A.; Becerra, C.; de Melo, F.J.C.; de Medeiros, D.D. Application of an Approach Integrating the Kano Model and the Fuzzy Systems Theory: A Strategic Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Scores. TQM J. 2024; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idzni, N.; Ekawati, A.D. Application of Kano Model Based on Servqual Dimension in Efforts to Improve the Service Quality of Jakarta Mass Rapid Transport. Qual.-Access Success 2021, 22, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
- Neira-Rodado, D.; Ortiz-Barrios, M.; De la Hoz-Escorcia, S.; Paggetti, C.; Noffrini, L.; Fratea, N. Smart Product Design Process through the Implementation of a Fuzzy Kano-AHP-DEMATEL-QFD Approach. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blouchoutzi, A.; Manou, D.; Papathanasiou, J. A PROMETHEE MCDM Application in Social Inclusion: The Case of Foreign-Born Population in the EU. Systems 2021, 9, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, A.T.d.; Cavalcante, C.A.V.; Alencar, M.H.; Ferreira, R.J.P.; de Almeida-Filho, A.T.; Garcez, T.V. Multicriteria and Multiobjective Models for Risk, Reliability and Maintenance Decision Analysis. In International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 2031, pp. 23–87. [Google Scholar]
- Alfiero, S.; Lo Giudice, A.; Bonadonna, A. Street Food and Innovation: The Food Truck Phenomenon. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2462–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loh, Z.; Hassan, S.H. Consumers’ Attitudes, Perceived Risks and Perceived Benefits towards Repurchase Intention of Food Truck Products. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 1314–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (SEBRAE). Food Truck: Business Model and Its Regulation 2015. Available online: https://bibliotecas.sebrae.com.br/chronus/ARQUIVOS_CHRONUS/bds/bds.nsf/32748b6a9b2d815bb459a3574ca39872/$File/5335a.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2024).
- Becerra, C.E.T. Avaliação da Qualidade em Serviços Itinerantes de Alimentação Aplicando o Modelo de Kano e a Escala RSQS. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- NBR 16700:2018; Food Truck—Adaptation, Installation, Operation and Maintenance—Classification and Requirements 2018. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT): Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2018.
- Chen, K.-J.; Yeh, T.-M.; Pai, F.-Y.; Chen, D.-F. Integrating Refined Kano Model and QFD for Service Quality Improvement in Healthy Fast-Food Chain Restaurants. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabholkar, P.A.; Thorpe, D.I.; Rentz, J.O. A Measure of Service Quality for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1996, 24, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, W.G.; Ng, C.Y.N.; Kim, Y. Influence of Institutional DINESERV on Customer Satisfaction, Return Intention, and Word-of-Mouth. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law No. 18.422/2017; Disciplines the Activity of Marketing Food in Medium-Sized Motor Vehicles and Provides Other Measures. Prefeitura do Recife: Recife, Brazil, 2017.
- Stevens, P.; Knutson, B.; Patton, M. DINESERV: A Tool for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 1995, 36, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Althubaiti, A. Sample Size Determination: A Practical Guide for Health Researchers. J. Gen. Fam. Med. 2022, 24, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, T.; Chen, C.T.; Cheng, W.J. Service Quality Evaluation: Moderating Influences of First-Time and Revisiting Customers. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2018, 29, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dysfunctional Question (Negative) | |||||
Functional Question (Positive) | I would feel very bad | I would feel bad | I would feel nothing | I would feel good | I would feel very good |
I would feel very bad | Q | R | R | R | R |
I would feel bad | M | I | I | I | R |
I would feel nothing | M | I | I | I | R |
I would feel good | M | I | I | I | R |
I would feel very good | O | A | A | A | Q |
Attribute | Question | I Would Feel Very Bad | I Would Feel Bad | I Would Feel Nothing | I Would Feel Good | I Would Feel Very Good |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Functional | |||||
Dysfunctional | ||||||
… | … | … | … | … | … | … |
n | Functional | |||||
Dysfunctional |
A1: Modern Appearance of Equipment and Accessories. | |
---|---|
5W2H Element | Details |
What | Perform regular maintenance on equipment and accessories to enhance their appearance and functionality. |
Why | To ensure equipment looks modern, well maintained, and up-to-date, which can improve customer perception and user experience. |
Where | Across all locations and service areas where equipment and accessories are used (e.g., food preparation areas, serving counters, or storage sections). |
When | Schedule maintenance every 6 months or after significant use, with a total maintenance duration of 8 weeks per year. |
Who | The staff, in collaboration with external services as needed for specialized maintenance tasks. |
How | Create and implement a maintenance plan that includes thorough cleaning, repairs, and upgrades to worn-out equipment and accessories. |
How much | Estimated budget of BRL 1000 for maintenance services, replacement parts, and labor costs. |
Label | Criterion | Objective | Value Function | Weight | Scale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | Cost | Minimize | Usual | 0.30 | Monetary value (R$) |
C2 | Time | Minimize | Usual | 0.20 | Week |
C3 | Impact on satisfaction | Maximize | Usual | 0.25 | Continuous () |
C4 | Impact on strategic alignment | Maximize | Usual | 0.15 | Highest Impact and Alignment|4 High Impact and Alignment|3 Medium Impact and Alignment|2 Small Impact and Alignment|1 No Impact and Alignment|0 |
C5 | Staff qualification | Maximize | Usual | 0.10 | Full qualification|4 High qualification|3 Moderate qualification|2 Low qualification|1 No qualification|0 |
Dimension | Attribute | Improvement Action (What) |
---|---|---|
Physical aspects | 1. Modern appearance equipment and accessories | O1. Perform maintenance on equipment and accessories. |
2. Visually attractive physical facilities | O2. Improve the appearance of the facilities. | |
3. Readable and visually attractive menu | O3. Improve menu design. | |
4. Clean and disinfected areas | O4. Implement a cleaning routine. | |
5. Equipment and structure preserved | O5. Carry out periodic maintenance of the structure (internal and external) and equipment. | |
6. Adequate lighting | O6. Determine and ensure adequate lighting levels. | |
7. Proper equipment layout | O7. Evaluate and determine the best arrangement of the equipment. | |
8. Ease of access to the service area | O8. Provide direct access to the counter. | |
9. Convenient location | O9. Evaluate and determine the best location. | |
10. Comfortable space for consumption | O10. Determine a suitable space where clients feel comfortable. | |
11. Ease of access to garbage containers | O11. Arrange garbage containers around the consumption area. | |
Reliability | 12. Delivery of the service in the promised time | O12. Inform the client of the time the food will take to prepare and comply with it. |
13. Comply with promotions and offers | O13. Specify offers and promotions. | |
14. Short waiting time | O14. Standardize preparation and delivery times | |
15. Respond to special requests | O15. Train staff in social skills. | |
16. Comply with health regulations | O16. Periodically check compliance with legal and hygiene requirements. | |
17. Safe operations and movements | O17. Implement a periodic checklist. | |
18. Right service the first time | O18. Train staff on their roles. | |
19. Availability of menu items | O19. Estimate demand and plan production. | |
20. Error-free transactions and registrations | O20. Define corrective and preventive actions in case of errors. | |
Personal interaction | 21. Staff behavior inspires confidence | O21. Train staff (interdisciplinary training). |
22. Safe behavior when handling food | O22. Periodically train staff in food safety. | |
23. The shelf life of food products is reported | O23. Label food products intended for consumption. | |
24. Direct interactions with staff | O24. Create social campaigns. | |
25. Food preparation visible to customers | O25. Implement an open-kitchen bar. | |
26. Legal documents visible to clients | O26. Place legal documents visible to consumers and inspectors. | |
27. Availability to meet orders | O27. Determine the workload per employee. | |
28. Personalized attention | O28. Personalize customer service. | |
29. Courteous and attentive staff | O29. Reward the employee of the month for excellent service. | |
Problem resolution | 30. Easy returns or exchanges | O30. Establish return and exchange policies for orders. |
31. Sincere interest in solving problems | O31 Implement employee performance indicators. | |
Policy | 32. Expected quality of food | O32. Standardize the production process. |
33. Convenient opening hours | O33. Determine the best service schedule for the customer. | |
34. Flexible payment | O34. Offer various payment methods. | |
35. Affordable price | O35. Update product sales prices. | |
36. Promotions and attractive offers | O36. Establish marketing strategies for the product. |
Variable | Category | n | % |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 18–23 | 254 | 46.4 |
24–29 | 157 | 28.7 | |
30–35 | 73 | 13.3 | |
36–41 | 24 | 4.4 | |
≥42 | 39 | 7.1 | |
Sex | Female | 261 | 47.7 |
Male | 286 | 52.3 | |
Education | High school | 49 | 9.0 |
Higher education | 387 | 70.7 | |
Graduate studies | 111 | 20.3 | |
Monthly income | <USD 957.61 | 275 | 50.3 |
USD 957.61–1915.23 | 117 | 21.4 | |
>USD 1915,23 | 88 | 16.1 | |
Not declared | 67 | 12.2 | |
Frequency of consumption (per month) | 1–2 | 428 | 78.2 |
3–4 | 61 | 11.2 | |
≥5 | 58 | 10.6 | |
Average expenditure (per purchase) | <USD 7.20 | 368 | 67.3 |
USD 7.21–23.99 | 173 | 31.6 | |
>USD 24 | 6 | 1.1 |
Attribute | A | O | M | I | R | Q | Category | () | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 32.1% | 10.6% | 13.6% | 41.3% | 1.4% | 0.9% | I | 0.417 | −0.230 | 0.646 |
2 | 31.5% | 26.7% | 18.3% | 21.6% | 0.8% | 1.1% | A | 0.581 | −0.448 | 1.029 |
3 | 34.6% | 21.2% | 16.0% | 26.2% | 0.9% | 1.1% | A | 0.555 | −0.367 | 0.923 |
4 | 16.4% | 54.7% | 20.8% | 6.2% | 0.5% | 1.5% | O | 0.715 | −0.760 | 1.475 |
5 | 25.5% | 30.9% | 23.0% | 19.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | O | 0.562 | −0.536 | 1.098 |
6 | 33.5% | 13.2% | 14.7% | 37.3% | 0.7% | 0.6% | I | 0.462 | −0.274 | 0.736 |
7 | 34.9% | 11.3% | 12.8% | 39.6% | 0.8% | 0.5% | I | 0.457 | −0.235 | 0.692 |
8 | 36.6% | 17.6% | 14.5% | 30.1% | 0.7% | 0.6% | A | 0.538 | −0.316 | 0.854 |
9 | 39.3% | 22.2% | 13.2% | 23.3% | 0.9% | 1.1% | A | 0.612 | −0.348 | 0.961 |
10 | 31.3% | 24.0% | 18.8% | 24.6% | 0.6% | 0.7% | A | 0.550 | −0.425 | 0.975 |
11 | 28.1% | 29.5% | 20.4% | 19.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | O | 0.573 | −0.494 | 1.067 |
12 | 32.2% | 44.2% | 12.7% | 9.2% | 0.5% | 1.2% | O | 0.769 | −0.571 | 1.340 |
13 | 22.1% | 52.1% | 17.4% | 7.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | O | 0.745 | −0.698 | 1.442 |
14 | 24.8% | 45.1% | 18.5% | 10.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | O | 0.702 | −0.639 | 1.341 |
15 | 24.7% | 39.1% | 21.4% | 13.5% | 0.5% | 0.9% | O | 0.638 | −0.604 | 1.242 |
16 | 16.6% | 57.1% | 19.3% | 5.6% | 0.3% | 1.0% | O | 0.742 | −0.769 | 1.510 |
17 | 22.5% | 36.9% | 24.6% | 14.9% | 0.4% | 0.7% | O | 0.594 | −0.615 | 1.208 |
18 | 39.4% | 24.7% | 13.5% | 21.5% | 0.4% | 0.5% | A | 0.640 | −0.380 | 1.020 |
19 | 39.2% | 23.0% | 13.6% | 23.2% | 0.4% | 0.5% | A | 0.622 | −0.365 | 0.987 |
20 | 25.1% | 34.1% | 22.9% | 16.9% | 0.4% | 0.5% | O | 0.592 | −0.570 | 1.162 |
21 | 26.5% | 29.3% | 22.5% | 20.4% | 0.6% | 0.7% | O | 0.557 | −0.516 | 1.073 |
22 | 16.4% | 56.3% | 19.7% | 5.7% | 0.5% | 1.4% | O | 0.733 | −0.766 | 1.499 |
23 | 28.5% | 17.6% | 19.6% | 31.7% | 1.5% | 1.1% | I | 0.451 | −0.362 | 0.813 |
24 | 29.7% | 16.5% | 18.9% | 34.0% | 0.5% | 5.1% | I | 0.459 | −0.351 | 0.810 |
25 | 32.7% | 18.2% | 17.2% | 30.9% | 0.4% | 0.5% | A | 0.507 | −0.352 | 0.859 |
26 | 30.9% | 17.4% | 17.8% | 31.6% | 1.4% | 1.0% | I | 0.474 | −0.342 | 0.815 |
27 | 40.8% | 23.9% | 12.6% | 21.6% | 0.4% | 0.7% | A | 0.647 | −0.363 | 1.010 |
28 | 41.1% | 13.7% | 11.0% | 33.1% | 0.6% | 0.5% | A | 0.545 | −0.243 | 0.788 |
29 | 19.0% | 51.4% | 20.4% | 7.6% | 0.5% | 3.0% | O | 0.708 | −0.721 | 1.429 |
30 | 0.1% | 37.0% | 19.6% | 27.1% | 0.4% | 0.7% | O | 0.436 | −0.667 | 1.103 |
31 | 22.4% | 55.9% | 23.0% | 5.8% | 0.3% | 1.1% | O | 0.726 | −0.731 | 1.457 |
32 | 35.9% | 42.2% | 11.3% | 9.6% | 0.3% | 0.8% | O | 0.784 | −0.536 | 1.321 |
33 | 41.8% | 15.3% | 11.1% | 30.4% | 0.6% | 0.8% | A | 0.570 | −0.259 | 0.829 |
34 | 46.8% | 22.4% | 9.4% | 19.7% | 0.7% | 0.9% | A | 0.692 | −0.314 | 1.006 |
35 | 25.8% | 47.9% | 16.4% | 8.8% | 0.3% | 0.8% | O | 0.740 | −0.645 | 1.385 |
36 | 44.7% | 29.5% | 9.7% | 14.7% | 0.5% | 1.0% | A | 0.744 | −0.390 | 1.134 |
Criterion | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
O1 | 1000.00 | 8 | 0.646 | 3 | 2 |
O2 | 500.00 | 4 | 1.029 | 1 | 2 |
O3 | 300.00 | 2 | 0.923 | 4 | 3 |
O4 | 900.00 | 1 | 1.475 | 2 | 4 |
O5 | 50.00 | 3 | 1.098 | 3 | 2 |
O6 | 30.00 | 2 | 0.736 | 2 | 3 |
O7 | 100.00 | 4 | 0.692 | 0 | 1 |
O8 | 50.00 | 1 | 0.854 | 3 | 3 |
O9 | 400.00 | 5 | 0.961 | 3 | 3 |
O10 | 50.00 | 1 | 0.975 | 2 | 3 |
O11 | 100.00 | 1 | 1.067 | 2 | 4 |
O12 | 200.00 | 4 | 1.340 | 3 | 2 |
O13 | 15.00 | 4 | 1.442 | 2 | 2 |
O14 | 500.00 | 9 | 1.341 | 4 | 1 |
O15 | 1000.00 | 4 | 1.242 | 1 | 4 |
O16 | 60.00 | 7 | 1.510 | 4 | 4 |
O17 | 50.00 | 6 | 1.208 | 2 | 2 |
O18 | 500.00 | 8 | 1.020 | 3 | 3 |
O19 | 100.00 | 1 | 0.987 | 3 | 2 |
O20 | 300.00 | 5 | 1.162 | 3 | 3 |
O21 | 500.00 | 7 | 1.073 | 2 | 3 |
O22 | 1000.00 | 8 | 1.499 | 3 | 4 |
O23 | 500.00 | 2 | 0.813 | 4 | 2 |
O24 | 200.00 | 7 | 0.810 | 2 | 2 |
O25 | 300.00 | 5 | 0.859 | 3 | 3 |
O26 | 15.00 | 1 | 0.815 | 3 | 3 |
O27 | 50.00 | 2 | 1.010 | 4 | 2 |
O28 | 150.00 | 4 | 0.788 | 2 | 1 |
O29 | 400.00 | 7 | 1.429 | 2 | 1 |
O30 | 200.00 | 4 | 1.103 | 3 | 2 |
O31 | 100.00 | 8 | 1.457 | 3 | 0 |
O32 | 500.00 | 10 | 1.321 | 4 | 2 |
O33 | 100.00 | 3 | 0.829 | 4 | 2 |
O34 | 300.00 | 5 | 1.006 | 2 | 3 |
O35 | 200.00 | 8 | 1.385 | 4 | 3 |
O36 | 400.00 | 10 | 1.134 | 3 | 1 |
Category | Alternative | Rank | Scenario I (+10%) | Scenario II (−10%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O | O11 | 20.40 | 10.50 | 9.900 | 9 | 9■ | 9■ |
O5 | 19.35 | 10.80 | 8.550 | 10 | 10■ | 11● | |
O16 | 17.00 | 15.95 | 1.050 | 15 | 16● | 16● | |
O13 | 15.65 | 15.15 | 0.500 | 16 | 15● | 19● | |
O30 | 14.70 | 15.05 | −0.350 | 19 | 19■ | 18● | |
O17 | 14.60 | 16.50 | −1.900 | 20 | 20■ | 21● | |
O12 | 13.20 | 16.55 | −3.350 | 22 | 22■ | 23● | |
O20 | 13.50 | 16.95 | −3.450 | 23 | 23■ | 22● | |
O35 | 13.30 | 17.85 | −4.550 | 24 | 24■ | 24■ | |
O4 | 10.95 | 21.15 | −10.200 | 27 | 28● | 27■ | |
O31 | 10.05 | 21.00 | −10.950 | 28 | 27● | 30● | |
O21 | 9.15 | 21.15 | −12.000 | 30 | 30■ | 29● | |
O15 | 8.95 | 23.50 | −14.550 | 31 | 33● | 31■ | |
O32 | 8.25 | 22.80 | −14.550 | 31 | 32● | 32● | |
O14 | 7.65 | 24.40 | −16.750 | 34 | 34■ | 34■ | |
O29 | 6.40 | 25.20 | −18.800 | 35 | 35■ | 36● | |
O22 | 6.05 | 25.20 | −19.150 | 36 | 36■ | 35● | |
A | O8 | 25.15 | 4.60 | 20.550 | 2 | 2■ | 2■ |
O27 | 23.40 | 7.55 | 15.850 | 4 | 4■ | 4■ | |
O33 | 23.20 | 8.15 | 15.050 | 5 | 6● | 5■ | |
O10 | 22.50 | 7.70 | 14.800 | 6 | 5● | 6■ | |
O19 | 20.80 | 8.85 | 11.950 | 7 | 7■ | 8● | |
O3 | 21.45 | 9.90 | 11.550 | 8 | 8■ | 7● | |
O28 | 18.25 | 13.65 | 4.600 | 13 | 13■ | 13■ | |
O25 | 17.00 | 13.45 | 3.550 | 14 | 14■ | 14■ | |
O9 | 15.60 | 15.15 | 0.450 | 17 | 18● | 15● | |
O34 | 14.10 | 16.80 | −2.700 | 21 | 21■ | 20● | |
O18 | 10.55 | 19.10 | −8.550 | 26 | 26■ | 26■ | |
O2 | 9.85 | 21.10 | −11.250 | 29 | 29■ | 28● | |
O36 | 8.45 | 23.20 | −14.750 | 33 | 31● | 33■ | |
I | O26 | 27.45 | 3.20 | 24.250 | 1 | 1■ | 1■ |
O6 | 25.70 | 6.10 | 19.600 | 3 | 3■ | 3■ | |
O23 | 18.70 | 11.95 | 6.750 | 11 | 11■ | 10● | |
O7 | 18.60 | 13.60 | 5.000 | 12 | 12■ | 12■ | |
O24 | 15.50 | 15.30 | 0.200 | 18 | 17● | 17● | |
O1 | 12.05 | 18.40 | −6.350 | 25 | 25■ | 25■ |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Becerra, C.E.T.; Melo, F.J.C.d.; Xavier, L.d.A.; Albuquerque, A.P.G.d.; Barbosa, A.A.L.; Oliveira, L.A.B.d.; Carvalho, R.S.M.C.d.; Medeiros, D.D.d. A Holistic Quality Improvement Model for Food Services: Integrating Fuzzy Kano and PROMETHEE II. Systems 2024, 12, 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12100422
Becerra CET, Melo FJCd, Xavier LdA, Albuquerque APGd, Barbosa AAL, Oliveira LABd, Carvalho RSMCd, Medeiros DDd. A Holistic Quality Improvement Model for Food Services: Integrating Fuzzy Kano and PROMETHEE II. Systems. 2024; 12(10):422. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12100422
Chicago/Turabian StyleBecerra, Claudia Editt Tornero, Fagner José Coutinho de Melo, Larissa de Arruda Xavier, André Philippi Gonzaga de Albuquerque, Aline Amaral Leal Barbosa, Lucas Ambrósio Bezerra de Oliveira, Raíssa Souto Maior Corrêa de Carvalho, and Denise Dumke de Medeiros. 2024. "A Holistic Quality Improvement Model for Food Services: Integrating Fuzzy Kano and PROMETHEE II" Systems 12, no. 10: 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12100422
APA StyleBecerra, C. E. T., Melo, F. J. C. d., Xavier, L. d. A., Albuquerque, A. P. G. d., Barbosa, A. A. L., Oliveira, L. A. B. d., Carvalho, R. S. M. C. d., & Medeiros, D. D. d. (2024). A Holistic Quality Improvement Model for Food Services: Integrating Fuzzy Kano and PROMETHEE II. Systems, 12(10), 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12100422