Background
Methods
Arrangement of a decision-making group (DMG)
Establishment of the evaluation framework
Calculation of the weights and ranks of the indicators
Construct pair-wise comparison (PWC) matrix
Comparison matrix consistency check
Determination of the indicators’ weights
Results
Demographic characteristics of experts
Item | Number of responders | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 5 | 50 |
Female | 5 | 50 | |
Age | 30–40 | 4 | 40 |
40–50 | 4 | 40 | |
More than 50 | 2 | 20 | |
Work experience | 5–10 | 6 | 60 |
10–20 | 3 | 30 | |
20–30 | 1 | 10 | |
Professional title | Professor | 8 | 80 |
Associate professor | 2 | 20 |
Extracting the affecting dimensions of service quality
Primary indicator | Sub- indicator | Definition |
---|---|---|
Professionalism B1 | Brand image C11 | 1. Qualified or not 2. The level of approved qualifications 3. The ranking among government, industry, manufacturers and users and the market share |
Personnel’s technical ability C12 | 1. The ratio of the number of qualified technical personnel and the total number of technical personnel 2. The ratio of technical personnel with bachelor degree or above and the total number of technical personnel. | |
Facility and hardware attractiveness C13 | 1. Use equipments or not 2. Use equipments in part or full course of project service. And the matched-degree between the tool and theproject task. | |
Professional service procedures C14 | 1. Whether is a documented or automated service process established and how is it implemented 2. Whether achieved ISO/IEC 20000 certification and how is it implemented | |
FunctionalityB2 | Functional integrity C21 | Ratio of the actual number of functions implemented to the number of functions agreed in the service contract |
Sufficiency C22 | Ratio of the confirmed number of fully implemented functions to the number of functions agreed in the service contract | |
Reasonable communication mechanism C23 | 1. Whether is an interactive communication mechanism established and how is it implemented 2. Whether all of the personnel know and understand the communication requirements. | |
Compliance C24 | 1. Service function’s compliance with relevant standards or regulations 2. Ratio of the number of actually observed industry standards with the total number of contracted industry functionality standards | |
Stability B3 | Service Continuity C31 | Ratio of average fault-free time with average restoration time |
Service stability C32 | Having the ability to ensure continuous and stable delivery of the agreed service level, and having a stable deviation rate agreed in the customer service contract. | |
Report timely submission rate C33 | Ratio of the number of service reports that are submitted on time to meet the requirements of the service agreement with the number of service reports requested by the service agreement. | |
Security B4 | Permission suitability, C41 | Whether access to information and resources can match business requirements |
Information and resource readiness C42 | 1. Within the agreed service period, whether information and resources can be normally visited or obtained. 2. Ratio of times of accessibility to information and resources normally with total times of information and resource access requested | |
Data auditability C43 | Ratio of the number of activities with a complete record with the number of activities to be recorded | |
Data confidentiality capability of service supplier C44 | 1. Whether service supplier has established secure strategy and system, and how is it implemented. 2. Whether all of the personnel know and understand the secure strategy and system requirements. |
Extracting the weights and important coefficients of service quality indicators
Primary indicators | Weight of Primary indicators | Sub-indicators | Weight of sub-indicators | Priority |
---|---|---|---|---|
Professionalism | 0.6692 | Brand imagine C11 | 0.0276 | 7 |
Personnel’s technical ability C12 | 0.2921 | 1 | ||
Facility and equipment attractiveness C13 | 0.2378 | 2 | ||
Professional service procedures C14 | 0.0882 | 4 | ||
Functionality | 0.0958 | Integrity of project completion C21 | 0.0235 | 9 |
Sufficiency of project completion C22 | 0.016 | 12 | ||
Reasonable interactive communication mechanism C23 | 0.0085 | 14 | ||
Project compliance C24 | 0.0713 | 5 | ||
Stability | 0.0596 | Service continuity C31 | 0.0189 | 10 |
Service stability C32 | 0.0346 | 6 | ||
Research report timely submission rate C33 | 0.0061 | 15 | ||
Security | 0.1754 | Permission suitability C41 | 0.0112 | 13 |
Information and resource readiness C42 | 0.0162 | 11 | ||
Data auditability C43 | 0.1208 | 3 | ||
Data confidentiality capability of service supplier C44 | 0.0272 | 8 | ||
Total | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Service quality grading
Primary indicators | Secondary indicators | Formula | Value Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|
Professionalism | Brand imagine C11 | X = A/5 A value may equal to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 1:unqualified. 2:obtain a lower level qualification. 3:In the top ten of the mainstream of provinces and cities, occupy a larger market share and achieve higher level qualifications. 4:In the top ten of government, industry, manufacturers and users on a national scale, occupy a larger market share and achieve higher level qualifications. 5:Leading in the government, industry, manufacturer and users on a national scale, occupy a larger market share and achieve highest level qualifications. | 0 < X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better |
Personnel’s technical ability C12 | X = X1*70% + X2*30% X1 = A/B A = the number of service personnel who obtain corresponding professional qualification B = the total number of service personnel X2 = C/B C = the number of service personnel who obtain the service related bachelor or above degree | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Facility and equipment attractiveness C13 | X = A/5 A value may equal to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 1: No tools available 2:Tools are used in some services, but they are less matched 3:Tools are used in some services, and they are well matched 4:Tools are used in all services, but not exactly all matched. 5:Tools are used in all services and fully matched. | 0 < X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Professional service procedures C14 | X = A/5 A value may equal to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 1: Neither establish documented service process, the implementation is also very poor 2: No documented service process, but the implementation is good 3: A documented service process was established, but implemented poorly. 4: A documented or automated service process is established and implemented well 5:Passed ISO/IEC 20000 certification and implemented well | 0 < X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Functionality | Integrity of project completion C21 | X = A/B A = the actual number of functions implemented B = the number of functions agreed in the service contract | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better |
Sufficiency of project completion C22 | X = A/B A = the confirmed number of fully implemented functions B = the number of functions agreed in the service contract | ||
Reasonable interactive communication mechanismC23 | X = A/5 A value may equal to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 1: No established interactive communication mechanism with customers and poorly implemented. 2: No established interactive communication mechanism with customers, but implemented well. 3: The interactive communication mechanism with customer was established, but poorly implemented. 4:The interactive communication mechanism with customer was established, and well implemented. 5:The interactive communication mechanism with customer was established, and well implemented. Furthermore, all of the personnel know and understand the communication requirements. | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Project compliance C24 | X = A/B A = The actual number of contracted functionality related industry standards that was met in the service process. B = The total number of contracted functionality related industry standards | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Reliability | Service continuity C31 | X = A/(A + B) A = average fault-free time B = average restoration time | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better for service continuity |
Service stability C32 |
\( {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}Y=\frac{\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{\left( Xi-\overline{X}\right)}^2}{n}\\ {}\mathrm{X}=1\hbox{-} \mathrm{Y}\end{array}}/\left(\mathrm{Eu}\hbox{-} \mathrm{El}\right) \)
Y: Standard deviation ratio Xi: Sample values for service characteristics X: Sample mean of service characteristics Eu: The upper limit value of the deviation specified in the service agreement El: The lower limit value of the deviation specified in the service agreement n: sampling times for service | If Y > 1,equal to 1; If Y ≤ 1, equal to Y; 0 ≤ X ≤ 1 the closer to 1, the better | |
Research report timely submission rate C33 | X = A/B A = The number of service reports that are submitted on time to meet the requirements of the service agreement B = Number of service reports requested by the service agreement | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Security | Permission suitability C41 | X = A/B A = The number of privilege authorized appropriately B = The number of privilege requested by the service agreement | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better |
Information and resource readiness C42 | X = A/B A = Times of accessibility to information and resources normally B = Total times of information and resource access requested | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Data auditability C43 | X = A/B A = The number of activities with a complete record B = The number of activities to be recorded | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1, the closer to 1, the better | |
Data confidentiality capability of service supplier C44 | X = A/5 A value may equal to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 1: No secure strategy and system, and poorly implemented 2:No secure strategy and system, but well implemented 3:Secure strategy and system was established, but poorly implemented 4:Secure strategy and system was established, and well implemented 5:Secure strategy and system was established, and well implemented. Furthermore, all of the personnel know and understand the secure strategy and system requirements. | 0 < X ≤ 1 the closer to 1, the better |
Rating | Actual effective value (X) | Star Level | Markers |
---|---|---|---|
Level I | X<0.3 | One-Star | ★ |
Level II | 0.3 ≤ X<0.5 | Two-Star | ★★ |
Level III | 0.5 ≤ X<0.7 | Three-Star | ★★★ |
Level IV | 0.7 ≤ X<0.9 | Four-Star | ★★★★ |
Level V | 0.9 ≤ X | Five-Star | ★★★★★ |
Case study
Primary indicators | Secondary indicators | Actual appraisal Value | Weights | Actual effective Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Professional | Brand imagine C11 | 1.00 | 0.0276 | 0.0276 |
Personnel’s technical ability C12 | 0.84 | 0.2921 | 0.2454 | |
Facility and equipment attractiveness C13 | 1.00 | 0.2378 | 0.2378 | |
Professional service procedures C14 | 0.80 | 0.0882 | 0.0706 | |
Functionality | Integrity of project completion C21 | 0.80 | 0.0235 | 0.0188 |
Sufficiency of project completion C22 | 0.70 | 0.016 | 0.0112 | |
Reasonable interactive communication mechanismC23 | 0.80 | 0.0085 | 0.0068 | |
Project compliance C24 | 1.00 | 0.0713 | 0.0713 | |
Reliability | Service continuity C31 | 0.6 | 0.0189 | 0.0113 |
Service stability C32 | 0.86 | 0.0346 | 0.0298 | |
Research report timely submission rate C33 | 0.90 | 0.0061 | 0.0055 | |
Security | Permission suitability C41 | 0.80 | 0.0112 | 0.0090 |
Information and resource readiness C42 | 0.90 | 0.0162 | 0.0146 | |
Data auditability C43 | 1.00 | 0.1208 | 0.1208 | |
Data confidentiality capabilityof service supplier C44 | 1.00 | 0.0272 | 0.0272 | |
Total | 0.9076 |