高速公路服务客户满意度评价

邹群; 邹国平; 俞礼军

doi:10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2009.06.016

高速公路服务客户满意度评价

doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2009.06.016

1.
南昌工程学院土木工程系, 江西南昌 330029
2.
江西赣粤高速公路股份有限公司, 江西南昌 330025
3.
华南理工大学土木与交通学院, 广东广州 510641

基金项目:

江西省交通重点科研项目 2007-23

详细信息

作者简介:
邹群(1968-), 女, 江西高安人, 南昌工程学院副教授, 从事道路工程及交通规划研究

中图分类号: U492.44
计量
- 文章访问数: 498
- HTML全文浏览量: 116
- PDF下载量: 350
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2009-08-16
- 刊出日期: 2009-12-25

Customer satisfaction evaluation of expressway service

1.
Department of Civil Engineering, Nanchang Institute of Technology, Nanchang 330029, Jiangxi, China
2.
Jiangxi Ganyue Expressway Co., Ltd., Nanchang 330025, Jiangxi, China
3.
School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, Guangdong, China

More Information

Author Bio:
ZOU Qun (1968-), female, associate professor, +86-791-6526386, nczqun@yahoo.com.cn

摘要

摘要: 基于高速公路服务和客户满意度的概念, 构建了包括客户期望、条件感知质量、环境感知质量、活动感知质量、客户满意度、客户抱怨和客户忠诚7个潜变量的客户满意度模型, 遵循完整性、重要性、独立性和可操作性原则, 用Delphi法从服务条件、服务环境、服务活动和客户抱怨四方面构建了高速公路客户满意度评价指标体系。将层次分析法和模糊数学原理相结合, 建立了高速公路客户满意度的模糊层次综合评价模型, 并应用模型对昌九高速公路客户满意度进行综合评价。评价结果表明: 该高速公路的客户满意度总体处于满意, 同时发现在服务活动和客户抱怨两方面均处于一般满意, 这与该高速公路的客户满意度调查统计数据相符合, 因此, 该模型合理有效。
- 高速公路服务 /
- 客户满意度评价 /
- 评价指标体系 /
- 模糊综合评判 /
- 层次分析法
Abstract: The conceptions of expressway service and customer satisfaction were analyzed, a customer satisfaction model was designed, which included seven latent variables, such as customer expectation, condition perceived quality, environment perceived quality, activity perceived quality, customer satisfaction, customer complaint and customer faithfulness.Following the principles of integrality, importance, independency and maneuverability, the customer satisfaction evaluation index system of expressway service was constructed by using Delphi method from four aspects of service condition, service environment, service activity and customer complaint.Through combining fuzzy mathematics theory with analytic hierarchy process(AHP), a fuzzy hierarchy comprehensive evaluation model of customer satisfaction for expressway service was constructed, and the customer satisfaction of Nanchang-Jiujiang expressway was evaluated.Evaluation result shows that the customer satisfaction of the expressway is general satisfaction, but its service activity and customer complaint are lower satisfaction, which is consistent with the statistical data of customer satisfaction, so the model is rational and effective.
- expressway service /
- customer satisfaction evaluation /
- evaluation index system /
- fuzzy comprehensive evaluation /
- AHP

HTML全文

图 1 客户满意度模型

Figure 1. Customer satisfaction model

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 客户满意度评价指标体系

Figure 2. Evaluation index system of customer satisfaction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 X的判断矩阵和权重

Table 1. Judgement matrix and weights of X

X	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	权重W_k
X₁	1	4	5	9	0.613 6
X₂	1/4	1	2	5	0.208 3
X₃	1/5	1/2	1	4	0.132 1
X₄	1/9	1/5	1/4	1	0.046 0
注: λ_max=4.108 5, C_I=0.036 2, R_I=0.90, C_R=0.040 6 < 0.1, 一致性检验通过。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 X₁的判断矩阵和权重

Table 2. Judgement matrix and weights of X₁

X₁	X₁₁	X₁₂	X₁₃	X₁₄	权重W_k1
X₁₁	1	4	7	9	0.631 3
X₁₂	1/4	1	3	5	0.218 4
X₁₃	1/7	1/3	1	4	0.106 3
X₁₄	1/9	1/5	1/4	1	0.044 0
注: λ_max=4.190 0, C_I=0.063 3, R_I=0.90, C_R=0.071 1 < 0.1, 一致性检验通过。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 X₂的判断矩阵和权重

Table 3. Judgement matrix and weights of X₂

X₂	X₂₁	X₂₂	X₂₃	X₂₄	X₂₅	权重W_k2
X₂₁	1	3	1/3	1/2	2	0.168 1
X₂₂	1/3	1	1/4	1/3	2	0.094 9
X₂₃	3	4	1	2	4	0.407 4
X₂₄	2	3	1/2	1	3	0.253 2
X₂₅	1/2	1/2	1/4	1/3	1	0.076 3
注: λ_max=5.162 5, C_I=0.040 6, R_I=1.12, C_R=0.036 3 < 0.1, 一致性检验通过。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 X₃的判断矩阵和权重

Table 4. Judgement matrix and weights of X₃

X₃	X₃₁	X₃₂	X₃₃	X₃₄	X₃₅	权重W_k3
X₃₁	1	2	2	1	5	0.300 7
X₃₂	1/2	1	2	1/3	3	0.163 8
X₃₃	1/2	1/2	1	1/4	1	0.095 9
X₃₄	1	3	4	1	5	0.370 3
X₃₅	1/5	1/3	1	1/5	1	0.069 3
注: λ_max=5.135 5, C_I=0.027 6, R_I=1.12, C_R=0.024 6 < 0.1, 一致性检验通过。

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 X₄的判断矩阵和权重

Table 5. Judgement matrix and weights of X₄

X₄	X₄₁	X₄₂	权重W_k4
X₄₁	1	3	0.750
X₄₂	1/3	1	0.250
注: λ_max=2.000 0, C_I=0.000 0, R_I=0.00, C_R=0.000 0 < 0.1, 一致性检验通过。

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 调查内容及模糊偏好值

Table 6. Survey content and values of fuzzy preference

目标	分类评价指标	单项评价指标	模糊偏好关系值
目标	分类评价指标	单项评价指标	很满意	满意	一般满意	不满意	很不满意
X	X₁	X₁₁	0.30	0.45	0.20	0.05	0.00
		X₁₂	0.25	0.35	0.20	0.12	0.08
		X₁₃	0.20	0.38	0.22	0.16	0.04
		X₁₄	0.20	0.45	0.24	0.11	0.00
	X₂	X₂₁	0.25	0.33	0.26	0.12	0.04
		X₂₂	0.12	0.36	0.28	0.16	0.10
		X₂₃	0.24	0.38	0.24	0.10	0.04
		X₂₄	0.20	0.32	0.28	0.15	0.05
		X₂₅	0.20	0.28	0.32	0.12	0.08
	X₃	X₃₁	0.22	0.40	0.26	0.07	0.05
		X₃₂	0.25	0.38	0.25	0.10	0.02
		X₃₃	0.10	0.20	0.36	0.25	0.09
		X₃₄	0.08	0.12	0.36	0.34	0.10
		X₃₅	0.12	0.43	0.25	0.16	0.04
	X₄	X₄₁	0.00	0.20	0.36	0.34	0.10
	X₄	X₄₂	0.12	0.36	0.32	0.20	0.00

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(12)

[1]	韩先科, 蔡建华. 高速公路服务质量的理论与分析[J]. 交通标准化, 2005(10): 137-141. doi: 10.3869/j.issn.1002-4786.2005.10.034 HAN Xian-ke, CAI Jian-hua. Theory and analysis on quality of freeway service[J]. Communications Standardization, 2005(10): 137-141. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3869/j.issn.1002-4786.2005.10.034
[2]	FORNELL C. A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1992, 56(1): 6-21. doi: 10.1177/002224299205600103
[3]	FORNELL C, JOHNSON M D, ANDERSON E W, et al. The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1996, 60(4): 7-18. doi: 10.1177/002224299606000403
[4]	曹礼和. 顾客满意度理论模型与测评体系研究[J]. 湖北经济学院学报, 2007, 5(1): 115-119. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-626X.2007.01.022 CAO Li-he. Astudy of the theoretical model and evaluation systemof customer satisfaction[J]. Journal of Hubei University of Economics, 2007, 5(1): 115-119. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-626X.2007.01.022
[5]	韩先科, 李葆青. 公路服务用户满意度模型研究[J]. 交通标准化, 2008(5): 24-28. doi: 10.3869/j.issn.1002-4786.2008.05.058 HAN Xian-ke, LI Bao-qing. Study of customer satisfaction model of highway service[J]. Communications Standardiza-tion, 2008(5): 24-28. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3869/j.issn.1002-4786.2008.05.058
[6]	邵立周, 白春杰. 系统综合评价指标体系构建方法研究[J]. 海军工程大学学报, 2008, 20(3): 48-52. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJGX200803012.htm SHAO Li-zhou, BAI Chun-jie. Index systemconstruction on comprehensive evaluation[J]. Journal of Naval University of Engineering, 2008, 20(3): 48-52. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJGX200803012.htm
[7]	陈衍泰, 陈国宏, 李美娟. 综合评价方法分类及研究进展[J]. 管理科学学报, 2004, 7(2): 69-79. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JCYJ200402012.htm CHEN Yan-tai, CHEN Guo-hong, LI Mei-juan. Classifica-tion & amp; amp; research advancement of comprehensive evaluation methods[J]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2004, 7(2): 69-79. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JCYJ200402012.htm
[8]	李洪萍, 裴玉龙. 快速路系统服务水平的模糊综合评价[J]. 华南理工大学学报: 自然科学版, 2009, 37(7): 26-30, 41. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNLG200907006.htm LI Hong-ping, PEI Yu-long. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of service level of expressway system[J]. Journal of South China University of Technology: Natural Science Edition, 2009, 37(7): 26-30, 41. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNLG200907006.htm
[9]	张目. 基于数据包络分析的地理信息工程综合评价的研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉大学, 2005. ZHANG Mu. Research on comprehensive evaluation of geographic information engineering based on data envelopment analysis method[D]. Wuhan: WuHan University, 2005. (in Chinese)
[10]	ZHU Ke-jun, JI NG Yu, CHANG Da-yang. A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1999, 116(2): 450-456. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00331-2
[11]	刘泽双, 甄翠, 苏大伟. 公务员绩效考核模糊层次综合评价模型及实例[J]. 西安理工大学学报, 2006, 22(4): 438-441. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4710.2006.04.025 LI UZe-shuang, ZHENCui, SU Da-wei. Fuzzylevel compre-hensive evaluation model and example of official performance evaluation[J]. Journal of Xi an University of Technology, 2006, 22(4): 438-441. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4710.2006.04.025
[12]	王世军. 基于DEA-AHP-FCE方法的民营企业上市公司绩效综合评价研究[D]. 南京: 河海大学, 2006. WANG Shi-jun. Synthetic performance evaluation on private listed companies based on the method of DEA-AHP-FCE[D]. Nanjin: Hohai University, 2006. (in Chinese)