Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Soft Computing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Integration of SERVQUAL, Analytical Kano, and QFD using fuzzy

approaches to support improvement decisions in an entrepreneurial
education service
∗
Fabiane L. Lizarelli a , Lauro Osiro b , Gilberto M.D. Ganga a , Glauco H.S. Mendes a , ,
Guilherme R. Paz a
a
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Brazil

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Quality tools such as Kano’s model, SERVQUAL, and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) have been
Received 3 June 2020 used to design and improve services. Although these tools can be used separately, their integration
Received in revised form 3 July 2021 can provide a deep analysis of the service quality, generating opportunities for its improvement.
Accepted 4 August 2021
However, the effective integration of these tools requires the proper handling of their variables,
Available online 13 August 2021
which contains imprecision and uncertainties since they are based on customer’s perceptions. Fuzzy
Keywords: approaches are feasible alternatives to overcome these limitations and integrate these tools. Never-
SERVQUAL theless, sophisticated fuzzy methods can deal better with these limitations. This article proposes an
Kano’s model integrative framework involving SERVQUAL, Analytical Kano (A-Kano), and QFD using fuzzy approaches
QFD (Fuzzy Inference System and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation). The framework comprises four
Improvement actions main phases concerning (i) the identification of quality attributes and service processes using the
FIS A-Kano and SERVQUAL; (ii) the integration of these two quality tools using the Fuzzy Inference
2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation
System (FIS); (iii) the integration between A-Kano and SERVQUAL output and QFD matrix using 2-
Entrepreneurial education service
tuple fuzzy linguistic representation; and (iv) the identification of improvement projects to address
the opportunities identified in the previous phases. The proposed integrative framework was tested and
validated in an entrepreneurial education company that provides experiential services. It contributes
to providing a new method to assess the service quality perceptions, categorizing these perceptions
according to their effects on customer satisfaction, prioritizing improvements, and identifying technical
requirements. Mainly, this study presents a new proposal for integrating the SERVQUAL, A-Kano, and
QFD using advanced fuzzy techniques, which contributes to overcoming the limitations found in the
extant literature.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is essential to identify and fulfill customer requirements
with the maximum possible quality [1,2]. Several tools, methods,
and techniques have been used to assess the service require-
ments and quality [3]. SERVQUAL is one of the most widely
used quality tools for measuring service quality [3,4]. Despite
its importance, SERVQUAL does not contribute to the precise
identification of the critical quality attributes (QAs) according to
customers’ perceptions [5,6]. This limitation can be reached with
the integration of SERVQUAL with other quality tools [7,8]. For
instance, Kano’s model allows us to prioritize QAs [9]. Further-
more, in the service design process, Quality Function Deployment
∗ Correspondence to: Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Rod. Washington
Luis Km 235. CEP 13565-905, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.
E-mail address: glauco@dep.ufscar.br (G.H.S. Mendes).
(QFD) aims to select the service characteristics that are essential
to meet customer requirements ensuring that the voice of the
customer (VoC) is captured [10]. Indeed, QFD provides a better
understanding of VoC and deploys it into a set of appropri-
ate technical and process service requirements, complementing
SERVQUAL and Kano [10–13]. These joined benefits cannot be
achieved through the individual use of these quality tools. There-
fore, the integration of SERVQUAL, Kano‘s model, and QFD can be
used to improve the service design and, consequently, enhance
the service quality [14–18].
Several studies have addressed the integration of SERVQUAL,
Kano, and QFD since the early 2000s [7,8]. For instance, Baki
et al. [14] applied these tools to transform customer needs into
a customer-focused service design in cargo companies. Tan and
Pawitra [5] proposed an integrated approach for developing ser-
vices in the tourism sector. Muafi and Sanjaya [19] used

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107786
1568-4946/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al.
integrated tools to improve airline service. Sahney [15,20] demon-
strated the implementation of a three-stage methodology for
designing educational services in India. Cho et al. [21] integrated
QFD and SERVQUAL to improve two global electronics compa-
nies’ service centers. Priyono and Yulita [22] used the method
proposed by Tan and Pawitra [5] for designing the front-office
service of a hospital. However, the integration of these tools is
based on multiple criteria derived from the opinions, percep-
tions, and judgments of the actors involved during the service
design (e.g., customers, and service professionals) and they can
carry uncertainties, bias, and imprecision that can prevent that
a service meets the customer requirements. Thus, fuzzy methods
have been used to overcome these limitations and integrate these
tools [21,23,24].
In special, the integration of these quality tools based on
fuzzy methods can address previous gaps and limitations. First,
these quality tools (e.g., SERVQUAL, Kano’s model and, QFD) have
different formats of inputs and outputs, leading to uncertainty
and imprecision. These characteristics increase the difficulty of
adequately representing and aggregating the experts’ and cus-
tomers’ subjective judgments [24–26]. Although fuzzy logic has
been used to address this problem (e.g., [24–26]), previous stud-
ies have concentrated on the integration of two of the three
tools. Second, studies considering the integration of three tools
using fuzzy approaches are still scarce and apply basic opera-
tions (e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) of
triangular fuzzy numbers to aggregate variables, which limits the
flexibility to model the relationships between the parameters of
the three tools (e.g., [1,2]). Third, individually, each quality tool
presents limitations that can be overcome using more advanced
and integrative fuzzy approaches. Thus, the traditional Kano’s
model can be imprecise for quantitative analysis of customer
responses [27–30], limiting its integration with other tools. The
SERVQUAL measures the customer’s expectations and perfor-
mance using a Likert scale [13], and the prioritization of QAs is
based on the average gap values, which may not provide accurate
data. Thus, the outputs from A-Kano (magnitude and angle) and
SERVQUAL (p-value - Wilcoxon test) are crisp values that can be
integrated in a more appropriate way using a Fuzzy Inference
System. On the other hand, In the QFD matrix-prioritized, 2-tuple
linguistic representation can represent and aggregate the experts’
team assessment about the relationship between the QA and the
service processes without loss of information.
Therefore, this study proposes a framework for integrating
the SERVQUAL, Analytical Kano (A-Kano), and QFD using fuzzy
techniques. Thus, it integrates not only two but three of the
most important quality tools that are used in the service design.
Furthermore, it addresses the limitations of the individual tools as
well. The SERVQUAL gaps are statistically validated and measured
using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test. A-Kano model intro-
duces quantitative measurements of customer satisfaction [31].
Finally, it considers two fuzzy approaches: Fuzzy Inference Sys-
tem (FIS) and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation to deal with
the requirements of each integration regarding quantity and the
characteristics of the input and output variables.
The proposed integrative framework was empirically imple-
mented in a startup company that provides entrepreneurial ed-
ucation services. Entrepreneurial education seeks to prepare in-
dividuals to achieve goals [32]. Demand for entrepreneurship
education has been increasing, and the excellence of such services
requires a combination of high-quality services and methods of
learning that encourage a wide range of professional and personal
skills that promote critical thinking and creativity [25]. There-
fore, the mixture of education, entrepreneurship, and leadership
makes this service even more complicated. This case allowed
us to develop and validate the set of quality tools and fuzzy
2
Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786
methods that encompasses our integrative framework. The article
has three main contributions. First, it presents a new proposal
for integrating the SERVQUAL, Analytical Kano (A-Kano), and QFD
using fuzzy techniques, which contributes to overcoming the
gaps found in the extant literature. Second, it provides empirical
evidence concerning the validation of the proposed model and
its contributions to improving an existing service. Third, specific
contributions include new ways of assessing the service quality
perceptions, categorizing these perceptions according to their
effects on customer satisfaction, prioritizing improvements, and
identifying technical requirements in a particular service design
context.
The article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a brief
literature review. Section 3 describes the proposed integration of
A-Kano, SERVQUAL, and QFD. The proposed model’s application
is presented in Section 4 with the discussion and implications
in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions and
limitations of this study.
2. Theoretical background
This section presents a brief literature review concerning the
investigated quality tools: SERVQUAL, A-Kano, and QFD; and
fuzzy approaches (e.g., the Fuzzy inference system and 2-tuple
fuzzy linguistic representation.
2.1. Quality tools and integration
2.1.1. SERVQUAL
SERVQUAL is one of the most widely used and tested tools
for evaluating service quality [20,26]. By measuring the differ-
ence between the expectations and performance perceptions,
SERVQUAL consists of a diagnostic method that can define service
quality and reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the service
providers [5,20,27]. Although service quality and customer satis-
faction are different constructs, SERVQUAL considers that service
quality leads directly to customer satisfaction [28]. In its first
version, SERVQUAL had 97 QAs grouped into 10 dimensions [27]
but it was refined [28], resulting in an instrument comprised of
22 QAs classified into five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, empathy, and, tangible aspects [4,16,21,27,29].
The application of SERVQUAL involves the use of structured
questionnaires that are applied to customers asking them about
their service expectations and perceptions. A five-point Likert
scale is used in the SERVQUAL questionnaires [11]. Depending
on the desired level of analysis, the gap between expectations
and perceptions can be calculated for each QA or a quality di-
mension [16,20]. Service providers can take advantage of this
evaluation (i.e., by using gap analysis) and develop strategies to
reduce the gaps when quality performance fails to meet expec-
tations for specific QAs or dimensions [5,30]. Under this method,
the prioritization of QAs is normally based on the gap values or
the relative weights given by respondents. Thus, this represents
a weakness of SERVQUAL. Although SERVQUAL considers that an
investment in service quality directly affects customer satisfac-
tion, this relationship can be non-linear or asymmetric [6,20,33].
Consequently, an investment in a particular QA (with a large
gap) may not increase customer satisfaction. On the contrary,
customer satisfaction can rise substantially based on small in-
crements in the right QAs [5,16,33]. In short, the effective use
of SERVQUAL as a continuous improvement method depends on
how QA can maximize customer satisfaction. For this reason, the
integration between SERVQUAL and other methods is essential [5,
11,34].
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Fig. 1. Classification of QAs according to Kano’s model (Kano et al. [9]).

Table 1
Kano’s evaluation matrix.
Customer response Dysfunctional question
1. I like it 2. I ex- 3. I am 4. I can tol- 5. I dis-
pect it neutral erate it like it
1. I like it Q A A A O
2. I expect it R N N N M
Functional
3. I am neutral R N N N M
question
4. I can tolerate it R N N N M
5. I dislike it R R R R Q

(A) Attractive; (M) Must-be; (N) Neutral; (O) One-dimensional; (Q) Questionable; (R) Reversal.

2.1.2. Kano’s model and analytical Kano
Kano’s model considers that each QA exerts a different im-
pact on customer satisfaction [9,14]. Thus, it suggests that some
QAs may exhibit a non-linear pattern, which means that an
increase in a specific QA’s quality level may not provide a pro-
portional increase in customer satisfaction. In the same vein,
QAs with a similar level of performance in SERVQUAL may have
different impacts on customer satisfaction [15,34]. As shown in
Fig. 1, Kano et al. [9] proposed six types of QAs: Must-be (M),
Attractive (A), One-dimensional (O), Reversal (R), Neutral (N), and
Questionable (Q). Each type has a different impact on customer
satisfaction. In general, Must-be (M) attributes refer to the essen-
tial attributes of service quality in meeting customer satisfaction.
If they are not fulfilled, customers will be dissatisfied with the
service. Attractive (A) attributes can increase customer satisfac-
tion substantially if they are present in services. One-dimensional
(O) attributes create customer satisfaction when they are current
and dissatisfaction when they are absent. Reverse (R) attributes
cause dissatisfaction when they are present and satisfaction when
they are missing. Neutral (N) attributes have no impact on cus-
tomer satisfaction, which means that customers are neither sat-
isfied nor dissatisfied regardless of whether these attributes are
present or absent. Lastly, Questionable (Q) attributes contradict
the customer’s answer to Kano’s questionnaire [5,14,35].
Kano’s model is implemented using questionnaires based on
pairs of questions (functional and dysfunctional) for each QA.
Functional (dysfunctional) questions assess the customer’s be-
havior when the service meets (does not meet) a particular at-
tribute [15,33,36]. Table 1 presents the responses for each pair of
functional and dysfunctional questions. In the following, the QAs
are ranked according to the highest concentration of answers to
a given pair of questions [5,33,37].
Organizations should prioritize opportunities for improve-
ments addressing the Must-be attributes since they guarantee
a larger impact on customer satisfaction. The second priority
should be Attractive attributes due to their capacity to generate
higher satisfaction. The last priority should be One-dimensional
attributes [9,15,16]. However, the traditional Kano model fo-
cuses on classification based on qualitative descriptions [38]
and, there is limited quantitative analysis or measurement of
the relationships discussed in the traditional Kano model [38].
Consequently, studies have considered the quantitative analysis
of customer answers, recommending a slight modification of the
traditional Kano’s model to decrease the subjective aspects of
the qualitative descriptions [39,40]. For instance, Xu et al. [31]
proposed an Analytical-Kano (A-Kano) model, which extends the
traditional Kano model by introducing Kano indices that are
customer satisfaction quantitative measurements. A quantitative
classification is developed for each QA and respondent according
to the functional and dysfunctional questions (Table 2). Next, the
scale is designed to be asymmetric because positive answers are
more robust than negative ones [31,38,41]. An additional problem
is included in the questionnaire, the self-stated importance of the
QA, and the response weights fall within a range of 0.1–1 (0.1 –
Not important; 1.0 – Extremely important).
For each respondent tj ∈ s(∀j = 1, 2, . . . ., J), the evaluation
of each QA is QAi ∈ s(∀i = 1, 2, . . . ., I), is represented as eij =
(xij , yij , wij ), where xij and yij are the scores given to a QA for the
dysfunctional and functional question respectively (Table 2), and
wij is the self-stated importance weight [31]. Two new indices are
calculated, dysfunctional index and functional index, defined by
Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively.
J
1∑
Xı = wij · xij (1)
J
j=1

3
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al.
Table 2
Scores for functional/dysfunctional features.
Answers to the Functional form
Kano questions of the question
I like it 1 −0.5
I expect it 0.5
I am neutral 0 0
I can tolerate it −0.25
I dislike it −0.5
Fig. 2. Kano classification regions.
J to improve service quality [5,7,37]. However, it cannot quantify
1∑
Yı = wij · yij
J vice processes (technical requirements) and attributes [14,35].
j=1
The pair of values (Xı , Yı ) should fall in an interval of 0 to 1
and can be plotted in a two-dimensional diagram (Fig. 2), where
the horizontal axis indicates the dissatisfaction score and the
vertical axis the satisfaction score. The classification of a QA can
be defined based on the corresponding location of the value pair
in the diagram [31,41]. According to Xu et al. [31], the QA can be
represented as a vector by Eq. (3), with its magnitude calculated
by Eq. (4), and its angle with horizontal axis by Eq. (5).
QAi = r⃗ı ≡ (ri , αi )
√
⏐ ⏐ 2 2
ri = ⏐r⃗ı ⏐ = Xı + Yı
αi = tan (Yı /Xı )
−1
This representation allows it to become equivalent to a po-
lar form. The vector magnitude and the angle are collectively
called Kano indices [31,41]. Based on the above formulation, the
QAs can be classified into Indifferent, Must-be, Attractive, and
One-dimensional Kano’s categories [31], as described in Fig. 2.
2.1.3. Quality Function Deployment
QFD aims to translate the customer’s requirements into prod-
uct/service characteristics, components, and processes [42]. It was
developed by Mizuno and Akao in Japan in the 1960s and 1970s
considering that all products or services should be designed and
improved based on the VoC [11,13,36]. Although it was initially
employed for product developments, QFD has been widely used
to design new services [10,16]. QFD has two significant bene-
fits: the communication of QAs and the relationships between
customer requirements and QAs to generate products and ser-
vices [35,36]. QFD uses a set of interrelated matrices that form
the house of quality (HoQ) illustrated in Fig. 3 [10,14,29] and
Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786
helps to achieve a better fit between customer requirements and
product/service characteristics [43,44].
Dysfunctional form As shown in Fig. 3, the HoQ design involves seven steps. In
of the question
Step 1, all customer needs, the QAs (‘‘Whats’’), should be defined.
In Step 2, these attributes are classified according to their im-
−0.25
portance for customers (identified through surveys, interviews, or
0.5 focus groups with customers). Step 3 compares the organization’s
1 performance with other competitors considering the QAs [12,14].
Step 4 identifies the technical requirements (i.e., service pro-
cesses necessary to structure the service) or design characteristics
(‘‘Hows’’) that contribute to meeting the QA. The correlation
between each service process pair can also be performed in Step
6 (correlation matrix). In Step 5, the relationships between the QA
and technical requirements are determined (relationship matrix).
Lastly, Step 7 calculates each process’s importance weight (‘‘How
much’’) for service improvement, considering the priority of the
QA and its relationship with the process. This helps identify the
set of design characteristics that best satisfy the QA [1,12,14]. In
QFD, the technical requirements covering the broader range of
customer needs should have the highest priority [1].
2.1.4. Integrating SERVQUAL, analytical Kano, and QFD
The integrated use of SERVQUAL, Kano, and QFD provides
superior results compared with the individual use of each quality
tool. The integration allows the prioritization of service charac-
teristics and processes. Consequently, it contributes to increase
the positive impact on customer satisfaction [4,5,16,22,34,35].
The use of Kano’s model allows a deep understanding of the
service quality attributes that generate greater satisfaction, en-
abling further clarity about which attributes should be prioritized
attributes’ performance or establish a connection between ser-
(2)
Although the integration of Kano’s model and SERVQUAL aims
to overcome the first of these limitations (quantify attributes’
performance) [45], it is necessary to apply QFD to incorporate the
customer’s voice into the service design [5,7,16,33,36].
A model that integrates these three quality tools was pro-
posed by Tan and Pawitra [5] and replicated by several au-
thors (e.g., [6,14]). The model begins by collecting the Kano and
SERVQUAL data. The QAs are evaluated in SERVQUAL by calcu-
lating the gaps between expectations and expected performance
(QAs with positive gaps are strengths and negative gaps are weak-
(3) nesses), and the level of importance given by the customers in
SERVQUAL [16,35]. The integration between Kano and SERVQUAL
(4) leads to identify the weakest QAs that are also classified as Attrac-
(5) tive, Must-be, and One-dimensional in Kano’s model. They are the
only ones that will be integrated into QFD [5,6,14]. To integrate
SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into the QFD method, Attractive,
One-dimensional, and Must-be QAs receive the respective values
of 4, 2, and 1, and these values are multiplied by the gap value
and the importance given by the customers (criticality indices)
to re-prioritize QAs in the QFD method [5,35]. The values of the
criticality indices are then included in the HoQ, which makes pos-
sible, through the matrix of relationships with service processes,
the prioritization of those processes that affect the critical QAs
mostly [7,18,24,46]. Finally, improvements must be proposed for
critical QAs to increase service quality [5,6,31].
The same logic is used in other similar studies (e.g. [22,35]).
Nevertheless, these studies focus on the qualitative calculation of
the criticality index and prioritization of QAs. In this sense, there
is an adjustment of the importance weights for QA reprioritiza-
tion in QFD, but the multiplication can lead to distortions and,
consequently, wrong decisions [31,41]. Furthermore, the inte-
gration proposals have other limitations, mainly considering the
differences in input variables for each tool and the imprecision
4
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al.
Fig. 3. Interrelated matrices that form the HoQ.
and uncertainty inherent in the variables coming from linguistic
terms [1,2,21,47,48]. Considering that linguistic terms are used
in SERVQUAL, Kano, and QFD and the difficulty of adequately
representing and aggregating customers’ subjective judgments by
crisp values, fuzzy logic has been used to address this problem [1,
2,21,47,48]. For this reason, this study proposes the use of fuzzy
approaches in the integration of these three quality tools.
Several studies have employed fuzzy logic in quality tools [18,
21,49]. The fuzzy theory addresses the uncertainty and impreci-
sion inherent in certain quality tools such as the QFD, developing
various fuzzy QFD models [18,21,49]. In this sense, the judgments
from customers and QFD design team members can be further
captured by the fuzzy methods [46,50]. Fuzzy set theory was also
used to develop a modified version of SERVQUAL [51]. Subjectiv-
ity is identified as a problem of Kano’s model and, consequently,
a fuzzy Kano is proposed [52]. The use of fuzzy theory goes
beyond the three quality tools investigated in this study. For
instance, Chen and Ko [53] used FMEA, QFD, and fuzzy nonlin-
ear programming models based on Kano’s concept to design a
new product. Liu [49] also integrated fuzzy QFD and the proto-
type product selection model to develop a product design and
selection approach.
Considering the service context, Cho et al. [21] employ the
fuzzy set theory to address the subjectivity of customer require-
ments and satisfaction. Farokhnia and Beheshtinia [54] use an in-
tegrated approach involving SERVQUAL, three-dimensional QFD,
and fuzzy set theory to help the cooperation between two organi-
zations. Raziei et al. [50] proposed a hybrid approach incorporat-
ing group decision-making, SERVQUAL, QFD, and fuzzy numbers
to improve quality in a public hospital. Lin et al. [47] introduce an
integrative framework of fuzzy Kano and fuzzy QFD. Nevertheless,
to the best of our knowledge, only a few studies integrate the
three quality tools (e.g., SERVQUAL, Kano, and QFD) using fuzzy
logic. Only two applications were found in the literature [1,2]
but they used a fuzzy approach that is distinct from this study.
For instance, Vaziri and Beheshtinia [2] combine the SERVQUAL,
Kano’s model, QFD, and the knapsack problem. Thus, triangular
fuzzy numbers are applied throughout the model to represent
linguistic variables in calculations. Beheshtinia and Azad [1] in-
tegrated QFD, fuzzy set theory, SERVQUAL, and Kano for the
hotel industry to maximize customer satisfaction. Similar to [2],
this study also employs the triangular fuzzy numbers to map
ambiguity of qualitative parameters such as the importance of
the customer needs and the relationship between requirements
5
Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786
and technical specifications. Thus, those models [1,2] use basic
operations for triangular fuzzy numbers to aggregate variables,
limiting their flexibility in representing more complex relation-
ships. Alternatively, FIS [55], and fuzzy computing with words
techniques (e.g., fuzzy 2-tuple [56,57]) could be used to improve
the relationships between the parameters of the three tools. In
addition, no research has been found using A-Kano and changes
in the SERVQUAL gap analysis to improve the performance of in-
tegration. The findings in the literature were compiled in Table 3
and the disadvantages concerning the proposed framework are
also presented.
Therefore, this study differs from the others by proposing an
integrative framework that combines SERVQUAL, QFD, and A-
Kano using FIS and a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation. The
context of uncertainty and imprecision in the evaluation of the
parameters of SERVQUAL, A-Kano, and QFD and the nonlinearity
of their relationships justify the relevance of using the most
suitable fuzzy approaches in the integration of their variables.
Due to the characteristics of each technique’s inputs and outputs
and the number of variables, these two different fuzzy approaches
are used in the proposal. FIS was used when the model phase
has crisp values as input and output and a limited quantity of
variables. Otherwise, the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation
model was used to aggregate many variables whose assessment
was based on expert judgments.
2.2. Fuzzy approaches
2.2.1. Fuzzy Inference System (FIS)
Since the seminal work of Mamdani and Assilian [61], the
FIS has become one of the Fuzzy logic’s essential applications.
Indeed, this method was proposed by Zadeh [62] and its ability
to incorporate expert knowledge in an interpretable manner has
been applied in many management problems [23,63]. Fig. 4
shows the main elements of FIS in which the input information,
in a crisp format, goes through the stages of fuzzification, fuzzy
inference, and defuzzification for crisp output information.
The form of fuzzy partitioning determines the fuzzification of
crisp input data. Many authors highlight the importance of fuzzy
partitioning. According to Guillaume and Charnomordic [55], in-
terpretable partitions are the main conditions: semantic integrity;
a wise number of fuzzy sets; normalization; overlapping; and
coverage. These conditions are fulfilled by a fuzzy partition that
must satisfy Eq. (6), where µi (x) is the membership degree of x in
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Table 3
Integration strategies used by authors and their disadvantages concerning the proposed framework.
Integration of SERVQUAL and Integration between criticality Disadvantages Authors
Kano’model indices and QFD
Fuzzy logic is not used — Fuzzy logic is not used — The It applies traditional Kano’s model, [5,6,15,16,22,35,58]
One-dimensional, and Must-be QAs criticality indices, are multiplicate does not statistically validate
receive the respective values of 4, in the QFD matrix by values that SERVQUAL gaps, and applies
2, and 1 (or similar), and these indicate strong (9), medium (3), or subjective values to integrate
values are multiplied by the weak (1) relationships. the tools
negative gap value. These are the
criticality indices.
– It integrates SERVQUAL and QFD, There is no integration with Kano’s [21]
using fuzzy set theory (basic model, does not statistically vali-
operation with a triangular fuzzy date SERVQUAL gaps, and uses basic
number) fuzzy operation
– It integrates SERVQUAL and QFD, There is no integration with Kano’s [47]
using fuzzy multiple objective model, which does not statistically
decision model or fuzzy-DEMATEL validate SERVQUAL gaps
method and fuzzy inference system
– It integrates Kano’s model and QFD, There is no integration with [25]
using fuzzy sets SERVQUAL, uses basic fuzzy
operations
It integrates SERVQUAL with the – There is no integration with QFD, [59,60]
Fuzzy Kano model, using a fuzzy uses basic fuzzy operation
scale
Integrates Kano’s model and Basic operations on triangular fuzzy There is no integration with Kano’s [1,2]
SERVQUAL using basic operations numbers model, does not statistically vali-
on triangular fuzzy numbers date SERVQUAL gaps, and uses basic
fuzzy operations

based on extension principle or symbolic methods. According

to Martinez and Herrera [65], this representation model has
been used in several multiple criteria decision making (MCDM)
problems in management contexts, like supplier evaluation and
selection [66] and product design and development [67]. Lin-
guistics information is represented using a pair of values (si , α)
in 2-tuple fuzzy representation. {The first value, si , is an element
from a linguistic term set S = s0 , . . . , sg , and α is a numeric
}
value representing the symbolic translation. To perform aggregate
operations in a continuous domain, the alternative representation
Fig. 4. A FIS — Fuzzy Inference System. form β must be used instead of (si , α) form; Eq. (7) shows the
relationship between the two forms of representation in the
2-tuple model.
the ith fuzzy set and m is the number of fuzzy set in the partition. Eq. (8) presents the conversion between the two forms, where
the expression round (β) is the usual round operation, so the
⎧ m
∑ label si has the closest index to β and β ∈ [0, g]. Therefore, the
⎨∀x µi (x) = 1 symbolic translation α is a value in the interval [−0.5, 0.5).
⎪
i=1
(6)
⎪ ∆ (β) = (si , α) (7)
∀i ∃x µi (x) = 1
⎩

The inference engine integrates the input data fuzzified con- With
sidering the rule base and allocates to aggregate the related fuzzy si , i = round (β)
{
area [64]. A rule base is developed based on experts’ knowledge. (8)
α = β − i, α ∈ [−0.5, 0.5) ,
A fuzzy rule can be defined in a logical ‘‘if. . . then’’ expression. For
instance, if x1 is l1 and x2 is, then y is l3 , with x1 and x2 being the To aggregate different criteria with different degrees of impor-
input variable, y being the output variable, and l1 , l2 , and l3 being tance, Herrera and Martinez [57] propose the weighted average
linguistic terms. The defuzzification stage yields a crisp value operator, presented by Eq. (9), where βi and wi are respectively
from the output fuzzy area. Depending on the characteristics of the evaluation and the weight of criterion i. According to Herrera
the problem, different defuzzification approaches can be used, and Martinez [56], quantitative variables can be represented
such as the center of the area (COA), mean of maximum (MOM), and aggregated with qualitative variables by the 2-tuple fuzzy
largest of maximum (LOM), and smallest of maximum (SOM).
linguistic representation model if the linguistic term set S is a
fuzzy partition, with membership functions of all its terms being
2.2.2. Tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model triangular.
The 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model proposed by ( )
n
Herrera and Martinez [56,57] is an approach that permits the use ∑
of the computational technique for Computing with Words (CW) x=∆ wi · βi (9)
without loss of information, working differently than alternatives i=1

6
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al.
3. A proposal for the integration of A-Kano, SERVQUAL, and
QFD
The integration of the A-Kano, SERVQUAL, and QFD tools en-
compass four phases as shown in Fig. 5. The first Phase (Phase I)
aims for identifying the QAs, applying A-Kano and SERVQUAL to
deal with the data (e.g., expectations, performance, and require-
ments) that is collected from service customers. It also includes
the identification and validation of the service processes (tech-
nical service requirements) by quality experts. Phase II refers
to the integration of A-Kano and SERVQUAL through FIS, with
the criticality index as the output. In Phase III, the criticality
index will be incorporated into the QFD matrix, which allows the
integration between the three quality tools and the prioritization
of service processes. Lastly, improvement projects to address the
main results of Phase III are suggested in Phase IV. Each Phase
will be detailed in the next sections.
In Phase I, different activities run concurrently since it involves
the identification of QAs and technical requirements (referring to
service processes). The QAs identification is used to the imple-
mentation of A-Kano and SERVQUAL questionnaires. The A-Kano
questionnaire differs from the traditional Kano’s questionnaire
by adding the respondent’s self-assessment about the QA impor-
tance. Based on respondents’ answers, it is possible to calculate
the A-Kano indices using the method presented by Xu et al. [31].
Regarding SERVQUAL, the gaps between the service expecta-
tions and service performance were confirmed by applying the
Wilcoxon test for paired samples of each QA. The Wilcoxon test
is a nonparametric technique to test whether the difference be-
tween the medians of the populations is equal to or different
from zero [68]. A nonparametric technique was chosen after
performing a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, confirming that the data
does not follow a normal distribution. Another justification for
using a nonparametric test is that the data are collected on an
ordinal scale. Wilcoxon tests the following hypotheses: H0 , or
the difference of the medians, is equal to zero; and H1 or the
difference of the medians is different from zero. When there is
technical confirmation of the gap, and the median of expectation
is more significant than perception (a negative gap) the attribute
of quality becomes the focus of improvements and subsequent
analyses. Similarly, the service processes must also be identified
in the Phase I. Following this identification, the quality experts
should evaluate the intensity of the services processes’ rela-
tionship with each QA. In this proposal, linguistic terms used
in everyday life allow more comfortable judgments about the
relationship by using a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation.
Phase II integrates the A-Kano and SERVQUAL methods
through a FIS to input crisp values from these two methods and
generate a criticality index of each QA that will be posteriorly
used in the QFD matrix. Parameterization of FIS elements, such
as rule base, fuzzy sets, forms of fuzzification, defuzzification,
etc., must be defined by the quality experts with the support
of FIS specialists. In Phase III, the QFD matrix organizes the
intensity of the relationship between the service processes with
each QA. The prioritization of service processes is calculated using
the 2-tuple linguistic representation and the weighted average
operator defined in Eq. (9). This operator aggregates the relation-
ship intensity of a service process with each QA, considering the
weights determined by the criticality index of the QAs. In Phase
IV, improvement projects are planned to address the most critical
service processes. Focusing improvement actions on the most
critical processes ensures more efficient use of the organization’s
resources to improve its performance on the QAs that are most
influential on service user satisfaction.
7
Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786
4. Application of the proposed framework
The proposed framework was tested through a case study
in a Brazilian startup company (called Company X herein) that
develops entrepreneurial education services for undergraduate
students. Company X aims to develop the entrepreneurial skills of
its customers by using entrepreneurship competitions in Brazilian
universities. In general, competitions involve more than 1200 par-
ticipants per year. For five weeks, the students work in teams to
build a business plan to address a real problem in society, which
they self-select based on their experience and knowledge of local
issues. The participants go through a simulation of developing a
business plan for a problem they wish to solve as well as the
search for investments in the future company.
Different from other competitors, Company X has a differen-
tiated service execution structure due to the use of local teams.
Customers are undergraduate students, university professors, and
staff who receive guidance and training from the Company X
team before and during the competition. Participants also receive
mentoring from local entrepreneurs, while local and national
sponsors make the competition feasible by providing financial
and infrastructure assistance. Company X is also responsible for
developing the service and competition methodology, delivering
the processes and materials used, connecting local entrepreneurs
and sponsors, and providing training to local teams responsible
for organizing and delivering participants’ competition services.
Therefore, Company X was selected because it provides educa-
tional services for its customers. Additionally, its services can be
categorized as experiential services that suffer from heterogene-
ity due to inconsistency in human performance and that are based
on the tacit knowledge held by the people as they are delivered
by interpersonal interactions. Consequently, the service quality
assessment is more complex and can benefit from the developed
integrative framework.
4.1. Phase I
Phase I involves identifying QAs and service processes by
service specialists with the support of the research team and
the application of the Analytical Kano and SERVQUAL question-
naires. Then, the Kano results and assessed the QA gaps were
calculated using the Wilcoxon test. Moreover, Phase I also en-
compasses the evaluation by specialists of the intensity of the
relationship between service processes and each QA using a 2-
tuple fuzzy linguistic representation (Fig. 5). In the case study,
Pilot tests were conducted to test the SERVQUAL and A-Kano
questionnaires. Respondents were undergraduate students who
had already participated in the competitions promoted by Com-
pany X. Besides them, Company X members, and quality research
experts also tested the questionnaires. They provided feedback
about the questionnaire format, clarity of the sentences, and
completion time. Careful validation of the instruments can re-
duce measurement error due to poorly worded questions [69].
Thus, the questionnaires were adjusted based on the received
feedbacks. Next, the questionnaires were sent electronically to
respondents via emails. After two weeks, a reminder email was
sent to increase response rates. The target population was the
participants of the last edition of the competition (469 partici-
pants). Of that population, 47 participants answered the A-Kano
questionnaire, and 72 answered the SERVQUAL. The response
rates were 10% and 15%, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha values
were used to verify the questionnaires’ consistency, which was
both above the recommended 0.70 thresholds (Kano = 0.72 and
SERVQUAL = 0.95). Both were considered appropriate for the
subsequent analyses.
Another stage in Phase I deals with the identification of service
processes. Thus, two founders and five members of Company
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Fig. 5. Proposed framework for integrating the three tools.

X (service specialists) were interviewed by the members of the

research team to identify the service processes and their QAs;
company documents and observations were also consulted. Due
to the nature of the studied service (tacit educational and en-
trepreneurial services), SERVQUAL included new QAs and dimen-
sions. These changes are aligned with other studies of education
services (e.g., [15,16]). The 24 QAs are distributed among six qual-
ity dimensions (Table 4): Competition organization; Facilities;
Local teams; Knowledge creation; Contacts; and Entrepreneurial
development. The findings from this stage supported the design
of the initial SERVQUAL and A-Kano questionnaires (both used
the same QAs) and QFD (14 service processes identified). Fig. 6. Membership functions of the intensity of the relationship between
Table 4 shows the A-Kano results for QAs. It presents the processes and QAs; QA criticality index and process priority index.
calculation of the functional and dysfunctional values⏐ calculated
⏐
by Eqs. (2) and (1), respectively, the vector magnitude ⏐r⃗ı ⏐ defined
by (4), and the angle αi defined by Eq. (5). This information will be uniformity and comfort for the participants in their judgments.
used for the integration between A-Kano and SERVQUAL in Phase According to Herrera and Martinez [56], the linguistic term set
II.
S∑should satisfy three conditions, (1) Be a fuzzy partition, i.e.,
Using the SERVQUAL data, the median and the mean of ex- 4
pectation and perception were calculated, and the Wilcoxon test i=0 µsi (x) = 1, ∀x ∈ X = [0, 1]; (2) All its membership
functions are triangular; (3) Maximum µsi (x) = 1, ∀i ∈ S,
was performed (Table 5). The results confirmed that QAs re-
lated to Facilities are among those in which no quality gaps to provide aggregation operations with 2-tuple fuzzy variables
were found, showing that these attributes are highly evaluated without loss of information. The results of these evaluations are
despite constantly changing places in terms of the competition’s shown in Table 7. Using these terms enables simple judgments
accomplishments. Two of the three QAs of the local teams at- and allows Computing with Word (CW) aggregation in the later
tribute also had no gap, showing that the local teams are meeting Phase.
the students’ expectations. On the other hand, several negative
quality gaps between expectations and performance perceptions 4.2. Phase II
after the Wilcoxon test for paired samples were presented in
Table 5. These QAs that were confirmed gaps (95% significance
In Phase II, SERVQUAL and A-Kano’s model were integrated
level) were maintained for subsequent analyses since they are the
using the Fuzzy Inference System (FIS). The most critical QAs are
most important for the improvement analysis. This information
was used for the integration between A-Kano and SERVQUAL in more capable of generating satisfaction and attention should be
Phase II. reinforced when there are statistically significant gaps in these at-
The interviewed specialists identified 14 service processes and tributes (performed worse than customers’ expectations). There-
evaluated the intensity of the relationship between these pro- fore, the joint analysis aimed to guide actions by considering the
cesses, and the 24 QAs using five fuzzy linguistic terms from set aggregated results derived from the integration of SERVQUAL and
S = {s0 : Very Low, s1 : Low, s2 : Medium, s3 : High, s4 : Very High}. A-Kano’s model. The proposed FIS had three input variables, two
These fuzzy partitions are represented in Fig. 6. This granular- provided by A-Kano’s model and one by SERVQUAL, which were
ity level was used to assess all relationships to provide greater used to determine the criticality index of each QA.
8
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Table 4
A-Kano results.
Angle αi
⏐ ⏐
Quality dimension and QAs Fun. Yı Dysf. Xı Magn. ⏐r⃗ı ⏐
Competition organization
Registration information 0.763 0.745 1.066 45.68◦
Means of communication 0.698 0.764 1.035 42.42◦
Capacity of instruction/training 0.692 0.774 1.038 41.80◦
Cost (service value) 0.634 0.763 0.992 39.72◦
Virtual communication 0.708 0.656 0.965 47.18◦
Regulation/rules 0.624 0.749 0.975 39.80◦
Schedule 0.689 0.763 1.028 42.08◦
Term 0.585 0.649 0.874 42.03◦
Materials developed for competition 0.769 0.678 1.025 48.60◦
Evaluation criteria 0.763 0.745 1.066 45.68◦
Facilities
Infrastructure (location, space, working materials) 0.719 0.746 1.036 43.94◦
Coffee break 0.707 0.480 0.855 55.83◦
Local teams
Appearance of the team 0.736 0.699 1.015 46.48◦
Education, friendliness, and cordiality 0.817 0.826 1.162 44.69◦
Ability to serve 0.756 0.784 1.089 43.96◦
Knowledge creation
Level of knowledge and ability to share 0.715 0.697 0.999 45.73◦
Sharing of supplementary materials 0.657 0.544 0.853 50.38◦
Contacts
Presence and heterogeneity of the audiences 0.671 0.389 0.776 59.90◦
Connection with different audiences and exchange of experience and knowledge 0.722 0.505 0.881 55.03◦
Network of contacts 0.642 0.481 0.802 53.16◦
Entrepreneurial development
Awards/benefits 0.718 0.693 0.998 46.02◦
Development of entrepreneurial knowledge 0.742 0.733 1.043 45.35◦
Development of entrepreneurial skills 0.772 0.754 1.079 45.68◦
Development of entrepreneurial attitudes 0.776 0.748 1.078 46.05◦

Noteworthy, the use of A-Kano’s model [31] is more recent

than the traditional Kano’s model and this study innovates in
proposing the integration between A-Kano’s model and
SERVQUAL using FIS. In this sense, the FIS elements (e.g., per-
tinence functions and rules base) are suitable for integration
between the outputs of the two tools, thus, the elements were pa-
rameterized according to A-Kano’s model’s characteristics (Fig. 2)
and the QA gaps determined by the SERVQUAL. Therefore, the
first variable in A-Kano’s model is the vector magnitude that
determines the pertinence degree of a QA in the fuzzy sets:
Indifferent or others. Fig. 7 describes the √ membership functions
used in a universe of discourse from 0 to 2. The second Kano’s Fig. 7. Membership functions of types of QA are determined by vector
model variable is the angle between the vector and the x-axis magnitude.
that determines the pertinence degree in the fuzzy sets: Must-be,
One-dimensional, and Attractive. Fig. 8 describes these member-
ship functions in a universe of discourse from 0◦ to 90◦ . The
SERVQUAL variable is the p-value of the QA gap analysis deter-
mining the pertinence degree in the fuzzy sets: very different,
different, little different, almost equal, and equal. These linguistic
terms were used to represent the difference between the expec-
tations and perceptions of the participants. Fig. 9 describes these
membership functions in a universe of discourse from 0 to 1. All
linguistic sets used in this work are fuzzy partitions that satisfied
Eq. (6).
Next, the FIS elements as rule base, defuzzification method,
etc. should be developed to shape the knowledge of the spe-
cialists. In this sense, the criticality index’s crisp value can be Fig. 8. Membership functions of types of QA are determined by angle.
determined by the center of area (COA) defuzzification process
based on classification into five membership functions shown in
Fig. 6. The computational routines for this FIS were implemented
The last column shows the criticality index normalized to satisfy
in MATLAB⃝ R
. Table 6 shows the FIS data and the QA criticality
indices derived from the integration of SERVQUAL and A-Kano’s
∑n
i=1 wi = 1; this format is required for aggregation operation in
model. This criticality index has a domain from 0 to 1 and in-
dicates how critical this attribute is to customer satisfaction. Phase III.
9
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Table 5
Wilcoxon test for SERVQUAL.
Quality dimension and QAs Expectation Perception Expectation Perception Wilcoxon
median median mean mean (p-value)
Competition organization
Registration information 4 5 4.32 4.32 0.964
Means of communication 4 4 4.15 3.93 0.086
Capacity of instruction/training 4 4 4.28 3.97 0.023*
Cost (service value) 4 4 4.17 4,26 0.475
Virtual communication 4 4 4.11 3.97 0.003*
Regulation/rules 4 4 4.19 3.97 0.042*
Schedule 4 4 4.32 4.03 0.014*
Term 4 4 4.07 3.76 0.013*
Materials developed for competition 4 4 4.25 4,06 0.116
Evaluation criteria 4 4 4.13 3.22 0.000*
Facilities
Infrastructure (location, space, working materials) 5 5 4.33 4.38 0.715
Coffee break 4 5 4.10 4.18 0.466
Local teams
Appearance of the team 5 4 4.38 4.07 0.021*
Education, friendliness, and cordiality 5 5 4.57 4.57 1.000
Ability to serve 5 4 4.44 4.17 0.090
Knowledge creation
Level of knowledge and ability to share 4 4 4.31 4.04 0.057
Sharing of supplementary materials 4 4 4.06 3.71 0.025*
Contacts
Presence and heterogeneity of the audiences 4 4 4.15 3.74 0.016*
Connection with different audiences and exchange of 4 4 4.24 3.82 0.006*
experience and knowledge
Network of contacts 4 3 3.97 3.36 0.000*
Entrepreneurial development
Awards/benefits 4 4 3.97 3.60 0.002*
Development of entrepreneurial knowledge 5 4 4.36 4.24 0.354
Development of entrepreneurial skills 4 4 4.32 4.03 0.042*
Development of entrepreneurial attitudes 4 4 4.29 4.10 0.207

*Difference with 95% level of significance.

4.3. Phase III

In Phase III, the QFD matrix prioritized service processes

Fig. 9. Membership functions of the comparison between the medians.
The results of this step showed that virtual communication
is the most critical QA influencing customer satisfaction, fol-
lowed by evaluation criteria, awards/benefits, and network of
contacts. In fact, both Company X managers and service spe-
cialists analyzed these results and considered them relevant to
its services. The target customers also highlighted the impor-
tance of communication since it is through the interactions that
they receive information about the competition procedures and
feedback on their performed activities. Evaluation criteria and
awards/benefits are the core of the model based on tacit en-
trepreneurial competition since customers want consistent evalu-
ation rules and awards. The network of contacts is another critical
QA like awards/benefits for the business model, which is reflected
in the customer’s perception.
10
considering the relationship between the QA and the service
processes using the 2-tuple linguistic representation and the
weighted average operator. The 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic repre-
sentation model is used in Phase III to determine the processes’
criticality score with the data from the previous steps. Eq. (8) is
used to transform linguistic terms into β values, considering the
set S = {s0 : Very Low, s1 : Low, s2 : Medium, s3 : High, s4 : Very High},
showed in Fig. 6. This transformation allows the use of aggre-
gate operators in a continuous domain. The weighted average
operator, Eq. (9), is used to determine the process priority index,
considering the QA criticality index normalized (wi ) and the
intensity of the relationship between process and each QA (βi ).
Table 6 shows the final integration results and prioritization
of processes. The bottom of this table shows the process priority
index (β ), representing the final result of aggregation in a contin-
uous domain, whereas I represents the same value in linguistic
terms. The last row shows the order of priority of processes. The
processes that obtained the highest scores have more impact on
the QAs and, consequently, customer satisfaction. The top five are
as follows: (i) structuring the experience, (ii) evaluating the event,
(iii) training the local team, (iv) structuring methodology, and
(iv) defining rules, and selecting the local team. Therefore, these
processes are priorities when deciding on improvement projects.
4.4. Phase IV
Phase IV aimed to identify improvement projects to address
the services processes defined in the previous phase. The in-
tegration of the three tools provided insights to Company X
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Table 6
Results of the integration between SERVQUAL and A-Kano’s model.
Priority QA A-Kano — A-Kano — SQ Criticality Criticality index
magnitude angle — p-value index normalized (wi )
1 Virtual communication 0.97 47.2 0.00 0.92 0.0571
2 Evaluation criteria 1.07 45.7 0.00 0.92 0.0571
3 Awards/benefits 1.00 46.0 0.00 0.92 0.0571
4 Network of contacts 0.80 53.2 0.00 0.92 0.0569
5 Connection with different audiences and exchange of 0.88 55.0 0.01 0.87 0.0540
experience and knowledge
6 Appearance of the team 1.02 46.5 0.02 0.84 0.0522
7 Sharing of supplementary materials 0.85 50.4 0.02 0.84 0.0522
8 Presence and heterogeneity of the audiences 0.78 59.9 0.02 0.83 0.0517
9 Schedule 1.03 42.1 0.01 0.83 0.0514
10 Term 0.87 42.0 0.01 0.83 0.0512
11 Capacity of instruction/training 1.04 41.8 0.02 0.80 0.0496
12 Development of entrepreneurial skills 1.08 45.7 0.04 0.80 0.0495
13 Level of knowledge and ability to share 1.00 45.7 0.06 0.77 0.0479
14 Regulation/rules 0.97 39.8 0.04 0.75 0.0464
15 Ability to serve 1.09 44.0 0.09 0.74 0.0462
16 Means of communication 1.03 42.4 0.09 0.73 0.0455
17 Materials developed for competition 1.03 48.6 0.12 0.69 0.0429
18 Development of entrepreneurial attitudes 1.08 46.1 0.21 0.50 0.0310
19 Coffee break 0.85 55.8 0.47 0.42 0.0262
20 Development of entrepreneurial knowledge 1.04 45.3 0.35 0.40 0.0250
21 Cost (service value) 0.99 39.7 0.48 0.33 0.0206
22 Infrastructure (location, space, working materials) 1.04 43.9 0.72 0.24 0.0148
23 Registration information 1.07 45.7 0.96 0.14 0.0086
24 Education, friendliness, and cordiality 1.16 44.7 1.00 0.08 0.0050

Table 7
Prioritization of service processes using QFD matrix.
Quality wi Service processes
attributes (QAs)
Criticality Strategic Structuring Structuring Structuring Structuring Selecting Training Event Sponsor Stakeholder Awards Maintaining Activating Evaluat-
index planning the processes methodol- stages the local the local marketing manage- communi- manage- a network the ing the
normalized experience ogy and team team ment cation ment of contacts network event
rules of contacts
Virtual communication 0.057 M VH H VH VH H VH H L L VL VL VL VH
Evaluation criteria 0.057 VL VH H VH VH VL VH VL L VL VL VL VL VH
Awards/benefits 0.057 VH VH L VH VL M M M M M VH L L M
Network of contacts 0.057 M VH VH VL VL VH M VL L VL H VH VH VH
Connection with 0.054 M VH M VH VH VH VH VL L VL H VH VH H
different audiences
Appearance of the 0.052 VL M VL VL VL VL VL M H M VL VL VL VH
team
Sharing of 0.052 M VH VH M M M VH VH M M VL VL VL H
supplementary
materials
Presence and 0.052 M VH M VH M VH M L VL VL H H VH VH
heterogeneity of the
audiences
Schedule 0.051 VH VH VH L M VL VH VH L VH VL VL M VH
Term 0.051 VH VH VH VH M VL VH VH VL VL VH M VL VH
Capacity of 0.050 VH VH H VH M VH M M H M VL VL VL VH
instruction/training
Development of 0.050 H VH H H M VH M L VL H M M M VL
entrepreneurial skills
Level of knowledge 0.048 M VH M H VH VH VH VL VL L M L VL VH
and ability to share
Regulation/rules 0.046 VH VH H VH H H VL VH VH VL H M VL VH
Ability to serve 0.046 M VH VL VL VL VH VH VL VL VH VL L L VH
Means of 0.046 H VH H L VL M VH H VH M VL M H VH
communication
Materials developed 0.043 M M H VH VH VH VH VL M VH VL VL VL VH
for competition
Development of 0.031 H VH H H M VH M L VL H M M M VL
entrepreneurial
attitudes
Coffee break 0.026 L VH VL VH M VH VH VL VL M VL VL VL VH
Development of 0.025 H VH H H M VH M L VL H VH M M VL
entrepreneurial
knowledge
Cost (service value) 0.021 M VH M M M M VH H VH M VH VH M VH
Infrastructure 0.015 L H VH M VH M L VH H M VL VL VL VH
Registration 0.009 VL L H L VH M H M H M VL H VL VH
information
Education, 0.005 M VH VL VL VL VH VH VL VL VH VL L L VH
friendliness, and
cordiality
Process priority index 2.39 3.77 2.55 2.71 2.09 2.65 2.91 1.73 1.41 1.66 1.5 1.36 1.25 3.36
(β )
Process priority in M VH H H M H H M L M L L L H
linguistic terms (i)
Prioritization of 7 1 6 4 8 5 3 9 12 10 11 13 14 2
processes

VL: Very Low; L: Low; Medium; H: High; VH: Very High.

11
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al.
concerning the processes that would have more influence on
customer satisfaction (QAs). In fact, this final stage is necessary to
guarantee the direct association between the critical QAs, service
processes, and improvement projects. Thus, the specialists listed
potential improvement projects based on the priority processes.
A list of 25 improvement projects was proposed for Company
X, observing the relationship between service process and QAs.
Owing to space, Table 8 presents only a sampling of the im-
provement projects listed related to the most impacting process
— Structuring the experience.
In the end, Company X managers and service specialists in-
volved in the application of this integrative framework approved
the 25 improvement projects. Financial and personnel resources
were used to carry out the projects. They also had a positive
opinion regarding the implemented methodology. As a result of
applying the model, Company X highlighted more reliable data
for quality analysis, developed a holistic view of its service, and
identified customer-focused improvement projects. Furthermore,
they pointed out better structuring processes, better alignment
with mentors and local teams, better monitoring of service re-
sults, and customer satisfaction. Fig. 10 shows the steps taken in
the case study and details Fig. 5.
5. Discussion and implications
This section discusses the findings of this study and its im-
plications for theory and practice. First, this study presents a
framework for integrating SERVQUAL, A-Kano, and QFD using
fuzzy logic, which generated guidance for improvement projects
in the investigated case. This framework consists of several ques-
tionnaires, two of them applied to customers (SERVQUAL and
A-Kano), and questions about service processes (for QFD) ap-
plied to the service specialists. The same QAs were the basis for
SERVQUAL and A-Kano questionnaires. Through the application
of A-Kano, and based on its methodology the QAs were classified
according to their impacts on customer satisfaction, identifying
dysfunctional, functional, and self-stated importance weights and
turning this information in a vector magnitude and angle. The A-
Kano model introduces quantitative measurements of customer
satisfaction [31], decreasing the subjectivity of the analysis that
is related to the traditional Kano model. Thus, a first implication
is that to the best of the authors’ knowledge this is the first time
that A-Kano has been used for the integration of tools, and it has
proved effective for this purpose.
Second, the identification of critical QAs also received special
attention. In this case, the quality gaps between expectations and
perceived performances were validated using the Wilcoxon test
for paired samples in the SERVQUAL (13 of 24 QAs showed sta-
tistically significant negative gaps). This advances the traditional
calculation of the quality gaps that is, normally, found in many
SERVQUAL applications. The use of a nonparametric hypothesis
test to validate the SERVQUAL gaps and generate quantitative
information to prioritize the gaps and integrate the tools makes
the analysis process more robust.
Third, SERVQUAL and A-Kano’s model were integrated using
a FIS, which allows overcoming the limitations of applying Kano
or SERVQUAL separately [5,7,37]. FIS was the fuzzy approach
chosen in this step because of its characteristic of receiving crisp
values (from SERVQUAL and A-Kano), fuzzifying them to make
inferences according to the characteristics analyzed, and defuzzi-
fying them into weights for each QA. Otherwise, the 2-tuple
fuzzy linguistic representation was used to relate the results of
SERVQUAL integrated to Kano with service processes in QFD, due
to its ability and simplicity to aggregate large numbers of criteria
with different weights and represented by sets of five or more
linguistic terms. This second integration made it possible to prior-
itize the processes and, improvement projects. Consequently, the
12
Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786
third implication is that fuzzy approaches, instead of only com-
mon sense, were used to better integrate of the tools, conserving
the main information of each tool when they are integrated and
translating the respondents’ subjective assessments into a com-
mon language. These approaches are more sophisticated and had
not been used before to integrate the three tools simultaneously.
This use allowed greater accuracy of the information and better
integration between tools, contributing to the literature.
Regarding the model, a fourth implication is that this inte-
gration overcomes other method’s limitations. For instance, the
integration of A-Kano and SERVQUAL eliminated the linearity
barrier, which is one of the latter’s main weaknesses, and the
fuzzy set helps to reflect customers’ subjective judgments by the
allocation of values to the linguistic variables overcoming issues
of subjectivity and inaccuracy [1,2,21,47]. Moreover, integrating
SERVQUAL and A-Kano into QFD also contributes to select the ser-
vice processes (technical requirements) that should be addressed
to increase customer satisfaction [5,7,16,33,36]. Thus, advancing
the extant literature, the proposed model provides a structured
way to prioritize improvement projects, allowing specific im-
provement procedures and guidelines. This helps companies that
want to increase their design capabilities or improve services
driven by customer satisfaction.
The fifth implication is related to the prioritization of improve-
ment projects. SERVQUAL alone is insufficient to determine the
improvement priorities [5,16,35]. However, through the appli-
cation of A-Kano, the influence on customer satisfaction can be
identified and reflected in the service QAs, and the integration
with QFD connects the QA to technical requirements (processes).
The prioritization of the processes through the junction of the
criticality index and the importance of fuzzy approaches en-
abled the identification of priority processes and improvement
priorities.
The last implication is related to the practical results of this
study. The case study illustrated how the proposed integration of
SERVQUAL, A-Kano, and QFD using fuzzy logic was applied in a
Brazilian startup company that develops tacit entrepreneurial ed-
ucation services. First, while some QAs were borrowed from the
traditional SERVQUAL model, other QAs were changed to adapt
to the specific characteristics of the tacit services provided by
Company X. Thus, Service specialists together with the research
team identified QAs relevant to this type of service, developing
a modified version of the SERVQUAL that is more suitable to
evaluate this kind of services. Although these dimensions and
attributes are presented other similar services, they provide an al-
ternative for service providers operating in this area. Second, the
application of the model in an entrepreneurial education service
allowed Company X managers to validate the framework through
the prioritization of service processes, the critical QAs, and the
improvement projects. The main benefits pointed out by the
company’s specialists were more reliable data for quality analysis,
a holistic view of the service, and customer-focused improvement
projects, and the model allowed to overcome challenges related
to the evaluation of the service and the quality improvement
process.
Finally, it is possible to expand the use of the integrative
framework to other types of services. In this sense, the inte-
gration of the A-Kano, SERVQUAL, and QFD tools has been used
in different contexts in the service sector, such as tourism [7],
education [17,22], and healthcare [24], indicating that there are
interest and opportunities to be answered by the integration
of these quality tools. With the support of fuzzy approaches,
the integrative framework can be used to analyze the service
quality in different sectors in depth. For instance, in sectors of
high competition and high contact with the customer such as
professional services, the model would allow the identification
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

Table 8
Example of improvement projects and the association with the process.
Projects Processes
P1 — Develop a communication plan focused on monitoring the actions of mentors and Structuring the experience
local teams.
P2 — Redesign the organizational structure, organization chart, and processes of contact Structuring the experience
with local teams.
P3 — Identify other opportunities and activities to be developed in face-to-face stages Structuring the experience
that stimulate critical analysis, creativity, and motivation.
P4 — Structure the management of the network of contacts through the creation and Structuring the experience
sharing of specific content, organization of events, use of suitable technology and media
to communicate, and sharing of experiences from different audiences.
P5 — Satisfaction survey application for each competition. Evaluating the event
P6 — Creation, and implementation of indicators to monitor satisfaction and problems. Evaluating the event

Fig. 10. Framework application flowchart.

of the QAs that should be improved due to their impact on
customer satisfaction. Another example is the healthcare services
in which the model would allow connecting QAs and technical re-
quirements (e.g., medical services). Companies would also benefit
from the longitudinal application of the integrative framework,
allowing them to detect changes in the importance of each QA
and the quality gaps. Therefore, although this study focuses on
an educational service, the proposed integrative framework can
be used in a great variety of services that are either experiential
and delivered by interpersonal interactions.
6. Conclusion and limitations
This study developed an integrative framework to integrate
the A-Kano, SERVQUAL, and QFD tools using fuzzy approaches.
Moreover, it was applied in a Brazilian startup company that
provides entrepreneurial education services. This model proposed
new guidelines for integrating quality tools and was effective
at helping the studied company to seek improvement projects
to increase customer satisfaction. Moreover, it discussed several
findings and implications from academic and managerial perspec-
tives, providing a method to improve existing services and design
new services.
This study has some limitations, which provide suggestions
for further studies as well. First, the application of the proposed
model is limited to just one case study. Thus, future studies
should apply the proposed model to other companies from dif-
ferent sectors or in-service companies from different market seg-
ments. Second, this study performed a data collection approach
considering only one business model competition. Therefore, fu-
ture research could obtain relevant data by using a longitudinal
approach to clarify the classification of the service QAs using
Kano’s model. A final recommendation relates to determining the
voices of multiple customers. These different perspectives and
judgments of the critical QAs and satisfaction gaps could be joined
in a new stage of integration.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fabiane L. Lizarelli: Conceptualization, Methodology, Super-
vision. Lauro Osiro: Methodology, Formal analysis. Gilberto M.D.
Ganga: Methodology, Formal analysis. Glauco H.S. Mendes: Con-
ceptualization, Writing - final revision, Final revision. Guilherme
R. Paz: Investigation, Data collection, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M.A. Beheshtinia, M. Farzaneh Azad, A fuzzy QFD approach using
SERVQUAL and Kano models under budget constraint for hotel services,
Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 30 (2019) 808–830, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/14783363.2017.1340830.
[2] J. Vaziri, M.A. Beheshtinia, A holistic fuzzy approach to create competitive
advantage via quality management in services industry (case study: life-
insurance services), Manage. Decis. 54 (2016) 2035–2062, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/MD-11-2015-0535.
[3] M. Ali, S.A. Raza, Service quality perception and customer satisfaction
in Islamic banks of Pakistan: The modified SERVQUAL model, Total
Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 28 (2017) 559–577, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14783363.2015.1100517.

13
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al.
[4] M. Hartono, A. Santoso, D.N. Prayogo, How Kansei Engineering Kano and
QFD can improve logistics services, Int. J. Technol. 8 (2017) 1070–1081,
http://dx.doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v8i6.689.
[5] K.C. Tan, T.A. Pawitra, Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD
for service excellence development, Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 11 (2001)
418–430, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006520.
[6] T.A. Pawitra, K.C. Tan, Tourist satisfaction in Singapore – A perspective
from Indonesian tourists, Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 13 (2003) 399–411,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520310495868.
[7] L. Witell, M. Löfgren, J.J. Dahlgaard, Theory of attractive quality and
the Kano methodology - The past, the present, and the future, Total
Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 24 (2013) 1241–1252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14783363.2013.791117.
[8] S. Gustavsson, I. Gremyr, E. Kenne Sarenmalm, Using an adapted approach
to the Kano model to identify patient needs from various patient roles,
TQM J. 28 (2016) 151–162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2013-0050.
[9] N. Kano, Attractive quality and must-be quality, Hinshitsu Qual. J. Jpn. Soc.
Qual. Control. 14 (1984) 39–48.
[10] Z. Iqbal, N.P. Grigg, K. Govindaraju, N.M. Campbell-Allen, Enhancing pri-
oritisation of technical attributes in quality function deployment, Int. J.
Product. Perform. Manag. 64 (2015) 398–415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-10-2014-0156.
[11] M. Sinha, H. Camgöz-Akdağ, M. Tarım, S. Lonial, A. Yatkın, QFD application
using SERVQUAL for private hospitals: A case study, Leadersh. Heal. Serv.
26 (2013) 175–183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHS-02-2013-0007.
[12] H. Camgöz-Akdağ, H.P. İmer, K.N. Ergin, Internal customer satisfaction
improvement with QFD technique, Bus. Process Manag. J. 22 (2016)
957–968, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2016-0022.
[13] A. Apornak, Customer satisfaction measurement using SERVQUAL model,
integration Kano and QFD approach in an educational institution, Int. J.
Product. Qual. Manag. 21 (2017) 129–141, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.
2017.083287.
[14] B. Baki, C.S. Basfirinci, I.M. AR, Z. Cilingir, An application of integrating
SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD for logistics services: A case study
from Turkey, Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 21 (2009) 106–126, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/13555850910926272.
[15] S. Sahney, Delighting customers of management education in India: A
student perspective, part I, TQM J. 23 (2011) 644–658, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/17542731111175257.
[16] D. Terzakis, P.V. Zisis, A.E. Garefalakis, S.E. Arvanitis, Translating the service
quality gaps into strategy formulation. An experimental case study of a
Greek Academic Department, Eur. Res. Stud. J. 15 (2012) 99–125, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.35808/ersj/346.
[17] J. Wibawa, Meyliana, H.A.E. Widjaja, A.N. Hidayanto, Integrating IS Success
Model, SERVQUAL and Kano Model into QFD to improve Hospital Informa-
tion System quality, in: Proc. 2016 Int. Conf. Inf. Manag. Technol. ICIMTech
2016, 2017, pp. 29–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech.2016.7930297.
[18] S. Kayapınar, N. Erginel, Designing the airport service with fuzzy QFD based
on SERVQUAL integrated with a fuzzy multi-objective decision model, Total
Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 30 (2019) 1429–1448, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14783363.2017.1371586.
[19] R. Sukwadi, Muafi, H.P. Sanjaya, Incorporating Kansei Engineering into
service quality tools to improve the airline services, Int. J. Qual. Res. 12
(2018) 297–316, http://dx.doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.02-02.
[20] S. Sahney, Delighting customers of management education in India: A
student perspective, part II, TQM J. 23 (2011) 531–548, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/17542731111157635.
[21] I.J. Cho, Y.J. Kim, C. Kwak, Application of SERVQUAL and fuzzy quality
function deployment to service improvement in service centres of elec-
tronics companies, Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 27 (2016) 368–381,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.997111.
[22] A. Priyono, A. Yulita, Integrating Kano Model and Quality Function Deploy-
ment for designing service in hospital front office, Intang. Cap. 13 (2017)
923–945, http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.1001.
[23] A. Mardani, R.E. Hooker, S. Ozkul, S. Yifan, M. Nilashi, H. Zamani, G.
Chin, Application of decision making and fuzzy sets theory to evaluate
the healthcare and medical problems : A review of three decades of
research with recent developments, Expert Syst. Appl. 137 (2019) 202–231,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.002.
[24] L. Osiro, F.R. Lima-Junior, L.C.R. Carpinetti, A fuzzy logic approach to
supplier evaluation for development, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 153 (2014) 95–112,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.02.009.
[25] T. Turner, P. Gianiodis, Entrepreneurship unleashed : Understanding en-
trepreneurial education outside of the business school, J. OfSmall Bus.
Manag. 56 (2018) 131–149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12365.
[26] D.H. Lee, HEALTHQUAL: A multi-item scale for assessing healthcare service
quality, Serv. Bus. 11 (2017) 491–516, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11628-
016-0317-2.
[27] A. Parasuraman, V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry, A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research, J. Mark. 49 (1985) 41,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251430.
14
Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786
[28] A. Parasuraman, V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry, Reassessment of expectations
as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for
further research, J. Mark. 58 (1994) 111–124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
002224299405800109.
[29] H.A. Khorshidi, S. Nikfalazar, I. Gunawan, Statistical process control appli-
cation on service quality using SERVQUAL and QFD with a case study in
trains’ services, TQM J. 28 (2016) 195–215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TQM-
02-2014-0026.
[30] A. Shekarchizadeh, A. Rasli, H. Hon-Tat, SERVQUAL In Malaysian univer-
sities: Perspectives of international students, Bus. Process Manag. J. 17
(2011) 67–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151111105580.
[31] Q. Xu, R.J. Jiao, X. Yang, M. Helander, H.M. Khalid, A. Opperud, An analytical
Kano model for customer need analysis, Des. Stud. 30 (2009) 87–110,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.07.001.
[32] P. Piperopoulos, D. Dimov, Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneur-
shipEducation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial inten-
tions, J. OfSmall Bus. Manag. 53 (2015) 970–985, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
jsbm.12116.
[33] C. Basfirinci, A. Mitra, A cross cultural investigation of airlines service
quality through integration of Servqual and the Kano model, J. Air Transp.
Manag. 42 (2015) 239–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.11.
005.
[34] M. Dachyar, M. Omar, P. Andri Sena, Analysis of satisfaction and improve-
ment design of electronic insurance claim service, Adv. Sci. Lett. 20 (2014)
309–311, http://dx.doi.org/10.1166/asl.2014.5276.
[35] S. Sahney, Delighting customers of management education in India: A
student perspective, part II, TQM J. 23 (2011) 644–658, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/17542731111175257.
[36] A. Chaudha, R. Jain, A.R. Singh, P.K. Mishra, Integration of Kano’s model
into quality function deployment (QFD), Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 53
(2011) 689–698, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2867-0.
[37] J. Mikulić, D. Prebežac, A critical review of techniques for classifying
quality attributes in the Kano model, Manag. Serv. Qual. 21 (2011) 46–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521111100243.
[38] M.G. Violante, E. Vezzetti, Kano qualitative vs quantitative approaches: An
assessment framework for products attributes analysis, Comput. Ind. 86
(2017) 15–25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.12.007.
[39] T. Wang, P. Ji, Understanding customer needs through quantitative analysis
of Kano’s model, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 27 (2010) 173–184, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656711011014294.
[40] A.M.M.S. Ullah, J. Tamaki, Analysis of Kano-model-based customer needs
for product development, Syst. Eng. 14 (2011) 154–172, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/sys.
[41] L. He, W. Song, Z. Wu, Z. Xu, M. Zheng, X. Ming, Quantification and inte-
gration of an improved Kano model into QFD based on multi-population
adaptive genetic algorithm, Comput. Ind. Eng. 114 (2017) 183–194, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.10.009.
[42] Y. Akao, QFD : Integrating Customer Requirements into Product De-
sign an Introduction to Quality Function Deployment, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, 1990.
[43] F.L. Lizarelli, D.H. Alliprandini, Comparative analysis of Lean and Six
Sigma improvement projects: Performance, changes, investment, time and
complexity, Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 31 (2020) http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/14783363.2018.1428087.
[44] F.L. Lizarelli, A. Jiju, J.C. Toledo, Statistical thinking and its impact on
operational performance in manufacturing companies : An empirical study,
Ann. Oper. Res. 295 (2020) 923–950, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-
020-03801-7.
[45] T. Chiang, Y. Perng, A new model to improve service quality in the property
management industry, Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 22 (2018) 436–446,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2018.5226.
[46] S.C. Onar, G. Büyüközkan, B. Öztays, C. Kahraman, A new hesitant fuzzy
QFD approach : An application to computer workstation selection, Appl.
Soft Comput. 46 (2016) 1–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.04.023.
[47] L.Z. Lin, H.R. Yeh, M.C. Wang, Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for
Taiwanese Ban-Doh banquet culture, Tour. Manag. 46 (2015) 245–262,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.007.
[48] M.Z. Mistarihi, R.A. Okour, A.A. Mumani, An integration of a QFD model
with Fuzzy-ANP approach for determining the importance weights for
engineering characteristics of the proposed wheelchair design, Appl. Soft
Comput. J. 90 (2020) 106136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106136.
[49] H.T. Liu, Product design and selection using fuzzy QFD and fuzzy MCDM
approaches, Appl. Math. Model. 35 (2011) 482–496, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.apm.2010.07.014.
[50] Z. Raziei, S.A. Torabi, S. Tabrizian, B. Zahiri, A hybrid GDM-SERVQUAL-QFD
approach for service quality assessment in hospitals, EMJ - Eng. Manag. J.
30 (2018) 179–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2018.1443670.
[51] R. Liu, L. Cui, G. Zeng, H. Wu, C. Wang, S. Yan, B. Yan, Applying the
fuzzy SERVQUAL method to measure the service quality in certification
& inspection industry, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 26 (2015) 508–512, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.014.
F.L. Lizarelli, L. Osiro, G.M.D. Ganga et al. Applied Soft Computing 112 (2021) 107786

[52] Y.C. Lee, S.Y. Huang, A new fuzzy concept approach for Kano’s model, [66] L.F. de O.M. Santos, L. Osiro, R.H.P. Lima, A model based on 2-tuple
Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 4479–4484, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa. fuzzy linguistic representation and Analytic Hierarchy Process for supplier
2008.05.034. segmentation using qualitative and quantitative criteria, Expert Syst. Appl.
[53] L.H. Chen, W.C. Ko, Fuzzy approaches to quality function deployment 79 (2017) 1339–1351, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.032.
for new product design, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (2009) 2620–2639, [67] W.P. Wang, Toward developing agility evaluation of mass customization
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2008.12.003. systems using 2-tuple linguistic computing, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009)
[54] M. Farokhnia, M.A. Beheshtinia, A three-dimensional house: Extending 3439–3447, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.015.
quality function deployment in two organizations, Manage. Decis. 57 [68] J.D. Gibbons, S. Chakraborti, Nonparametric Statistical Inference, Fourth
(2019) 1589–1608, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2017-0588. Edition: Revised and Expanded, fourth ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 2003,
[55] S. Guillaume, B. Charnomordic, Fuzzy inference systems: An integrated https://books.google.com/books?id=kJbVO2G6VicC&pgis=1.
modeling environment for collaboration between expert knowledge and [69] M.K. Malhotra, V. Grover, An assessment of survey research in POM:
data using FisPro, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 8744–8755, http://dx.doi. From constructs to theory, J. Oper. Manage. 16 (1998) 407–425, http:
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.206. //dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00021-7.
[56] F. Herrera, L. Martinez, An approach for combining linguistic and numerical
information based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in
decision-making, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 8 (2000)
Fabiane Letícia Lizarelli is Associate professor at the Federal University of São
539–562, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218488500000381.
Carlos, Department of Production Engineering. Her research interests include
[57] F. Herrera, L. Martínez, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for
innovation, quality management, and six sigma.
computing with words, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 8 (2000) 746–752.
[58] J. Wibawa, Meyliana, H.A.E. Widjaja, A.N. Hidayanto, Integrating IS Success
Model, SERVQUAL and Kano Model into QFD to improve Hospital Informa-
Lauro Osiro is Adjunct Professor at the Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro.
tion System quality, in: Proc. 2016 Int. Conf. Inf. Manag. Technol. ICIMTech
His research is operations management, mainly in quality management and
2016, 2017, pp. 29–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech.2016.7930297.
supply management, using Multicriteria and Fuzzy Variables techniques.
[59] S. Golrizgashti, A.R. Hejaz, K. Farshianabbasi, Assessing after-sales services
quality: Integrated SERVQUAL and fuzzy Kano’s model, Int. J. Serv. Econ.
Manag. 11 (2020) 137–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSEM.2020.108981.
Gilberto Miller Devós Ganga is Associate Professor of Quantitative methods
[60] S. Shokouhyar, S. Shokoohyar, S. Safari, Research on the influence of after-
at the Industrial Engineering Department at Federal University of São Carlos.
sales service quality factors on customer satisfaction, J. Retail. Consum.
His research interests include service quantitative methods, logistics and supply
Serv. 56 (2020) 102139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102139.
management.
[61] M.M. Rashid, J. Tamaki, A.M.M. Sharif Ullah, A. Kubo, A Kano model based
linguistic application for customer needs analysis, Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag.
3 (2011) 29–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50934. Glauco H. S. Mendes is Associate Professor of Service Management at the
[62] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8 (1965) 338–353. Production Engineering Department at Federal University of São Carlos. His
[63] G. Bojadziev, M. Bojadziev, Fuzzy Logic for Business, Finance, and research interests include quality service, service innovation, servitization, and
Management, second ed., Singapore, 2007. product–service system.
[64] A. Amindoust, S. Ahmed, A. Saghafinia, A. Bahreininejad, Sustainable
supplier selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system, Appl.
Soft Comput. J. 12 (2012) 1668–1677, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012. Guilherme R Paz is a MSc. student in Production Engineering at the Federal
01.023. University of São Carlos (UFSCar) and Production Engineering at the Federal
[65] L. Martínez, F. Herrera, An overview on the 2-tuple linguistic model for University of São Carlos (UFSCar).
computing with words in decision making: Extensions, applications and
challenges, Inf. Sci. 207 (2012) 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.
04.025.

15