Rough Set Approach to Customer Satisfaction Analysis

  • Salvatore Greco
  • Benedetto Matarazzo
  • Roman Słowiński
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4259)


Customer satisfaction analysis has become a hot issue in strategic management. The basis of any decision in this field is the analysis of the answers of a sample of customers to a specific questionnaire. Traditionally, using a methodology called conjoint analysis, the data obtained from the questionnaires are used to build a collective utility function representing customer preferences. This utility function permits to measure the satisfaction of the customers and to determine the most critical features relevant for the appreciation of the considered products or services. In this paper, we propose an alternative methodology to analyze the data from the questionnaire. Our approach is based on the rough set methodology and represents the preferences of the customers by means of simple decision rules such as “if feature α is considered good and feature β is considered sufficient, then the overall evaluation of the product is medium”. The interpretation of the decision rules is simpler and more direct than the interpretation of the utility function given by conjoint analysis. Moreover, the capacity of representing customer preferences in terms of easily understandable “if ..., then...” statements expressed in the natural language makes our approach particularly interesting for Kansei Engineering. The proposed methodology gives also some indications relative to strategic interventions aimed at improving the quality of the offered products and services. The expected efficiency of these interventions is measured, which is very useful for the definition of proper customer satisfaction strategies. Our approach supplies an integrated support to customer satisfaction oriented management.


Decision Rule Customer Satisfaction Conjoint Analysis Customer Preference Decision Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Pappalardo, N., Słowiński, R.: Measuring expected effects of interventions based on decision rules. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 17(1-2), 103–118 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Rough set theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 129, 1–47 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Decision rule approach. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Erghott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 507–563. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R., Stefanowski, J.: Variable Consistency Model of Dominance-Based Rough Sets Approach. In: Ziarko, W.P., Yao, Y. (eds.) RSCTC 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2005, pp. 170–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greco, S., Pawlak, Z., Słowiński, R.: Can Bayesian confirmation measures be useful for rough set decision rules? Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 17, 345–361 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. The Journal of consumer Research 5(2), 103–123 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hilderman, R.J., Hamilton, H.J.: Knowledge Discovery and Measures of Interest. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagamachi, M.: Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15(1), 3–11 (1995)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Słowiński, R., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B.: Rough Set Based Decision Support, ch. 16. In: Burke, E., Kendall, G. (eds.) Introductory Tutorials on Optimization, Search and Decision Support Methodologies, pp. 475–527. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yao, Y.Y., Zhong, N.: An analysis of quantitative measures associated with rules. In: Zhong, N., Zhou, L. (eds.) PAKDD 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1574, pp. 479–488. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziarko, W.: Variable precision rough sets model. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences 46(1), 39–59 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ziarko, W.: Rough sets as a methodology for data mining. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough Sets in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 1, pp. 554–576. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Greco
    • 1
  • Benedetto Matarazzo
    • 1
  • Roman Słowiński
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Computing SciencePoznań University of TechnologyPoznań
  3. 3.Institute for Systems ResearchPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations