IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p3723-d776598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Service Failure Risk Assessment and Service Improvement of Self-Service Electric Vehicle

Author

Listed:
  • Dianfeng Zhang

    (School of Business, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

  • Yanlai Li

    (School of Business, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

  • Yiqun Li

    (School of Economics, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

  • Zifan Shen

    (School of Business, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

Abstract

Electric vehicle sharing is necessary for achieving carbon neutrality. The self-service electric vehicle mode offers unique advantages in terms of freedom of movement and privacy protection. Meanwhile, this mode requires a high-quality service guarantee because of the separation of management and use. The purpose of this study is to propose a framework for the risk control and service optimization of self-service electric vehicles, which includes service life cycle analysis, risk assessment by using a newly integrated fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis, and a consumer satisfaction survey based on the Kano model. Sixteen services were extracted through the service life cycle analysis and online review study, and their corresponding service failures were then ranked through risk assessment. The risk assessment showed that the reliability of vehicle-related services has the greatest impact on safety, followed by financial-related and driving-safety-related services. A Kano model-based survey showed that all kinds of service failures brought significant customer non-satisfaction, while different service improvements brought differentiated satisfaction. To deeply improve service satisfaction, a Risk-Satisfaction analysis was conducted, indicating that services with high risk and high satisfaction deserve further investment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dianfeng Zhang & Yanlai Li & Yiqun Li & Zifan Shen, 2022. "Service Failure Risk Assessment and Service Improvement of Self-Service Electric Vehicle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3723-:d:776598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3723/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3723/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stanley, John & Ellison, Richard & Loader, Chris & Hensher, David, 2018. "Reducing Australian motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 76-88.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Xiao, Jing & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2021. "Consensus and opinion evolution-based failure mode and effect analysis approach for reliability management in social network and uncertainty contexts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Macharis, Cathy & Springael, Johan & De Brucker, Klaas & Verbeke, Alain, 2004. "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 307-317, March.
    5. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1984. "Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9305, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Kumar, M. Satyendra & Revankar, Shripad T., 2017. "Development scheme and key technology of an electric vehicle: An overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1266-1285.
    8. Silvia Angilella & Maria Rosaria Pappalardo, 2021. "Assessment of a failure prediction model in the energy sector: a multicriteria discrimination approach with Promethee based classification," Papers 2102.07656, arXiv.org.
    9. Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Zenonas TURSKIS & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(3), pages 25-44.
    10. Long He & Ho-Yin Mak & Ying Rong & Zuo-Jun Max Shen, 2017. "Service Region Design for Urban Electric Vehicle Sharing Systems," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 309-327, May.
    11. Mounce, Richard & Nelson, John D., 2019. "On the potential for one-way electric vehicle car-sharing in future mobility systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 17-30.
    12. Yang, Hongtai & Huo, Jinghai & Bao, Yongxing & Li, Xuan & Yang, Linchuan & Cherry, Christopher R., 2021. "Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 23-36.
    13. Lefeng, Shi & Chunxiu, Liu & Jingrong, Dong & Cipcigan, Liana, 2020. "External benefits calculation of sharing electric vehicles in case of Chongqing China," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Solangi, Yasir Ahmed & Longsheng, Cheng & Shah, Syed Ahsan Ali, 2021. "Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 209-222.
    15. Jen-Chieh Chung & Yung-Fu Huang & Ming-Wei Weng & Ju-Chen Lin, 2021. "The Sustainable Innovation Design in Catering Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-23, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iwona Krzyżewska & Katarzyna Chruzik, 2023. "Maintenance and Exploitation of Electric, Hybrid, and Internal Combustion Vehicles," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Ming-Tsang Lu & Hsi-Peng Lu & Chiao-Shan Chen, 2022. "Exploring the Key Priority Development Projects of Smart Transportation for Sustainability: Using Kano Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Mehdi Montakhabi & Ine Van Zeeland & Pieter Ballon, 2022. "Barriers for Prosumers’ Open Business Models: A Resource-Based View on Assets and Data-Sharing in Electricity Markets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-29, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Aleksandra Król & Jerzy Księżak & Elżbieta Kubińska & Stelios Rozakis, 2018. "Evaluation of Sustainability of Maize Cultivation in Poland. A Prospect Theory—PROMETHEE Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Chitresh Kumar & Girish Balasubramanian, 2023. "Comparative Analysis of Pitch Ratings in All Formats of Cricket," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 48(3), pages 307-324, August.
    4. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    6. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    7. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    8. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    9. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    11. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    12. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    13. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    14. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    15. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    16. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    17. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    18. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    19. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    20. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3723-:d:776598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.