IMPROVEMENT OF SERVICE QUALITY FOR CONTAINER TERMINALS

Wen-Kai K. Hsu Dept. of Shipping & Transportation Management, National Kaohsiung Marine Uni., 142, Hai Jhuan Rd, Nanzih Distric , Kaohsiung County 811, Taiwan, R.O.C. khsu@mail.nkmu.edu.tw Show-Hui S. Huang Department of International Business & Trade Shu-Te University, 59, Hun Shan Rd, Yen Chau Village, Kaohsiung 824, Taiwan, R.O.C. hsheree@mail.stu.edu.tw Chen-Long Hsieh Kaohsiung Office, Yang-Ming Marine Transport Corp., 999, Sinsheng Rd, Siaogang District, Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan, R.O.C khhcl@yml.com.tw Yi-Yin Huang Dept. of Shipping & Transportation Management, National Kaohsiung Marine Uni., 142, Hai Jhuan Rd, Nanzih Distric , Kaohsiung County 811, Taiwan, R.O.C. speczero@hotmail.com ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to discuss the improvement of service quality for container terminal operators. Based on the customer requirement toward container terminals, the service demands for customers are first investigated. The service technique operations for service providers are then examined from their organizational structure, operational process and standard operation procedures (SOP). Finally, the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is employed to transfer the customer demands into the technique operations of container terminal operators in making policies for improving their service quality. As an empirical study, the container terminal of YML (Yang-Ming Shipping Line) in Kaohsiung Harbor and its customers are investigated to validate the research model. The results could provide practical information for container terminal operators to improve their service quality, especially for YML. Keyword: container terminal, service quality, QFD

INTRPDUCTION Container shipping developed after World War II. For its safety, speed and standardization, container shipping has become the main stream of international transportations. For global shipment, ninety percent of cargo is transported by ocean shipping, in which over eight percent of cargo is shipped with container (Yun and Choi, 1999). Thus, container transportation plays an important role in global logistic. For container transportations, container terminal is the most important segment. Container terminal is a hub to link shipping and land transportations. Generally, beside transshipment, container terminal can also function for depot and distribution of cargos. In fact, in the shipping process, container terminal is the most complex section for operations. Recently, the logistic concept gets rising. Traditional storage and transportation services can no longer satisfy customer demand in shipping. In search of enhanced competitiveness, many shipping companies have developed a door to door full service. However, this police may result in greater coverage and complexity during their service processes, leading to diminished service qualities. Since, container terminal is a connecting center to link shipping and land transportations, for enhancing service qualities of logistic, to improve the performance of container terminal is one of the most feasible ways. The purpose of this research is to discuss the improvement of service quality for container terminal operators. Based on the customer requirement toward container terminals, the service demands for customers are first investigated. The service technique operations for service providers are then examined from their organizational structure, operational process and standard operation procedures (SOP). Finally, the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is employed to transfer the customer demands into the technique operations of container terminal operators in making policies for improving their service quality. As an empirical study, the container terminal of YML (Yang-Ming Shipping Line) in Kaohsiung Harbor and its customers are investigated to validate the research model. CONTAINER TERMINALS The operations of CT (Container Terminals) are comprised of import and export operations. Generally, container in CT can be classified as two types: CY (Container Yard) container and CSF (Container Freight Station) container. For the former, the whole container enters and exits CT each time; while the latter, container needs extra process such as consolidation or re-consolidation during it stays at CT. The operational procedures for those two type of containers can be detailed in Figure 1.

Exporter

Importer

CY

Sign shipping order (S/O)

CFS

Container/Cargo delivery Empty container back to yard Cargo released by Customs Customs declaration Checked and released by Customs Cargo delivery

Empty container sealed & delivered to vendor Vendor stuffing cargo and sealing

Deliver cargo to warehouse

Cargo receiving in warehouse

Customs declaration Delivery order (D/O) change Cargo de-consolidation Vessel discharge

Deliver container back to yard

Cargo released by Customs Delivery order (D/O) change Complete stuffing plan and seal Full container wait to deliver

Re-seal after released by cuatoms

Vessel load

CY

CFS

Shipping

Figure 1 The operation of container terminal For keeping the performance of CT operations, shipping companies mostly lease dedicated terminal from Port Authority. Thus, in practice, most of CTs are operated by carriers. In Kaohsiung Port, YML is one of the primary CT operators. For enhancing port competitiveness and promoting larger size of ships to berth at Kaohsiung Port, the port authority began to build the sixth container center(Kaohsiung Harbor Intercontinental Container Center) in BOT model since the end of 2008. By the BOT model, YML constructed two deep dedicated terminals. Each of them is 375 meters long with 16 meters water depth These two CTs are scheduled to be completed in 2010-2013. After they being completed and started to operate, the YML will be the largest CT operator in Kaohsiung Port. Generally, the main customers of CTs includes carriers, maritime agents and forwarders (Lin and Chang, 2006). Since, in practice, most of those operators may commission custom broker to handle their clearance operations, the customs broker can also be considered as one of the customers of CTs. Furthermore, some large scale shippers may also be the customers of CTs. Since those shippers have the power to negotiate price, for cost saving, they may directly bargain with CT operators for their cargo transportations.
3

In the literature about container terminals, most of studies focused on internal management of operators, such as efficient analysis of storage and retrieval operation (Vis, 2006), safety of operations (Lu and Shang, 2005), berthing ships (Imai, Nishimura and Papadimitriou, 2008) and the spatial coverage of container terminal (Parola and Veenstra, 2008). There is less studies to investigate the external management problems of operators from the viewpoint of customers, such as their service quality for customers. QUALITY FUNCTION DEVELOPMENT QFD is a methodology for development and deployment of features, attributes, or functions that give a product or service high quality (Hwarng, 2000). It translates customer needs, called the voice of the customer (VOC), into appropriate technical requirements in products and services. Generally, service providers need an approach for incorporating customer requirements into designs (Li and Hsu, 1996). The House of Quality (HOQ) chart shown as Figure 2 illustrates how QFD can be used to accomplish this (Chang, 2006). The left wall of the house contains a listing of customer requirements (VOC), while the roof lists technical requirements, called the voice of engineering (VOE). The correlation matrix is created from the correlations between customer requirements and VOE, by which the VOC can be translated into the VOE, and the priority of technical requirement can be obtained. In practice, the customer requirement (or VOC) may be decomposed into several hierarchies. Generally, the first hierarchy, called primary demands, may be ambiguous. Thus, it may be necessary to break down it into more detailed or concrete demand (secondary demand), and even tertiary demand. Likewise, the technical requirements (or VOE) may also be divided into several hierarchies by their counterpart characteristics (Hauser and Clausing, 1988).

Relative Matrix VOE (technical requirement) VOC (customer requirement) Correlation Matrix The priority of VOC

The target of VOE The priority of VOE

Figure 2 The House of Quality

4

Originally, QFD was developed for the product designs of manufacturers. It emphasize that producers should design their products by the customer demands. Recently, QFD was also applied widely on the quality improvements of service industries, such as e-banking services (Gongalez et al., 2004; Gongalez, Mueller, and Mack, 2008), strategic management of logistics service (Bottani and Rizzi, 2006) customer complaint management, (Bosch and Enriquez, 2005), ocean forwarder services ( Liang, Chou and Kan, 2006), air-cargo transportation services (Wang, 2007) and supplier selection (Bevilacqua, Ciarapica and Giacchetta, 2006). Furthermore, for service industries, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) proposed the SERVQUAL scale to measure the service quality. The scale consists of 22 statements which were classified as five constructs: 1. Reliability: Ability to perform promised service dependably and accurately 2. Tangibles: Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personal and communication material. 3. Responsiveness: Willingness to help customs and provide prompt service. 4. Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employee and their ability to convey trust and confidence. 5. Empathy: The firm provider cares are individualized attention to its customers.

RESEARCH METHOD 3.1. Research Framework Based on the QFD, the research framework can be shown as the Figure 3. The customer demand was constructed from the SERVQUAL scale with a literature reviews and interviews of container terminal operators. The technical requirement was developed from the organizational structure of container terminal operators and their SOP. An expert questionnaire was designed and several C.T. experts were surveyed to create the correlation matrix. Finally, The HOQ was formed to rank the improvement priority of service technique operations.

. The SERVQUALscale of PZB . Literature reviews . Interviews of C.T. operators

The attributes of customer demands

C.T. experts

Correlation matrix

The House of Quality & QFD development

Ranking the improvement priority of service operations

. The organization of C.T. . The SOP of service operations

The operations of service technology

Figure 3 The research framework 3.2. Measurement of customer demands Based on the QFD theory, this paper decomposed the customer demands into two hierarchies. From the 5 dimensions of the SERVQUAL scale, the primary demands of customer requirements was created, by which the second demands, the attributes of customer demands, was then constructed. 3.2.1. Questionnaire design Based on the 5 dimensions and 22 items of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al, 1988), a self-reporting scale with 29 statements were designed to measure the of customer demands. The scale was designed to measure twice. The first one is to measure the perception of customers perception on importance for those attributes. The second measurement was to assess the customers perceptions on satisfaction for the services provided by C.T. operators. All of the scales used a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = uncertain; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree) to define participant agreement with each statement. Higher scores represent greater agreement with each statement. For validating the questionnaire, 30 customers of YML were invited to revise and pretest before being surveyed. After deleting several ambiguous statements totally, the final scale concluded 25 statements which are shown in the second field of Table 1.

Table 1 The validity and reliability of the measures Code

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 TG5 RB1 RB2 RB3 RB4 RB5 RB6 RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5

Factor and measures

Tangibles The number of berths.
The layout of handling equipments for container and cargo.

Factor Loading

Explained Variance %

0.810 0.618 0.534 0.503 0.498 0.541 0.658 0.694 0.794 0.718 0.625 0.584 0.599 0.688 0.657 0.763 0.688 0.577 0.722 0.783 0.689 0.664 0.687 0.669 0.692 70.077%
0.889

Note.: = Cronbachs

The adequacy of platforms and handling equipments for container receiving and delivering. The convenience to use container tracing system. The adequacy of storage spaces Reliability The reliability of security facility such as monitor. The accuracy of receiving and releasing of cargos The procedure of operation is security for people and cargos Offering the correct dynamic information of cargos The way of goods for dividing and piling up is security Credible intensity of sales representatives in the container yard Assurance The professional degree of operators. Prompt to deal with customers problem customer, such as imperfect cargos. The completeness to deal with the complaint or appeal of customers Taking place damage in container yardsincerity for solution It's not be negligent of replying customer service in any time Empathy Prompt providing dynamic information of container numbers. Suggesting efficient loading mode and vessel schedule The service attitude of salesman is sincere. Salesman visits customers for their demand and complain frequently. Responsiveness Changing operation procedure by customer's demand Offering export container information for loading operations timely. The operating effectiveness of platforms. Effectiveness and efficiency of operators in the container yard The procedure of gate in the container yard is convenient and fast

54.919%

0.790

55.129%

0.833

62.299%

0.844

67.273%

0.837

3.2.2. Research Sample Since, this paper employed the services of YML container terminal at Taiwan Kaohsiung Harbor as a case study to validate the QFD model. The customers that YML container terminal have served within one year were sampled. Based on the information of YML container terminal, the customers consisted of 9 shipping company, 7 shipping agents, 16 forwarders, 35 custom brokers and 16 shippers. By
7

the business scales of those customers, 1~5 questionnaires for each customer was surveyed respectively. The sample size was 640 with two times of mailing. The initial mailing elicited 131 valid responses, and the second mailing added 57 valid responses. Thus, the total valid responses was 188, in which 30.32.00% from shipping company, 6.38% from shipping agents, 31.91% from forwarders, 22.34% from custom brokers and 9.04% firms shippers. Of the participants, 8.89% were president, 17.04% were manager, 12.59% were director and 61.48% from clerks, sales representatives and others. By the senility of participants, 1-5 years were 27.13%; 6-10 years were 28.19%, 11-20 years were 36.70% and over 21 years were 7.98%. 3.2.3. The reliability and validity of questionnaire To validate the measurements of customer demands, Exploratory Factory Analysis (EFA) and Cronbachs were employed to identify each construct of primary demands respectively for importance measure. The results (Table 2) indicate that all of the subscales, with only one dimension extracted respectively, converge to their respective constructs. Almost all of the factor loadings for each construct exceed 0.8, and all of the explained variances for each scale exceed over 55.5%. These results indicate that the subscales are valid and reliable in measuring their corresponding constructs. 3.3. Development of service technology Service technology deployment is based on the organization and operation procedure of YML container terminal at Taiwan Kaoshiung Port. The organization, consisted of six sections: IT, Customs Clearance, Document, Operation, Container Yard and Marine. Based on those sections, the first hierarchy of service technical requirements were constructed. The operation procedures of each section were then employed to create the second hierarchy of service technical requirements (VOE), respectively. The result indicated that 17 VOEs were created 3.4 The HOQ 3.4.1 Ranking the attributes of customer demands In this paper the quality attribute ranking (QAR) was employed to rank the attributes of customer demand (Wang, 2007; Wasserman, 1993). The result of QAR is shown as Table 2. From the result of the survey, the important degree of attributes is ranked by their mean, and so does the satisfaction degree. By those two ranking results, the satisfaction attitude and difference index for each attribute are then evaluated. The former is obtained by multiplying the standard-mean of importance by the standard- mean of satisfaction. The latter, difference index, is the difference between the ranks of importance and satisfaction. These two indices can be used to determine the order of priorities of customer demand with regard to service. The
8

priority order regarding customer demands is based on two criteria: the smaller the difference index (especially when the index is negative), the higher the priority for improvement; and if two items share a similar difference index, then the smaller the satisfaction attitude (particularly when negative), the greater should be the priority for improvement. The ranking result for the attributes of customer demands, shown in the last field of Table 2, indicates that the first 5 priority of attributes for improvement are TG5, AA3, RB1, RP4 and AA4. Table 2
Code

The importance, satisfaction and difference index of service attributes

Importance (1) Mean (2) Rank Satisfaction (3) Mean (4) Rank Satisfaction attitude [(1)*(3)]] 0.491 0.475 0.477 0.543 0.444 0.688 1.097 1.017 0.976 0.864 0.677 0.874 0.595 0.434 0.500 0.383 0.354 0.391 0.532 0.297 0.410 0.700 0.578 0.686 0.624 Difference Index [(2)-(4)] 11 0 4 2 -12 -4 2 -2 -2 4 1 -1 -2 -2 -3 5 4 -2 -5 -2 -2 1 4 1 4 Rank 25 13 20 17 1 3 18 11 10 23 14 12 9 8 4 24 19 6 2 5 7 16 21 15 22

TG1 3.82 22 3.60 11 TG2 3.93 17 3.51 17 TG3 3.86 19 3.55 15 TG4 3.96 16 3.56 14 TG5 4.01 12 3.44 24 RB1 4.07 5 3.64 9 RB2 4.21 3 3.90 1 RB3 4.27 1 3.80 3 RB4 4.22 2 3.80 4 RB5 4.07 6 3.81 2 RB6 4.04 9 3.65 8 RP1 4.16 4 3.75 5 RP2 4.03 10 3.50 12 RP3 3.88 18 3.58 20 RP4 3.98 15 3.49 18 RP5 3.77 24 3.51 19 AA1 3.74 25 3.48 21 AA2 3.84 21 3.47 23 AA3 4.01 11 3.53 16 AA4 3.80 23 3.37 25 EP1 3.86 20 3.48 22 EP2 4.05 7 3.66 6 EP3 4.01 13 3.57 9 EP4 4.05 8 3.65 7 EP5 3.99 14 3.63 10 Note: (1) is the standard-mean of Importance, where (1)=(1)-3 . (3) is the standard-mean of Satisfaction, where and (3)=(3)-3 .

3.4.2. Development of Correlation Matrix For translating VOCs into VOEs, we need to construct the correlation matrix to determine the correlations between the customer requirements and the technical requirements. An expert survey was thus created to measure those correlations, in which high correlation was set at five, medium at three, slight correlation at one, and none correlation at zero (Wang, 2007). Six experienced experts from YML Container Terminal, whose background were shown as Table 3, were then invited to determine the measures of those correlations by their professional knowledge and practical experience. The result of Correlation Matrix was shown as Table 4.

Table 3 The profiles of experts for developing the Correlation Matrix Expert Job title Seniority Experience (years) A Operation Manager 24 Container yard and Operations B Manager 16 Operations, Custom clearance Custom clearanceMariner C Specialist 28 D System Analyzer 12 IT E Specialist 10 Document F Marine manager 9 Marine 3.4.3 Ranking the operations of service technologies For a HOQ with n VOCs and m VOEs, let Rij , i = 1,2....m , j = 1,2....n , denotes the correlation measure between VOCi and VOE j . Lyman (1990) proposed
m that Rij can be standardized as Rij :

m Rij = Rij / Rij j

(1)

n m where Rij represents the percentage contribution of VOCi to VOE j . By the Rij

each operation of technical requirements contributes ( VOE j ) to the satisfaction of service demand attributes ( VOCi ) can then be calculated as a percentage:
m I VOE = WiVOC Rij j i

(2)

Ranking the I VOE , j = 1,2....n , then the priority of each operation of technical j
requirements ( VOE j , j = 1,2....n ) can be determined. The result for YML case was shown in the last row of Table 4, in which the top five priority of VOEs need to be improved are: Release of export container, Customs clearance, Yard operations, Transshipment & land transport and Storage of dangerous cargo.
CONCLUSION The result of QAR shows that the top five gaps between importance degree and satisfaction degree that customers perceived on the attributes of customer demands are: TG5, AA3, RB1, RP4 and AA4. Thus, for improving service quality efficiently, the YML CT operators should consider how to reduce those gaps. The result of QFD indicates that the greatest necessary improvements with regard to service technology are: Release of export container, Customs clearance, Yard Operations, Transshipment & land transport and Storage of dangerous cargo. This result indicates that for reducing the above gaps efficiently, CT operators could focus on improving those service technology operations. The purpose of this research is to discuss the improvement of service quality for container terminal operators. The QFD was employed to examine how to improvement the service quality. The container terminal of YML (Yang-Ming Shipping Line) in Kaohsiung Harbor and its customers are investigated to validate the
10

QDF model. The results could provide practical information for container terminal operators to improve their service quality, especially for YML.
REFERENCES

Bosch, V.G. and Enriquez. F.T. 2005. TQM and QFD: Exploiting a customer complaint management system. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22(1), 30-37. Bottani, E. and Rizzi, A. (2006). Strategic management of logistics service: A fuzzy QFD approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 103, 585-599. Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E. and Giacchetta, G., (2006). A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. 12, 14-27. Chang. CL., 2006. Application of quality function deployment launches to enhancing nursing home service quality. Total Quality Management, 287-302. Gongalez, M. E, Mueller, R. D., and Mack, R. W. (2008). An alternative approach in service quality: An e-banking case study. The Quality Management Journal, 15(1), 41-58 Gongalez, M. E, Quesada, G., Picado, F., and Eckelman, C. A. (2004).Customer satisfaction using QFD an e-banking case. Managing Service Quality, 14(4), 317-330. Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D., (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 66-73. Hwarng, H. B. and Teo, C., (2001). Translating customers voices into operations requirements: A QFD application in higher education. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 18(2), 195-225. Imai, A., Nishimura, E. and Papadimitriou, S. (2008). Berthing ships at a multi-user container terminal with a limited quay capacity. Transportation Research Part E, 44 (1), 136-151. Li, CC., and Hsu, CS., (1996). A study on quantify the house of quality in QFD. Journal of Quality, 3, 65-88. Liang, G..-S., Chou, T.-Y. and Kan, S.-F. (2006). Applying fuzzy Quality Function Development to identify service management requirements for an ocean freight forwarders. The Quality Management, 17(5), 539-554. Lu, C. S. and Shang K. C., (2005). An empirical investigation of safety climate in container terminal operators. Journal of Safety Research, 36, 297-308. Lyman, D., 1990. Deployment normalization. In: Second Symposium on QFD by ASQC/ASI. Parola, F. and Veenstra, A. W., (2008). The spatial coverage of shipping lines and
11

container terminal operators. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 292-299. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40. San, M. (2003). Function Deployment (IQFD) for discrete assembly environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 45, 269-283. Vis, I. F. A., (2006). A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal. International Journal of Production Economics, 103, 680-693. Wang, R. T. (2007) Improving service quality using quality function deployment-The air cargo sector of China airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13, 221-228. Wasserman, G. S., (1993). On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process. IIE Transactions 25 (3), 59-65. Yun, W. and Choi, Y. S. (1999). A simulation model for container-terminal operation analysis using an object-oriented approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 59, 221-230.

12

Table 4 The result of House of Quality

Technology Demand Correlation Matrix Service Demands TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 TG5 RB1 RB2 RB3 RB4 RB5 RB6 RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5
Tangibles Reliability
Assurance

IT System operation and maintenance

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.173 0.059 0.032 0.085 0.005 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.423 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.067 0.021 0.000 0.038 13

Customs affair Transshipment & blueway transport Transshipment & land transport Import manifest Customs clearance

Paper supporting Export shut out Export paper Pre-plan and Loading

Terminal operations Container gate-in Yard Operations Storage of dangerous cargo Container gate-out

Yard management Release of import container Release of export container

Mariner Vessels outbound Vessels inbound Ranking

Standardized Weight

Original Weight

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.142 0.085 0.002 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.026 14

System Backup

0.003 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.037 0.077 0.090 0.154 0.577 0.304 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.026 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.074 6

0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.029 0.000 0.209 0.423 0.402 0.000 0.000 0.638 0.303 0.000 0.213 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.121 2

0.003 0.046 0.000 0.146 0.066 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.120 0.231 0.126 0.101 0.588 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.066 0.153 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.074 0.083 4

0.154 0.128 0.000 0.138 0.023 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.120 0.201 0.087 0.100 0.323 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.000 0.108 0.044 0.059 8

0.144 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.120 0.000 0.126 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.398 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.052 9

0.042 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.099 0.000 0.041 0.032 0.000 0.637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.049 10

0.170 0.000 0.000 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.014 0.181 0.000 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.085 0.152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.014 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.037 0.040 0.029 0.027 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.086 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.017 0.132 0.057 0.176 0.000 0.225 0.235 0.090 0.105 0.096 0.112 0.156 0.156 0.042 0.021 0.043 12 15 11

0.000 0.170 0.174 0.081 0.102 0.459 0.054 0.233 0.078 0.165 0.128 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.080 5

0.046 0.186 0.237 0.043 0.329 0.367 0.000 0.200 0.011 0.220 0.128 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.102 0.146 0.095 3

0.046 0.161 0.212 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.216 0.084 0.007 0.087 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.057 0.000 0.076 0.303 0.010 0.000 0.236 0.108 0.156 0.073 7

0.042 0.173 0.212 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.192 0.074 0.067 0.092 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.115 0.148 0.595 0.154 0.303 0.028 0.169 0.236 0.108 0.156 0.123 1

0.170 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.213 0.228 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.014 17 16

11 0 4 2 -12 -4 2 -2 -2 4 1 -1 -2 -2 -3 5 4 -2 -5 -2 -2 1 4 1 4

1 13 6 9 25 23 8 15 16 3 12 14 17 18 22 2 7 20 24 21 19 10 5 11 4 325

0.0031 0.0400 0.0185 0.0277 0.0769 0.0708 0.0246 0.0462 0.0492 0.0092 0.0369 0.0431 0.0523 0.0554 0.0677 0.0062 0.0215 0.0615 0.0738 0.0646 0.0585 0.0308 0.0154 0.0338 0.0123 1.0000

Responsiveness Empathy

Absolute Weight Priority

13

14