## 3 Methodology
### Data Collection  
The selection of a survey utilizing questionnaires resulted from an in-depth analysis of different methodologies, with the choice strengthened by its simplicity and adaptability. Even though this approach may lack detailed context, it offers efficiency, standardization, and anonymity. Alternative methods like interviews, focus groups, observations, experiments, and case studies can yield more in-depth insights but are often resource-intensive, prone to bias, and limited in generalizability. Additionally, the structured format of the questionnaire simplifies the process of transforming participants' qualitative responses into quantitative data [40; 41; 42; 43]. To address the research questions and objectives defined earlier, a questionnaire was specifically designed. It is divided into three sections. The first section collects socio-demographic details like gender, age group, academic qualification, and employment status, enabling the analysis of how satisfaction levels vary across different socio-demographic groups. The second section includes various statements (Table 1) focused on the study's areas (customer service, quality of service provided, support documentation, technical support, billing and payment, and online services and tools). This encourages participants to provide feedback, addressing the study's goal of identifying areas for improvement. The final section includes a question assessing participants' opinions on the overall quality of service provided by the laboratory (Figure 2), guiding the customization of service improvements. Additionally, the data collected from the second and third sections will serve as the basis for developing a predictive model using ANNs. This model is designed to anticipate factors influencing customer satisfaction and provides a structured framework for future service evaluations and enhancements. The second and third sections of the questionnaire use a six-level Likert scale (i.e., very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, slightly dissatisfied, slightly satisfied, satisfied, and very satisfied) for participants to express their opinions. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate the trend of their responses, whether it was an upward trend (from very dissatisfied to very satisfied) or a downward trend (from very satisfied to very dissatisfied), as shown in Figure 2. The choice of a six-level Likert scale was because it offers more options for intermediate responses without a neutral central option. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c l} \hline \hline  & S1 & Staff friendlily and approachability. \\  & S2 & Easiness of contact. \\  & S3 & Response time to requests. \\ Customer service & S4 & Service availability. \\  & S5 & Service flexibility (to meet my needs). \\  & S6 & Effectiveness in the clarification of questions. \\  & S7 & Clarity in answers to questions. \\ \hline  & S8 & Explanation of the testing process. \\  & S9 & Sampling. \\ Quality of & S10 & Number and type of tests available. \\ service provided & S11 & Reliability of results. \\  & S12 & Appropriateness of delivery times. \\  & S13 & Delivery deadlines. \\ \hline  & S14 & Clarity in the presentation of the commercial proposals \\  & S15 & Clarity in the presentation of analysis reports \\ Support & S16 & User-friendliness of the format of analysis reports. \\ documentation & S17 & Helpfulness of guidelines provided for interpreting test results. \\  & S18 & Inclusion of all relevant legal and regulatory information in the documentation. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Breakdown of the areas and statements featured in the second section of the questionnaire. Following the recommendations given by [PERSON] (2018), a team of specialists conducted a detailed evaluation of the questionnaire, recommending changes that were included in an updated version.