Microsoft Word - 1-RESEARCH AND EDUCATION v1.doc

Gunning, J G (2000) Models of customer satisfaction and service quality as research instruments in

construction management. In: Akintoye, A (Ed.), 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September

2000, Glasgow Caledonian University. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol.

1, 21-30.

MODELS OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND

SERVICE QUALITY AS RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS IN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

J G Gunning

School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland.

With a few notable exceptions there has been little published on the use of formal

Service Quality models in the area of Construction Management. The ServQual

approach, or modifications of it, can provide an effective measure of the perceived

quality of service performance. It utilises a concise multiple item survey scale with

good reliability and validity in understanding the service expectations and perceptions

of customers. Originating in the field of business marketing, it has wide potential for

application within construction management research, as discussed at the 1996

National Construction Marketing Conference at Oxford Brookes University.

This paper examines a variety of models for measuring perceptions of the quality of

service received. The services provided within the construction industry include

design, project management, building control and quantity surveying, which provide

varying degrees of satisfaction for the recipient.

Services can be distinguished from goods in terms of inseparability from the

provider, heterogeneity, perishability, intangibility and the concept of temporary

ownership. Research by Parasuraman et al (1988) has identified five underlying

dimensions on which service quality is evaluated as being; tangibles (so far as they

exist), reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Perceived quality of

service relates to the gap between client expectations and perceptions of performance.

Dis-confirmed expectations (active or passive) dictate the degree of customer

satisfaction with a particular service.

The original ServQual Model often needs to be modified to take account of the

special characteristics of particular construction services and to help identify the

performance gaps between service provider and customer. In particular, an A Priori

Model developed by Gable (1996) has provided the basis for a number of research

projects at the University of Ulster which investigated client satisfaction and service

quality in the construction process. Some of these are outlined towards the end of this

paper. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate debate on the value of this model as a

research instrument in measuring the perceived effectiveness of a variety of services

provided by professionals, contractors and regulatory authorities within the

construction supply chain.

Keywords: customer satisfaction, service quality, research instrument, ServQual,

model.

INTRODUCTION

Intensifying competition and rapid deregulation have led many service and retail

businesses to seek ways to differentiate themselves. One strategy which has been

related to success in these businesses is the delivery of high service quality as a

prerequisite for success in all service industries. For years, many market-oriented

firms have been measuring customer satisfaction and service quality to gauge how

well they are meeting customer needs. These measures are often used interchangeably

between both constructs indicating a failure to recognise the difference between them.

Gunning

There is a great deal of similarity between both constructs; however there is a

distinction, which separates them. This distinction is “important to managers and

researchers alike, because service providers need to know whether their objective

should be to have customers who are satisfied with their performance, or to deliver the

maximum level of ‘perceived service quality’” (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).

PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY

Research undertaken by Zeithaml et al. (1990) into how customers view service

quality identified common patterns in its findings. They found that the key to

ensuring good service quality was meeting or exceeding what customers expect from

the service; the study showed that judgements of both high and low service quality

depended on the customers’ perception of the service performance in the context of

what they expected. From this they were able to define perceived service quality as

“the extent of discrepancy between customers’ expectations or desires and their

perceptions”. Gronroos (1990) posits that the level of technical and functional quality

dimensions does not determine the level of total perceived quality only, but rather the

gap between the expected and experienced quality.

Parasuraman et al. (1988) concur with this definition; they consider that a customers’

assessment of overall service quality depends on the gap between expectations and

perceptions of actual performance level. They have identified four gaps which act as

major barriers to the provision of a service which is perceived by the customer to be of

high quality. These are differences between;

• Customer expectations and supplier perception of these expectations

• Supplier perception of client expectations and the service quality specified

• Specified quality and the service quality actually delivered

• Service quality delivered, and what is communicated about it to the customer

Further to this they identify five underlying dimensions on which service quality is

evaluated. They are:

1. Tangibles 2. Reliability 3. Responsiveness 4. Assurance and 5. Empathy

Each of these quality dimensions are said to be quantifiable by “obtaining measures of

expectations and perceptions of performance levels of service attributes relevant to

each dimension, calculating the difference between expectations and perceptions of

actual performance on these attributes, then averaging excess attributes” (Parasuraman

et al., 1988).

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Customer satisfaction has no universal definition, but is generally described in terms

of “an evaluative, affective or emotional response”. The literature on satisfaction

focuses on the ideal that the customer will make a comparison between the

performance of the product or service and a certain standard. Parasuraman et al.

(1988, 1993) also argue this point; they claim that the standard of comparison is that

of predictive expectations; i.e. what the customer believes will happen. Oliver (1981)

defines satisfaction as “a summary psychological state resulting when the emotion

surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with the consumer’s prior feeling

about the consumption experience”. Churchill and Serprenant (1982) explain

Research instruments in construction management

customer satisfaction as a function of pre-purchase expectations and post purchase

product/service performance. The pre-purchase expectation held might be conscious,

active or sub-conscious, passive expectations.

Customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a recognised function of the disconfirmation

which arises from discrepancies between prior expectations and actual performance.

Customer service literature shows that a customer’s expectations and perceptions of

performance levels have a direct effect on customer satisfaction and an indirect effect

through disconfirmation. The presumption that a customer’s pre-purchase

expectations determine customer satisfaction is based on the assumption that the

expectations are formed on the basis of past experience. In cases where customers

have no experience, customer expectations are believed to be more an artefact of the

service production process and to have no effect on satisfaction (Gable, 1996). There

are two general conceptualisations of customer satisfaction; these are transaction-

specific and cumulative satisfaction. The long-term view is a better predictor of

customer retention.

The distinctions between customer satisfaction and service quality are as follows:

1. Customer satisfaction is a value dependant phenomenon whereby value is the ratio

of perceived quality relative to price (Zeithaml, 1988). Satisfaction is therefore

dependent on price, service quality is not generally dependent on price.

2. Cumulative customer satisfaction is based on current experience, past experience

and all anticipated future experience. Quality however, is viewed as it relates to a

customer’s current perception of a good or service.

3. Quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction (Fornell, 1992; Cronin and

Taylor, 1992; Churchill and Serprenant, 1982).

Fornell (1992) proposes that key benefits of customer satisfaction include loyalty, as

loyal customers can create a steady stream of future cash flow for a firm. Reduced

price elasticities result, as the greater the satisfaction the more willing the customer

will be to pay for the benefits and to tolerate any price increases. Lower costs can be

achieved in future transactions because a firm that provides high customer satisfaction

will devote fewer resources to handling returns, managing complaints and reworking

defective items. It promotes insulation of current customers from competition,

reduced failure costs, lower costs in attracting new customers and the enhancement of

the firm’s reputation. Satisfied customers are more likely to recommend the firm thus

promoting its image and reputation. A long term perspective is required.

MODELS OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

The customer satisfaction literature identifies four model types, which can be used to

determine levels of customer satisfaction. These alternative types are referred to as:

• The Disconfirmation of Expectation Model

• The Performance Model

• The Rational Expectations Model

• The Expectations Artefact Model

Gunning

The disconfirmation of expectations model

The Disconfirmation Model demonstrates how customer satisfaction is affected by the

combination of the performance of the good/service and the customer’s level of

expectation. It posits that in cases where the performance that a customer perceives is

deemed to be greater than the expectations held, satisfaction will increase. This is

defined as positive disconfirmation. Similarly a perceived performance which is

lower than the customer’s level of expectation, will result in a decrease in satisfaction;

this is negative disconfirmation (Anderson et al. 1994, Oliver, 1993). Satisfaction is

therefore a function of the difference between performance and expectations; ie,

performance - expectations = satisfaction. The Disconfirmation Model indicates a

negative relationship between expectations and satisfaction; it predicts that as

expectations increase, satisfaction will decrease. These expectations held are

recognised as a standard against which performance information is evaluated.

Limitations of the Disconfirmation Model are illustrated by Cronin and Taylor (1992),

who argue that “little if any theoretical or empirical evidence supports the relevance of

the expectations - performance gap as the basis for measuring service”. Jayanti and

Jackson (1991) warn that the satisfaction processes with services may be different

from those of goods and so the Disconfirmation Model may not be appropriate for the

evaluation of a service. Spreng and Mackey (1996) state that “few things are as

fundamental to the marketing concept as the notion of satisfying the needs and desires

of the customer”. This fundamental idea is not sufficiently taken into account by the

disconfirmation paradigm, nor does it utilise it as a determinant of satisfaction.

The Model actually suggests that those involved in managing customer expectations

should try to lower expectations. It posits that this will allow them to offer a better

than expected service, which will then result in increased satisfaction (Davidrow and

Uttal, 1989). There is concern that the Model focuses on the negative aspects of

expectations, rather than on the positive as the performance paradigm does. A firm

which manages customer expectations in this way could also inadvertently lower

performance levels. The end result would then be lower levels of customer

satisfaction. Several authors have proposed models of customer satisfaction

assessment, to address these limitations.

Walker (1995) proposes that the model should incorporate three stages of service

evaluation; namely Pre-consumption, Consumption, Post Consumption. This

addresses the difficulty of the Disconfirmation Model conceptualising satisfaction at a

point in time after consumption. By incorporating these factors the model no longer

recognises the evaluation process as a simple post-usage judgement. These three

separate stages of disconfirmation give a better understanding of the satisfaction

process, and the management of satisfaction. However despite the recognised

inadequacies of the Disconfirmation Model, it remains popular within the literature

and its principal form has provided the basis for other paradigms including the

ServQual model; this paradigm is used to measure service quality, not customer

satisfaction.

The performance model

The Performance Model conceptualises the theory that a customer’s perception of a

product or service performance, and their expectations of that performance have a

positive effect on customer satisfaction (Spreng and Mackey, 1996). Performance is

defined as the level of quality of the product, or service, as perceived by the customer,

relative to the price paid. This perceived performance is described as value i.e.

Research instruments in construction management

benefits received for costs incurred. The greater the ability of the product, or service,

relative to the cost, the more satisfied the customer will be (Parasuraman et al., 1988),

in keeping with the ideal of a value-precept disparity.

Theoretical and empirical support for the inclusion of the direct effect of perceived

performance on satisfaction is provided by Tse and Wilton (1988). They even suggest

that perceived performance may have a stronger effect on customer satisfaction than

expectations. Important information customer expectations are re-evaluated as a

result of more recent performance information. The assessment of satisfaction is then

closely related to expectations. The Performance Model shows expectations having a

direct and positive effect on satisfaction as a result of the part they play as an anchor

in the satisfaction evaluation process. The stronger a customer’s expectation, relative

to performance information, the greater the impact of expectations as an anchor on

satisfaction. Should performance information be the stronger construct, the greater

the relative positive effect will be on customer satisfaction.

The Performance Model also demonstrates a positive effect of expectations on

perceived performance, that is the ability of customer expectations to predict

performance. This is felt to be greatest when customers have a lot of experience with

a performer who is either predictable or has low variance. The extent of the effect

will vary from products to services. Construction Project Management is a complex

and heterogeneous service, with which customers often have a lack of experience. As

a direct result the expectations held by the client of the construction project team will

not be as strongly related to performance as with other services. For this reason this

type of model is not appropriate for application to the construction client - project

manager type of relationship.

The rational expectations model

The Rational Expectations theory proposes that the mean expectations of agents in a

market will be equal to the output of that market. Applying this hypothesis to the

construction client - project manager relationship it can be seen that the expectations

of the construction client would then be equivalent to the project manager’s actual

performance when providing his service (Johnson et al., 1996). The client of the

construction project team will often have expectations which are inaccurate, weak or

non-existent. However it is argued that the expectations of the market as a whole can

be greater than the sum of each individual client’s expectations. The total

expectations of the market are believed to be more rational and accurate. The

Rational Expectations theory then leads to the conclusion that perceived performance

and expectations are no longer needed, that in fact they equal each other (i.e.

performance = expectations), and have a single positive effect on satisfaction.

The first identifiable shortfall of this model can also be seen in the previous two

paradigms. They all assume the customers will have well informed expectations of

performance. In doing so each model fails as a suitable description of customer

satisfaction in terms of the more complex, heterogeneous and infrequently purchased

services such as construction project management. Therefore the Rational

Expectations Model, as with the previous models, cannot be applied as an appropriate

model for the measurement of customer satisfaction in the construction client - project

manager type of relationship.

Construction project management has been equated with the description of an

infrequently purchased service which is characterised by its inexperienced clients who

may have weak, inaccurate or non-existent expectations (Masterman, 1991). This

Gunning

unique situation has led to the development of a model appropriate to such

circumstances. Fornell (1992) and Johnson et al (1996) put forward such a model,

which describes customer satisfaction in terms of perceived performance and argue

that performance expectations are an artefact of performance and have no effect on

satisfaction. This model is called the Expectations-Artefact Model – and assumes that

the customer has well informed expectations of the service/product.

The expectations-artefact model

Johnson et al. (1996) argue that expectations should not have either a positive or a

negative effect on satisfaction, in a unique service like construction project

management. This is because in this context expectations do not act as an anchor, as

in the Performance Model, or as a standard of comparison, as with the

Disconfirmation Model, in the evaluation of satisfaction. Performance will give rise

to the expectations reported by customers. The Expectations-Artefact Model shows

the direct positive effect of perceived performance on satisfaction, and a positive

relationship between performance and expectations. Expectations are not linked to

satisfaction; this illustrates the fact that this construct does not have an effect upon

satisfaction.

The implications of this Model are simply that to focus on the expectations construct,

as encouraged by the Disconfirmation Model, would be counterproductive to the

improvement of customer satisfaction. The argument that expectations are only a by-

product of the service production process, and have no effect on customer service,

would make any efforts to meet or exceed customer expectations pointless. Instead

this Model posits that to improve customer service, service personnel should focus on

the improvement of performance.

Gable’s multi-dimensional model

Gable’s Multidimensional Model of Client Success When Engaging External

Consultants has been identified as the Model most appropriate for application to the

construction client - project manager relationship. This Model was developed by

Gable (1996) to assess client satisfaction when engaging an external consultant to help

with the selection of a computer based information system. Gable (1996) measured

engagement success empirically through a series of case studies followed by a survey

of clients and consultants.

On the basis of his literature review and the case studies, Gable (1996) developed his

descriptive measurement model. This model predicted six important dimensions of

engagement success; it also makes a primary distinction between results, success and

performance. Results are based on the improvement in client understanding and the

consultant’s recommendations; these combined with the performance of the consultant

provide the three main areas of assessing engagement success i.e. recommendations,

understanding and performance. Gable (1996) proposes that these areas of assessment

be measured by usage/acceptance of the consultant’s recommendations, change in

client understanding and the resource requirements compared with that estimated.

These are objective measures; a subjective measure is also applied to each of the three

areas in the form of the client’s level of satisfaction.

The six dimensions of Gable’s revised model are described in terms of an Information

Selection Consultancy as follows:

• Recommendation acceptance - This is the extent to which the client accepts, uses

or intends to use the consultant’s recommendations.

Research instruments in construction management

• Recommendation satisfaction - This measure determines how satisfied the client

is with the consultant’s recommendation.

• Understanding improvement - The improvement of client understanding has

been shown to result in a better appreciation of their needs and can aid more

effective implementation and an increasing level of general independence.

• Understanding satisfaction - This measures the level of satisfaction which the

client experiences as a result of the new level of understanding.

• Performance reasonability – This is the degree to which the customer views the

consultant’s performance as reasonable under the circumstances.

• Performance satisfaction - When a client is satisfied with the consultant’s

overall performance, the engagement is considered more successful.

MODELS OF SATISFACTION IMPROVEMENT

O’Donnabhain (1998) undertook research in an attempt to gain an improved

understanding of the linkage and relationship between construction clients and their

project managers. The first of his objectives was to conduct an extensive literature

review and then identify a suitable model which could be adopted and utilised to

yield a measure of construction client satisfaction. He used Gable’s A Priori Model as

a template for data collection. Each of the satisfaction assessment dimensions was re-

phrased to make them more suitable for use in a construction context. All six of the

dimensions of Gable’s Model were then measured from the client’s perspective.

He concluded that a mail survey was the most appropriate means of data collection in

his analysis of construction client - project manager satisfaction assessment. As a

result of the conclusions drawn from this research the following three-construct

recommendation model was proposed as a means of increasing client satisfaction.

Monitoring perceptions of client satisfaction

It retains the three satisfaction assessment dimensions of Consultant Recommendation

Satisfaction, Consultant Performance Satisfaction and Client Understanding

Improvement Satisfaction. These subjective dimensions were found to have the

highest association with and influence on the perception of overall satisfaction. He

found that the objective dimensions had a limited influence on and association with

satisfaction.

Identifying areas of satisfaction shortfalls

O’Donnabhain’s (1998) research showed that project managers are ignorant of the

perceptions of their clients and so are failing to establish exactly where and with what

clients are dissatisfied. This is a failing of one of the primary factors of producing

satisfied clients. He points out that identifying areas of satisfaction shortfalls, by

monitoring perceptions of construction clients on a detailed basis, must be

supplemented by instant informal two-way communication.

Taking appropriate action

O’Donnabhain’s (1998) research showed the importance of successfully processing

client requirements to be the single most influential factor on overall success. He

argues that “the clear definition of client requirements at an early stage will result in a

reduction in uncertainty for all parties”. He posits that the project manager must adopt

Gunning

a pro-active approach to client satisfaction by taking appropriate action at the earliest

possible stage and ensuring the effective processing of client requirements.

O’Donnabhain (1998) outlined Anumba’s (1996) three stages of client requirements

processing, which form the third construct of his model, as follows;

Requirements identification - Clients are encouraged to identify their requirements

to which they attach appropriate weighting.

Requirement analysis and prioritisation - The client requirements may be identified

by ensuring they are properly analysed and prioritised.

Requirement translation - Reviewing the prioritised client requirements in order to

develop specifications that fully satisfy them and to remove all necessary constraints

to design creativity. The final outcome is the solution neutral requirement

specification, which is then used to inform the design process.

McStravick (1999) used the A Priori Model to analyse three case studies and

recommend steps for the construction project manager to enhance client satisfaction in

terms of involvement and understanding of improvement, as well as satisfaction with

the recommendation and performance of their consultant.

Quigley (2000) adapted ServQual to survey a sample of 14 construction clients and 31

building services engineers in Northern Ireland. He added client-focus to the 5 service

features normally used as determinants, and identified many gaps between client

expectations and perceptions of quality received from their consultants. He identified

major shortfalls relating to perceptions of a lack of added value and of

creativity/initiative. Dealing with deadlines and scope changes also presented

concerns for the engineers.

Morrison (2000) used a simple ServQual-based approach to assess the level of

customer satisfaction with the service provided by a local authority building control

department. A recent paper by Hoxley (2000) discusses the development of a 26 item

scale (based on ServQual) for assessing quality in a UK construction professional

service context. It assesses 244 professionals (in the eyes of their clients) in a 4-

dimensional contract with proven reliability and validity.

CONCLUSIONS

There exist a range of models which may be employed in researching the degree of

satisfaction of members of the construction supply chain with the quality of service

which they receive. Service quality itself has been clearly distinguished from

customer satisfaction because the latter is personal and value dependant. Service

Quality In Construction must be managed and matched to changing customer

expectations over time.

This paper has presented four models which can be used to determine levels of

customer satisfaction, and concludes that only the Expectation-Artefact model can be

effectively applied to the construction supply chain. In particular, Gable’s multi-

dimensional model derived from this Expectations-Artefact Model has been identified

as being particularly applicable to the satisfaction of the construction client with the

various services received during a project.

Research at the University of Ulster by O’Donnabhain (1998), McStravick (1999),

Morrison (2000) and Quigley (2000) have used Gable’s A Priori model and others to

quantify the degree of satisfaction of construction clients with a range of services. It

Research instruments in construction management

is hoped that this paper will stimulate debate amongst ARCOM members and other

construction researchers about the validity of service quality/customer satisfaction

models. More meaningful and accurate research programmes should result.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C and Lehmann, D.R. (1994) Customer Satisfaction, Market Share

and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58 (July): 53-73.

Anumba, C.J., Kamara, J.M.and Evbuomwam, N.F.O. (1996) Encapsulating the Voice of ‘the

Customer’ in Construction Projects. Proceedings 12

Annual ARCOM Conference,

170-178

Churchill, G.A. and Serprenant, C. (1982) An Investigation into the Determinants of

Consumer Satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 491-504

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992) Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and

Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (July): 55-68

Davidrow, W.H. and Uttal, B (1989) Total Customer Satisfaction. Harper and Low, USA.

Fornell,C.(1992) A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience.

Journal of Marketing, 56 (January): 6-21

Gable, G.G.(1996) A Multidimensional Model of Client Success when Engaging External

Consultants Management Science 42 (August): 1175-1197

Gronroos, C. (1990) Service Management and Marketing: Management the Moments Of

Truth in Service Competition. Lexington Marketing Association, Maxwell Macmillan.

Hoxley, M, (2000) Measuring UK Construction Professional Service Quality; the what, how,

when and who. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 17:

511-526.

Jayanti, R and Jackson, A.(1991) Service Satisfaction: An Exploratory Investigation of Three

Models. Advances in Consumer Research, 18: 603-610.

Johnson, M.D., Nader, G. and Fornell, C. (1996) Expectations, Perceived Performance and

Customer Satisfaction for a Complex Service: the Case of Bank Loans. Journal of

Economic Psychology 17: 163-182

Masterman, J.W.E. (1992) An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems. London, Spon.

McStravick, A. (1999) Assessing Construction Client Satisfaction in the Client-Project

Manager Relationship; A Case Study Analysis. Unpublished MSc Dissertation,

University of Ulster.

Morrison, N., (2000) An Assessment of the Quality of Service of a Building Control

Department. Unpublished BSc (Hons) Dissertation, University of Ulster.

O’Donnabhain, S.A. (1998) An Investigation into Client Satisfaction in theConstruction

Client Project Manager Relationshsip. Unpublished MSc Dissertation, University of

Ulster.

Oliver, R.L. (1981) Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Process in Retail Settings.

Journal of Retailing, 57 (Fall): 25-48.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988) ServQual: A Multi-Item Scale for

Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring): 13-

Parasuraman, A.,Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1993) The Nature and Determinants of

Customer Expectations of Service. Journey of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21

(Winter): 1-12

Gunning

Quigley,B. (2000) An assessment of Service Quality in the Building Services Engineering

Sector of the Construction Industry. Unpublished MSc Dissertation, School of the

Built Environment, University of Ulster, N. Ireland.

Spreng, R.A. and Mackey, R.D. (1996) An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived

Service Quality and Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72: 201-214.

Tse, R.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1988) Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An extension.

Journal of Marketing 57 (October): 204-212.

Walker,J. (1995) Service Encounter Satisfaction: Conceptualised. Journal of Services

Marketing, 9 (January): 5-16.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Mean- End

Model and Synthesis. Journal of Marketing, 52 (July): 2-22

Zeithaml, V A, Parasuraman, and Berry, L.L. (1990) Delivering Quality Service, Balancing

Customer Perceptions and Expectations. USA The Free Press.