中 華 大 學 碩 士 論 文
題目：台灣顧客滿意指標模式建立之研究
The Establishment of Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index Model
系 所 別：科 技 管 理 研 究 所 學號姓名：E09103033 連 秋 月 指導教授：李 友 錚 博 士
中華民國九十五年八月
台灣顧客滿意指標模式建立之研究
學生：連秋月 指導教授：李友錚博士
摘 要
自從 1989 年瑞典提出其國家顧客滿意指標（National Customer Satisfaction Index, NCSI）以來，相關的研究受到了全球各組織、產業與國家 的重視，各先進國家在結合政府與其國內大學的力量下，持續探討並分析其 國 家 人 民 的 消 費 滿 意 程 度 ， 作 為 輔 助 其 國 民 經 濟 指 標 之 工 具 。
建構國家顧客滿意指標的目的是在分析國家、行業、產業與組織在顧客 心目中的滿意程度，以提供競爭優勢比較的基準並作為策略發展的依據。本 研 究 以 瑞 典 顧 客 滿 意 指 標 、 美 國 顧 客 滿 意 指 標 (American Customer Satisfaction Index, ACSI) 模 式 與 歐 洲 顧 客 滿 意 指 標 (European Customer Satisfaction Index, ECSI) 模 式 為 基 礎 ， 修 正 發 展 成 台 灣 顧 客 滿 意 指 標 (Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index, TCSI) 模式；以及在建構 NCSI 的首要步 驟為決定被調查的群體，NCSI 各項分數的估計須與其他國家經濟指標的估 計來自於相同的群體，因此將整體國家經濟結構拆解為一個個各項國家經濟 指 標 的 統 計 群 體 ， 所 依 據 的 是 各 國 的 標 準 行 業 分 類 (Standard Industry Classification, SIC) ；TCSI 依據中華民國行業標準分類挑選出占 GDP 達 60%
的九大行業，再依 2004 年 GDP 的統計資料從其中挑出貢獻較大的 44 個產 業，獲得 TCSI 的抽樣群體。
關鍵詞：國家顧客滿意指標、台灣顧客滿意指標、行業分類
The Establishment of Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index Model
Student : Chiu-Yueh Lien Advisor : Dr. Yu-Cheng Lee
Abstract
The Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) was the first national customer satisfaction index for domestically purchased and consumed products and services in 1898. In the last decade, numerous countries have developed their own CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) system, in order to be an important complement to traditional measures.
National Customer Satisfaction Index (NCSI) is a market-based performance measures for firms, industries, economic sectors and national economies. Taking full advantages of other nations’ experiences, we can establish the Taiwan CSI Model which is suited for Taiwan’s characters. A comparison and analysis of the differences among existed NCSI Models to be indispensable and valuable. In this study, three typical CSIs – SCSB, ACSI, and ECSI models are selected for analysis, and modified into the TCSI model. Besides, the first step of the establishment of the National Customer Satisfaction is “select sectors and industries to measure”, in this study, we identify 9 economic sectors and 44 major industries based on Taiwan’s economic structure included the Chinese Standard Industrial Classification (CSIC) and 2004 GDP report.
Keywords: NCSI, TCSI, Industrial Classification
誌 謝
本論文能夠順利完成，主要感謝指導教授 李友錚博士耐心與悉心指導；
恩師是一位知識豐富、平易近人且兼具風趣的老師，不僅在學業上對我們的 督促，更關心學生的身體，屢屢要我們打球、上學校健身房，鍛鍊我們健康 的體魄，何其有幸遇到如此關懷學生的老師，深深覺得在您的帶領下學習與 成長，是學生莫大的榮幸與驕傲。
承蒙口試委員 葉日豐博士以及林少斌博士，提供寶貴意見，使得本論文 得以更加完善，深為感激。以及謝謝在研究所兩年來，所有指導我的老師們，
尤其是 賀力行老師，謝謝您在每一學期的書報討論，給予專業上的指正與方 向，以及在每一堂課，提醒我們應該注意學校最近有那一些規定與活動，心 中對您非常感謝。
在研究所期間，博班的學長姊、學弟妹以及同窗，總是給我最大的支持 與鼓勵，僅在此表達我對各位的感謝，以及希望大家在未來的學習與生活上，
都能夠更上一層樓與平安。幫助過我的人實在很多，無法一一詳列，不過在 此，我要特別感謝 吉生學長與 俞安學妹，好懷念一起研究學習與互相勉勵 的日子，要保持連絡喔！
最後我要表達的是，沒有家人的全力相挺，我想我是無法順利完成學業，
謝謝你們的體諒與打氣。回想過去兩年的點點滴滴，有許多的歡笑與辛苦過 程，心中雖有不捨與難過，但有各位的祝福，未來我會更加油，最後再一次 謝謝大家。
連秋月 謹識於中華科管所
中華民國 95 年 5 月 27 日
Contents
摘 要... i
Abstract ... ii
誌 謝... iii
Contents ... iv
List of Figures ... vi
List of Tables... vii
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1R
ESEARCH
BACKGROUND AND
MOTIVATION
... 11.2R
ESEARCH
OBJECTIVES
... 31.2.1 National Customer Satisfaction Index Construction Procedures ... 3
1.2.2 Research Objectives ... 5
1.3R
ESEARCH
SCOPE AND
LIMITATIONS
... 62. LITERATURE REVIEW... 7
2.1C
USTOMER
SATISFACTION
INDEX
... 72.2N
ATIONAL
CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
INDEX
... 92.2.1 Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB)... 13
2.2.2 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) ... 14
2.2.3 European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) ... 16
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR NCSI MODEL ... 18
3.1SCSBM
ODEL
... 183.2ACSIM
ODEL
... 213.3ECSIM
ODEL
... 274. TAIWAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX MODEL ... 30
4.1TCSIM
ODEL
... 304.2S
ELECTION OF
ECONOMIC
SECTORS AND
INDUSTRIES
... 335. CONCLUSION ... 36
Appendix ... 41
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 SCSB model ... 18
Figure 3-2 ACSI model: Private Sector ... 21
Figure 3-3 Expanded ACSI model: Private Sector ... 23
Figure 3-4 ACSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations.... 24
Figure 3-5 ACSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries ... 26
Figure 3-6 ECSI model ... 27
Figure 4-1 TCSI model: Private Sector (Product) ... 31
Figure 4-2 TCSI model: Private Sector (Service) ... 31
Figure 4-3 TCSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations .... 32
Figure 4-4 TCSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries... 35
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Models Comparison of SCSB, ACSI and ECSI ... 29 Table Appendex-1 North American Industry Classification System (2002) ... 41 Table Appendex-2 Chinese Standard Industrial Classification (The 7th edition) . 42
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background and Motivation
Customer satisfaction has a direct impact on the primary source of future revenue streams for most companies. Many researchers and pioneers [31] consider customer satisfaction to be the best indicator of a company’s future profit. Higher customer satisfaction leads to superior economic profits, It is no doubts that widespread acceptance of this relationship is evident in the growing literature on quality and customer satisfaction. In comparison with other traditional performance measures, customer satisfaction is probably less sensitive to seasonal fluctuations, change in costs, or changes in accounting practices [31].
Customer satisfaction research has developed around two different types of evaluation: transaction-specific satisfaction and cumulative satisfaction [26, 27, 28]. The original interest of these researches was on transaction-specific satisfaction, or customers’ experience with a product or service encounter.
Psychology-based approach to satisfaction has been paid more attention and gained acceptance over the last decade, termed cumulative satisfaction.
This approach defines satisfaction as a customer’s overall experience to date with a product or service provider [26]. An important advantage of the cumulative satisfaction construct over a more transaction-specific view is that it is better able to predict subsequent behaviors and economic performance [20, 27]. This is because customers make repurchase evaluations and decisions based on their purchase and consumption experience to date, not just a particular transaction or episode [26].
Recent research on customer satisfaction has taken strides to link this strategically important construct to a chain of events including purchase intension, actual intension, and to ultimately financial bottom line performance metrics such as revenue and profit. [38].
A comprehensive assessment of quality required a mechanism that assigned values to dimensions of quality that influence customer behavior to meet the goal of a national quality index. The development and installation of a permanent customer satisfaction index provides the ability to evaluate current and future company’s performance.
Since 1970s, researchers of consumer behavior and marketing in developed countries have begun comprehensive studies on customer satisfaction [36]. In 1898, Fornell and his colleagues in Michigan University helped Sweden built the first nation-level measurement system of customer satisfaction – Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) [4, 18].
Later in 1994, American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was launched [20].
Till now, national-level CSIs have Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB), American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), German Barometer, Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer (NCSB), Swiss Index of Customer Satisfaction (SWICS), Korean Customer Satisfaction Index (KCSI), Malaysian Customer Satisfaction Index (MCSI). In addition, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Australia are striving to build their own CSI systems [8].
In Taiwan, companies use customer satisfaction input to set priorities for quality initiative, track markets, and drive customer retention. It was reported that Taiwan measured and reported the customer satisfaction of a limited number of companies since 1995 [20, 22]. As we know, China Production Center (CPC) conducted annual customer satisfaction survey only for Good Store Practice (GSP) investigation based on ACSI model.
Therefore, Taiwan needs to develop its own CSI model since in the era of service-domain economy.
1.2 Research Objectives
There are two parts in this section included National Customer Satisfaction Index construction procedures, research objectives.
1.2.1 National Customer Satisfaction Index Construction Procedures
This part is to briefly introduce the National Customer Satisfaction Index construction steps which provided by ACSI [41]:
1. Select Sectors and Industries to Measure
(1) Examine structure of national economy.
(2) Identify economic sectors (manufacturing/durables, manufacturing /nondurables, utilities, communication, transportation, etc.)
(3) Identify major industries in each sector.
(4) Select industries to measure.
(5) Identify companies that are either major or representative of each industry.
(6) Select actual companies to measure.
(7) Identify specific products and brands of the selected companies.
2. Customer Population Sampling
(1) Define who the customers of each selected company are
(2) Identify population from which to select sample(s) of customers (3) Select method for sampling chosen populations
(4) Draw sample(s)
(5) Determine how to screen to a specific customer/respondent 3. Determine Data Collection Methodology and Supplier
(1) Decide how customers will be interviewed: telephone, face-to-face personal interviews, mail, intercept interviews
(2) Select data collection supplier.
4. Questionnaire
(1) Design questionnaire.
(2) Develop examples to insert in questionnaire for specific industry requirements for fitness for use (customization) and reliability.
(3) Develop screening questionnaires to select respondents for each industry that identify potential respondent as qualified customer of specific products/services/companies.
(4) Translate questionnaires into languages to be used for interviewing.
(5) Print questionnaires or program into a computer-assisted-telephone interviewing system.
5. Sampling and Data Collection
(1) Draw sample(s) for use by interviewers (2) Develop interviewer instructions
(3) Conduct interviews with monitored supervision or quality control checks
6. Data Processing and Econometric Modeling
(1) Develop ASCI or SPSS file for completed interviews (2) Clean data of outlier and wild scores
(3) Run customer satisfaction model and output results of all variables and impact scores for each level of measurement
7. Interpretative Analysis, Report Writing, News Releases (1) Determine analysts and authors
(2) Plan formats for reporting of results
(3) Plan reports, news releases, press conferences, etc.
(4) Produce written materials
1.2.2 Research Objectives
The basic structure of the CSI model has been developed over a number of years and is based upon well established theories and approaches to consumer behavior, customer satisfaction and product and service quality [16,18]. The structure of the CSI is continually undergoing review and subject to modifications. Although the core of the model is in most respects standard, there are some variations between the SCSB (Sweden), the ACSI (American), the ECSI (European) and other indices. For example, the image factor is not employed in the ACSI model [26].
These CSIs are fundamentally similar in measurement model (i.e.
causal model), they have some obvious distinctions in model’s structure and variable’s selection. Take full advantages of other nations’ experiences can establish the Taiwan CSI Model which is suited for Taiwan’s characters.
Therefore, a comparison and analysis of the differences among these existed NCSI Models seems to be indispensable and valuable. In this study, three typical CSIs – SCSB, ACSI, and ECSI models are selected for analysis, and modify to the TCSI model.
Besides, the first step of the establishment of the National Customer Satisfaction is “select sectors and industries to measure”, in this study, we will identify economic sectors and major industries in each sector based on Taiwan’s economical structure.
The research objectives contain:
1. Investigate and analyze the major NCSI Models.
2. Establish Taiwan CSI Model.
3. Select sectors and industries to measure.
1.3 Research Scope and Limitations
In this study, we concentrate on TCSI model establishment and sector/industries selection as described in section 1.2.2. To establish a National Customer Satisfaction Index, 4-5 years are required until the final installation of a national satisfaction barometer (preliminary survey conduction, evaluation of results and correlation with general financial indices, development of database, etc.). [22]
The Taiwan National Quality Research Center (TNQRC) at Chunghua University is proceeding to the research and production center for the index, analyses of data, and report writing. CSQ will distribute published reports and news releases. Based on the TCSI model in this paper, the pilot study for air transportation, automobile, gas station, etc. will be conducted in late 2006.
To evaluate the stability and robustness of empirical results from TCSI pilot survey rounds.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index
In general, high customer satisfaction indicates increased loyalty for current customers, it also can reduce price elasticity, insulation of current customers from competitive efforts, lower cost of future transactions, reduced failure cost, lower costs of attracting new customers, and enhanced the reputation for the firm. [4, 19]
Customer satisfaction index is expected to be an important future-oriented complement to traditional measures of economic performance such as return on investment, market share, and profits, providing useful information not only to the firms themselves, but also to shareholders and investors, government regulators, and buyers [17, 18].
From the other viewpoint, customer satisfaction index also can be seen as a complement to productivity measures. Whereas productivity basically reflects quantity of output, customer satisfaction index measures quality of output [18].
Customer satisfaction as a cumulative evaluation of a customer’s purchase and consumption experience to date. Loyalty is a customer’s expectation or predisposition to repurchase from a particular product or service provider. Consumption experiences (quality and price) affect customer satisfaction as a type of overall evaluation. Satisfaction, in turn, affects customer’s repurchase likelihood and actual retention behavior.
Previous research predicts a simple positive effect of this cumulative satisfaction on loyalty that is strongly supported across industries [18, 20].
Customer satisfaction index is designed to provide the information as follows: [18]
1. Comparisons of the firms with the industry average.
2. Comparisons over time.
3. Predictions of long-term performance.
4. Answers to specific questions to customer satisfaction, the effects of overall quality and price, the quality increase necessary to retain dissatisfied customers, etc.
Treating satisfaction as an overall evaluation of the consumption experience resolved the argument of which one of perceived quality and satisfaction is the antecedent. All of the model described and proposed herein, view quality as a driver of satisfaction [26]. CSI was gradually recognized by governments and companies worldwide as a good instrument to gauge a nation’s or company’s output quality.
2.2 National Customer Satisfaction Index
Since 1970s, researchers of consumer behavior and marketing in developed countries have begun comprehensive studies on customer satisfaction [36]. In 1898, Fornell and his colleagues in Michigan University helped Sweden built the first nation-level measurement system of customer satisfaction – Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) [18]. Later in 1994, American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was launched [20].
The concept behind NCSI requires a methodology with two properties [18, 20]. First, the methodology must recognize that NCSI and the other constructs in the model represent different types of evaluations that cannot be measured directly. these constructs should be seen as latent variables and there scores or indexes are general enough to be comparable across firms, industries, sectors, and nations. Second, NCSI must be measured in a way that not only accounts for consumption experience but also is forward-looking. According, NCSI is embedded in the system of cause and effect relationships.
A major difference between NCSI and other customer satisfaction indices is that NCSI is measured in the context of other interrelated variables.
For the typical measurement used by most companies today, satisfaction is isolatedly evaluated from other variables included in the model studied, and then retrospectively estimates the relationship to these variables. The estimation likely to show low reliability and strong bias, therefore researchers cannot find a strong relationship between satisfaction and economic performance. NCSI is specified as a composite latent variable in a system represented by multiple equations, where measure error is accounted, leads not only to better reliability and validity, but also to improved ability to translate satisfaction changes into repurchase behavior [18].
The development of NCSI is mainly focused on the following five objectives [42]:
1. Economics returns: The methodology implemented by NCSI makes it possible to link customer satisfaction to economic returns.
2. Economic stability: A uniform NCSI should help determine what percentage of price increases represent quality improvement and what are caused by inflation.
3. Economic link: A measure of the quality of economic output is essential for interpreting price and productivity measures.
4. Economic welfare: Quality, as measured by NCSI, constitutes at the same time an indication of economic well being.
5. Economic output: A NCSI quantifies the value that customers place on products and services, and thus it helps promote market driven quality.
NCSI provides a baseline against which it will be possible to track customer satisfaction over time. It provides significant information because customer satisfaction ultimately will affect customer retention and, therefore, profitability and competitiveness. It will also provide the answers to the following questions [1, 41]:
1. Are customer satisfaction and evaluation of quality improving or declining for the nation’s output of goods and services?
2. Are customer satisfaction and evaluation of quality improving or declining for particular sectors of industries, for specific industries, or for specific company?
NCSI benefits consumers, organizations and nations as stated below:
NCSI benefits consumers by giving voice to their evaluations of the products and services they buy and use. It quantifies the value of customers place on products, thus driving quality improvement. In other words, NCSI
satisfaction as a source of a higher standard living.
Companies can use the data from NCSI to assess customer loyalty, identify potential barriers to entry within markets, predict return on investments and pinpoint areas in which customer expectations are not being satisfied. NCSI also benefits companies by providing the information of comparison with the industry average and their past scores, and prediction of long-term performance.
NCSI could complement the national accounting measures, which do not take quality or customer satisfaction into account. In addition, because NCSI covers domestic and imported products, it will be a useful tool in comparing the quality of the nation build products with international competition.
The most important efforts that have been reported for the development of generic satisfaction barometers to individual business organizations, industry sector or the total of national economies [錯誤! 找不到參照來源。, 20]. The main aim of these efforts is the data collection either for comparative analysis of companies’ performance regarding customer satisfaction or for monitoring the evolution of global and partial satisfaction indices. In addition, the generic satisfaction barometers provide the ability to correlate basic economical dimensions with customer satisfaction like productivity variations at a national level or changes in the general consumer price index [22].
The national satisfaction barometers provide useful information regarding consumer behavior given a uniform way of customer satisfaction measurement. These efforts count more 10 years of life and focus mainly on the development of a customer satisfaction index that supplements the existing national measurement indices of each economy [22].
The development of national customer satisfaction barometers can be summarized in the following main efforts [22]:
1. The first attempt to develop and set up a national measure for customer satisfaction was reported in Sweden in 1898. Professor Fornell was the main architect of the Swedish National Customer Satisfaction Barometer.
2. The national quality and satisfaction barometer of German (The German Customer Barometer – Quality and Satisfaction) focuses mainly on the micro-economical level of business organizations and it was established in 1992.
3. Professor Fornell supervised the conduct of the preliminary analysis of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) in 1993. This particular index constitutes an effort to adopt the Sweden satisfaction barometer in America, with some improvements, revisions, and reconciliation. The ACSI provides complete data in 1994.
4. The European Union is interested in the development and installation of a comparative system of national customer satisfaction indices since 1998. The preliminary study in a limited number of industry sectors was conducted within 1999, while results for the European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) were published in 2000.
5. Other individual efforts of establishing national satisfaction indices in the European area concern Denmark, Austria, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and others.
6. Both Taiwan and New Zealand measure and report the customer satisfaction of a limited number of companies since 1995.
Till now, national-level CSIs have Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB), American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), German Barometer, Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer (NCSB), European Customer Satisfaction (ECSI), Swiss Index of Customer Satisfaction (SWICS), Korean Customer Satisfaction Index (KCSI), Malaysian Customer Satisfaction Index (MCSI). In addition, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada,
2.2.1 Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB)
Sweden is the first country to establish a national economic indicator reflecting customer satisfaction for domestically purchased and consumed product and service. Established in 1898, the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) was conducted under the supervision of the University of Michigan-National Quality Research Center and the Swedish Post Office. It has historically included approximately 130 companies from 32 of Sweden’s largest industries [18, 22].
The required data are collected through a telephone survey from a sample of approximately 23,000 customers, while currently, more than 115 companies participate in this particular survey. The questionnaire employed 10-point scales to access each respondent’s expectations, perceived quality, satisfaction and retention behavior. The analysis is based on Fornell’s approach [18, 22].
2.2.2 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was established in 1994 following several years of development and pre-testing. It is produced through a partnership of the University of Michigan Business School, American Society for Quality and Arthur Andersen. The National Quality Research Center (NQRC) at the University of Michigan Business School is responsible for researching and producing ACSI [1, 41]. The ACSI follows the general modeling and survey methodology of the SCSB adapted in the distinct characteristics of the US economy.
The data are collected through a computer-assisted telephone interview system (CATI) that is based on random digit dial selection.
The ACSI methodology is distinguished from other measures of quality by four significant characteristics [34]:
1. ACSI has a uniform, customer-based definition of quality: “customer satisfaction with the quality of goods and services purchased and used.”
2. ACSI treats satisfaction with quality as a cumulative experience, rather than a most-recent-transaction experience.
3. ACSI uses a cause-and-effect model that measures satisfaction quantitatively as the result of survey-measured input of customer expectations, perceptions of quality, and perceptions of value.
4. The ACSI model links satisfaction quantitatively with customer-survey-measured outcomes: complaints (a negative outcome) and customer loyalty (a positive outcome). Customer loyalty is derived from measures of customer retention and price tolerance.
ACSI uses an empirically tested, cause-and-effect model. It is multi-equation, latent variable, econometric model that produces four levels
indices for 10 sectors of the economy; (3) indices for 41 industries; and (4) indices for over 200 major companies and federal or local government services, including indices for an “all others” category in each industry [41].
Fornell’s satisfaction model constitutes the basic measurement and analysis tool that is used in both the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB).
This particular approach is based on an economic structural model that links different customer satisfaction measures (e.g. expectations, loyalty, complaints, etc.) with specific and predefined formulas. Given these defined relations between included variables, the model produces a system of cause and effect relationship.
The model variables are analyzed in the following main categories:
1. Satisfaction causes (quality, expectation, etc.) 2. Satisfaction, and
3. Satisfaction results (complaints and loyalty)
Fornell’s model expresses satisfaction as a result of three elements:
perceived quality, expectations and perceived value. Customer satisfaction is measured as a latent variable using multiple indicators. A use of partial least squares (PLS) is used to estimate this causal model [18, 22].
2.2.3 European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI)
American Customer Satisfaction indices have inspired to create a European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI), founded by EOQ, EFQM and the European Academic Network for Customer Oriented Quality Analysis, and supported by the European Commission [22].
The European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) is an economical indicator, which has been developed by the EOQ (European Organization for Quality) and EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management). The ECSI is also supported by the European commission and ESOMAR (European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research), and it is sponsored by the IPC (International Post Corporation). The CSI university network, which consists of 8 European universities, has also participated in the development of the ECSI [22].
ECSI considers the European economy as a while, and thus, customer satisfaction indices can be compared with each other and with the European average. The ECSI model provides the ability to produce 4 levels of satisfaction indices, similarly to ACSI results [22]:
1. National customer satisfaction indices.
2. Economical sector indices.
3. Specific industry indices.
4. Scores for companies and organizations within the survey.
The pilot survey was conducted in 1999, totally, in the period March to May, more than 50,000 customers in 11 European countries. The minimum sample for each company was defined at 250 customers [22].
In Germany, the Deutsche Kunden barometer was introduced in 1992 [18]. Chinese has developed its Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) since
26]. Figure 2-1 shows the development of National Customer Satisfaction Index.
Fornell
ACSI
(American Customer Satisfaction Index) 1994
ASQ / NQRC/Michigan University
ECSI
(European Customer Satisfaction Index) 1998
EOQ / EFQM / European Academic Network
TCSI
(Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index) 2006
CSQ / TNQRC / Chunghua University Denmark, Austria, France, Netherlands,
Switzerland, New Zealand, South Korea, Malaysia…..
Denmark, Austria, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand, South
Korea, Malaysia…..
CCSI
(China Customer Satisfaction Index) 2002
CAQ / CNIS / Tsinghua University (German Customer Barometer- Quality
and Satisfaction) 1992
(German Customer Barometer- Quality and Satisfaction)
1992
SCSB
(Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer) 1989
Figure 2-1 The Development of National Customer Satisfaction Index Source: This Study (TNQRC)
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR NCSI MODEL
CSI model is structured by a series of latent and manifest variables and its credibility depends on variable selection and definition of relationships among variables. The CSI model consists of a number of latent factors, each of which is operationalized by multiple indicators. Customer satisfaction can be defined as an overall evaluation of a firm’s post-purchase performance or utilization of a service [18]. It is at the core of the CSI framework and is encased within a system running from the antecedents of overall customer satisfaction ---expectations, image, perceived quality and value, to the consequence of overall customer satisfaction---customer loyalty and customer complaints. Thus, it is clear that the CSI model is a particular case of structural equation model (SEM) [37].
3.1 SCSB Model
The Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) model, shown in Figure 3-1, established in 1989 was the first NCSI for domestically purchased and consumed products and services [18].
Figure 3-1 SCSB model Source: [22]
Perceived Performance
(Value)
Customer Expectations
Customer Satisfaction (SCSB)
Customer
Loyalty
Customer
Complaints
The SCSB contains two antecedents of satisfaction: perception of customer’s performance experience with a product or service, and customer expectation regarding that performance. Perceived performance is equated with perceived value, or the perceived level of quality received relative to the price or prices paid. The basic prediction is that as perceived performance increases, SCSB increases [26].
The other antecedent of satisfaction is customer expectations, which are defined as a customer predicts rather than a normative standard or benchmark [11]. While perceived performance captures more recent experience, customer expectations capture a customer’s prior consumption experience [26]. Because customer expectations forecast a firm’s ability to provide future performance [18] and serve as cognitive anchors in the evaluation process [36], it is argued to have a positive effect on SCSB.
Finally, expectations capture customers’ abilities to learn from their experience and predict the level of performance they will received, customer expectations should positively affect perceived performance [26]. Customer expectation as a pivot exogenous latent variable has different influences to other constructs in CSI models.
The consequences of satisfaction in SCSB model are derived from Hirschman’s exit-voice theory [23]. The theory describes that while a customer is dissatisfied with the products or services provided by certain organization, he or she will exit, stop receiving products or services from the organization, or complain to the provider. Accordingly, the consequences of increased satisfaction are decreased customer complaints and increased customer loyalty [10]. The impact of customer satisfaction for repeat business and customer loyalty is not the same for all industries and companies. Loyal customers are not necessary satisfied customer, but satisfied customers tend to be loyal customers. Aside from satisfaction, there are other means of customer retention. Customer switching barriers comprise a lot of factors that also bring about retention. Hence, all companies are not equally affected by customer satisfaction, but virtually all companies depend
on repeat business [18]. Loyalty is the ultimate dependent variable in SCSB model because its value as a proxy for actual customer retention and subsequent profitability.
Bloemer and Kasper found that the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty was moderated by the amount of elaboration exerted by respondents on the evaluation of the brand choice [10]. The specially reported that the positive relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty was stronger when satisfaction was manifest. (e.g., well elaborated on that is a result of explicit evaluation) than latent (e.g., not well elaborated on that results from implicit evaluation). The results of this study imply that not all satisfaction is equal and that different types of satisfaction (i.e., manifest and latent), depending on the amount of elaboration used, will have different effects on loyalty.
Behavioral decision research provides both theoretical and empirical rationale for positing more than a simple main effect of satisfaction on loyalty. [38]. However, satisfaction and loyalty are concepts used to model customers’ ongoing experiences with actual products and services.
Although no prediction is made regarding the relationship from complaint behavior to customer loyalty, the direction and size of this relationship provides some diagnostic information as to the efficacy of a firm’s customer service and complaint handling system [18]. When the relationship is positive, a firm may be successfully turning complaining customers into loyal customers. When negative, complaining customers are predisposed to exit. [26].
The survey is designed to obtain a nationally representative sample of customers of major companies in wide variety of industries. The companies surveyed in each industry sector are the largest share firms such that cumulative market share is more than 70% [錯誤! 找不到參照來源。, 錯誤!
找不到參照來源。, 4, 18, 22].
3.2 ACSI Model
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) model was established in 1994 following several years of development and pre-testing and illustrated in Figure 3-2. It follows the general modeling and survey methodology of the SCSB adapted to produce four levels of indices or scores:
a national customer satisfaction score, ten economic sector scores, 41 specific industry scores, and scores from 200 companies and agencies with revenues totaling nearly 40% of the GDP [1, 22].
CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(ACSI) PERCEIVED
VALUE
PERCEIVED QUALITY
CUSTOMER LOYALTY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS Overall
Customization
Reliability
Reliability Overall Customization
Price Given Quality Quality Given
Price
Confirm/Disconf irm Expectations
Comparison with Ideal
Complaint Behavior
Satisfaction
Price Tolerance Repurchase
Likelihood
Figure 3-2 ACSI model: Private Sector Source: [34]
In ACSI model, customer expectation, perception of quality, and perceived value were introduced as the antecedents of customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty and customer complaint as consequences. [1, 34]
Customer Expectations: Expectations combine customers’ experiences with a product or service and information about it via media, advertising, salespersons, and word-of-mouth from other customers. Customer expectations influence the evaluation of quality and forecast (from customers’ pre-purchase perspective) how well the product or service will perform.
Perceived Quality: Perceived quality is measured through three questions: overall quality, reliability, and the extent to which a product or service meets the customer’s needs. Across all companies and industries measured in the ACSI, perceived quality proves to have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction.
Perceived Value: Perceived value is measured through two questions:
overall price given quality and overall quality given price. In the ACSI model, perceived value influences ACSI directly, and is affected by expectations and perceived quality. Although perceived value is of great importance for the (first) purchase decision, it usually has somewhat less impact on satisfaction and repeat purchase.
Customer Complaints: Customer complaint activity is measured as the percentage of respondents who reported a problem with the measured companies’ product or service within a specified time frame. Satisfaction has an inverse relationship to customer complaints.
Customer Loyalty: Customer loyalty is measured through questions on the likelihood to purchase a company’s products or services at various price points. Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on loyalty, but the magnitude of that effect varies greatly across companies and industries.
The main difference between SCSB model and ACSI model is the addition of a perceived quality component. Fornell et al. [20] argue that the inclusion of both perceived quality and perceived value into the ACSI model
relative to quality, price is a more important determinant of satisfaction. As quality is a component of value, the model also links quality directly to value [24]. For perceived quality, the ACSI model expects a positive association between perceived value increases and customer satisfaction.
In some industries, particularly in the manufacturing/durable goods and retail trade sectors, the product and service require to maintain after it was provided over different time periods. For those industries, ACSI uses the expanded model shown in Figure 3-3 [34].
CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(ACSI) PERCEIVED
VALUE
PERCEIVED QUALITY
CUSTOMER LOYALTY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS Overall
Customization
Reliability
Price Given Quality Quality Given
Price
Confirm/Disconf irm Expectations
Comparison with Ideal
Complaint Behavior
Satisfaction
Price Tolerance Repurchase
Likelihood PERCEIVED
SERVICE QUALITY PERCEIVED
PRODUCT QUALITY
Reliability Customization
Overall Reliability Customization
Overall
Figure 3-3 Expanded ACSI model: Private Sector Source: [34]
For government services and nonprofit organizations, perceived value in terms of price/quality relationship is not a driver as there is usually no direct charge (or very nominal charge) for tax-supported organizations, thus the ACSI model is modified as Figure 3-4.
CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(ACSI)
PERCEIVED
QUALITY USER TRUST
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Confirm/Disconf irm Expectations
Comparison to Ideal
Complaint Behavior
Satisfaction
Confidence Advocacy
Overall Customization
Reliability
Reliability
Customization Overall ACTIVITY 1
ACTIVITY 2 Q1
Q3 Q2
Q4
Figure 3-4 ACSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations Source: [34]
The American Customer Satisfaction Index is designed to be representative of the nation’s economy as a whole. At the beginning, the methodology of selecting the companies is each of the major economic sectors (one-digit standard industrial classification [SIC] code level) with reachable end-users. Within each sector, the major industrial groups (two-digit SIC codes) were included on the basis of relative contribution to the gross domestic product. Within each industry group, several representative industries (four-digit SIC codes) were included on the basis of the total sales. Finally, within each industry the largest companies were selected, such that coverage included the majority of each selected industry’s sales.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was originally developed in the 1930's to classify establishments by the type of activity in which they are primarily engaged and to promote the comparability of establishment data
project of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, NAICS was developed in response to the rapidly changing industrial composition and organization of both US and world economies and to provide common industry definitions for the three North American countries. It replaced the SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) system, in existence since the late 1930s.
Follow the methodology described in the previous page, now ACSI measures ten economic sectors in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that produce products and services sold directly to household customers [1, 34, 41]. Please refer to the table 1 in appendix.
These sectors are: (1) Utilities, (2) Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods, (3) Manufacturing/Durable Goods, (4) Retail Trade, (5) Transportation and Warehousing, (6) Information, (7) Finance and Insurance, (8) Health Care and Social Assistance, (9) Accommodation and Food Services, and (10) Public Administration as figure 3-5. The sectors included in ACSI produce 65.7% of the GDP [34].
Figure 3-5 ACSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries Source: [34]
Utilities
Manufacturing/
Nondurable Goods 9.4%
Manufacturing/
Durable Goods 11.1%
Retail Trade 5.8%
Transportation &
Warehousing 3.0%
Information 5.3%
Finance &
Insurance 7.3%
Health Care &
Social Assistance 6.9%
Accommodation &
Food Services 3.7%
Public Administration
11.4%
E-Business/
E-Commerce
-Energy -Food manufacturing -Pet food -Soft drinks -Breweries Cigarettes -Cigarettes -Apparel -Athletic shoes -Personal care &
cleaning products
-Personal Computers -Cellular telephones -Electronics (TV/VCR/DVD) -Major Appliances -Automobiles
-Supermarkets -Gasoline Stations -Department & discount stores
-Specialty -Airlines -U.S. Postal service -Express delivery
-Newspapers -Motion pictures -Broadcasting TV news -Fixed line
telephone service -Wireless telephone service - Cable &
satellite TV
-Banks -Life insurance -Health insurance -Property &
casualty
-Hospitals
-Hotels -Limited-service restaurants
-Solid waste disposal -Police -Federal agencies
-News &
information -Portals -Search engines -Retail -Auctions -Brokerage -Travel
3.3 ECSI Model
The pilot study of European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) model scanned and evaluated 10 different models within 1999, and the results were published in 2000. The ECSI model which is found to be very robust with respect to change in companies, sectors and countries, as illustrated in Fig 3., constitutes a modified adaptation of the ACSI model. The survey of 1999, 11 European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) participated, includes only fixed telephones, mobile phones, banking and supermarkets. In addition to these sectors, each country has chosen a number of sectors/areas on national priorities for their studies [12, 15, 22].
Figure 3-6 ECSI model Source: [42]
Image: It is a measure of the underlying image (association and perception) of the considered brand name.
Expectations: They relate to prior anticipations of the product or company in the eyes of the individual customer. Such expectations are the result of active company or product promotion as well as prior experience with the product or service provider.
Perceived quality: The concept of perceived quality is divided into two parts. The “hardware” component means the quality of the product as such, while software relate to associated service like guarantees given , after-service, conditions of product display and assortment, etc.
Perceived value: It concerns the “value for money aspects as they are experienced by the customer.
Customer satisfaction: The index indicates how satisfied customers are, and how well there expectations are met.
Customer loyalty as the only consequence of satisfaction has been exalted to a striking position by managers and marketing researchers in recent years. In ACSI, customer loyalty was measured by post-purchase behavior; in ECSI, it was extended to include customer word-of-mouth.
There are two differences between the ACSI and ECSI models. First, the ECSI model does not include the incidence of complaint behavior as a consequence of satisfaction. The ECSI model argue that Hirschman’s exit-voice theory [23], on which the consequences of satisfaction in the ACSI model based, was developed in a time when formal complaint management systems were either non-existent or relatively primitive. At that time, there was little focus on complaint handling for retaining customer, complaining was a natural consequence of low satisfaction, not an opportunity to increase satisfaction [24, 40]. Over the last decade, however, researchers have realized that complaint resolution has become more important than complaints per se. Therefore, complaints handling should be a driver, which affect perceived quality, rather than a consequence of
Second, the ECSI model incorporates corporate image as a latent variable. Cassel and Ekl o&&f found that image latent variable adds a significant amount of explanation to the model and should be included in the structural model. Corporate image is specified to have direct effects on customer expectations, satisfaction and loyalty [12].
The ECSI pilot study was conducted in 1999, totally, in the period March to May, more than 50,000 customers in 11 European countries. The minimum sample for each company was defined at 250 customers. In the survey, the common sectors were banking, fixed telephones, mobile phones and supermarket [12]. Other sectors selection is depended on each country’s decision.
The CSI models comparison for SCSB, ACSI and ECSI is listed in Table 3-1 as below:
Table 3-1 Models Comparison of SCSB, ACSI and ECSI
SCSB ACSI ECSI
Antecedents z Perceived Performance z Customer
Expectation
z Customer Expectations z Perceived
Product Quality z Perceived
Service Quality z Perceived Value
z Image z Customer
Expectations z Perceived Quality
(Product/Hardware) z Perceived Quality
(Service/Software) z Perceived Value Consequences z Customer
Complaints z Customer
Loyalty
z Customer Complaints z Customer
Loyalty
z Customer Loyalty
4. TAIWAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX MODEL
As noted by many researchers [16, 25, 29-30, 32, 33, 46], the quality measures are developed in one culture may not be applicable in a different culture setting, so there is a need to develop quality measures that are country/culture specific.
4.1 TCSI Model
Taiwan customer satisfaction index (TCSI) model shown in Figure 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3, developed by the National Quality Research Center of Taiwan at the Chunghua University in partnership with the Chinese Society for Quality (CSQ), was modified from ACSI and ECSI models.
The main difference between TCSI model and ECSI model is the impact of perceived service quality. TCSI model considers perceived service quality influence customer satisfaction directly and through perceived value indirectly, this is coincided with ACSI model.
Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index is both a trend measure and a benchmark for companies to compare themselves with others in their own or other industries. TCSI will be a uniform, national, cross-industry measure of satisfaction with the quality of goods and services available to household consumers in Taiwan. TCSI can compare user satisfaction with the quality of their services over time, and with services provided in the private sector.
The Taiwan National Quality Research Center (TNQRC) at Chunghua University is proceeding to the research and production center for the index, analyses of data, and report writing. CSQ distributes published reports and news releases.
Figure 4-1 TCSI model: Private Sector (Product)
Source: This Study (TNQRC)
Figure 4-2 TCSI model: Private Sector (Service) Source: This Study (TNQRC)
Figure 4-3 TCSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations Source: This Study (TNQRC)
4.2 Selection of Economic Sectors and Industries
The methodology for selecting of economic sectors and industries is following the ACSI’s. TCSI measures economic sectors is based on the Chinese Standard Industrial Classification (CSIC) [1] that produce products and services sold directly to household customers. Please refer to the table 2 in the appendix. The Chinese standard industrial classification (CSIC) consulted to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC). The CSIC has been revised to the 7th edition according to the ISIC version3.1 [1].
Currently, the ISIC version 4.0 (draft) has been issued, Taiwan will modify to the 8th edition; the change is small.
ISIC is a standard Classification of productive economic activities. Its main purpose is to provide a set of activity categories that can be utilized for the collection and presentation of statistics according to such activities.
Therefore, ISIC aims to present this set of activity categories in such a way that entities can be classified according to the economic activity they carry out. Defining the categories of ISIC is as much as possible linked with the way the economic process is organized in units and the way in which this process is described in economic statistics.
The selection of sectors, industries, companies, and government services is premised on obtaining a representative of the Taiwan economy that provides goods and services to households by measuring firms with total sales that represent a significant proportion of the GDP. Accordingly, each of the nine major economic sectors (one-letter alpha Chinese standard industrial classification [CSIC] code level) with reachable end-users were included in the design. Within each industry group, the major industrial groups (one-digit CSIC codes) were selected on the basis of relative contribution to the gross domestic product, and included 44 major and representative industries (three-digit CSIC codes) in each industry group. Within each industry the largest companies were selected, such that coverage included the majority of each selected industry’s sales.
Finally, for each firm, average approximately 250 interviews were conducted with the firm’s current customers by screening random chosen adults in each telephone household taken from national and regional probability samples.
The sectors included in TCSI produce 60% of the GDP [2]. Figure 4-4 shows the sectors and industries measured in TCSI.
The respondent is first asked questions about the purchase and use of specific products and services within defined time periods by telephone interview. These periods vary from three years for the purchase of a major durable, to “within the past month” for frequently purchased consumer goods and services. Once a respondent is identified to be qualified, the interviewer proceeds with the customer satisfaction questionnaire which is prepared. The measured companies, industries, and sectors are broadly representative of Taiwan economy serving householders.
Figure 4-4 TCSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries Source: This Study (TNQRC)
Manufacturing/
Nondurable Goods 10.10%
Construction
2.37%Retail Trade
7.31%Accommodation
& Food Services 1.97%
Culture、
Athletics and Entertainment
1.59%
Transportation、
Warehouse and Communication
6.78%
Finance &
Insurance
10.54%Health Care &
Social Assistance
2.75%
-Milk
-Cans、refrigerated food、dehydration、
preserved food -Candy and baking
food -Cooked fat -Seasoning -Alcohol、beer -Soft drink - Cigarettes -Drugs
-Cleaning products -Cosmetics -Tires
-Construction of buildings
-Clocks、glasses -Gasoline station -Department store -Supermarket
-Chain Convenience Store -Retail sale
-Electron shopping and mail order
-Direct sale
-Hotel -Restaurant
-Land Transportation -Civil Aviation -Travel -Express delivery -Telecommunication
-Banks -Stocks and
Bonds -Life assurance
-Hospitals
-News -Magazines
(Journal) -Broadcast -Television -Amusement
park
Manufacturing/
Durable Goods
16.59%-computers&
peripheral equipment -communication
equipment -Vision &
Audio electron ics
-Appliances -Automobile -Motorcycle -Ceramic-bathro om equipment
5. CONCLUSION
Customer satisfaction and retention are key issues for organizations in today’s competitive market place. As such, much research has been invested in developing accurate ways of assessing consumer satisfaction at both the macro (national) and micro (organizational) level.
In the last decade, a number of national indicators reflecting consumer satisfaction across a wide range of organizations have been developed (e.g.
Sweden, 1989; USA, 1994; European, 1998). At the national level, the customer satisfaction index (CSI) is a nationwide gauge of how adequately firms, and industries in general satisfy their customers.
These CSIs are fundamentally similar in measurement model (i.e.
causal model). They have some obvious distinctions in model’s structure and variable’s selection. Taiwan is in the era of service-domain economy. Service quality plays a greater role in customer post-consumption evaluation. Take full advantages of other nations’ experiences, we can establish the Taiwan CSI Model which is suited for Taiwan’s characters.
Therefore, in this study, establish the TCSI model based on SCSB, ACSI, and ECSI models analysis, and modify them into the TCSI model.
In addition, identify 9 economic sectors and 44 major representative industries were included on the basis of relative contribution to the gross domestic product based on Taiwan’s economical structure also included in this paper.
The Taiwan National Quality Research Center (TNQRC) at Chung Hua University is proceeding to the TCSI research, based on the TCSI model presented in this paper. The pilot study for air transportation, automobile, gas station, etc. will be conducted in late 2006, to evaluate the stability and robustness of empirical results from TCSI pilot survey rounds.
References
1. 行政院主計處，「行業分類標準」，第七版，http://www.dgbas.gov.tw。
2. 行政院主計處，「國民所得統計」，2004，http://www.dgbas.gov.tw。
3. ACSI, 2006, http://www.acsi.asq.org.
4. Anderson, Eugene W. and Claes Fornell (1991), "The Impact of Performance on Customer Satisfaction and Retention: An Investigation of Industry Differences," W91-001 Version 1.0, September 13.
5. Anderson, Eugene W. (1992), "Category Characteristics and the Impact of Expectations, Perceived Quality, Disconfirmation on Customer Satisfaction and Retention," W92-002 Version 1.0, May 1.
6. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), “Customer satisfaction, market share and profitability: Findings from Sweden,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 53-56.
7. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Rust, R.T. (1997), “Customer Satisfaction, Productivity, and Profitability: Differences Between Goods and Services,”
Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 129-145.
8. Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (2000), “Foundations of The American Customer Satisfaction Index,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp.
S869-S882.
9. Andrews, F.M. (1984), “Construct Validity and Error Components of Survey Measures: A Structural Modeling Approach,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.
48, pp.409-442.
10. Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P., (1995), “The Complex Relationship Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311-329.
11. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), “A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp. 7-27.
12. Cassel, C. and Ekl o&&f, J.A. (2001), “Modeling Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty on Aggregate Levels: Experience From the ECSI Pilot Study,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 12, No. (7-8), pp. 834-841.
13. De Ruyter, K., Bloemer, J., and Peerters, P. (1997), “Merging Service Quality
and Service Satisfaction: An Empirical Test on an Integrative Model,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, No.4, pp. 387-406.
14. Ekl o&&f, J.A. and Westlund, A.H. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction Index and Its Role In Quality Management,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. (4-5), ppS80-S85.
15. Ekl o&&f, J.A. and Westlund, A.H. (2002), “The Pan-European Customer Satisfaction Index Program - Current Work and The Way Ahead,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 8, pp1099-1106.
16. Espinoza, M.M. (1999), “Assessing the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a Service Quality Measure: A Comparative Study Between Quebec and Peru,”
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.
449-468.
17. Evans, J.R., and Lindsay, W.M., (1999), The Management and Control of Quality, 4th ed., O.H.: South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati.
18. Fornell, C. (1992), “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 6-21.
19. Fornell, C. (1995), “The Quality of Economic Output: Empirical Generalizations About Its Distribution and Relationship to Market Share,”
Marketing Science, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 203-211.
20. Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996),
“The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings,”
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 7-18.
21. Grigoroudis, E., Politis, Y., and Siskos, Y. (2002), “Satisfaction Benchmarking and Customer Classification: An Cpplication to Banking Services”, International Transactions on Operational Management, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.
599-618.
22. Grigoroudis, E. and Siskos, Y. (2004), “A survey of customer satisfaction barometers: Some results from the transportation-communications sector,”
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 152, No. 2, pp. 334-353.
23. Herschman, A.O. (1970), “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty- Response to Decline in Firms, Organization, and States,” Cambridge, Harvard University Press, MA.
25. Imrie, B.C., Cadogan, J.W., and McNaughton, R. (2002), “The Service Quality Construct on a Global Stage,” Management Service Quality, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 10-18.
26. Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., and Cha, J.
(2001), “The Evolution and Future of National Customer Satisfaction Index Model,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 217-245.
27. Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., and Fornell, C. (1995), “Rational and Adaptive Performance Expectations in a Austomer Aatisfaction Framework,”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 695-707.
28. Johnson, M.D., (1991), “A Framework For Comparing Customer Satisfaction Across Individuals and Products Categories,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 267-286.
29. Kettinger, W.J., Lee, C.C., and Lee, S. (1995), “Global Measures of Information Service Quality: A Cross-National Study,” Decision Science, Vol.
26, No. 5, pp. 569-588.
30. Karatepe, O.M., Yavas, U., and Babakus, E. (2005), “Measuring Service Quality of Banks: Scales Development and Validation,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 373-383.
31. Kotler, P., 2006, Marketing Management, 12th ed., Prentice Hall, NY.
32. Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I.B. (1994),
“International Service Marketing: A Comparative Evaluation of the Dimensions of Service Quality Between Developed and Developing Countries,” International Marketing Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 5-15.
33. Mattila, A.S. (1999), “The Role of Culture and Purchase Motivation in Service Encounter Evaluations,” Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13, No.
4-5, pp. 376-389.
34. National Quality Research Center (2005), American Customer Satisfaction Index: Methodology Report, Milwaukee, WI. : University of Michigan Business School.
35. Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.
418-430.
Consumer,” N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
37. O’Loughlin, C. and Coenders, G. (2004), “Estimation of The European Customer Satisfaction Index: Maximum Likelihood Versus Partial Least Squares. Application to Postal Services,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 15, No. 9-10, pp. 1231-1255.
38. Seigyoung Auh, and Michael D. Johnson (2005), “Compatibility Effects in Evaluations of Satisfaction and Loyalty,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 35-37.
39. Shankar, V., Smith, A.K. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), “Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Online and Offline Environments,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 153-175.
40. Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A Model of Customer Satisfaction With Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,”
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 356-372.
41. The American Customer Satisfaction Index, http://www.theacsi.org.
42. The Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research, http://202.121.129.66/transcend/www.iobe.gr/ecsi.htm.
43. The International Foundation for Customer Focus, http://www.ifcf.org/ecsiPilot.asp
44. United Nations Statistics Division,
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/default.asp.
45. Vavra, T.G., 1997, “Improving Your Measurement of Customer Satisfaction,”
ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee.
46. Winsted, K.F., (1997), “The Service Experience in Two Cultures: A Behavioral Perspective,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 337-360.
Appendix
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is listed two digital codes as below:
Table Appendex-1 North American Industry Classification System (2002)
