libertad en David Hume
5. El contenido de la virtú
5.2
In simple terms, satisfaction is the result of customers’ overall assessment of their perceptions of the service (the service process, their experiences and outcomes such as the quality of the
‘products’, the benefi ts obtained and perceived value for money), compared to their prior expectations (see Figure 5.1 ). 1
If customers’ perceptions of the service match their expectations (P=E) then they should be satisfi ed (or at least satisfi ced). If their perception of the service exceeds their ex-pectations (P>E) then they will be more than satisfi ed, even delighted. If their perceptions of the service do not meet their expectations (P<E) then they may be dissatisfi ed, even disgusted or outraged. 2 Importantly satisfaction is a continuum, from extreme delight to extreme dissatisfaction. Here we will use a ⫹5 to ⫺5 scale to represent this continuum (see Figure 5.2 ).
As well as satisfaction being the customer’s overall assessment of the service, the customer may also feel delighted, satisfi ed, or dissatisfi ed with the individual steps (transactions or touch points) in the service process. This is sometimes referred to as transaction satisfaction.
We will develop this point in Section 5.4.2 and Chapter 7 .
Figure 5.1
Customer satisfaction
Expectations Service Perceptions Satisfaction
Assessment
5.2.1 Perceptions–expectations gap
If there is a mismatch between perceptions and expectations, this, in simple terms, is usually caused by either a mismatch between expectations and the service (Gap 1 in Figure 5.3 ) and/or a mismatch between the service and customers’ perceptions of it (Gap 2 in Figure 5.3) . 3
There are several reasons why Gap 1 might exist. The service may have been inappropriately specifi ed, designed or enacted, or there may be insuffi cient resources to meet expectations. It is also possible that the customer may have inappropriate expectations. An inappropriate specifi cation or design of the service may be the result of a poor understanding of customer expectations by managers. Managers may have not put enough time and effort into either specifying the service or getting feedback from customers about what they feel to be an appro-priate type or level of service. Insuffi cient resources may be the result of a poor understanding of market requirements or demand profi les.
These ‘internal’ reasons often stem from a lack of determination to deliver consistent standards. Managers frequently report that their organisation does not take time and trouble to understand what its customers require and therefore the service design process is fl awed from the outset. This fl ows into poor or inappropriate service design and results in poor re-source utilisation.
Inappropriate expectations may be the result of inappropriate marketing, promises made by the organisation that cannot be delivered, or inappropriate word-of-mouth referrals or organisational image, which may be a result of poor service experiences in the past. Also, there Figure 5.2
The satisfaction continuum
Satisfied
Dissatisfied Delighted
0 +5
–5 P=E
P>E
P<E
Figure 5.3
Simplifi ed gap model
Expectations Service Perceptions Satisfaction
Mismatch
Gap 1 Gap 2
are some customers who have quite unrealistic expectations of some service organisations and can cause a great deal of aggravation and nuisance as a result. These individuals either need their expectations reshaping before or during service delivery, or removing from the operation, if this is feasible (see Chapter 10 ).
Gap 2 may be the result of either incorrect provision of a service or customers inappropri-ately perceiving the service. Incorrect provision is not unusual in many service organisations.
Service operations are often complex, human-based activities and things do go wrong. A mis-match as a result of poor service provision can be removed or at least reduced through service recovery (see Chapter 13 ). Table 5.1 summarises the reasons for the existence of the gaps and therefore dissatisfi ed customers.
Additionally, customers’ perceptions of the quality of the service provided (operational serv-ice quality) may not be the same as the quality of the servserv-ice received (customer perceived qual-ity), because customer perceived quality is a matter of personal perception (see Section 5.3 ).
5.2.2 Downsides of the expectation–perception approach to customer perceived service quality
While the expectation–perception approach to understanding perceived service quality is ex-tremely useful in focusing on the outcome of customer satisfaction and helps identify mis-matches between operational and customer views of quality, it does have some downsides: 4
● Service could be perceived to be ‘good’ when it is ‘bad’ . If customer expectations are
par-ticularly low (and indeed may have been deliberately created that way), poor operational service quality may be perceived as highly satisfying because expectations have been ex-ceeded. This may look like a reasonable state, but it is clearly one that makes for-profi t organisations vulnerable to competitive threat from higher-quality providers, or may lead to government ‘interference’ in public sector organisations.
● Service could be perceived to be ‘bad’ when it is ‘good’ . Likewise, it is also possible that if expectations are high, due to over-promising, for example, then a good operational service may be seen as inadequate.
● Service that was ‘good’ last time may only be ‘OK’ this time . If a service was perceived to have been ‘good’ then the customers’ expectations may be raised for next time; thus they may well be less satisfi ed on subsequent occasions, despite the fact that the operational quality of the service has remained unchanged. This is a problem encountered by Disney. Visitors’
fi rst encounter with the Magic Kingdom is often so good, much better than expected, that subsequent visits are sometimes reported to be poorer in quality, i.e. less satisfactory.
● Satisfi ed customers may switch . Even though a particular service may meet customers’ expec-tations and customers are satisfi ed, customers may still switch suppliers, if there is a choice.
Alternative service providers may offer a superior level of service or additional service fea-tures, or customers may be naturally disloyal or inquisitive. When it comes to measuring sat-isfaction, we need to remember to also measure the customers’ post-purchase intentions; in
Gap 1 Gap 2
Internal causes Lack of understanding of customer expectations Incorrect or inappropriate service provision Inappropriate specifi cation and/or provision
Poor service design
Insuffi cient resources
External causes Inappropriate expectations of the service experience and/or outcomes
Inappropriate perceptions of the service experience and/or outcomes
Table 5.1 Reasons for gaps
particular, will they return? (See Chapter 4 on the Net Promoter Score and Chapter 9 ). Con-versely, it is also important to remember that some dissatisfi ed customers will not (or cannot) switch; they remain as customers often creating particular problems for service employees!
Nortel, the telecommunications company, surveyed its customers and discovered that those who scored up to 4 on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = very dissatisfi ed, 5 = very satisfi ed) were vulnerable to switching. Only those scoring above 4.5 could be thought of as reason-ably loyal. Avis Rent A Car tracks likelihood to repurchase alongside customer satisfaction.
The company has developed a ‘customer satisfaction balance sheet’, estimating the cost to the company in lost sales as a result of poor service.
These issues reinforce the need to link closely the creation of expectations in the minds of customers with the capabilities of the service process i.e. to communicate messages to set ap-propriate expectations and design and deliver service to meet them and manage them during the service process.
5.2.3 Confi dence
Before we spend time developing the notion of customer satisfaction through a better un-derstanding of customer expectations and the formation of perceptions, we would like to introduce the related but distinct notion of customer confi dence.
Whereas satisfaction is an assessment by the customer following a service experience, con-fi dence, or the lack of it, does not require previous experience or contact with the organi-sation. 5 This is an important notion for all organisations, and especially those with which people may have no or little contact, for example, social services, police, fi re services, coroners’
courts, hospitals, local schools and legal services.
Confi dence is about having belief, trust or faith in an organisation, its staff and services.
Our feeling of confi dence in organisations such as the police will not only affect our feeling of well-being and our quality of life but importantly it may well infl uence how we interact with that organisation, i.e. our predisposition towards it. If we feel confi dent in the local police service, for example, we may, when caught for a minor offence, be more willing to co-operate with the police. Furthermore, if we feel confi dent in the police we may be more willing to provide assistance as a witness at an incident, or provide information about suspicious events, or even support offi cers attending incidents (or at least not make their jobs more diffi cult).
All of this helps to improve the performance of the police service itself. Confi dence may also affect our willingness to fund the police through local taxation.
For some organisations, understanding and measuring customer confi dence may be more appropriate than customer satisfaction. Indeed some people might argue that customer satis-faction is a wholly inappropriate measure to be applied to some of the police service’s custom-ers (i.e. criminals).
Research has shown that our confi dence pre-service, i.e. before we receive any service, is infl uenced primarily by three things over which the organisation may have very limited con-trol or infl uence: 6
● personal beliefs (beliefs held by the individual about that organisation)
● media (for example television (news or even drama) coverage of the organisation)
● word-of-mouth (the communicated experiences of others) and three things that organisations have control and infl uence over:
● visibility of the organisation, its services and its employees
● familiarity with the organisation’s employees, services or abilities
● communication ( knowledge of the service and its abilities).
By managing these factors, organisations can have an important impact on their potential customers and the effi ciency and effectiveness of the service they deliver.