FALTA DE APLICACIÓN DE CONOCIMIENTOS DE TEMAS ESPECÍFICOS EN LA EDUCACIÓN

In the preliminary framework (figure 6), theevaluation process is presented from the point of view of both buyer and seller. The preliminary framework

the evaluation is performed by individual evaluator30. The effects of each others are, however, presented here as only taking place through comparison standards (cf. figure 5) and to some extent also through adjusting processes. In the preliminary framework (figure 6) time also plays a significant role. Comparison standards are divided into two groups consisting of those based on the past and those which are based on future actions. Adjusting processes also have their emphasis in the future. Main evaluation process is described in present time.

In the main evaluation process (see figure 6), the comparison between the actual performance and the criteria or comparison standard is made. This kind of view about the evaluation process follows the lines of the disconfirmation paradigm. In some cases, however, the evaluation can be performed without any comparison or comparison standard. (see more in chapter 4.2.2.). The use of comparison or comparison standard is depended on the situation and the individual making the evaluation. (E.g. Oliver 1989; Johnson and Fornell 1991; see also Mittilä and Lehtinen 1995) In the relationship quality evaluation, the comparison takes place on both the episode and the relationship levels.

The main evaluation process, starts as the episode starts. The comparison standard used in the evaluation of that episode is, however,

usually formed prior to the evaluation process. In the framework (figure 6), the first comparison is related to this evaluation. In this comparison, the gained episode experiences31 are compared against the comparison

30 _{Mittilä (2000) defines evaluation as “an activity or a series of activities that comprise} the formal and informal perceptions by the partners involved, and the assessment of the impact perceived object(s) on the focal issue”. In this study, however, the evaluation is seen as being performed by individual evaluator. The comprising process is here included to the adjusting processes, and it is discussed from the point of view of individual evaluator.

31 _{The terms experiences and performance are used here as the same, because the} performance in the business relationships can often be regarded as being the same as gained experiences (for example in the evaluation of financial aspects or product performance). (See e.g. Frazier 1983; Haytko 1994).

standard, and as a result, the episode quality perception is formed. That comparison can, however, be modified by the adjusting processes.

After the episode quality perception is formed, the second comparison takes place. In that comparison, the episode quality perception is mainly compared against the existing relationship quality perception that is formed on the basis of prior experiences. The adjusting processes can also modify the process. As a result, a new relationship quality perception is formed. Actually, the actor decides in this second comparison, whether the episode quality perception gained, changes the existing relationship quality perception or not, and if it changes, how it changes. The new relationship quality perception, effects new comparison standards used in the subsequent comparisons (both 1 and 2).

After the relationship quality perception is formed, the third comparison sometimes follows. If the episode quality perception radically changes the existing relationship quality perception, and if the adjusting processes fail to recover the situation, the actor decides whether to terminate the relationship, or not. In this decision, the comparison standard used varies highly depending on the situation. However, the role of possible other alternatives, is usually decisive.

Consequently the main evaluation process refers the evaluation which results in relationship quality perception, and it is sometimes followed by a termination/continuation decision.

The evaluation always concerns a matter upon which the actual evaluation is made, and it is usually executed by using a criteria. In the service quality literature, the matter upon which the evaluation is made, is called dimension32 (e.g. Grönroos 1982; Lehtinen 1983; Lehtinen and Lehtinen 1991). The criteria, in turn is called comparison standards. (e.g. Liljander 1995; see more in chapter 3.1.2.) In interaction approach and channel studies, criteria in turn are the CLalt and CL concepts (e.g. Frazier 1983; Anderson and Narus 1984, 1990; see more in chapter 4.3.). In this study, the term comparison standard is used (see Liljander 1995).

Depending on the comparison, both the content and nature of the comparison standard used differs. In episode quality evaluation (comparison 1) the content of comparison standard used, is very much related to the nature of episode in question. For example, if there exists clear, well defined goals for the episode, these goals are naturally used as comparison standards. In the relationship quality evaluation (comparison 2) in turn, the prior experiences in the form relationship quality perception formed before the evaluation in question, have usually a central role. In making the termination/continuation decision, the prior experiences from other relationships can have a major role as the CLalt -concept33 implies,

32 _{The dimensions are presented in a framework because of difficulties related to the} presentation as they are present in all of the different boxes (i.e. comparison standards, main evaluation process and adjusting processes).

but also other determinants of comparison standards can be used. Consequently, the following definition of comparison standard is used:

comparison standards refer to the standards against which the issue under comparison is evaluated. The nature and content varies depending on the comparison and the actor. As mentioned earlier, comparison standards can be divided to those which are based on past (prior experiences, cultural norms and values) and to those which are based on future actions (goals, promises, desires).

From the adjusting processes, that modify the comparisons, the equity and fairness are input/output ratios. They sometimes follow the comparisons and sometimes are at least partly overlapping (e.g. Frazier 1983; Frazier, Speckman and O’Neil 1988; Uusitalo 1993; Liljander 1995). Equity is a process, in which the actor decides whether the all the actors involved gain the same results from their input/output ratios. Fairness, in turn, is a process in which the actor asks himself ”have I gained what I deserve?” (e.g. Frazier 1983, p. 74). In customer satisfaction and service quality literature, these kinds of comparisons are usually treated as being present in the evaluation done (see e.g. Uusitalo 1993; Liljander 1995). In channel studies, both equity and fairness are treated as separate concepts from the main evaluation (Frazier 1983; Frazier, Spekman and O´Neil 1988). However, in reality, it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between these adjusting processes and the main evaluation. But, in order to highlight the nature and role of these processes, they are treated separately from the main evaluation process.

Attribution mainly seeks answer for the question ”whom to blame”.

Attribution is often linked to the main evaluation in cases, when deviation, from comparison standards, is perceived as large. Balancing operations, in turn, concern the operations that are directed in reducing the perceived deviation. Thus, attribution and balancing operations are in many cases linked to each other, and they follow comparison.

Taken together, the evaluation can be defined as a process in which the actor first forms the comparison standards and after that evaluates whether a certain performance fulfills the comparison standard or not. This evaluation process can sometimes be modified by the different adjusting processes. The evaluation process consists of episode and relationship quality evaluation and can be sometimes followed by termination/continuation decision. As a result of the evaluation process relationship quality perception is formed. The definition of relationship quality evaluation presented in chapter 1.3. can consequently be completed as following: Relationship quality evaluation refers to the on-going, two level evaluation process concerning all the feasible aspects of the relationship, and it is performed by the partners involved in the relationship34. The relationship quality evaluation is done by using comparison standards, and it is affected by the adjusting processes.

As the comparison is the key concept in the evaluation process it is discussed in the following chapter 4.2.2. before discussing the framework in more detail.