【正文】 After thorough interviews with professionals in the area under investigation, it was clear to the present researchers that none of the existing de?nitions depicted the elements of buying centres and relationship evolvement over time. The present researchers therefore decided to adapt the cumulative de?nition of industrial satisfaction of Chumpitaz (1998): Industrial satisfaction is an overall evaluation of the total purchase, use and relationships experience with a product or service over time, as expressed by members of the buying decision centre. This de?nition provided the basis for conceptualising and measuring effectively the industrial satisfaction construct in the present study. To conceptualise perceived service quality, Oliver (1993) distinguished between quality and satisfaction by noting that the dimensions underlying quality judgments are rather speci?c – whether they are cues or attributes (Bolton and Drew, 1991). Satisfaction judgments, in contrast, can result from any dimension – some related to quality, and some not. Expectations of quality are based on ideals or perceptions of excellence, whereas a large number of nonquality issues – including needs (Westbrook and Reilly, 1983) and equity or fairness (Oliver and Swan, 1989) – help in the formation of satisfaction judgments. Rust and Oliver (1994, p. 6) stated that “... quality is one dimension on which satisfaction is based”. In making this statement they were in accord with Dick and Basu (1994), Anderson and Fornell (1994), Iacobucci et al. (1995), Sivadas and Baker Prewitt (2020), and OdekerkenSchroder et al. (2020). More recently, Cronin et al. (2020), in their study of six different service industries, supported and built on the extant literature by indicating that servicequality perceptions are important determinants of satisfaction. Based on previous evidence concerning the causality of these related constructs, the present study placed servicequality perceptions as antecedents to the formation of industrial satisfaction attributes. Considerable evidence con?rms that performance judgments of service related issues play a signi?cant role in the formation of satisfaction cues (Erevelles and Leavitt, 1992。 and a lack of a prehensive, theoretically based, empirical research stream (Schellhase et al., 1999). In B2B markets, the principal differences among endconsumers arise from the decisionmaking unit evaluating the product or service. When considering the satisfaction of an industrial client, it is necessary to evaluate the satisfaction of the different constituents of the buying centre who are in contact with the industrial supplier (Parasuraman, 1998). Even though the individual members of a buying centre are guided by the pany’s objectives, they have their own motivations and objectives and evaluate the performance of the product or service according to their own reference standards. Anderson and Narus (1990), in their effort to model manufacturerdistributor relationships, de?ned satisfaction as a positive, affective state resulting from the appraisal of all aspects of a ?rm’s working relationship with another ?rm. This de?nition posits that satisfaction (understood as affective) can be contrasted with an objective summary assessment of outes – thereby forming a targetperformance parison mechanism. If expectations are exceeded by performance, satisfaction is generated (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982。nroos (1982, 1984), de?ned the dimensions of service quality in global terms as being functional and technical. The second, proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), identi?ed servicequality dimensions using terms that describe serviceencounter characteristics (reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurances, and tangibles). The third, proposed by Rust and Oliver (1994), considered overall perception of service quality to be based on the customer’s evaluation of three dimensions of service encounters: the customeremployee interaction, the service environment, and the service oute. It is not clear, however, which of these conceptualisations and dimensional patterns are the most appropriate to use (Brady and Cronin, 2020。 Zeithaml, 2020。 and identify an appropriate method of measuring the constructs involved. One of the main objectives of the present research was to clarify the contradictory evidence with