顧客滿意度指數(shù)模型的演變與未來發(fā)展-閱讀頁
2025-08-11 00:40本頁面
【正文】 gnificant in each of the five industries (ranging from for gas stations to for airlines). We believe that this captures the ongoing inclusion of brands or panies with strong corporate images among those that customers ultimately consider for purchase (the consideration set). The direct effect of satisfaction on loyalty, which ranges from a low of for trains to a high of for banks, is also positive and significant for each industry. This direct effect captures the effects of satisfaction on loyalty that are not mediated by the corporate image or mitment constructs. Given that we have added more drivers of loyalty, it is useful to examine the total effect that satisfaction has on loyalty in each case. The total effect is the sum of all direct and indirect effects linking satisfaction and loyalty, which equals , , , and respectively, for airlines, banks, buses, gas stations and trains. As one would expect, the total effect of satisfaction on loyalty is greatest in those industries where Norwegian customers have greater choice among petitors, most notably banks, gas stations and airlines. Complaint handling and the SERVQUAL constructs were two areas where the model did not perform as well as expected. In the ACSI model, plaint behavior is modeled as a consequence of satisfaction. Because plaint handing is an increasingly important means of improving satisfaction, we used the quality of plaint handling among plaining customers as a driver of both satisfaction and loyalty. Although we successfully isolate a plainthandling construct, it has little effect on either satisfaction or loyalty. The most likely explanation is that plaint management systems in the industries are not particularly effective at creating satisfaction or loyalty. This is consistent with Fornell (1996) analysis of ACSI data, which suggests that plaint management systems are only capable of neutralizing plaints. The finding is also consistent with Bolton (1999), who finds that service recovery is generally ineffective for a majority of customers in both a restaurant and hotel setting. The NCSB model uses a variation on the SERVQUAL constructs (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) as service quality dimensions across industries. In contrast, the ACSI uses an overall quality construct, while the ECSI distinguishes between overall service and overall product quality. As argued earlier, this is largely a matter of choice. How one specifies product or service quality depends on the level of detail versus generality desired in the research. Using the SERVQUAL dimensions is a natural place to start given that the NCSB focuses on service industries. However, our results reveal systematic problems with this part of the model, specifically with the tangibles construct and, to a lesser degree, the assurance construct. We also find that the majority of the paths from the five service quality dimensions to satisfaction are not significant. Our remendation is that the national models either employ the overall product and/or service quality constructs (as used in the ACSI and ECSI models),or build more industry or firmspecific drivers of satisfaction (following Johnson am
環(huán)評(píng)公示相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1