L ITERATURE REVIEW ABOUT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Creating customer experiences has been quite a central topic in business research lately (see, for example, Mascarenhas & al. 2006; LaSalle & Britton 2003; Pine & Gilmore 1999).

The focus has been on moving from products, services and processes towards the customers and their experiences. For example, writing about marketing vacations, King (2002) formulates this nicely as he states, that “destination marketing organisations need to get away from promoting the destination to a mass market and relying on an outdated distribution system, and instead engage the customer to ensure they effectively promote and provide the experience they are wanting.”

Hotels, amusement parks, concert halls and vacation destinations are, in fact, in the business of creating customer experiences (see, for example, Heath & Wall 1992). In this sense, we can say that they are in the business of marketing experiences. The term customer experience is nevertheless also interesting in branches that offer less straightforwardly experience related products and services. In these branches, the customer experience may be used as a marketing tool and a way to enhance the consumption process. In this discussion, the aim is to add experimental value to the offering so that it becomes more (im)memorable. For example, restaurants with specific themes are good examples of this kind of thinking. (LaSalle & Britton 2003.)

Both of these approaches to the customer experience see experiences as something extraordinary and unique. Another way is to see experience as a more ordinary and day-to-day construct. The offering, then, does not necessarily include any experimental elements, but using it is still always an experience for the customer. From this perspective, we are experiencing something every moment and it is possible to study how individuals experience certain products or services and to improve the offering accordingly. In recent years, these kinds of product/service experiences have been studied especially in computer-human interfaces. The approach adopted has been the usability approach, also known as the “UX-approach”. (see, for example, Hassenzahl & Tractinsky 2006.)

Such studies have also been carried out for more physical products and intangible services. The usability studies in the facilities management field are especially interesting for this study. The usability of built environments has been studied a lot in recent years by Task Group 111 of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) (see, for example, Alexander 2006; Alexander & al. 2003; Alexander &

al. 2005; Fenker 2004; Granath & al. 2003; Hansen 2004; Jensø & al. 2004; Jensø &

Haugen 2005; Nenonen & Nissinen 2005; Lindahl 2008; Lindahl & Granath 2006).

The usability approach as used lately in the facilities management context has many merits but also some problems if used for assessing the user experience. Usability studies have sometimes replaced traditional post occupancy evaluations (POE) (Barrett 1995) where the physical environment is studied, but the other aspects of the environment (see, for example, Nenonen 2005) are more or less forgotten. In some studies, it seems that the only difference between POE and the usability approach is the name (see, for example, Rheinganz 2003). Thus, the usability studies also concentrate too much on the physical environments instead of the total user experience. The potential for using this approach as it is in evaluating the customer experience is thus limited.

The usability construct has been well defined, and the necessary modifications to suit usability studies in built environments have been also made (see Rasila & al. 2009). The problem is that usability studies may be carried out from several viewpoints – for example, as Nenonen (2005) suggests, examining the social, virtual and physical aspects – but the theoretical background for these is limited. Kerosuo (2007) made a list of general usability attributes (“dimensions”; see Rasila & al. 2009) and utilized them in evaluating shopping centres. This adds understanding of some aspects of the user experience, but does not yet reach an understanding of the entire experience.

The challenge, then, is to find the attributes or dimensions that are related to the user experience. One solution is to look at the relationship marketing literature, in which the customer experience has been discussed in more detail, even though the empirical research on the topic is quite scarce. In the literature, the customer experience has been studied through service quality and satisfaction. For the purposes of this study, this approach has two limitations. First, it again looks at the user experience too narrowly.

Second, the constructs are traditionally seen as cognitive constructs (see, for example, Parasuraman & al. 1985) while the customer experience has additional emotional and behavioral elements (Edvardsson 2005; Johnston & Clark 2001).

In line with Edvarsson (2005), it is assumed that customer perceived quality has still advantages in constructing a theoretical framework for assessing the user experience, if the limitations of the traditional thinking are bypassed. Edvardsson (2005) suggests that this could be done by noticing the emotional and behavioural aspects of customer experience formation and by incorporating wider dimensions of the customer experience into the theoretical models. An important argument supporting the customer perceived quality approach is the strong tradition of both theoretical and empirical research on the topic. Thus, the customer perceived quality approach suggested by the relationship

marketing paradigm is taken here as the starting point for understanding the customer experience theoretically.

Customer perceived quality has been studied a lot in the relationship marketing paradigm (introduced, for example, by Berry 1995; Rao & Perry 2002; Gummesson & al. 1997;

Gummesson 2004; Grönroos 2001 and Tzokas & Saren 2004) and from several perspectives. This paradigm is thus utilised in this dissertation in order to add understanding of the customer experience and its dimensional nature.

Critics could claim that the relationship marketing paradigm is not suitable for use in the facilities management field. Still, there exist some studies in facilities management that apply the relationship marketing paradigm. For example, McLennan (2004) reaches the conclusions that this kind of combination is fruitful and that facilities management may be seen from a service point of view (see also Campbell & Finch 2004). On the other hand, Bandy (2002) and Shaw with Haynes (2004) use purely relationship marketing terms in the facilities management field. They utilise the service quality dimensions suggested by Parasuraman and his co-authors (1985) to study facilities management related services.

Service quality and customer satisfaction have also been studied from other starting points than relationship marketing in facilities management research (see, for example Pheng 1996). Still, the facilities management literature concentrates quite a lot on studying the quality from the point of view of technical quality of buildings, even though the interest is on user experiences or customer satisfaction. This kind of research is carried out mainly as post occupancy evaluations (POE) (see, for example, McDougall & al. 2002;

Amaratunga & Baltry 2002; Leifer 1998; Bottom & al. 1997; Ornstein & al. 1999; Horgen &

Sheridan 1996).

This kind of technically oriented approach has been criticised by, for example, Rheingantz (2003). He states that a building full of people is a multi-dimensional entity that could be compared to a living organism. Seeing the building as just a technical entity gives too narrow a picture of this organism. One way of widening this technologically oriented approach in the facilities management field is to use new and novel approaches to study the physical premises from less technical aspects, as is done in this research.