2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.4 L ITERATURE REVIEW ABOUT THE DIMENSIONS OF CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
This chapter introduces the findings of the literature review on the dimensions of service quality, product quality and relationship quality. The details of the review were introduced in section 2.1. The literature review reveals that the three sets of quality dimensions have been studied a lot separately, but not together. The aim of this chapter is to answer research question 2: “According to the framework, what dimensions do customers use when they assess their customer experiences?”
All the elements of the customer experience – service, product and relationship – are dimensional in nature. The literature suggests some generic dimensions for each element (Garvin 1984; Parasuraman & al. 1985; 1988; Morgan & Hunt 1994). These are introduced next. From the literature review in the field of facilities management it was possible to find
dimensions related to one element, namely the product element. These branch specific dimensions are also introduced in this section.
Service quality dimensions
First, from service quality point of view, the initial service quality model suggested by Parasuraman and his co-authors (1985; 1988; 1990) included service quality dimensions that are used in the service quality assessment. Initially they suggested eight generic dimensions but later added two dimensions. The ten generic dimensions suggested were:
1) Tangibles: Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication material.
2) Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
3) Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
4) Competence: Possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service.
5) Courtesy: Politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of the contact personnel.
6) Credibility: Trustworthiness, believability and honesty of the service provider.
7) Security: Freedom from danger, risk or doubt.
8) Access: Approachability and ease of contact.
9) Communication: Keeping customers informed in a language they can understand and listening to them.
10) Understanding the customer: Making the effort to know customers and their needs (Parasuraman & al. 1990).
These dimensions are used as a starting point in most of the later research, and thus they are utilized also in this research. Some of the research suggests that the dimensions introduced by Parasuraman and his co-authors (1985;1988) are correct and generic (Knutson & al. 1990; Frost & Kumar 2001), whereas other studies suggest that there are more or less service quality dimensions than was suggested initially (see, for example, Kettinger & Lee 1994; Carman 1990; Saleh & Ryan 1992).
It would seem that the service quality dimensions are not so generic and independent of the branch as initially suggested (see, for example, Aigbedo & Parameswaran 2004).
Further, Llosa and his co-authors (1998) tested empirically how the customers understand the dimensions, and they found that customers were not able to distinguish the dimensions from each other.
As the generic dimensions suggested by Parasuraman and his co-authors (1990) are most widely used and they cover well the dimensions suggested by other authors, their dimensions are used in the theoretical framework of this study. These dimensions are added to the model of customer experience in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Service dimensions related to the model of customer experience.
Relationship quality dimensions
In the relationship context, the literature also introduces dimensions that are supposed to be generic (Kumar & al. 1995; Thurau & Klee 1997; Dorsch & al. 1998; Henning-Thurau 2000; Lang & Colgate 2003). In service quality context, the dimensions by Parasuraman and his co-authors (1990) are widely used and acknowledged, but in relationship quality context different authors use different sets of dimensions and it is impossible to find one set of dimensions that are widely agreed on. Thus, in the following the most commonly used dimensions are presented and a combination of these is used in the empirical part of this study to understand the customer experience in a landlord-tenant relationship. The discussion is based on an article by Rasila (2010).
First, it can be argued that there exists quite wide-ranging agreement on two attributes affecting relationship quality, namely trust and commitment (Morgan & Hunt 1994; Kumar
& al. 1995; Henning-Thurau & Klee 1997; Dorsch & al. 1998; Henning-Thurau 2000; Lang
& Colgate 2003).
Trust. According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust builds up in a situation where one party has trust in the other party’s reliability and integrity. Moorman and his co-authors offered an almost identical definition in 1992. Later studies tend to follow the path laid by these authors. (e.g., Dorsch & al. 1998; Henning-Thurau & Klee 1997; Shamdashani &
Balakrishnan 2000.) Trust has been divided into two parts (Ganesan 1994; Roberts & al.
2003). Namely, on one hand there is the trust in the other partner’s honesty (Anderson &
Weitz 1989; Anderson & Narus 1990; Crosby & al. 1990; Moorman & al. 1992;1993;
Morgan & Hunt 1994; Kumar & al. 1995; Ramsey & Sohi 1997) and on the other hand in the other partner’s good will (Rempel & al. 1985; Anderson & Narus 1990; Crosby & al.
1990; Gansan 1994; Kumar & al. 1995).
Commitment. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggested that a party in a business relationship is committed to the other party when that party considers the relationship with the other party to be so valuable that it is willing to do whatever is needed to sustain that relationship.
Again, later contributors have used their definition. (see also Moorman & al. 1992;1993;
Geyskens & Steenkamp 1995.) Commitment may be affective or calculative in nature (Kumar & al. 1995). In calculative commitment, the partners stay in the relationship because the relationship is beneficial to the parties and because breaking up the relationship (and building a new one) would cause some negative consequences (for example, costs). In affective commitment, the relationship is based on good feelings and a willingness to stay in the relationship. (DeRuyter & al. 2001.)
Some studies refer to relational bonds as antecedents affecting relationship quality. There are, for example, technical bonds (Johansson & Mattson 1987) that build up as companies tailor their systems, processes and procedures to maximise effective co-operation with their partners. This leads to a situation where it becomes difficult and costly to break up the relationship (Woo & Ennew 2004a&b). In addition to technical bonds, the terms
“functional linkages” (Cannon & Perreault 1999) and “operational integration”
(Robicheuaux & Coleman 1994) are used. In addition to technical bonds there are contractual bonds. These refer to a situation where there is a contractual arrangement between the parties that ties them together for some defined period of time (Cannon &
Perreault 1999). Beyond that, there are social bonds that link individuals together willingly or unwillingly (Lang & Colgate 2003; Adelman & Ahuvia 1995). For example, a strong tie of friendship may keep a business relationship alive even to the extent that the business relationship would not exist without the friendship.
Morgan and Hunt stated that opportunism (1994) is a negative antecedent of trust. In the relationship quality literature this is stated into a positive way in that the absence of opportunism is one attribute leading to high relationship quality. (Dwyer & Oh 1987; see also. Dorsch & al. 1998; Johnson 1999.) The absence of opportunism as an antecedent of relationship quality is not an unproblematic construct in relationship quality literature as empirical research has not been able to affirm the importance of the construct (Dorsch &
al. 1998).
Dorsch and his co-authors (1998) conducted impressing work on relationship quality antecedents, but their work on opportunism is a little twisted. On the one hand, they see it as a first-order construct affecting relationship quality. On the other, they see it as one of five elements linked to another first-order antecedent – namely ethical profile (see below).
As the results of research on the importance of opportunism on relationship quality are quite mixed, it could be useful to see the construct in the latter way – as part of an ethical profile. In relationship quality literature the term is typically defined as “self-interest seeking with guile” (Williamson 1975).
The ethical profile outlines the company’s leading ethical values as perceived by the customer. These values tell a great deal about the way the company and its personnel handle customers. (see, for example, Kelley & al. 1989; Robin & Reidenbach 1987;
Palmer & Bejou 1994; Bejou & al. 1996.) The focus of studies on this antecedent of relationship quality has been on business-to-customer personal relations (e.g., Palmer &
Bejou 1994; Bejou & al. 1996) and to a lesser extent on business-to-business environments (e.g., Dorsch & al. 1998).
Dorsch et al. (1998) operationalise the construct through five dimensions (these dimensions were presented initially by Victor and Cullen (1987):
1) Caring – concern about other people’s wellbeing.
2) Law and codes – concern that the laws and codes are followed.
3) Rules – concern about the company’s internal rules and procedures.
4) Independence – individual’s concern about his / her own will.
5) Opportunism – whether the organizational level conduct is to thrive for personal benefit at the cost of others.
Many researchers agree that customer satisfaction is an important factor affecting relationship quality (Dorsch & al. 1998; Shamdashani & Balakrisnan 2000; Henning &
Thurau 2000; Lang & Colgate 2003). But there is also a strong common understanding
that customer perceived quality precedes customer satisfaction (Rasila 2009). As such, customer satisfaction may not be an antecedent of quality. Vice versa, the quality perception affects how satisfied a person is. Thus in this context, customer satisfaction is not seen as an antecedent of relationship quality.
The literature suggests that the sharing of information and working communication patterns increase the quality of the relationship (Jap & al. 1999; Anderson & Weitz 1989;
Anderson & Narus 1990). Morgan and Hunt stated that communication affects relationship quality indirectly through trust (see also Anderson & Narus 1990; Anderson & Weitz 1989), but for example Cannon and Perreault (1999) considered it as a factor contributing straight to relationship quality. Usually, these two have been operationalised as one factor, but at least in one study they were considered as two separate constructs affecting relationship quality. (Lages & al. 2005.) According to Cannon and Perreault (1999), the sharing of information must be voluntary and beneficial for all participants. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest further that it is crucial that the information is relevant and well-timed. It does not matter whether the exchange of information is formal or informal (See also Jap & al. 1999;
Anderson & Weitz 1989; Anderson & Narus 1990).
Conflict is a multi-dimensional construct that is built up from latent conflict, experienced conflict, affective conflict, manifest conflict and conflict aftermath (Brown & al. 1991). In relationship quality literature, the interest has been on affective conflicts, which may be defined as hostility, frustration and anger towards the other party, (Kaufman & Stern 1988) and on manifest conflict, in which affective conflict turns into action. A small amount of conflict and the ability to solve conflicts affects relationship quality perceptions greatly.
(Anderson & Narus 1990; Brown & al. 1991; Frazier & al. 1989; Kauffman & Stern 1988, Jap & al. 1999; Kumar & al. 1995.)
The previous relationship quality factors are the ones most commonly used in the literature, but there are several factors that are considered less frequently. These are shortly presented next. Some authors see fairness as a first-order antecedent of relationship quality (Kumar & al. 1995), but mainly it has been seen as a factor affecting trust (Dwyer & al. 1987; Anderson & Weitz 1989). In many studies, the assumption of continuity has been seen as an important factor affecting relationship quality (Ganesan 1994; Heide & Miner 1992; Noordewier & al. 1990; Jap & al. 1999). But again, continuity may be seen as a factor affecting commitment and not as a first-order antecedent per se.
Shared understanding of needs and common goals has been brought up by Anderson and Weitz (1989), Anderson and Narus (1990), and Cannon and Perreault (1999). They argue
that achieving common goals enhances the relationship quality (Anderson & Narus 1990;
Naude & Buttle 2000; Woo & Ennew 2004a&b) and so does the willingness to invest in the relationship. (Ganesan 2001).
It has also been suggested that previous experiences affect relationship quality perceptions (Ganesan 2001). This is naturally true, but it may also be argued that the relationship quality perception is a sum of all the experiences with the partner (Järvelin 2001). In this respect, it is not necessary to see previous experiences as an individual factor affecting relationship quality.
The customer relationship is typically perceived to be of higher quality when there is a balance of power between the actors. If power is not equally distributed in the relationship, the potential for conflicts grows and co-operation becomes more difficult (Anderson &
Narus 1990; Dwyer & al. 1987). Last but not least, the personal attributes of the individuals in the relationships affect relationship quality. (Jap & al. 1999; Crosby & al. 1990;
Shamdasani & Balakrisnan 2000.) These dimensions are presented in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Relationship dimensions related to the model of customer experience
Product quality dimensions
Finally, the product related dimensions may be discussed. For example, Garvin (1984) suggested universal product quality dimensions that are not drawn from product features but more from the customer experience. He suggested eight generic product quality dimensions: performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality (see Figure 8). Some other authors have suggested similar, but industry-specific dimensions (see, for example, Brucks & al. 2000).
In facilities management literature it is possible to find one research stream – usability studies - which employs dimensions that may be used to assess product quality in the physical surroundings. Usability studies suggest eleven usability dimensions that are of use in workplace environments. These are introduced next.
Figure 8: Generic product dimensions according to Garvin (1984)
Efficiency (Shackel 1991; Nielsen 1993; Hansen 1993; Kaya 2006). Efficiency is the amount of output that an experienced user gains when (s)he has learned to use the product thoroughly. (Nielsen 1993.) In the context of the built environment, efficiency has been studied by Kaya (2006). According to him, efficiency is related to time and economy.
For example, the utility rate is one space related measure of efficiency (Kerosuo 2007).
Flexibility (Shackel 1992; Hansen 1993). Flexibility may be defined in the terms of Schackel (1991) as the product’s flexibility in new use situations and environments.
Important aspects of flexibility in the physical environment are contractual flexibility (Kerosuo 2007), technical flexibility and economic flexibility (article 4).
Learnability (Shackel 1991; Nielsen 1993; Kaya 2006; Lindwell & al. 2003). Nielsen (1993) states that a user should be able to learn to use the product quite fast. This means that learnability refers to the ability to use the product when it is used for the first time. After the initial use, the user should be able to learn to use more advanced features of the product little by little (Nielsen 1993; Heikkilä 2003). Kerosuo (2007) adds the following constructs as parts of learnability: logic of use (Keinonen 1997; Lindwell & al. 2003), ease of use (Keinonen 1998; Lindwell & al. 2003), amount and tolerance of errors (Nielsen 1993, Lindwell & al. 2003; Palmer 2002), layout of information (Keinonen 1998; Lindwell & al.
2003), documentation and manual (Keinonen 1998).
Memorability (Lindwell & al. 2003; Heikkilä 2003). Memorability is closely linked to learnability and may be defined as the ability of the user to use the product after some time has passed between the initial use and the re-use (Nielsen 1993). In practice this means that the user does not have to learn to use the product all over again time after time.
Constructs related to memorability are coherence and continuity (Lindwell & al. 2003).
Amount / tolerance for /prevention of errors (Heikkilä 2003; Nielsen 1993; Lindwell & al.
2003). An error is an incidence that does not lead to a desired end result. Errors may be anywhere between small or insignificant and grand or catastrophic (Heikkilä 2003). When assessing errors from the usability perspective, it is important to understand how the user tolerates errors. This tolerance is typically different for different users and use contexts. If the errors are tolerable, they may not create problems from the usability perspective (cf., e.g., Nielsen 1993).
Accessibility (Hansen 1993; Kaya 2006; Lindwell & al. 2003; Palmer 2002). According to Kaya (2006), accessibility is the ease of getting to certain premises and the ease of moving around in the premises. The main focus is on how the user gets to interact with the product from a certain distance. One important aspect of accessibility is visibility. In assessing physical environments, accessibility builds up from the physical features such as parking, public transportation, pavements etc. Virtual accessibility (for example web pages) is also important. (Lindwell & al. 2003).
Navigation (Kaya 2006; Lindwell & al. 2003; Statsbugg 2005; Palmer 2002). When accessibility was defined as how you get to the product and place, navigation is the interaction with the product or place. When speaking of the physical environment, this means moving around in the building (see, for example, Rothe 2007). In this respect both physical and virtual signs are of great importance when improving navigation in an environment. (Lindwell & al. 2003).
Functionality (Keinonen 1998; Hansen 1993; Kaya 2006; Lindwell & al. 2003).
Functionality may be defined in line with Keinonen (1998) as the fit of a product to the function it is designed to serve (cf. Rothe 2007). Kerosuo (2007) names the following features as parts of functionality; physical functionality (also Keinonen 1998; Hansen 1993), usability for its purpose (also Keinonen 1998; Hansen 1993; Lindwell & al. 2003), security (also Lindwell & al. 2003), possibility to control the environment (also Lindwell &
al. 2003), capacity, and technical equipment and maintenance. These could be supplemented with economical functionality (cf. Riihimäki & Siekkinen 2003).
Atmosphere (Lindwell & al. 2003). According to Kuutti (2003), atmosphere from the usability perspective is made up from to the sensual experiences that arise in a certain environment. These are related to smelling, hearing, feeling and seeing. Things that affect the atmosphere in a built environment include air conditioning, lightening, indoor climate, acoustics, aesthetics and sound environment.
Visual design (Hansen 1993; Kaya 2006). From the usability perspective, important aspects of visual design in a built environment are identity, first impression, image and brand (Hansen 1993). Contrary to Hansen (1993), Kerosuo (2007) does not include brand and image as parts of visual design. Instead she sees them as factors affecting the atmosphere.
Interaction and feedback (Nielsen 1993; Kaya 2006; Lindwell & al. 2003; Palmer 2002). In a built environment, interaction and feedback are related to the information delivered to and by the user and the feedback system
Satisfaction (Nielsen 1993). Nielsen (1993) names satisfaction as an individual usability attribute. This view is countered by Kerosuo (2007), as she sees satisfaction rather as an outcome of good usability than as a factor affecting the usability perception. A somewhat similar conclusion was drawn by Rasila and Nenonen (2007).
Figure 9: Product dimensions related to the model of customer experience in M context.