Natalija Lepkova STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH · PDF file2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16 STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ... 3 factors that affect satisfaction

N. Lepkova, G. Žūkaitė-JefimovieNė

STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN LITHUANIA

KEY WORDS

• Customer satisfaction,• Facilities management services,• FM service provider.

ABSTRACT

The article introduces the concept and content of facilities management (FM) services. The paper presents the concept of customer satisfaction and discusses the key factors which influence the opinions of customers and their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the services provided. The article presents two studies: a brief survey of several FM service providers and a survey of customer satisfaction with FM services in Lithuania. The conclusions are given at the end of the article.

Natalija Lepkovaemail:[email protected]

Research field: facilities management, quality managementsystems,distanceeducation

Address:DepartmentofConstructionEconomicsandPropertyManagementVilniusGediminasTechnicalUniversity,Sauletekioave.11,LT–10223Vilnius,Lithuania

Giedrė Žūkaitė-Jefimovienė email:[email protected]

Researchfield:facilitiesmanagement

Address:Bitininkug.2218,Vilnius,Lithuania

Vol. XX, 2012, No. 4, 1 – 16

INTRODUCTION

Being customer focused nowadays has to be accepted as abarenecessity to conduct business. Globalisation and valuedrivenbusiness imperatives would therefore mean that mistakes are notgoingtobetolerated;substandardproductsandserviceswillensurethat the weak are not going to continue competing; and fragilepractices and poorly defined andmanaged processes will not getaccepted.Apartfromanythingelse,truecompetitiveadvantagewillonly be established through excellence in customer value and theensuingrelentlesscareandattentionprovided(Zairi,2000).Customer satisfaction (CS) is avery often misused and abusedexpression.Manyorganisationsuseitcasuallyinordertostatethattheir customers are happy and satisfiedwith the levels of servicerenderedandtheproductsandservicespurchased,buttheyactuallyhave never tried tomeasure that satisfaction (Zairi, 2000). But ifacompany takes itscustomersseriously, it shouldnotbehave likethis because the results of customer satisfaction measurementsprovidesignificant informationformodernmanagementprocessesand awarning signal about future business results. This enablesanunderstandingofhowcustomersperceive theorganisation, i.e.,

whetheritsperformancemeetstheirexpectations,identifiesprioritiesfor improvement,benchmarks theperformanceof theorganisationagainstotherorganisationsandincreasesprofits throughimprovedcustomer loyalty. Through the process of creating acustomersupplier chain at all levels, abetter focus can be achieved andultimatelyalltheworkcarriedoutwillbeofvalue.Thiscustomersupplier communication will help to ensure quality and thus thecustomer’ssatisfaction(Fečikova,2004;Zairi,2000).Thisarticleaimstodefinetheconceptofcustomersatisfactionanddiscusswaystodeterminethelevelofsatisfaction,describethemainfactorsaffectingsatisfaction(ordissatisfaction),andsurveycustomersatisfactionwiththefacilitiesmanagementservicesinLithuania.

1. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

1.1 Facilities management services

FM is arelatively new discipline. It has developed around 1978,when theHermanMillerCorporation, theworld’sleading furnituremanufacturer, staged aconference on “Facilities Impact on

2012 SLOVAK UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 1

2 STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ...

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

Productivity”(facilities areunderstoodasplots,buildings,mechanisms,equipment, technical supporting devices and infrastructure). ThismightbeseenasthebeginningofFM.InNorthernEuropethefieldoffacilitiesmanagementhasevolvedasanewprofessionandacademicsubjectoverthelast1520years;thegrowthofthissectorrepresentstheincreasedawarenessofimportanceofthephysicalsurroundingsfor the development of organisations (Yusoff, 2008; Lepkova,Vilutiene,2008;Pitt,Tucker,2008).As adiscipline FM emerged out of practice, just as the greatestablished professions did. It emerged with the integration ofthree main strands of activity: property management, propertyoperationsandmaintenanceandofficeadministration(Pitt,Tucker,2008).According to acommon definition, FM is the “integratedmanagement of theworkplace to enhance the performance of theorganization” (Mudrak, et al., 2004). More specifically, FM canbe defined as themanagement of premises and services requiredtoaccommodateandsupportthecorebusinessactivitiesofaclientorganization, while constantly adding value to the stakeholders(Mudrak,etal.,2004).FMisthereforeakeyfunctioninmanagingfacilityresources,supportservicesandtheworkingenvironmenttosupport the core business of an organisation in both the long andshorttermor,astheInternationalFacilityManagementAssociation(IFMA) says, FM is “aprofession that encompasses multipledisciplines to ensure functionality of the built environment byintegrating people, place, process and technology” (InternationalFacilityManagementAssociation, 2011). In other words it is thepractise of coordinating the physical workplace with the peopleandworkofanorganisation:itintegratestheprinciplesofbusinessadministration, architecture, behaviour and engineering science(Pitt,Tucker,2008).Facilitymaintenanceisoftenseenasanannoyanceorasa“necessaryevil.”Thisispartiallyduetotheassumptionthatfacilitymaintenancegenerates costs but does not give much in return. What is notunderstood is that highquality maintenance has many positive,mostly indirect, effects on the business performance of all thepartiesinvolved:buildingowners,userorganizationsandcompaniesprovidingfacilitymaintenanceservices(Rasila,Gelsberg,2007).

1.2 Generic and specific issues in FM practice

ItiscommonlyagreedthattheprimaryfunctionofFMistohandleandmanagesupportservicestomeettheneedsofanorganisation,itscoreoperationsandemployees(Chotipanich,2004).FM began with the integration of three core practices, but itsfunctionsandrolessubsequentlybroadened.Ithasembracedawiderrange of services beyong building operations and maintenance.FM encompasses workplace, facility, support services, property,corporaterealestate,andinfrastructure(Chotipanich,2004):

• Realestateandpropertymanagement (e.g., leasing,subletting,spacerenting,retail);

• Facility project management (e.g., relocation, new buildings,extensions,demolition);

• Maintenanceandrepairs(e.g.,facilityrefurbishment,maintenance,landscapemanagement,cleaning);

• Buildingservicesandoperations(e.g.,energydistribution,healthandsafety,wastedisposal,pestcontrol);

• Office services (e.g., telephones, post and mail distribution,storage,businesshospitality,publicrelations,carfleetcontrol);

• Planningandprogramming(e.g.,resourceplanning,developmentplanning,workprogramming);

• Space planning and management (e.g., space planning,configurationandallocation,spaceuseaudit,facilityplanning);

• Operations administration, management (e.g., budget andcost control, contract control and negotiation, office furnitureprovision);

• Employee supports and services (e.g., child nursery provision,restrooms,recreation,catering,communityaffairs).

Lithuanian sources take anarrower perspective of facilitiesmanagement – they regard FM as an integrated complex createdto minimise the time and costs of handling issues related tobuildingsandgroundsandtoprolongtheperiodofthecomfortableexploitationofabuilding’sstructuresandengineeringsystems.FMis understood and analysed as the integer of four elements (spacemanagement, administrative management, technical managementand themanagementofotherservices) (Lepkova,Vilutiene,2008;Zavadskas,etal.,2002).

2. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Companieswinorlosebasedonwhatpercentageoftheircustomerstheycankeep.Successis largelyabouttheretentionofcustomers,whichagaindependsontheCSlevel.Itwouldbeagreathelptobeabletocomprehensivelymeasurethequalityofproductsandservicesby relating the measures of quality to real customer behaviour.SomecompaniesgetfeedbackaboutCSthroughthepercentageofcomplaintsandsomethroughnonsystematicsurveys,butsomedonotmeasureCSatall,because“thesystemwouldnotaddanythingusefulandisverytimeconsuming”(Chotipanich,2004).Customersatisfactionmeasurement(CSM)hasbecomeoneof thecommonestprescriptionstomanagersandorganizationsandcomesfrom awide variety of sources.These prescriptions centre on thenotion that since customer satisfaction is akey issue in marketperformance,thenitfollowsthatitshouldbemeasuredandusedbymanagementindecisionmaking(Piercy,1996).Besides,customersatisfaction measurements enable the establishment of the key

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

3STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ...

factorsthataffectsatisfactionordissatisfactionwithservices.Oncetheyaredefined,onecanmakeappropriateeffortstoeliminatethenegativefactors.Inotherwords,anorganizationcanthenmanageitsresourcesmoreefficiently.Most markets are very competitive, and in order to survive,organisations need to produce products and services of averygoodqualitythatyieldhighlysatisfiedandloyalcustomers.Manypractitionersandresearchershaveinvestigatedarangeofdifferentcustomer attitudes that influence both intentions and behavioursrelate to loyalty. Customer attitudes have included customersatisfaction, customer value, price perceptions, the quality of therelationship and service quality.Many studies have found stronglinks between customer attitudes and customer loyalty behaviour.For example, it has commonly been found that higher levels ofcustomersatisfactionleadtohigherlevelsofbehaviouralintentions,which in turn lead to stronger customer loyalty behaviour,whichcan be measured through repeat purchases, increased share ofwallet, positive word of mouth recommendations, and reducedcustomer acquisition cost. In fact, customer satisfaction has beenempiricallyshowntobethepredominantattitudinalmetricusedtodetect andmanagecustomers’ likelihoodsof stayingordefecting.Inotherwords,thereisaveryclearandstrongrelationshipbetweenthe quality of aproduct, customer satisfaction and profitability(Figure1)(Fečikova,2004;Williams,etal.,2011).

Since the quality of services is one of the central factors toinfluencecustomersatisfaction,wehavetopaymoreattentionfordetermination and evaluation methods of customer satisfaction.Even thoughquality is thekey indicator, therearemoreelements(e.g., “word of mouth”, emotions or the communication styleadopted by aservice provider) that affect acustomer’sattitudetowardsaserviceandaserviceorganization.

2.1 Factors influencing customer satisfaction

Both the quality of services and customer satisfaction havemany definitions: quality is often understood as an attitude,while acustomer’sevaluation of aservice and his satisfaction isconsideredtobethemeasureofatransaction.Eitherway,qualityisthemainconstructformingsatisfactionandmakingthebackgroundof customer’sperceived value; therefore, it is useful to take anindepthlookatthenatureofquality.

2.1.1 Service qualityIn the growing service sector there is still the most problematicchallengeofhowtodealwithservicequality.Qualityisoneofthemostexpectedaspectsbycustomersofalmostallserviceproducts(Urban,2009).Beforequalitycanbemanaged itmustbedefined(Rondeau,etal.,2006).Coming up with aprecise definition of the quality of services iscomplicatedbecausequalitycanbeunderstoodandevaluatedbothobjectivelyandsubjectively.Qualityisobjectivewhenitisrelatedto external tangible features which can be measured factually.Subjectivequalityisratedwhenacustomer’simagination,personalexperiences, emotions, expectations and attitudes are taken intoaccount (Bagdoniene, Hopeniene, 2004; Langviniene, Vengriene,2005).Themostcommonreasonfordissatisfactionisthedifferencebetween an objective and the subjective evaluation of quality(Bagdoniene,Hopeniene,2004).

2.1.2 Quality dimensions of FM services Facilitiesmanagementisgearedtowardsprovidingaservice,hence,its contribution to an organizationmay be difficult to identify inconcrete terms; there is no end product that can be held up andshown up to the customer. The implications of this intangibilitycanbe far reaching, especially in termsof the client’sassessmentof the facilities department’sperformance. The assessment offacilitiesservicesislikelytorevolvearoundtheclient’sperceptionoftheservicereceivedcomparedwiththeclient’sexpectationoftheservice.Thusthefacilitiesgroupcanmakeeffortsintwodistinctlydifferent areas – namely,managing the client’sinitial expectationand managing the client’sperception of the service rendered asshowninFigure2(Barrett,Baldry,2007).

Whereas service quality is known to be based on multipledimensions, there is no general agreement as to the nature orcontent of the dimensions (Kang, James, 2004). Considerableresearchhasfocusedonidentifyingthedimensionsorcomponentsof service quality, i.e., those aspects that consumers evaluate toform overall judgements about aservice. However, areview ofvariousservicequalitystudiesshows thatEuropeanscholarshavedefined service quality in terms of physical quality, interactivequality and corporate (image) quality. Physical quality relates tothe tangible aspects of aservice. Interactive quality involves the

Fig. 1 Dependence between quality, satisfaction and profitability (Fečikova, 2004).

Fig. 2 Expectation-perception gap (Barrett, Baldry, 2007).


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

interactive nature of services and refers to the twoway flow thatoccurs between the customer and the service provider and/or hisrepresentative. Corporate quality refers to the image attributed toaserviceproviderbyitscurrentandpotentialcustomers,aswellasotherpublics(Kang,James,2004).Althoughthisdistributionisstilldiscussedalot,empiricalargumentsshowthattherearetwoservicequality dimensions (Barrett, Baldry, 2007; Kang, James, 2004;Langviniene,Vengriene,2005):1.Technical (external) quality is what the customer gains duringthe service’sdelivery process. Technical quality is concernedwith “what” is done and includeshowwell theproblemsweresolvedandthesystemsandtechniquesused.Thisistheareathatfacilitiesmanagerswouldnormallybemostlyconcernedwith.

2.Functional (process) quality is the service delivery method.The functional factors revolve around “how” the service wasrendered.Thisincludesitemssuchastheappearanceofthestaff,theirattitudetowardsclientsandhowaccessibleandresponsivethefacilitiesdepartmentwastotheclient(Barrett,Baldry,2007).

There is agrowing body of research which indicates that whenclients judge the quality of aservice, they give unexpectedlyhigh weight to the functional factors as well as the technicalfactors. Acustomer’sopinion about the quality is formed bythe service’sdelivery method, the supplier’sbehaviour and otheraspects which influence the way the service achieves its goal. Itis worth mentioning that positive and negative influence can bemade by other customers using the same or similar services. Forsomeservicesthe“what”(ortechnicalquality)mightbedifficulttoevaluate.Lackinganabilitytoassesstechnicalquality,consumersrely on other measures of quality attributes associated with theprocess (the “how”) of, for example, health care delivery. It isthereforeimportantforfacilitymanagerstothinkthroughhowtheydealwiththecorebusinessasanimportant,andquiteseparate,issuefrom what they do to solve the technical problems that they arefacedwith(Barrett,Baldry,2007;Kang,James,2004;Langviniene,Vengriene,2005).FMisoftentimedsothatcustomerorganizationemployeeshardlyevermeetthemaintenancestaff.Inthissituation,theendusersarejust barely or not at all aware of the service processes. The endusersbecomeactiveactorsonlywhenaservice failureoccurs.Atthatpoint theenduserbecomesactivein theserviceprocess.Theenduserwantstoinitiatearecoveryprocess.Whenaservicefailureoccurs,theliteratureusestheterm“servicerecovery”toindicatetheserviceprocess.The termcanbedeterminedas follows: “Servicerecoveryreferstotheactionsaserviceprovidertakesinresponsetoservicefailure”.Theuser isactuallyevaluatingaservicerecoveryprocessinsteadoftheregularservice.Thus,functionalqualitydoesnot build up from “normal” service encounters but from servicefailure recovery processes.Referring to this,we speak of service

recoveryquality(functionalquality)(Rasila,Gelsberg,2007).It is important to distinguish between recovery processes and“normal” service processes, as it seems that acustomer perceivesthese two processes differently. Usually, when service recoveryis taking place, there is some inconvenience, and if the servicerecoverydoesnottakeplacequickly,effectivelyandinasensitivemanner,thecustomer’s(enduser)reactionsareboundtobestrongerthaninanormalservicesituation.Ontheotherhand,ifarecoveryprocess is carried outwell, the customermaybecome evenmoreloyal and satisfied than in a“normal” service process, and thecustomer relationship may become stronger (Rasila, Gelsberg,2007).Mostmaintenance activities are conducted outside the end users’perception.And even if they are aware of the service processes,theymaynothavetheskillsandknowledgetoassessthetechnicalquality.Theessencehereisthattheendusersarenotactiveplayersintheserviceprocessandcannotevaluatetheprocessasanentity.Nonetheless, they may have clues as to what is happening: theymay see service personnel performing their duties or they maynoticethatsomethinghasbeendone.Theyperceivesomecluesofeithertechnicalqualityorfunctionalqualityandmakejudgementsbasedonthese.Werefertothesecluesbyusingtheterm“observedmaintenancequality”(technicalquality)(Rasila,Gelsberg,2007).Itmaybeconcluded thatperceivedFMqualityof theenduser iscomposedof twodimensions–observedmaintenancequalityandservicerecoveryqualityandthatbothofthemneedtobeevaluatedwhen talking about an end user’sdegree of satisfaction (Rasila,Gelsberg,2007).Acustomer’sperception of functional and technical quality isshowninFigure3.Two of the mentioned quality aspects – what is delivered andhow it isdelivered–are thequalitydimensionswhichacustomerexperiences. Onemore factor needs to be added to the perceivedqualityofservices–thecustomer’sexpectationsofaservice.Ifthe

Fig. 3 Technical and functional quality (Barrett, Baldry, 2007).

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16


expectations of acustomer are unrealistic, the perceived corporatequalitywillbeconsideredloweventhoughitsobjectiveevaluationproves it to be sufficient (Langviniene, Vengriene, 2005). Theclient’sexpectationofanyservicewillbeconditionedtoagreatextentbyhispastexperiencebutalsobytheinitialmessageconcerningtheservice.Thus,thefacilitymanagershouldbecarefulnottooverstatewhatthefacilitiesdepartmentiscapableofdelivering.Ifthisoccurs,itisobviousthattheclientisunlikelytobesatisfiedwiththeserviceprovided.Howeverit isimportanttoportrayapositive,ratherthananegative,image(Barrett,Baldry,2007).Theexpectedqualityisformedasafunctionofafewfactors:itisinfluenced by marketing communication (promotional and salescampaigns),verbalcommunication(betweenclientsandemployeesdirectly,clienttoclient),futureimage(formedwhileacustomerisinteractingwithafirm)andcustomerneeds(theproblemsaclientexpects to resolve using this service). Customer expectations caneven be influenced by demographics (Bagdoniene, Hopeniene,2004;Langviniene,Vengriene,2005).

2.1.3 Communication style and emotionsThenatureofcustomerserviceemployeeinteractionsconstitutestheheartofthecustomers’evaluationoftheserviceexperience;thus,theservice provider’srole in shaping acustomer’ssatisfaction cannotbe overlooked.Aservice employee’sor provider’scommunicationstyle is likely to affect the quality of the service encounter byinfluencing the customer’simpression of the provider and theservicefirm.Toenhanceservicedelivery,employeesaresupposedto be approachable, warm, friendly, and helpful and displayapositive attitude. Customers “catch” the displayed emotions ofemployees.Thisprocessisknownas“emotionalcontagion.”Mostofthevalidationofemotionalcontagiontheoryhasfocusedonthetransferenceofpositiveattitudessuchassmilingandfriendliness–thosewithhighjobsatisfactionhavepositivemoodsandemotionsat work. These positive attitudes will spill over to customers.Similarly, negative attitudes are equally transferable (William,setal.,2011b;Webster,Sundaram,2009).There is agrowing body of literature that suggests that positiveand negative emotions associated with aservice encounter playan important role in defining satisfaction and predicting futurebehavioural intentions. It is now widely accepted that customersatisfaction levels and longerterm behavioural intentions areinfluencedbyemotionsduringthepre,actualandpostconsumptionstages of aservice encounter. It has also been suggested thatconsumers’ emotional bonding with aservice provider is morestrongly linked to their future purchase intentions than the morecognitivecomponentofthesatisfactionconstruct.Thesatisfactionconstruct cannot be fully understood or explained withoutaccountingforaffect in the formofconsumeremotion.Perceived

servicequalityandsatisfactionaredistinctconcepts,andperceivedservice quality precedes satisfaction, which is closely related tothe customer’sbehavioural responses.While the debate continuesregarding the precise nature of any relationship between emotionand satisfaction, it is nowwidely accepted that emotionsmay beoneofthecorecomponentsoftheconsumersatisfactionconstruct;therefore,anymeasurementofsatisfactionshouldpayattentiontotheemotionalaspectaswell(Martin,etal.,2008).

2.2 Customer satisfaction measurement

Customersatisfactionisthekeyfactordetermininghowsuccessfulan organisation will be in customer relationships; therefore, it isveryimportanttomeasureit(Fečikova,2004).Itisalsoimportanttonotethat(Zairi,2000):• satisfied customers are more likely to share their experienceswithotherpeople,evenuptofiveorsixpeople.Inthesamevein,dissatisfiedcustomersaremorelikelytotelltenotherpeopleoftheirunfortunateexperience.

• Furthermore,itisimportanttorealisethatmanycustomersdonotcomplain,andthiswilldifferfromoneindustrysectortoanother.

• Lastly,ifpeoplebelievethatdealingwithcustomersatisfaction/complaintsiscostly,theyneedtorealisethatitcostsasmuchas25percentmoretorecruitnewcustomers.

Satisfied customers are more likely to return to those who havehelped them, and dissatisfied customers are more likely to goelsewhere next time. The key to organisational survival is theretentionofsatisfiedcustomers.Loyaltyofcustomersisafunctionof satisfaction, and loyal customers spendmore on your productsandservices,encourageotherstobuyfromyouandbelievethatwhattheybuyfromyouisworthwhattheypayforit(Fečikova,2004).

2.2.1 Satisfaction measurement approachIf companies want to achieve customer satisfaction, they mustmeasureit,because“youcannotmanagewhatyoucannotmeasure”(Fečikova,2004).Acustomersatisfactionsurveyisausefulperformancemeasurementformatthatshouldhelpanorganizationanditsstafftounderstandacustomer’sviewpoint of afirm’sperformance on acompletedproject(Rondeau,etal.,2006).Thestartingpointsforeffectivelymeasuringacustomersatisfactionarethefollowingsteps(Fečikova,2004):1.customeridentification;2.understanding what customer satisfaction includes and what itmeans;

3.definingwhatneedstobemeasured;4.choosingthemeasurementmethod.Thesestepswillbediscussedfurther.


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

1.Customers.Customersarethepurposeoforganizationsactivities,instead of their depending on afirm, organizations very muchdepend on them. Accurate information about customers enablescompanies to provide products or services which match theirneeds.There are two kinds of customers for processeswithin anorganisation: external and internal. External customers are thecustomers in amarketplace, whereas internal customers are thecustomerswithinthecorporation,theemployeesofthecorporation.Thesatisfactionofinternalcustomers(below,theterm“employee”is used) and external customers is seen as acauseandeffectrelationship. Employee satisfaction is the source of excellentquality,becauseiftheorganisationsatisfiestheneedsofitsinternalcustomers, it is also enabling its internal customers to performtheirtasks,andthenetworkoforganisationalunitsaremoreadeptat working effectively together to achieve customer satisfaction.Problemswithemployeesatisfaction(turnoverofemployees,etc.)lead toproblemswith customer satisfaction (Figure4) (Fečikova,2004;Zairi,2000).

Firmscanapplytheiremployeemanagementpracticetocustomers.Theycanenhancetheclarityofcustomer’srole(customersknowingwhat isexpectedof them),motivation(beingmotivatedtoengageindesiredbehaviours), andability (to fulfil their responsibilities).Managersshouldcarefullyselect,trainandsocializecustomers,justthesameasthefirmwoulddowithrespecttoitsemployees.Managersshouldalsoprovidecustomerswithempowermentandresourcestoserve employees or other customers successfully. Furthermore,firms need to develop and establish effective mechanisms forcontrolling customer behaviours. Communication with customers

might be helpful in this respect. Indeed, effective communicationbetween customers and employees can yield successful customerbehaviourmanagement,becausemanagerscanrecognizecustomerneedsandexpectationsbetter(Yietal,2011).2.Satisfaction.Organisationshavetoknowhowsatisfiedcustomersfeel.Theword“satisfaction” iscentral tomanydefinitionsand inamarketingcontextithasmanymeanings(Fečikova,2004):• satisfactionismerelytheresultof“thingsnotgoingwrong”;• satisfyingtheneedsanddesiresoftheconsumer;• satisfactionaspleasure;• satisfactionasdelight;• customerevaluationsofthequalityofgoodsandservices.Themostcommoninterpretationsreflectthenotionthatsatisfactionis afeeling which results from aprocess of evaluating what wasreceivedagainst that expected, thepurchasedecision itself and/orthefulfilmentofneeds/want.Theperceptionof theword“satisfaction” influences theactivitieswhichweconducttoachieveit.3. Things to measure. Many organisations identify the level ofcustomersatisfactionthrough:• thenumberofproductsupportproblemcalls;• thenumberofdirectcomplaintsbyphone,email,etc.;• thenumberofreturnedproductsandthereasonfortheirreturn,etc.

Thisisameasurementofcustomerdissatisfaction(nosatisfaction)and offers apossibility for the elimination of mistakes, notapossibilityforproductdevelopmentandproductinnovation.Organisationscancollectandanalyzeappropriatedata,whichwillproviderelevantinformationrelatingtorealcustomersatisfaction.Itisimportanttomeasuretherightthings,i.e.,whatisreallyimportantto customers. There is the possibility of wrong specifications ormisinterpretations of what acustomer actually wants (the gapbetween what companies think customers probably want andwhat customers reallywant).The criteria for themeasurement ofcustomer satisfactionmustbedefinedby thecustomer (Fečikova,2004).4. Method for measurement. Any method that gathers customerfeedback is good, but for effective measurement, appropriatemethodology(descriptionprocessesandmeasurementscales)needstobefound.Thealternativemethodstouseincludequestionnaires(by post, by email), direct interviews, telephone interviews,marketing research, comparisonwith competitors (benchmarking)andsoon.Thevalidityandrelevanceofthedatagatheredthroughthesemethodsalsovaries.The most commonly used method is satisfaction surveys usingpreparedquestionnaires.Usually,inthesequestionnairescustomersaregivensomeservicerelatedquestionsaskingthemtoevaluatetheirsatisfactionusingscalesfrom1to5orfrom1to7.Questionnaires

Fig. 4 The circle of satisfaction (Fečikova, 2004).

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16


lookingintocustomersatisfactionwithFMservicesmightincludequestionsrelatedtoserviceavailability,responsiveness,timeliness,customerpriorities (how likely they are to chooseoneor anotherservice;howlikelytheyaretorecommendthefirmtoothers),staffprofessionalismandservicespecificquestions.Themainproblemsrelatedtothismethodare(Fečikova,2004):• ensuring the questionnairewill be filled in by apersonwho iscompetenttorespond;

• ensuringtheanswersaretruthful;• how to practically conduct professional customer satisfactionand loyaltysurveys thatcanprovidevalidandreliabledata formakingdecisionstoeffectimprovements.

2.3 Impact of customer satisfaction measurements and possible ways to use the results

One source of insight into what happens in companies that do,or do not,measure customer satisfaction comes from exploratoryworkshop discussions with managers. These discussions havebeen held over several years and cannot claim any generalrepresentativeness.However,simplylookingatthethemesemergingfromwhatmanagerssayaboutcustomersatisfactionmeasurement(CSM) raises some very serious concerns about what effects areachieved. The themes emerging from those discussions are asfollows(Piercy,1996):Companies which do not measure customer satisfaction. Manyexecutives explain that their companies do notmeasure customersatisfaction because there are problems in: identifying andcommunicatingwithcustomers,definingwhataspectofsatisfactiontomeasureisproblematic,andcollectingthedatawastoodifficult.Othershavesuggestedalackoftheirbeliefthatmeasuringcustomersatisfaction would add anything useful and might even reducecustomer satisfaction by stimulating customer complaints wherethere were none before. Some have suggested that measuringcustomer satisfactionwas simply “not how things are run in thiscompany.”Companies which trivialize CSM.Manysay that inpracticeCSMbecomesasuperficialandtrivialactivity,whichissignificantonlyatthecustomerservicelevel.TheysuggestthatCSMisnotrelatedtomarketstrategiesandstrategicchangeintheircompanies,butratheris about monitoring customer service operations, and respondingto customer complaints (sometimes quite disproportionately andinappropriatelytoboot).CSM and interdepartmental power struggles. Some executivesdescribeCSMaslittlemorethanaweaponusedinpowerstrugglesbetween functional areas in attempts to “prove” to managementthatotherdepartmentsareresponsibleforlosingmarketshareanddecliningcustomersatisfaction.

The politics of CSM. Others describe CSM as characterized bygamingbehaviourbycompanypersonnelto“beat”thesystemandtoavoidbeing“blamed”forcustomercomplaints.Thisoftenresultsin behaviour not anticipated by management and not supportiveof customer satisfaction policies and marketing strategies. Forexample, sales and distribution personnel give price and serviceconcessions to customers, simply towin “brownie” points in theCSMsystem.Others describeCSMas a“popularity poll” for thesalesforce, where “popularity” is rewarded and “unpopularity” ispenalized.CSM as management control.SomeseetheimplementationofCSMinanegativeway, as acrudecontroldeviceusedbymanagementtopolicethelowerlevelsoftheorganizationandallocate“blame”forcustomercomplaints.OthersdescribeCSMsystemsaswhollynegative and focused on criticism, with no balance of positivefeedbackorpraiseforwhatisgood.Insomecasesthedataareseenonlybymanagement,andonly“conclusions”arecommunicatedtoemployees–ofteninanegativeandcriticalway.OthersseeCSMasacrudeattemptbymanagementtocoerceemployeestochangetheir behaviour in theways desired by customers (or at least thedesiresofthosecustomerswhohavecomplainedmostrecentlyandmostvociferously).The isolation of CSM. Many executives talk about situationswhere CS data are collected and stored but not disseminated inthe organization. For example, in some cases CSM informationis collected by themarketing department but not sharedwith theproductionoreventhequalitydepartments.In short, the barriers to the effectiveness of customer satisfactionmeasurementcomenotonlyfromoperationalandresourceproblemsbut also from managerial and/or political issues and cultural orstructuralbarriers.Anorganizationneedstofindwaystoeliminatethesebarriersbecauseappropriatecustomersatisfactiondatacanbeusedtodesignnewproductsorservices,aswellastoimprovetheexisting processes. Listening to the customer enables an indepthunderstanding of what the customer wants, and using root causeanalysistechniquesenablessolutionstobefoundandimplementedto avoid reoccurrence.Managers can useCSdata in anumber ofdecisionmakingareasasfollows(Piercy,1996;Zairi,2000):• quality/operationsmanagement,which link the use of CS datatomonitorandmanagequality,toguideR&D,andtomanageproduction;

• staff pay andpromotions, linkingpay andpromotiondecisionsforoperationalandmanagementstaff;

• stafftrainingandevaluation,linkingthetrainingandevaluationofbothoperationalandmanagerialstaff;

• strategic management control, linking the developmentof companywide strategy, control of the business, and themanagementofcustomerserviceandmarketingprogrammes.


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

3. SURVEY OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS

3.1. Survey of facilities management companies

As part of the analysis of the barriers to efficient customersatisfaction surveys discussed in Subchapter 2.3, it was decidedto look into the perceptions of Lithuanian facilities managementcompanies about customer satisfaction, CS measurement andcustomer complaints in general. Aquestionnaire was compiled,andasampleoffiveleadingprivateequitycompaniesofferingFMserviceswassurveyed.Thefirsttwoquestionswereaimedatlearningafewfactsaboutthecompanies,suchas thenumberofemployees(Figure5)and theirtenure in the market (Figure 6). The questions also attempted toverifywhetherornotthecompany’ssizeandoperatingexperiencehad any impact on its attitude toward customer satisfaction,complaints,etc.Figure 5 shows that all the selected companies are of asimilarsize: three indicated over 500 employees, one has between 301

and500employees,andonlythelastoneissmaller,withupto20employees.Figure6showsthattwoofthesurveyedcompanieshaveofferedFMservicesforoveradecade;twohavebeeninvolvedinthisindustryfor5to10years,andonestateditworkedinthisbusinessforlessthanfiveyears.Thethirdquestionaimedatdeterminingtheperformancegoalsofthecompanies;theyhadalistoffiveoptions(withspaceavailablefortheirownvariant,thoughnoneusedthisoption)andwereaskedtoassesstheirimportance(Figure7).

The results summarised inFigure 7 show that all five companiesconsidered the quality of services and agood reputation as veryimportant. Four of the surveyed companies were very interestedincostefficiency,whileonesawitasimportant,butnot themaingoal.Therespondentswereofthesameopinionaboutthemaximumsatisfactionofcustomerneeds:fourcompaniesconsidereditaveryimportantgoalandonedeemeditjustimportant.Threecompanieswere very interested in maximum profits, while the other twodeemedthisobjectivetobelessimportantandnotthemaingoal.Then the companies were asked about the number and type ofFig. 5 Size of the surveyed companies (by employees).

Fig. 7 Performance goals of companies.

Fig. 6 Company’s age (years). Fig. 8 Number of managed buildings.

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16


buildingsmanaged(Figures8and9)toverifytheassumptionthatacompany’sload and concentration on the management of onespecifictypeofbuildingaffectthesatisfactionofitscustomers.Figure 8 shows that the majority of companies (4) manage over50buildings,andonlyonemanagesbetween21and30buildings,while the types of buildings cover abroad array (Figure 9).Allthe companies manage some residential buildings; fourmanageadministrativebuildings;threeareinchargeofcultural,educational,tradeand financialmanagement facilities,while twoalsomanagesportsfacilitiesandhotels.Thesixthquestionaimedatfindingouttheopinionofthecompaniesaboutthesatisfactionoftheircustomers.Oneofthecompanieswassureitscustomerswerefullysatisfiedwiththeservicesandfacilitiesmanagement;theotherfourthoughttheircustomersweresatisfied,although occasional complaints did come. None answered “no”(Figure10).Thenextstepwastodeterminewhetherthecompanieswereawareofcustomersatisfactionsurveys(measurement,analyses).Allansweredpositively and, in turn, were asked if they had ever surveyedcustomer satisfactionwith the services rendered.All the surveyed

companiesagainanswered“yes”; therefore, theninthquestionwasaskedtolearnthereasonsthathadpromptedthecompaniestosurveytheopinionsoftheircustomers(thecompanieshadalistofseveraloptionsorcouldwritedowntheirownvariant;Figure11).Figure11showsthatallfivecompanies,astheystated,conductedsurveysofcustomersatisfactiontolearntheircustomers’opinions;theyalsobelieved it tobeagoodtool forassessing thequalityoftheirservicesfromacustomerperspectiveandagoodopportunityfordeterminingtheservicesinneedofimprovementandmeasuringtheperformanceofindividualdivisions/employees.Fourcompanieswerecertainthatsurveysofcustomersatisfactionhelpedtoimprovecustomer satisfaction with services, reinforce customer relationsandsecurecustomerloyalty.Twocompaniesthoughtsuchsurveyshelped to improve their reputation. None admitted that suchcustomersurveyswereonlyamarketingtool.Thecompanieswerealsoaskedtospecifytheircustomerfeedbackmethods(here,thecompaniesalsohadalistofseveralmethodsorcouldspecifytheirown).ThepreferredsurveymethodsareshowninFigure12.

Fig. 9 Types of managed buildings.Fig. 11 Reasons for customer satisfaction surveys.

Figure 10. Do you believe your customers are satisfied with your services?

Fig. 12 Methods used.


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

Threeofthesurveyedcompanieshadbeendistributingquestionnairesto their customers; one had also been surveying its customersby phone. One company had been surveying only by phone andanotherhadbeenaskingitscustomerstosharetheiropinionsduringfacetofacemeetings.All the surveyed companies compiled theirquestionnaires themselvesanddidnotuseothercompanieswhichdosurveysforothers.The eleventh question sought to ascertain the parties involved indiscussing the results of such customer surveys. Two companiesstated that only topmanagers had beenmade aware of the data,while the remaining three asserted the results had been discussedwithalltheemployeesofthecompany(oneofthecompaniesalsohaddiscussedtheinformationcollectedwithitscustomers).Thenextquestionasked thecompanies about theirprovisions forunsatisfied customers to voice their complaints (the companiesmarked several answers, and the frequency distribution is showninFig.13).

Allfiveofthesurveyedcompaniesstatedthattheircustomerscouldsubmit their feedback and requests to arelevant employee; fouraddedthattheircustomerswerealsoheardduringregularmeetings,and customers of two of the companies could also leave theiropinionsonthecompany’swebsite.Thenextquestionattemptedtolearnaboutthespeedoftheresponsetocustomercomplaints.Fourcompaniesstatedthattheyrespondedimmediately upon receipt of acomplaint, and one admitted itsresponsecameonlyafteraverificationastowhetherthecomplaintwaswellfounded.Nocompanystatedthatitignoredallcomplaints.The last question asked the companies to express their opinionsabout their customer complaints (the companies could chooseseveralvariantsfromalistorwriteintheirown;theirchoicesareshowninFig.14).

Four companies stated that the complaints reflected the level ofcustomersatisfactionwiththecompany’sservicesandwereagoodway to assess the quality of their operations and improve them.Three of the surveyed companies thought the complaints helpedthemtogetbetterinsightintotheircustomersandtheirneeds.Noneadmittedtheyhadanegativeattitudetowardcomplainingcustomers.The results of this survey reveal that the opinions of companiesabout customer satisfaction and complaints depend only on theirattitudesandgoals–neitherthesize,theexperienceorthenumberandvarietyof the facilities supervisedare factors that shape theiropinions.Sinceallthecompaniesstatedthattheirreputationandthequalityoftheirserviceswereparamount,onecanconcludethattheyrealise the importance of pleasing their customers to successfullycompeteinthemarketplace.Anotherproofisthefactthatallthatcompanies made attempts to find out their customers’ opinions(through surveys) and were willing to hear their suggestions orreproofs inorder touse themas ameans to assess their activitiesandimprovetheirservices.

3.2 A survey of satisfaction among FM customers

TolearntheopinionsaboutFMservicesinLithuania,aquestionnairewasdistributedto thecustomersofoneFMcompany,but,for thesakeofconfidentiality,neitherthecompanynoritscustomerswillbe disclosed. Nineteen organisations of different sizes and fromdifferentindustriesweresurveyedduringfacetofacemeetingsandbyemail.Theresultswillbediscussedbelow.The first thing to determine was the way customers of the FMcompanyinformthelatteraboutfailures,emergenciesandrequiredservices. The customers have several options: ageneral phonenumber, faxing or emailing, or direct communication with thecompany’scontact person. The frequency distribution of eachmethod is shown in Figure 15 (the respondents were allowed tochooseseveraloptions).

Fig. 13 Do customers have an opportunity to submit complaints?

Fig. 14 The company’s approach to customer complaints.

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16


Themajorityoftherespondentspreferdirectcommunicationwiththe contact person and emails; only three respondents use thegeneralphonenumber,andnoneofthemreportsabouttherequiredservicesorfailuresbyfax.Acompanyrepresentativeworksforoneofthesurveyedorganisations;therepresentativeisresponsibleforthequalityoftheservicesandcurrentoperations.Sincethemajorityofthecustomersmostoftencommunicatewiththecontactpersondirectly,theywereaskedtoassessonafivepointscale(1thelowestortheworstscore,and5thehighestorthebestscore)theirabilitytogetthroughtotheircontactperson.ThescoresareshowninFigure16.TheresultsinFigure16showthatthemajorityofrespondents(13)scored theability to reach theircontactpersonas thebest– thesecustomers stated that their contact person was always available

when needed. Four customers sometimes had trouble reachingthatperson (onholidaysorwhenhe/shewasbusy), andonlyonecustomergave3points.Nonegavethelowestscores(1and2),sotheyarenotinthediagram.The customerswere then asked to assess (on afivepoint scale)the degree of accessibility to information about the services,as well as about the current repairs, the response to accidentsand other work underway in the building. Figure 17 shows thecustomeropinions.Equalportionsofcustomers(sevenineach)gave4and5pointstoinformationaccessibility and fourgave3points; the lowest scores(1and2)weregivenbynone.Somecustomersnoted theyneededat times to make additional inquiries and missed more detaileddescriptions of problems, while one customer desired abetter

Fig. 15 How do you inform the company about the required services (additional services, failures, emergencies)?

Fig. 17 Assess your accessibility to information about the services, as well as about the current repairs, the response to accidents and other work underway in the building.

Fig. 16 Score the ability to get through to your contact person when needed

Fig. 18 Assess the comprehensiveness and clarity of reports about the work completed.


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

adjustmenttoitsneedsbecausethearrivalstothesiteoroperationshappenedwithoutanypriorwarningandarrangement.Thecustomerswere also asked to assess the comprehensiveness and clarity ofreportsabouttheworkcompleted(alsoonafivepointscale;Fig.18).Figure 18 shows that many customers (7) find the informationsufficient,butothershavesomeremarks:fivegave4pointsforthecomprehensivenessofthereports;fourscoredthecomprehensivenesswith3andfourwith2points;thelowestscorewasgivenbynone.The customers commented that they often receive the certificatesof additionalwork done,which simply state the fact but lack anyconclusionsastothecausesoffailures,possiblesolutions,warningsandpostinspectiontips,moredetailedcommentsandexplanations,suggestionsofactionondifferentoccasions,andwaystoimprovethequalityandperformanceofequipment.The fifth question attempted to ascertain whether or not thecustomerswouldliketomeettheircontactpersonmorefrequently(Fig.19).

Themajorityofrespondents(13)weresatisfiedwithmeetingtheircontact person if needed and did not want regular meetings; sixcustomers, however, noted they saw aneed for such meetings.Onecustomer,whoansweredthisquestionwith“no”,alreadyhadregularmeetings.Eachmeetinghadbeenrecorded,thusimprovinghis satisfaction with the quality of the services and operationscompleted,aswellaswiththecooperationwiththecompany.Customerswerealsoasked toassess theserviceculture,expertiseandknowledgeof theemployeesof theFMcompany.Theywereaskedtoscore(onafivepointscale)theadministration,thecontactpersonandthetechnicalstaffseparately.Thescoringoftheserviceculture is shown in Figure 20, while that of the expertise andknowledgeisinFigure21.

Figure 20 shows that the majority of the respondents (11) gavethehighestpointstotheservicecultureoftheadministration;fourcustomers gave 4 points; and three customers did not assess it,claimingtheirrarecommunicationswiththeadministrationbarredthemfromanyassessment(theiropinioninthediagramsisshownas0points).Thelowestpoints(1,2and3)weregivenbynoneofthem.Fifteencustomers scored thecontactperson’sserviceculturewiththemaximumnumberofpoints,threescoredwith4points,andonlyonegave3points;thelowestpointsweregivenbynoneofthem.Thelargestportionof theremarksfromthecustomersweremadeabout the technical staff (some complained about unnecessarycommentsfromworkersorweredissatisfiedwiththeirbehaviour).The overall opinions about the service culture, however, werepositive: eight customers gave 5 points; nine customers gave 4points;onlyonegave3points;andonecustomerdeclinedtoassesson thegrounds ithadhadnopersonalcontactswith the technicalstaff.Twelvecustomersassessedtheadministration’sexpertisepositively:sevenwith5pointsandfivewith4points.Sevencustomersstatedtheycouldnotassesstheexpertisebecauseofraremeetings(theiropinionisshownas0pointsinthediagrams)(Figure21).Elevencustomerswerefullysatisfiedwith theknowledgeof theircontactperson,sevenrespondentsgave4points,andonlyonegave3points.Thelowestscores(1and2)weregivenbynoneofthem(Figure21).

Fig. 19 Would you like to have regular meetings with your contact person (to discuss scheduled and completed work, the results, etc.)?

Fig. 20 Assess the service culture of the employees.

Fig. 21 Assess the expertise and knowledge of the employees.

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16


The scores given concerning the knowledgeof the technical staffvary evenmore: nine customers gave the highest score; six gave4points; twogave3points;onegave2points;andonecustomerdid not assess it. The customer who gave 2 points concerningthe expertise of the technical staff expressed the wish that thestaffwould try to findout the specific requirements applicable tooperationsinitsorganisationbecausetheworkoftenfailedtomeetcertainnormsandneededredoing(Figure21).Thesurveyalsoattemptedtoascertainthecustomeropinionsaboutthequalityofservices(Question8).Alltheservicesofferedbythecompanywere listed, and the customerswere asked to assess onafivepointscalethespecificservicestheyreceive.TheresultsaresummarisedinTable1.

Table 1 shows that the customers are not dissatisfied with theservices rendered: most of then gave the best scores (4 or 5points), with exceptional praise for the microclimate laboratory.Six respondents gave the lowest scores (1 and 2 points) to thePVS, energysaving services and the maintenance of oil and fattrapswithoutgivinganyparticularreasonsforsuchanassessment;thusitisdifficulttounderstandwhethertheservicesareindeedofapoor quality or just at variance with the customer’sneeds andexpectations (this is all the more so when the other respondentsscoredthesameserviceshigher).Whenaskedtonamespecificservices,thequalityofwhichintheiropinionmost needed improving, customers often noted that they

expectedtoseethecompanyasaninitiatorofenergysavingandtogetmoretipsaboutit;theyalsoexpectedgeneralsuggestionsaboutways to improve the weaknesses of their buildings and optimisethe performance of the equipment. Instead of asking for servicesand solutions, the customerswanted the company tobeproactiveandofferthem.Somealsocriticisedtheservicesrenderedthroughsubcontractors–customerswantedtocontrolthembettertoensurethefulfilmentofallthecontractualobligations.As apart of considering customer needs, they were also askedwhether they wanted any new services. Only afew respondentsrepliedpositivelyandnamedveryspecificservices:• maintenanceoflowvoltages;• configuration of the HVAC control and monitoring system,controllersandfrequencytransducers;inspectionandcalibrationoftheHVACsensors;

• maintenanceofthetenants’cars(insurance,repairshops).Intermsoffutureperspectives,eachcompanyneedstoknowwhatto expect from its customers; thus the survey endedwith severalquestionsthatmighthelpthemassessthepossibleactionsoftheircustomersandthefutureofadditionalcooperation.First,theywereaskedtoassessthecooperationwiththecompanyonafivepointscale(Fig.22).

Figure 22 shows that the majority of the customers were fullysatisfied:eightgave5points,ninegave4points;andonlyacouplescored thecooperationwith3points (noneof themscoredwith1and2points; thus theyarenot in thediagram).The lower scoresweregivenfortheaforesaidlackofthecompany’sproactiveness.The customers were then asked whether they were willing torecommendthiscompanytoothers(Fig.23).Eightrespondentswere

Table 1. The assessment of the quality of services. 1 2 3 4 5

Facilitiesmanagement 1 2 3PVS(remotefacilitiesmanagementsystem) 1 1 2Microclimatelaboratory 1 6Energysaving 2 1 1 1 1Technicalsupportforengineeringfacilities

4 6 9

Maintenanceofoilandfattraps 2 1 2 1Maintenanceoflifts 1Maintenanceofcarparks 2 Cleaningofgrounds 1 Cleaningofindoorpremises 1 Wastedisposal 2 Replacementofentrancemats 2 Woodwork 3 2Other:maintenanceofelectricfacilities 1 Other:minorrepairs 1

Fig. 22 Please assess the cooperation with the company.


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

absolutelysurethattheywould(5pointsforthelikelihood);sixgave4points;threegave3points;andtwogave1point.Oneofthecustomerswhoscoredthelikelihoodwiththelowestscorewasnotsurewhetheritwouldrecommendthisparticularcompany,andtheotherthoughtitmoresensibleatthemoment(whenquiteafeworganisationsareshortofmoney)toemployapersoninchargeofthefacilitiesmanagementratherthantohireacompany.Oneofthecustomersthatgave3pointsnoted its inclination to recommend the company depended on theservicesseenasimportanttotheinquiringparty.Question10askedthecustomerstostatethedegreetheybelievethatfacilitiesmanagementservicescontributetotheirsuccess(Fig.24).Themajorityoftherespondentsrealisedthatfacilitiesmanagementisanimportantcontributortotheiroperatingsuccessandispartandparceloftheiractivities:thesamenumberofrespondents(8ineachcase)gavethehighestpoints(4and5).Twocustomersgave3points

andonegave2points.Noneofthemclaimedthatsuchservicesdidnothaveanythingincommonwiththeirdailyactivities.Finally, the customers were asked whether or not they intend torejectanyoftheservicesinthenearestfuture.Onlytworespondentsadmittedsuchintentionsandsaidthattheywerekeentorejectthefullsetofservicesinfavourofamorealluringofferfromanothercompany(noneofthecustomerssaidtheyconstantlyreceivedoffersfromother facilitiesmanagementcompanies)andwithadesire tosavemoney;severalothercustomersthatspeculatedonthingsthatcouldforce themto terminate theircooperationwith thecompanyalsogavethesamepossiblereasonstorejecttheservices.The results of this survey suggest that the customers of thisparticularcompanyaresatisfiedwiththeservicesandtheirquality– the best scores (4 and 5 points) predominate.Those customerswhogavelowerscoresalsostatedtheirreasons.Notably,customersatisfactionimproveswithregularmeetingsandalsowithchancesto provide feedback and get answers and explanations. It can beemployedtoservecustomersbetterandenhancetheirloyalty.Thecompany’sresponseandfollowupactionsarealsoveryimportant:itoughttoconsidercustomerfeedbackandrequestsandtakestepsto eliminate the causes of poor quality. It is equally important tomake sure that this survey is not aoneoff event and to surveycustomer opinions on aregular basis in order to monitor thecompany’sprogressandadjusttochangingcustomerneeds.

CONCLUSIONS

The article introduces the concept of customer satisfaction andthe importance of measuring it. It also proves that focusing oncustomersisacorrectactionand,infact,canbethemostimportantaction. What is important to abusiness is good performance,profitability and growth. What is important to employees at alllevels,on theotherhand, is firstand foremost, jobsecurity,goodpay,good jobprospects,promotionandabright future.Theseareallheavilydependentonanorganisation’sabilitytofulfilallofitscustomers’needstotheirfullsatisfaction(Zairi,2000).Tocompetewitheachother,facilitymanagementcompaniesmustseektoimprovethequalityoftheirservicesandcustomersatisfactiontoensurecustomerloyaltyandfinancialgain.Itisoneofthereasonsthatexplaintheimportanceandbenefitofunderstandingthefactorsthat affect customer opinions. The most direct way to measurecustomersatisfactionistoaskthemwhatmakesthemsatisfiedwithaservice. It is usually atwopart procedure: first, the satisfactionwiththeservicemustbeassessedandthenthecustomersmustbeaskedtoassessthecompany.Asuccessfulsurveymust:• identify the customer (knowledge about both internal andexternalcustomersisimportant).

Figure 23. Would you recommend the company to others?

Fig. 24 How much, in your opinion, are facilities management services important to your company (activities)?

2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16


• initiate atentative survey to determine the key features ofaserviceandavoidinconsequentialinformation(italsohelpstoverifythecompany’shypothesesaboutcustomerneeds);

• compileanefficientquestionnaireforthegatheringofnecessaryinformation;

• choose and develop the most fitting method for monitoringcustomer satisfaction (i.e. different questionnaires for differentrespondents);

• makeadditionalstatisticalassessmentsofthesurveydata;• ensure feedback (i.e., listening to the customer opinions andperiodicsurveying).

ThesurveyofserviceproviderssuggeststhatLithuaniancompaniesrealise the importance of customer satisfaction as akey tosuccessful operations, too.They ask customers for their opinionsand do not ignore the complaints, because they believe customersatisfaction surveys are an important tool that helps to determine

possible improvements and the potential of services to analysethe performance and assess the corporate activities from thecustomer’sperspective–allleadingtotheachievementofthemainoperatinggoalsofthecompany.Notably,acustomersurveyisnotenough: abroader dissemination of the survey data is required,becausemoreoftenthannot,onlydothetopmanagersdiscusstheresults,butalsoeachemployeemustbeintheknowaboutcustomeropinionsandseektoachievetheirsatisfaction.Thesurveyedcustomersoffacilitymanagementservicesstatedtheirsatisfactionwiththeservices,andalthoughtheymighthaveafewremarksonthequalityofsomework,theyhaveanoverallpositiveopinion about their cooperation with the company. The mainsuggestiontothecompanyistoconsiderthecustomerremarksandcarryoutregularsurveysoftheiropinionsinordertoaccommodatecustomerneeds,determinecustomerexpectations,andthusimprovetheirloyalty.

REFERENCES

1. Bagdoniene,L.Hopeniene,R.(2004).Paslaugųmarketingasir vadyba (Services Marketing and Management), Kaunas:Technologija,468pp.ISBN9955095792(inLithuanian).

2. Barrett,P.Baldry,D.(2007).Facilitiesmanagement:towardsbest practice (2d ed.).Oxford:Blackwell, reprinted. 280pp.ISBN9780632064458.

3. Chotipanich, S. (2004). Positioning facility management.Facilities,Vol.22,Nos.13/14,pp.364372.

4. Fečikova,I.(2004).Anindexmethodformeasurementofcustomersatisfaction.The TQM Magazine,Vol.16,No.1,pp.5766.

5. InternationalFacilityManagementAssociation.WhatisFM?[interactive] [viewed 20110420]. Internet access: http://www.ifma.org/what_is_fm/index.cfm

6. Kang.G. James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: anexamination ofGrönroos’sservice qualitymodel.Managing Service Quality,Vol.14,No.4,pp.266277.

7. Langviniene, N. Vengriene, B. (2005). Paslaugų teorija irpraktika(Servicestheoryandpractice).Kaunas:Technologija,363pp.ISBN9955099240(inLithuanian).

8. Lepkova,N.Vilutiene,T.(2008).Pastatųūkiovaldymas:teorijairpraktika(Facilitiesmanagement:theoryandpractice).Vilnius:Technika,328pp.ISBN9789955283096(inLithuanian).

9. Martin,D.O‘Neill,M.Hubbard,S.Palmer,A.(2008).Theroleofemotioninexplainingconsumersatisfactionandfuture

behaviouralintention.Journal of Services Marketing,Vol.33,No.3,pp.224236.

10. Mudrak,T. Wagenberg,A.Wubben,E. (2004).Assessingthe innovativeabilityofFMteams:areview.Facilities,Vol.22,Nos.11/12,pp.290295.

11. Piercy, N. F. (1996). The effect of customer satisfactionmeasurement:theinternalmarketversustheexternalmarket.Marketing Intelligence & Planning,14/4,pp.915.

12. Pitt, M. Tucker, M. (2008). Performance measurementin facilities management: driving innovation? Property Management,Vol.26,No.4,pp.241–254.

13. Rasila, H. M. Gelsberg, N. F. (2007). Service quality inoutsourcedfacilitymaintenanceservices.Journal of Corporate Real Estate,Vol.9,No.1,pp.3949.

14. Rondeau, E. P. Brown, R. K. Lapides, P. D. (2006). Facilitymanagement(2nded.).Hoboken:Wiley,589pp.ISBN0471700592.

15. Urban, W. (2009). Service quality gaps and their role inserviceenterprisesdevelopment.Technological and Economic Development of Economy,Vol.15,No.4,pp.631645.

16. Webster, C. Sundaram, D. S. (2009). Effect of serviceprovider’scommunication style on customer satisfaction inprofessionalservicesetting:themoderatingroleofcriticalityandservicenature.Journal of Services Marketing,Vol.23,No.2,pp.104114.


2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16

REFERENCES

17. Williams,P. SajidKhan,M. Ashill,N. J. Naumann,N.(2011). Customer attitudes of stayers and defectors in B2Bservices: are they really different? Industrial Marketing Management,Vol.40,Issue5,pp.805815.

18. Williams,P.Khan,M.S.Naumann,E.(2011b).Customersatisfaction and defection: the hidden costs of downsizing.Industrial Marketing Management,No.40,pp.405413.

19. Yi,Y.Nataraajan,R.Gong,T.(2011).Customerparticipationand citizenship behavioural influences on employeeperformance,satisfaction,commitment,andturnoverintention.JournalofBusinessResearch,No.64,pp.8795.

20. Zairi,M. (2000).Managingcustomerdissatisfaction througheffective complaints management systems. The TQM magazine,Vol.12,No.5,pp.331335.

21. Zairi,M.(2000).Managingcustomersatisfaction:abestpracticeperspective.The TQM Magazine,Vol.12,No.6,pp.398394.

22. Zavadskas, E. K. Kaklauskas, A. Banaitis, A. (2002).Statybos sektoriaus plėtotės strategija (The strategy ofconstructionsectordevelopment)[interactive][viewed20110619]. Internet access: http://www.ukmin.lt/lt/strategija/doc/10.%20statybos%20sektoriaus%20pletotes%20strategija.doc.(inLithuanian)

Documents

Natalija Lepkova STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH · PDF file2012/4 PAGES 1 — 16 STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ... 3 factors that affect satisfaction