畢業論文the establishments of taiwan customer satisfaction...

中華大學

碩士論文

題目：台灣顧客滿意指標模式建立之研究 The Establishment of Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index Model

系所別：科技管理研究所學號姓名：E09103033 連秋月指導教授：李友錚博士

中華民國九十五年八月

i

台灣顧客滿意指標模式建立之研究

學生：連秋月指導教授：李友錚博士

摘要

自從 1989 年瑞典提出其國家顧客滿意指標（National Customer

Satisfaction Index, NCSI）以來，相關的研究受到了全球各組織、產業與國家

的重視，各先進國家在結合政府與其國內大學的力量下，持續探討並分析其

國家人民的消費滿意程度，作為輔助其國民經濟指標之工具。

建構國家顧客滿意指標的目的是在分析國家、行業、產業與組織在顧客

心目中的滿意程度，以提供競爭優勢比較的基準並作為策略發展的依據。本

研究以瑞典顧客滿意指標、美國顧客滿意指標 (American Customer

Satisfaction Index, ACSI) 模式與歐洲顧客滿意指標 (European Customer

Satisfaction Index, ECSI) 模式為基礎，修正發展成台灣顧客滿意指標

(Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index, TCSI) 模式；以及在建構 NCSI 的首要步

驟為決定被調查的群體，NCSI 各項分數的估計須與其他國家經濟指標的估

計來自於相同的群體，因此將整體國家經濟結構拆解為一個個各項國家經濟

指標的統計群體，所依據的是各國的標準行業分類 (Standard Industry

Classification, SIC) ；TCSI 依據中華民國行業標準分類挑選出占 GDP 達 60%

的九大行業，再依 2004 年 GDP 的統計資料從其中挑出貢獻較大的 44 個產

業，獲得 TCSI 的抽樣群體。

關鍵詞：國家顧客滿意指標、台灣顧客滿意指標、行業分類

ii

The Establishment of Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index Model

Student : Chiu-Yueh Lien Advisor : Dr. Yu-Cheng Lee

Abstract

The Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) was the first national

customer satisfaction index for domestically purchased and consumed products

and services in 1898. In the last decade, numerous countries have developed their

own CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) system, in order to be an important

complement to traditional measures.

National Customer Satisfaction Index (NCSI) is a market-based performance

measures for firms, industries, economic sectors and national economies. Taking

full advantages of other nations’ experiences, we can establish the Taiwan CSI

Model which is suited for Taiwan’s characters. A comparison and analysis of the

differences among existed NCSI Models to be indispensable and valuable. In this

study, three typical CSIs – SCSB, ACSI, and ECSI models are selected for

analysis, and modified into the TCSI model. Besides, the first step of the

establishment of the National Customer Satisfaction is “select sectors and

industries to measure”, in this study, we identify 9 economic sectors and 44 major

industries based on Taiwan’s economic structure included the Chinese Standard

Industrial Classification (CSIC) and 2004 GDP report.

Keywords: NCSI, TCSI, Industrial Classification

iii

誌謝

本論文能夠順利完成，主要感謝指導教授李友錚博士耐心與悉心指導；

恩師是一位知識豐富、平易近人且兼具風趣的老師，不僅在學業上對我們的

督促，更關心學生的身體，屢屢要我們打球、上學校健身房，鍛鍊我們健康

的體魄，何其有幸遇到如此關懷學生的老師，深深覺得在您的帶領下學習與

成長，是學生莫大的榮幸與驕傲。

承蒙口試委員葉日豐博士以及林少斌博士，提供寶貴意見，使得本論文

得以更加完善，深為感激。以及謝謝在研究所兩年來，所有指導我的老師們，

尤其是賀力行老師，謝謝您在每一學期的書報討論，給予專業上的指正與方

向，以及在每一堂課，提醒我們應該注意學校最近有那一些規定與活動，心

中對您非常感謝。

在研究所期間，博班的學長姊、學弟妹以及同窗，總是給我最大的支持

與鼓勵，僅在此表達我對各位的感謝，以及希望大家在未來的學習與生活上，

都能夠更上一層樓與平安。幫助過我的人實在很多，無法一一詳列，不過在

此，我要特別感謝吉生學長與俞安學妹，好懷念一起研究學習與互相勉勵

的日子，要保持連絡喔！

最後我要表達的是，沒有家人的全力相挺，我想我是無法順利完成學業，

謝謝你們的體諒與打氣。回想過去兩年的點點滴滴，有許多的歡笑與辛苦過

程，心中雖有不捨與難過，但有各位的祝福，未來我會更加油，最後再一次

謝謝大家。

連秋月謹識於中華科管所

中華民國 95 年 5 月 27 日

iv

Contents

摘要...................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii

誌謝.................................................................................................................... iii

Contents ................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables......................................................................................................... vii

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION................................................. 1

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 National Customer Satisfaction Index Construction Procedures ......... 3

1.2.2 Research Objectives ............................................................................. 5

1.3 RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................. 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 7

2.1 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX .................................................................. 7

2.2 NATIONAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX ................................................. 9

2.2.1 Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB)........................... 13

2.2.2 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) ................................. 14

2.2.3 European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) .................................. 16

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR NCSI MODEL ...................................... 18

3.1 SCSB MODEL.............................................................................................. 18

3.2 ACSI MODEL .............................................................................................. 21

3.3 ECSI MODEL............................................................................................... 27

4. TAIWAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX MODEL ........................... 30

4.1 TCSI MODEL............................................................................................... 30

4.2 SELECTION OF ECONOMIC SECTORS AND INDUSTRIES ................................. 33

5. CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 36

References ............................................................................................................. 37

v

Appendix ............................................................................................................... 41

vi

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 SCSB model ........................................................................................ 18

Figure 3-2 ACSI model: Private Sector ................................................................ 21

Figure 3-3 Expanded ACSI model: Private Sector ............................................... 23

Figure 3-4 ACSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations.... 24

Figure 3-5 ACSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries ............................. 26

Figure 3-6 ECSI model ......................................................................................... 27

Figure 4-1 TCSI model: Private Sector (Product) ................................................ 31

Figure 4-2 TCSI model: Private Sector (Service) ................................................. 31

Figure 4-3 TCSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations .... 32

Figure 4-4 TCSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries.............................. 35

vii

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Models Comparison of SCSB, ACSI and ECSI ................................... 29

Table Appendex-1 North American Industry Classification System (2002) ........ 41

Table Appendex-2 Chinese Standard Industrial Classification (The 7th edition) . 42

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background and Motivation

Customer satisfaction has a direct impact on the primary source of

future revenue streams for most companies. Many researchers and pioneers

[31] consider customer satisfaction to be the best indicator of a company’s

future profit. Higher customer satisfaction leads to superior economic profits,

It is no doubts that widespread acceptance of this relationship is evident in

the growing literature on quality and customer satisfaction. In comparison

with other traditional performance measures, customer satisfaction is

probably less sensitive to seasonal fluctuations, change in costs, or changes

in accounting practices [31].

Customer satisfaction research has developed around two different

types of evaluation: transaction-specific satisfaction and cumulative

satisfaction [26, 27, 28]. The original interest of these researches was on

transaction-specific satisfaction, or customers’ experience with a product or

service encounter.

Psychology-based approach to satisfaction has been paid more attention

and gained acceptance over the last decade, termed cumulative satisfaction.

This approach defines satisfaction as a customer’s overall experience to date

with a product or service provider [26]. An important advantage of the

cumulative satisfaction construct over a more transaction-specific view is

that it is better able to predict subsequent behaviors and economic

performance [20, 27]. This is because customers make repurchase

evaluations and decisions based on their purchase and consumption

experience to date, not just a particular transaction or episode [26].

Recent research on customer satisfaction has taken strides to link this

strategically important construct to a chain of events including purchase

intension, actual intension, and to ultimately financial bottom line

performance metrics such as revenue and profit. [38].

2

A comprehensive assessment of quality required a mechanism that

assigned values to dimensions of quality that influence customer behavior to

meet the goal of a national quality index. The development and installation

of a permanent customer satisfaction index provides the ability to evaluate

current and future company’s performance.

Since 1970s, researchers of consumer behavior and marketing in

developed countries have begun comprehensive studies on customer

satisfaction [36]. In 1898, Fornell and his colleagues in Michigan University

helped Sweden built the first nation-level measurement system of customer

satisfaction – Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) [4, 18].

Later in 1994, American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was launched

[20].

Till now, national-level CSIs have Swedish Customer Satisfaction

Barometer (SCSB), American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), German

Barometer, Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer (NCSB), Swiss

Index of Customer Satisfaction (SWICS), Korean Customer Satisfaction

Index (KCSI), Malaysian Customer Satisfaction Index (MCSI). In addition,

Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Australia are striving to build their own

CSI systems [8].

In Taiwan, companies use customer satisfaction input to set priorities

for quality initiative, track markets, and drive customer retention. It was

reported that Taiwan measured and reported the customer satisfaction of a

limited number of companies since 1995 [20, 22]. As we know, China

Production Center (CPC) conducted annual customer satisfaction survey

only for Good Store Practice (GSP) investigation based on ACSI model.

Therefore, Taiwan needs to develop its own CSI model since in the era of

service-domain economy.

3

1.2 Research Objectives

There are two parts in this section included National Customer

Satisfaction Index construction procedures, research objectives.

1.2.1 National Customer Satisfaction Index Construction Procedures

This part is to briefly introduce the National Customer Satisfaction

Index construction steps which provided by ACSI [41]:

1. Select Sectors and Industries to Measure

(1) Examine structure of national economy.

(2) Identify economic sectors (manufacturing/durables, manufacturing

/nondurables, utilities, communication, transportation, etc.)

(3) Identify major industries in each sector.

(4) Select industries to measure.

(5) Identify companies that are either major or representative of each

industry.

(6) Select actual companies to measure.

(7) Identify specific products and brands of the selected companies.

2. Customer Population Sampling

(1) Define who the customers of each selected company are

(2) Identify population from which to select sample(s) of customers

(3) Select method for sampling chosen populations

(4) Draw sample(s)

(5) Determine how to screen to a specific customer/respondent

3. Determine Data Collection Methodology and Supplier

(1) Decide how customers will be interviewed: telephone, face-to-face

personal interviews, mail, intercept interviews

(2) Select data collection supplier.

4

4. Questionnaire

(1) Design questionnaire.

(2) Develop examples to insert in questionnaire for specific industry

requirements for fitness for use (customization) and reliability.

(3) Develop screening questionnaires to select respondents for each

industry that identify potential respondent as qualified customer of

specific products/services/companies.

(4) Translate questionnaires into languages to be used for interviewing.

(5) Print questionnaires or program into a computer-assisted-telephone

interviewing system.

5. Sampling and Data Collection

(1) Draw sample(s) for use by interviewers

(2) Develop interviewer instructions

(3) Conduct interviews with monitored supervision or quality control

checks

6. Data Processing and Econometric Modeling

(1) Develop ASCI or SPSS file for completed interviews

(2) Clean data of outlier and wild scores

(3) Run customer satisfaction model and output results of all variables

and impact scores for each level of measurement

7. Interpretative Analysis, Report Writing, News Releases

(1) Determine analysts and authors

(2) Plan formats for reporting of results

(3) Plan reports, news releases, press conferences, etc.

(4) Produce written materials

5

1.2.2 Research Objectives

The basic structure of the CSI model has been developed over a number

of years and is based upon well established theories and approaches to

consumer behavior, customer satisfaction and product and service quality

[16,18]. The structure of the CSI is continually undergoing review and

subject to modifications. Although the core of the model is in most respects

standard, there are some variations between the SCSB (Sweden), the ACSI

(American), the ECSI (European) and other indices. For example, the image

factor is not employed in the ACSI model [26].

These CSIs are fundamentally similar in measurement model (i.e.

causal model), they have some obvious distinctions in model’s structure and

variable’s selection. Take full advantages of other nations’ experiences can

establish the Taiwan CSI Model which is suited for Taiwan’s characters.

Therefore, a comparison and analysis of the differences among these

existed NCSI Models seems to be indispensable and valuable. In this study,

three typical CSIs – SCSB, ACSI, and ECSI models are selected for analysis,

and modify to the TCSI model.

Besides, the first step of the establishment of the National Customer

Satisfaction is “select sectors and industries to measure”, in this study, we

will identify economic sectors and major industries in each sector based on

Taiwan’s economical structure.

The research objectives contain:

1. Investigate and analyze the major NCSI Models.

2. Establish Taiwan CSI Model.

3. Select sectors and industries to measure.

6

1.3 Research Scope and Limitations

In this study, we concentrate on TCSI model establishment and

sector/industries selection as described in section 1.2.2. To establish a

National Customer Satisfaction Index, 4-5 years are required until the final

installation of a national satisfaction barometer (preliminary survey

conduction, evaluation of results and correlation with general financial

indices, development of database, etc.). [22]

The Taiwan National Quality Research Center (TNQRC) at Chunghua

University is proceeding to the research and production center for the index,

analyses of data, and report writing. CSQ will distribute published reports

and news releases. Based on the TCSI model in this paper, the pilot study for

air transportation, automobile, gas station, etc. will be conducted in late 2006.

To evaluate the stability and robustness of empirical results from TCSI pilot

survey rounds.

7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index

In general, high customer satisfaction indicates increased loyalty for

current customers, it also can reduce price elasticity, insulation of current

customers from competitive efforts, lower cost of future transactions,

reduced failure cost, lower costs of attracting new customers, and enhanced

the reputation for the firm. [4, 19]

Customer satisfaction index is expected to be an important

future-oriented complement to traditional measures of economic

performance such as return on investment, market share, and profits,

providing useful information not only to the firms themselves, but also to

shareholders and investors, government regulators, and buyers [17, 18].

From the other viewpoint, customer satisfaction index also can be seen as a

complement to productivity measures. Whereas productivity basically

reflects quantity of output, customer satisfaction index measures quality of

output [18].

Customer satisfaction as a cumulative evaluation of a customer’s

purchase and consumption experience to date. Loyalty is a customer’s

expectation or predisposition to repurchase from a particular product or

service provider. Consumption experiences (quality and price) affect

customer satisfaction as a type of overall evaluation. Satisfaction, in turn,

affects customer’s repurchase likelihood and actual retention behavior.

Previous research predicts a simple positive effect of this cumulative

satisfaction on loyalty that is strongly supported across industries [18, 20].

Customer satisfaction index is designed to provide the information as

follows: [18]

1. Comparisons of the firms with the industry average.

2. Comparisons over time.

8

3. Predictions of long-term performance.

4. Answers to specific questions to customer satisfaction, the effects of overall quality and price, the quality increase necessary to retain dissatisfied customers, etc.

Treating satisfaction as an overall evaluation of the consumption

experience resolved the argument of which one of perceived quality and

satisfaction is the antecedent. All of the model described and proposed herein,

view quality as a driver of satisfaction [26]. CSI was gradually recognized by

governments and companies worldwide as a good instrument to gauge a

nation’s or company’s output quality.

9

2.2 National Customer Satisfaction Index

Since 1970s, researchers of consumer behavior and marketing in

developed countries have begun comprehensive studies on customer

satisfaction [36]. In 1898, Fornell and his colleagues in Michigan University

helped Sweden built the first nation-level measurement system of customer

satisfaction – Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) [18]. Later

in 1994, American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was launched [20].

The concept behind NCSI requires a methodology with two properties

[18, 20]. First, the methodology must recognize that NCSI and the other

constructs in the model represent different types of evaluations that cannot

be measured directly. these constructs should be seen as latent variables and

there scores or indexes are general enough to be comparable across firms,

industries, sectors, and nations. Second, NCSI must be measured in a way

that not only accounts for consumption experience but also is

forward-looking. According, NCSI is embedded in the system of cause and

effect relationships.

A major difference between NCSI and other customer satisfaction

indices is that NCSI is measured in the context of other interrelated variables.

For the typical measurement used by most companies today, satisfaction is

isolatedly evaluated from other variables included in the model studied, and

then retrospectively estimates the relationship to these variables. The

estimation likely to show low reliability and strong bias, therefore

researchers cannot find a strong relationship between satisfaction and

economic performance. NCSI is specified as a composite latent variable in a

system represented by multiple equations, where measure error is accounted,

leads not only to better reliability and validity, but also to improved ability to

translate satisfaction changes into repurchase behavior [18].

10

The development of NCSI is mainly focused on the following five

objectives [42]:

1. Economics returns: The methodology implemented by NCSI makes it

possible to link customer satisfaction to economic returns.

2. Economic stability: A uniform NCSI should help determine what

percentage of price increases represent quality improvement and what

are caused by inflation.

3. Economic link: A measure of the quality of economic output is

essential for interpreting price and productivity measures.

4. Economic welfare: Quality, as measured by NCSI, constitutes at the

same time an indication of economic well being.

5. Economic output: A NCSI quantifies the value that customers place

on products and services, and thus it helps promote market driven

quality.

NCSI provides a baseline against which it will be possible to track

customer satisfaction over time. It provides significant information because

customer satisfaction ultimately will affect customer retention and, therefore,

profitability and competitiveness. It will also provide the answers to the

following questions [1, 41]:

1. Are customer satisfaction and evaluation of quality improving or

declining for the nation’s output of goods and services?

2. Are customer satisfaction and evaluation of quality improving or

declining for particular sectors of industries, for specific industries,

or for specific company?

NCSI benefits consumers, organizations and nations as stated below:

NCSI benefits consumers by giving voice to their evaluations of the

products and services they buy and use. It quantifies the value of customers

place on products, thus driving quality improvement. In other words, NCSI

could help focus public attention on improving quality and customer

11

satisfaction as a source of a higher standard living.

Companies can use the data from NCSI to assess customer loyalty,

identify potential barriers to entry within markets, predict return on

investments and pinpoint areas in which customer expectations are not being

satisfied. NCSI also benefits companies by providing the information of

comparison with the industry average and their past scores, and prediction of

long-term performance.

NCSI could complement the national accounting measures, which do

not take quality or customer satisfaction into account. In addition, because

NCSI covers domestic and imported products, it will be a useful tool in

comparing the quality of the nation build products with international

competition.

The most important efforts that have been reported for the development

of generic satisfaction barometers to individual business organizations, industry sector or the total of national economies [錯誤! 找不到參照來源。,

20]. The main aim of these efforts is the data collection either for

comparative analysis of companies’ performance regarding customer

satisfaction or for monitoring the evolution of global and partial satisfaction

indices. In addition, the generic satisfaction barometers provide the ability to

correlate basic economical dimensions with customer satisfaction like

productivity variations at a national level or changes in the general consumer

price index [22].

The national satisfaction barometers provide useful information

regarding consumer behavior given a uniform way of customer satisfaction

measurement. These efforts count more 10 years of life and focus mainly on

the development of a customer satisfaction index that supplements the

existing national measurement indices of each economy [22].

The development of national customer satisfaction barometers can be

summarized in the following main efforts [22]:

12

1. The first attempt to develop and set up a national measure for

customer satisfaction was reported in Sweden in 1898. Professor

Fornell was the main architect of the Swedish National Customer

Satisfaction Barometer.

2. The national quality and satisfaction barometer of German (The

German Customer Barometer – Quality and Satisfaction) focuses

mainly on the micro-economical level of business organizations

and it was established in 1992.

3. Professor Fornell supervised the conduct of the preliminary

analysis of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) in

1993. This particular index constitutes an effort to adopt the

Sweden satisfaction barometer in America, with some

improvements, revisions, and reconciliation. The ACSI provides

complete data in 1994.

4. The European Union is interested in the development and

installation of a comparative system of national customer

satisfaction indices since 1998. The preliminary study in a limited

number of industry sectors was conducted within 1999, while

results for the European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) were

published in 2000.

5. Other individual efforts of establishing national satisfaction indices

in the European area concern Denmark, Austria, France, The

Netherlands, Switzerland, and others.

6. Both Taiwan and New Zealand measure and report the customer

satisfaction of a limited number of companies since 1995.

Till now, national-level CSIs have Swedish Customer Satisfaction

Barometer (SCSB), American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), German

Barometer, Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer (NCSB), European

Customer Satisfaction (ECSI), Swiss Index of Customer Satisfaction

(SWICS), Korean Customer Satisfaction Index (KCSI), Malaysian Customer

Satisfaction Index (MCSI). In addition, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada,

Australia are striving to build their own CSI systems.

13

2.2.1 Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB)

Sweden is the first country to establish a national economic indicator

reflecting customer satisfaction for domestically purchased and consumed

product and service. Established in 1898, the Swedish Customer Satisfaction

Barometer (SCSB) was conducted under the supervision of the University of

Michigan-National Quality Research Center and the Swedish Post Office. It

has historically included approximately 130 companies from 32 of Sweden’s

largest industries [18, 22].

The required data are collected through a telephone survey from a

sample of approximately 23,000 customers, while currently, more than 115

companies participate in this particular survey. The questionnaire employed

10-point scales to access each respondent’s expectations, perceived quality,

satisfaction and retention behavior. The analysis is based on Fornell’s

approach [18, 22].

14

2.2.2 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was established in

1994 following several years of development and pre-testing. It is produced

through a partnership of the University of Michigan Business School,

American Society for Quality and Arthur Andersen. The National Quality

Research Center (NQRC) at the University of Michigan Business School is

responsible for researching and producing ACSI [1, 41]. The ACSI follows

the general modeling and survey methodology of the SCSB adapted in the

distinct characteristics of the US economy.

The data are collected through a computer-assisted telephone interview

system (CATI) that is based on random digit dial selection.

The ACSI methodology is distinguished from other measures of quality

by four significant characteristics [34]:

1. ACSI has a uniform, customer-based definition of quality: “customer

satisfaction with the quality of goods and services purchased and

used.”

2. ACSI treats satisfaction with quality as a cumulative experience,

rather than a most-recent-transaction experience.

3. ACSI uses a cause-and-effect model that measures satisfaction

quantitatively as the result of survey-measured input of customer

expectations, perceptions of quality, and perceptions of value.

4. The ACSI model links satisfaction quantitatively with

customer-survey-measured outcomes: complaints (a negative

outcome) and customer loyalty (a positive outcome). Customer

loyalty is derived from measures of customer retention and price

tolerance.

ACSI uses an empirically tested, cause-and-effect model. It is

multi-equation, latent variable, econometric model that produces four levels

of composite index. These are: (1) a national customer satisfaction index; (2)

15

indices for 10 sectors of the economy; (3) indices for 41 industries; and (4)

indices for over 200 major companies and federal or local government

services, including indices for an “all others” category in each industry [41].

Fornell’s satisfaction model constitutes the basic measurement and

analysis tool that is used in both the American Customer Satisfaction Index

(ACSI) and Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB).

This particular approach is based on an economic structural model that

links different customer satisfaction measures (e.g. expectations, loyalty,

complaints, etc.) with specific and predefined formulas. Given these defined

relations between included variables, the model produces a system of cause

and effect relationship.

The model variables are analyzed in the following main categories:

1. Satisfaction causes (quality, expectation, etc.)

2. Satisfaction, and

3. Satisfaction results (complaints and loyalty)

Fornell’s model expresses satisfaction as a result of three elements:

perceived quality, expectations and perceived value. Customer satisfaction is

measured as a latent variable using multiple indicators. A use of partial least

squares (PLS) is used to estimate this causal model [18, 22].

16

2.2.3 European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI)

American Customer Satisfaction indices have inspired to create a

European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI), founded by EOQ, EFQM and

the European Academic Network for Customer Oriented Quality Analysis,

and supported by the European Commission [22].

The European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) is an economical

indicator, which has been developed by the EOQ (European Organization for

Quality) and EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management). The

ECSI is also supported by the European commission and ESOMAR

(European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research), and it is sponsored

by the IPC (International Post Corporation). The CSI university network,

which consists of 8 European universities, has also participated in the

development of the ECSI [22].

ECSI considers the European economy as a while, and thus, customer

satisfaction indices can be compared with each other and with the European

average. The ECSI model provides the ability to produce 4 levels of

satisfaction indices, similarly to ACSI results [22]:

1. National customer satisfaction indices.

2. Economical sector indices.

3. Specific industry indices.

4. Scores for companies and organizations within the survey.

The pilot survey was conducted in 1999, totally, in the period March to

May, more than 50,000 customers in 11 European countries. The minimum

sample for each company was defined at 250 customers [22].

In Germany, the Deutsche Kunden barometer was introduced in 1992

[18]. Chinese has developed its Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) since

2002. Denmark, Austria, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand,

South Korea, Malaysia, etc. have starting to build their own CSI systems. [22,

17

26]. Figure 2-1 shows the development of National Customer Satisfaction

Index.

Fornell

ACSI(American Customer Satisfaction Index)

1994

ASQ / NQRC/Michigan University

ECSI(European Customer Satisfaction Index)

1998EOQ / EFQM / European Academic

Network

TCSI(Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index)

2006

CSQ / TNQRC / Chunghua University

Denmark, Austria, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand, South

Korea, Malaysia…..

Denmark, Austria, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand, South

Korea, Malaysia…..

CCSI(China Customer Satisfaction Index)

2002

CAQ / CNIS / Tsinghua University

(German Customer Barometer- Quality and Satisfaction)

1992

(German Customer Barometer- Quality and Satisfaction)

1992

SCSB(Swedish Customer Satisfaction

Barometer) 1989

Figure 2-1 The Development of National Customer Satisfaction Index

Source: This Study (TNQRC)

18

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR NCSI MODEL

CSI model is structured by a series of latent and manifest variables and

its credibility depends on variable selection and definition of relationships

among variables. The CSI model consists of a number of latent factors, each

of which is operationalized by multiple indicators. Customer satisfaction can

be defined as an overall evaluation of a firm’s post-purchase performance or

utilization of a service [18]. It is at the core of the CSI framework and is

encased within a system running from the antecedents of overall customer

satisfaction ---expectations, image, perceived quality and value, to the

consequence of overall customer satisfaction---customer loyalty and

customer complaints. Thus, it is clear that the CSI model is a particular case

of structural equation model (SEM) [37].

3.1 SCSB Model

The Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) model, shown

in Figure 3-1, established in 1989 was the first NCSI for domestically

purchased and consumed products and services [18].

Figure 3-1 SCSB model

Source: [22]

Perceived Performance

(Value)

Customer Expectations

Customer Satisfaction

(SCSB)

Customer Loyalty

Customer Complaints

19

The SCSB contains two antecedents of satisfaction: perception of

customer’s performance experience with a product or service, and customer

expectation regarding that performance. Perceived performance is equated

with perceived value, or the perceived level of quality received relative to the

price or prices paid. The basic prediction is that as perceived performance

increases, SCSB increases [26].

The other antecedent of satisfaction is customer expectations, which are

defined as a customer predicts rather than a normative standard or

benchmark [11]. While perceived performance captures more recent

experience, customer expectations capture a customer’s prior consumption

experience [26]. Because customer expectations forecast a firm’s ability to

provide future performance [18] and serve as cognitive anchors in the

evaluation process [36], it is argued to have a positive effect on SCSB.

Finally, expectations capture customers’ abilities to learn from their

experience and predict the level of performance they will received, customer

expectations should positively affect perceived performance [26]. Customer

expectation as a pivot exogenous latent variable has different influences to

other constructs in CSI models.

The consequences of satisfaction in SCSB model are derived from

Hirschman’s exit-voice theory [23]. The theory describes that while a

customer is dissatisfied with the products or services provided by certain

organization, he or she will exit, stop receiving products or services from the

organization, or complain to the provider. Accordingly, the consequences of

increased satisfaction are decreased customer complaints and increased

customer loyalty [10]. The impact of customer satisfaction for repeat

business and customer loyalty is not the same for all industries and

companies. Loyal customers are not necessary satisfied customer, but

satisfied customers tend to be loyal customers. Aside from satisfaction, there

are other means of customer retention. Customer switching barriers comprise

a lot of factors that also bring about retention. Hence, all companies are not

equally affected by customer satisfaction, but virtually all companies depend

20

on repeat business [18]. Loyalty is the ultimate dependent variable in SCSB

model because its value as a proxy for actual customer retention and

subsequent profitability.

Bloemer and Kasper found that the relationship between customer

satisfaction and loyalty was moderated by the amount of elaboration exerted

by respondents on the evaluation of the brand choice [10]. The specially

reported that the positive relationship between customer satisfaction and

loyalty was stronger when satisfaction was manifest. (e.g., well elaborated

on that is a result of explicit evaluation) than latent (e.g., not well elaborated

on that results from implicit evaluation). The results of this study imply that

not all satisfaction is equal and that different types of satisfaction (i.e.,

manifest and latent), depending on the amount of elaboration used, will have

different effects on loyalty.

Behavioral decision research provides both theoretical and empirical

rationale for positing more than a simple main effect of satisfaction on

loyalty. [38]. However, satisfaction and loyalty are concepts used to model

customers’ ongoing experiences with actual products and services.

Although no prediction is made regarding the relationship from

complaint behavior to customer loyalty, the direction and size of this

relationship provides some diagnostic information as to the efficacy of a

firm’s customer service and complaint handling system [18]. When the

relationship is positive, a firm may be successfully turning complaining

customers into loyal customers. When negative, complaining customers are

predisposed to exit. [26].

The survey is designed to obtain a nationally representative sample of

customers of major companies in wide variety of industries. The companies

surveyed in each industry sector are the largest share firms such that cumulative market share is more than 70% [錯誤! 找不到參照來源。, 錯誤!

找不到參照來源。, 4, 18, 22].

21

3.2 ACSI Model

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) model was

established in 1994 following several years of development and pre-testing

and illustrated in Figure 3-2. It follows the general modeling and survey

methodology of the SCSB adapted to produce four levels of indices or scores:

a national customer satisfaction score, ten economic sector scores, 41

specific industry scores, and scores from 200 companies and agencies with

revenues totaling nearly 40% of the GDP [1, 22].

CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(ACSI)

PERCEIVED VALUE

PERCEIVED QUALITY

CUSTOMER LOYALTY

CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS

Overall

Customization

Reliability

Reliability OverallCustomization

Price Given Quality

Quality Given Price

Confirm/Disconfirm Expectations

Comparison with Ideal

Complaint Behavior

Satisfaction

Price ToleranceRepurchase Likelihood

Figure 3-2 ACSI model: Private Sector

Source: [34]

In ACSI model, customer expectation, perception of quality, and

perceived value were introduced as the antecedents of customer satisfaction,

and customer loyalty and customer complaint as consequences. [1, 34]

22

Customer Expectations: Expectations combine customers’ experiences

with a product or service and information about it via media, advertising,

salespersons, and word-of-mouth from other customers. Customer

expectations influence the evaluation of quality and forecast (from

customers’ pre-purchase perspective) how well the product or service will

perform.

Perceived Quality: Perceived quality is measured through three

questions: overall quality, reliability, and the extent to which a product or

service meets the customer’s needs. Across all companies and industries

measured in the ACSI, perceived quality proves to have the greatest impact

on customer satisfaction.

Perceived Value: Perceived value is measured through two questions:

overall price given quality and overall quality given price. In the ACSI

model, perceived value influences ACSI directly, and is affected by

expectations and perceived quality. Although perceived value is of great

importance for the (first) purchase decision, it usually has somewhat less

impact on satisfaction and repeat purchase.

Customer Complaints: Customer complaint activity is measured as the

percentage of respondents who reported a problem with the measured

companies’ product or service within a specified time frame. Satisfaction has

an inverse relationship to customer complaints.

Customer Loyalty: Customer loyalty is measured through questions on

the likelihood to purchase a company’s products or services at various price

points. Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on loyalty, but the

magnitude of that effect varies greatly across companies and industries.

The main difference between SCSB model and ACSI model is the

addition of a perceived quality component. Fornell et al. [20] argue that the

inclusion of both perceived quality and perceived value into the ACSI model

provides important diagnostic information. As the impact of value increases

23

relative to quality, price is a more important determinant of satisfaction. As

quality is a component of value, the model also links quality directly to value

[24]. For perceived quality, the ACSI model expects a positive association

between perceived value increases and customer satisfaction.

In some industries, particularly in the manufacturing/durable goods and

retail trade sectors, the product and service require to maintain after it was

provided over different time periods. For those industries, ACSI uses the

expanded model shown in Figure 3-3 [34].



(ACSI)

PERCEIVED VALUE

PERCEIVED QUALITY

CUSTOMER LOYALTY

CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS

Overall

Customization

Reliability

Price Given Quality

Quality Given Price


Comparison with Ideal

Complaint Behavior

Satisfaction

Price ToleranceRepurchase Likelihood

PERCEIVED SERVICEQUALITY

PERCEIVED PRODUCTQUALITY

ReliabilityCustomization

Overall ReliabilityCustomization

Overall

Figure 3-3 Expanded ACSI model: Private Sector

Source: [34]

For government services and nonprofit organizations, perceived value

in terms of price/quality relationship is not a driver as there is usually no

direct charge (or very nominal charge) for tax-supported organizations, thus

the ACSI model is modified as Figure 3-4.

24



(ACSI)

PERCEIVED QUALITY USER TRUST

CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS


Comparison to Ideal

Complaint Behavior

Satisfaction

ConfidenceAdvocacy

Overall

Customization

Reliability

Reliability

Customization

Overall

ACTIVITY 1

ACTIVITY 2

Q1

Q3

Q2

Q4

Figure 3-4 ACSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations

Source: [34]

The American Customer Satisfaction Index is designed to be

representative of the nation’s economy as a whole. At the beginning, the

methodology of selecting the companies is each of the major economic

sectors (one-digit standard industrial classification [SIC] code level) with

reachable end-users. Within each sector, the major industrial groups

(two-digit SIC codes) were included on the basis of relative contribution to

the gross domestic product. Within each industry group, several

representative industries (four-digit SIC codes) were included on the basis of

the total sales. Finally, within each industry the largest companies were

selected, such that coverage included the majority of each selected industry’s

sales.

The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was originally developed in

the 1930's to classify establishments by the type of activity in which they are

primarily engaged and to promote the comparability of establishment data

describing various facets of the U.S. economy. Since 1997, SIC has been

converted to the North American Industry Classification System. A joint

25

project of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, NAICS was developed in

response to the rapidly changing industrial composition and organization of

both US and world economies and to provide common industry definitions

for the three North American countries. It replaced the SIC (Standard

Industrial Classification) system, in existence since the late 1930s.

Follow the methodology described in the previous page, now ACSI

measures ten economic sectors in the North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) that produce products and services sold directly to

household customers [1, 34, 41]. Please refer to the table 1 in appendix.

These sectors are: (1) Utilities, (2) Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods,

(3) Manufacturing/Durable Goods, (4) Retail Trade, (5) Transportation and

Warehousing, (6) Information, (7) Finance and Insurance, (8) Health Care

and Social Assistance, (9) Accommodation and Food Services, and (10)

Public Administration as figure 3-5. The sectors included in ACSI produce

65.7% of the GDP [34].

26

Figure 3-5 ACSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries

Source: [34]

Utilities

Manufacturing/ Nondurable Goods

9.4%

Manufacturing/ Durable Goods

11.1%

Retail Trade 5.8%

Transportation & Warehousing

3.0%

Information 5.3%

Finance & Insurance

7.3%

Health Care & Social Assistance

6.9%

Accommodation & Food Services

3.7%

Public Administration

11.4%

E-Business/ E-Commerce

-Energy

-Food

manufacturing

-Pet food

-Soft drinks

-Breweries

Cigarettes

-Cigarettes

-Apparel

-Athletic

shoes

-Personal

care &

cleaning

products

-Personal

Computers

-Cellular

telephones

-Electronics

(TV/VCR/DVD)

-Major

Appliances

-Automobiles

-Supermarkets

-Gasoline

Stations

-Department

& discount

stores

-Specialty -Airlines

-U.S. Postal

service

-Express

delivery

-Newspapers

-Motion

pictures

-Broadcasting

TV news

-Fixed line

telephone

service

-Wireless

telephone

service

- Cable &

satellite TV

-Banks

-Life insurance

-Health

insurance

-Property &

casualty

-Hospitals

-Hotels

-Limited-service

restaurants

-Solid waste

disposal

-Police

-Federal

agencies

-News &

information

-Portals

-Search engines

-Retail

-Auctions

-Brokerage

-Travel

27

3.3 ECSI Model

The pilot study of European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) model

scanned and evaluated 10 different models within 1999, and the results were

published in 2000. The ECSI model which is found to be very robust with

respect to change in companies, sectors and countries, as illustrated in Fig 3.,

constitutes a modified adaptation of the ACSI model. The survey of 1999, 11

European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland,

Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) participated, includes only

fixed telephones, mobile phones, banking and supermarkets. In addition to

these sectors, each country has chosen a number of sectors/areas on national

priorities for their studies [12, 15, 22].

Figure 3-6 ECSI model

Source: [42]

Image: It is a measure of the underlying image (association and

perception) of the considered brand name.

28

Expectations: They relate to prior anticipations of the product or

company in the eyes of the individual customer. Such expectations are the

result of active company or product promotion as well as prior experience

with the product or service provider.

Perceived quality: The concept of perceived quality is divided into two

parts. The “hardware” component means the quality of the product as such,

while software relate to associated service like guarantees given ,

after-service, conditions of product display and assortment, etc.

Perceived value: It concerns the “value for money aspects as they are

experienced by the customer.

Customer satisfaction: The index indicates how satisfied customers are,

and how well there expectations are met.

Customer loyalty as the only consequence of satisfaction has been

exalted to a striking position by managers and marketing researchers in

recent years. In ACSI, customer loyalty was measured by post-purchase

behavior; in ECSI, it was extended to include customer word-of-mouth.

There are two differences between the ACSI and ECSI models. First,

the ECSI model does not include the incidence of complaint behavior as a

consequence of satisfaction. The ECSI model argue that Hirschman’s

exit-voice theory [23], on which the consequences of satisfaction in the

ACSI model based, was developed in a time when formal complaint

management systems were either non-existent or relatively primitive. At that

time, there was little focus on complaint handling for retaining customer,

complaining was a natural consequence of low satisfaction, not an

opportunity to increase satisfaction [24, 40]. Over the last decade, however,

researchers have realized that complaint resolution has become more

important than complaints per se. Therefore, complaints handling should be a

driver, which affect perceived quality, rather than a consequence of

satisfaction [26].

29

Second, the ECSI model incorporates corporate image as a latent

variable. Cassel and Ekl o&&f found that image latent variable adds a

significant amount of explanation to the model and should be included in the

structural model. Corporate image is specified to have direct effects on

customer expectations, satisfaction and loyalty [12].

The ECSI pilot study was conducted in 1999, totally, in the period

March to May, more than 50,000 customers in 11 European countries. The

minimum sample for each company was defined at 250 customers. In the

survey, the common sectors were banking, fixed telephones, mobile phones

and supermarket [12]. Other sectors selection is depended on each country’s

decision.

The CSI models comparison for SCSB, ACSI and ECSI is listed in

Table 3-1 as below:

Table 3-1 Models Comparison of SCSB, ACSI and ECSI

SCSB ACSI ECSI

Antecedents Perceived

Performance

Customer

Expectation

Customer

Expectations

Perceived

Product Quality

Perceived

Service Quality

Perceived Value

Image

Customer

Expectations

Perceived Quality

(Product/Hardware)

Perceived Quality

(Service/Software)

Perceived Value

Consequences Customer

Complaints

Customer

Loyalty

Customer

Complaints

Customer

Loyalty

Customer Loyalty

30

4. TAIWAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX MODEL

As noted by many researchers [16, 25, 29-30, 32, 33, 46], the quality

measures are developed in one culture may not be applicable in a different

culture setting, so there is a need to develop quality measures that are

country/culture specific.

4.1 TCSI Model

Taiwan customer satisfaction index (TCSI) model shown in Figure 4-1,

4-2 and 4-3, developed by the National Quality Research Center of Taiwan at

the Chunghua University in partnership with the Chinese Society for Quality

(CSQ), was modified from ACSI and ECSI models.

The main difference between TCSI model and ECSI model is the

impact of perceived service quality. TCSI model considers perceived service

quality influence customer satisfaction directly and through perceived value

indirectly, this is coincided with ACSI model.

Taiwan Customer Satisfaction Index is both a trend measure and a

benchmark for companies to compare themselves with others in their own or

other industries. TCSI will be a uniform, national, cross-industry measure of

satisfaction with the quality of goods and services available to household

consumers in Taiwan. TCSI can compare user satisfaction with the quality of

their services over time, and with services provided in the private sector.

The Taiwan National Quality Research Center (TNQRC) at Chunghua

University is proceeding to the research and production center for the index,

analyses of data, and report writing. CSQ distributes published reports and

news releases.

31

Figure 4-1 TCSI model: Private Sector (Product)


Figure 4-2 TCSI model: Private Sector (Service)


32

Figure 4-3 TCSI model: Government Services and Non-profit Organizations


33

4.2 Selection of Economic Sectors and Industries

The methodology for selecting of economic sectors and industries is

following the ACSI’s. TCSI measures economic sectors is based on the

Chinese Standard Industrial Classification (CSIC) [1] that produce products

and services sold directly to household customers. Please refer to the table 2

in the appendix. The Chinese standard industrial classification (CSIC)

consulted to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC). The

CSIC has been revised to the 7th edition according to the ISIC version3.1 [1].

Currently, the ISIC version 4.0 (draft) has been issued, Taiwan will modify to

the 8th edition; the change is small.

ISIC is a standard Classification of productive economic activities. Its

main purpose is to provide a set of activity categories that can be utilized for

the collection and presentation of statistics according to such activities.

Therefore, ISIC aims to present this set of activity categories in such a way

that entities can be classified according to the economic activity they carry

out. Defining the categories of ISIC is as much as possible linked with the

way the economic process is organized in units and the way in which this

process is described in economic statistics.

The selection of sectors, industries, companies, and government

services is premised on obtaining a representative of the Taiwan economy

that provides goods and services to households by measuring firms with total

sales that represent a significant proportion of the GDP. Accordingly, each of

the nine major economic sectors (one-letter alpha Chinese standard industrial

classification [CSIC] code level) with reachable end-users were included in

the design. Within each industry group, the major industrial groups

(one-digit CSIC codes) were selected on the basis of relative contribution to

the gross domestic product, and included 44 major and representative

industries (three-digit CSIC codes) in each industry group. Within each

industry the largest companies were selected, such that coverage included the

majority of each selected industry’s sales.

34

Finally, for each firm, average approximately 250 interviews were

conducted with the firm’s current customers by screening random chosen

adults in each telephone household taken from national and regional

probability samples.

The sectors included in TCSI produce 60% of the GDP [2]. Figure 4-4

shows the sectors and industries measured in TCSI.

The respondent is first asked questions about the purchase and use of

specific products and services within defined time periods by telephone

interview. These periods vary from three years for the purchase of a major

durable, to “within the past month” for frequently purchased consumer goods

and services. Once a respondent is identified to be qualified, the interviewer

proceeds with the customer satisfaction questionnaire which is prepared. The

measured companies, industries, and sectors are broadly representative of

Taiwan economy serving householders.

35

Figure 4-4 TCSI: National Economy, Sectors, and Industries


Manufacturing/ Nondurable Goods

10.10%

Construction 2.37%

Retail Trade7.31%

Accommodation & Food Services

1.97%

Culture、Athletics and Entertainment

1.59%

Transportation、Warehouse and Communication

6.78%

Finance & Insurance

10.54%

Health Care & Social

Assistance 2.75%

-Milk -Cans、refrigerated

food、dehydration、preserved food

-Candy and baking food

-Cooked fat -Seasoning -Alcohol、beer -Soft drink - Cigarettes -Drugs -Cleaning products -Cosmetics -Tires

-Construction of buildings

-Clocks、glasses

-Gasoline station

-Department store

-Supermarket

-Chain Convenience Store

-Retail sale

-Electron shopping and

mail order

-Direct sale

-Hotel

-Restaurant

-Land Transportation

-Civil Aviation

-Travel

-Express delivery

-Telecommunication

-Banks

-Stocks and

Bonds

-Life assurance

-Hospitals

-News

-Magazines

(Journal)

-Broadcast

-Television

-Amusement

park

Manufacturing/ Durable Goods

16.59%

-computers&

peripheral

equipment

-communication

equipment

-Vision &

Audio electron

ics

-Appliances

-Automobile

-Motorcycle

-Ceramic-bathro

om equipment

36

5. CONCLUSION

Customer satisfaction and retention are key issues for organizations in

today’s competitive market place. As such, much research has been invested

in developing accurate ways of assessing consumer satisfaction at both the

macro (national) and micro (organizational) level.

In the last decade, a number of national indicators reflecting consumer

satisfaction across a wide range of organizations have been developed (e.g.

Sweden, 1989; USA, 1994; European, 1998). At the national level, the

customer satisfaction index (CSI) is a nationwide gauge of how adequately

firms, and industries in general satisfy their customers.

These CSIs are fundamentally similar in measurement model (i.e.

causal model). They have some obvious distinctions in model’s structure and

variable’s selection. Taiwan is in the era of service-domain economy. Service

quality plays a greater role in customer post-consumption evaluation. Take

full advantages of other nations’ experiences, we can establish the Taiwan

CSI Model which is suited for Taiwan’s characters.

Therefore, in this study, establish the TCSI model based on SCSB,

ACSI, and ECSI models analysis, and modify them into the TCSI model.

In addition, identify 9 economic sectors and 44 major representative

industries were included on the basis of relative contribution to the gross

domestic product based on Taiwan’s economical structure also included in

this paper.

The Taiwan National Quality Research Center (TNQRC) at Chung Hua

University is proceeding to the TCSI research, based on the TCSI model

presented in this paper. The pilot study for air transportation, automobile, gas

station, etc. will be conducted in late 2006, to evaluate the stability and

robustness of empirical results from TCSI pilot survey rounds.

37

References

1. 行政院主計處，「行業分類標準」，第七版，http://www.dgbas.gov.tw。

2. 行政院主計處，「國民所得統計」，2004，http://www.dgbas.gov.tw。

3. ACSI, 2006, http://www.acsi.asq.org.

4. Anderson, Eugene W. and Claes Fornell (1991), "The Impact of Performance

on Customer Satisfaction and Retention: An Investigation of Industry

Differences," W91-001 Version 1.0, September 13.

5. Anderson, Eugene W. (1992), "Category Characteristics and the Impact of

Expectations, Perceived Quality, Disconfirmation on Customer Satisfaction

and Retention," W92-002 Version 1.0, May 1.

6. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), “Customer

satisfaction, market share and profitability: Findings from Sweden,” Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 53-56.

7. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Rust, R.T. (1997), “Customer Satisfaction,

Productivity, and Profitability: Differences Between Goods and Services,”

Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 129-145.

8. Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (2000), “Foundations of The American

Customer Satisfaction Index,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp.

S869-S882.

9. Andrews, F.M. (1984), “Construct Validity and Error Components of Survey

Measures: A Structural Modeling Approach,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.

48, pp.409-442.

10. Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P., (1995), “The Complex Relationship

Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Economic

Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311-329.

11. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), “A Dynamic

Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral

Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp. 7-27.

12. Cassel, C. and Ekl o&&f, J.A. (2001), “Modeling Customer Satisfaction and

Loyalty on Aggregate Levels: Experience From the ECSI Pilot Study,” Total

Quality Management, Vol. 12, No. (7-8), pp. 834-841.

13. De Ruyter, K., Bloemer, J., and Peerters, P. (1997), “Merging Service Quality

38

and Service Satisfaction: An Empirical Test on an Integrative Model,” Journal

of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, No.4, pp. 387-406.

14. Ekl o&&f, J.A. and Westlund, A.H. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction Index and Its

Role In Quality Management,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. (4-5),

ppS80-S85.

15. Ekl o&&f, J.A. and Westlund, A.H. (2002), “The Pan-European Customer

Satisfaction Index Program - Current Work and The Way Ahead,” Total

Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 8, pp1099-1106.

16. Espinoza, M.M. (1999), “Assessing the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a

Service Quality Measure: A Comparative Study Between Quebec and Peru,”

International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.

449-468.

17. Evans, J.R., and Lindsay, W.M., (1999), The Management and Control of

Quality, 4th ed., O.H.: South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati.

18. Fornell, C. (1992), “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The

Swedish Experience,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 6-21.

19. Fornell, C. (1995), “The Quality of Economic Output: Empirical

Generalizations About Its Distribution and Relationship to Market Share,”

Marketing Science, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 203-211.

20. Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996),

“The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings,”

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 7-18.

21. Grigoroudis, E., Politis, Y., and Siskos, Y. (2002), “Satisfaction Benchmarking

and Customer Classification: An Cpplication to Banking Services”,

International Transactions on Operational Management, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.

599-618.

22. Grigoroudis, E. and Siskos, Y. (2004), “A survey of customer satisfaction

barometers: Some results from the transportation-communications sector,”

European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 152, No. 2, pp. 334-353.

23. Herschman, A.O. (1970), “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty- Response to Decline in

Firms, Organization, and States,” Cambridge, Harvard University Press, MA.

24. Heskett, J.L., Sasser, Jr., W.E., and Hart, C.W. (1990), Services Breakthroughs:

Changing the Rules of the Game, N.Y.: The Free Press.

39

25. Imrie, B.C., Cadogan, J.W., and McNaughton, R. (2002), “The Service

Quality Construct on a Global Stage,” Management Service Quality, Vol. 12,

No. 1, pp. 10-18.

26. Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., and Cha, J.

(2001), “The Evolution and Future of National Customer Satisfaction Index

Model,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 217-245.

27. Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., and Fornell, C. (1995), “Rational and

Adaptive Performance Expectations in a Austomer Aatisfaction Framework,”

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 695-707.

28. Johnson, M.D., (1991), “A Framework For Comparing Customer Satisfaction

Across Individuals and Products Categories,” Journal of Economic

Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 267-286.

29. Kettinger, W.J., Lee, C.C., and Lee, S. (1995), “Global Measures of

Information Service Quality: A Cross-National Study,” Decision Science, Vol.

26, No. 5, pp. 569-588.

30. Karatepe, O.M., Yavas, U., and Babakus, E. (2005), “Measuring Service

Quality of Banks: Scales Development and Validation,” Journal of Retailing

and Consumer Services, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 373-383.

31. Kotler, P., 2006, Marketing Management, 12th ed., Prentice Hall, NY.

32. Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I.B. (1994),

“International Service Marketing: A Comparative Evaluation of the

Dimensions of Service Quality Between Developed and Developing

Countries,” International Marketing Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 5-15.

33. Mattila, A.S. (1999), “The Role of Culture and Purchase Motivation in

Service Encounter Evaluations,” Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13, No.

4-5, pp. 376-389.

34. National Quality Research Center (2005), American Customer Satisfaction

Index: Methodology Report, Milwaukee, WI. : University of Michigan

Business School.

35. Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the

Satisfaction Response,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.

418-430.

36. Oliver, R.L. (1997), “Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the

40

Consumer,” N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.

37. O’Loughlin, C. and Coenders, G. (2004), “Estimation of The European

Customer Satisfaction Index: Maximum Likelihood Versus Partial Least

Squares. Application to Postal Services,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 15,

No. 9-10, pp. 1231-1255.

38. Seigyoung Auh, and Michael D. Johnson (2005), “Compatibility Effects in

Evaluations of Satisfaction and Loyalty,” Journal of Economic Psychology,

Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 35-37.

39. Shankar, V., Smith, A.K. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), “Customer Satisfaction

and Loyalty in Online and Offline Environments,” International Journal of

Research in Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 153-175.

40. Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A Model of Customer

Satisfaction With Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,”

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 356-372.

41. The American Customer Satisfaction Index, http://www.theacsi.org.

42. The Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research,

http://202.121.129.66/transcend/www.iobe.gr/ecsi.htm.

43. The International Foundation for Customer Focus,

http://www.ifcf.org/ecsiPilot.asp

44. United Nations Statistics Division,

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/default.asp.

45. Vavra, T.G., 1997, “Improving Your Measurement of Customer Satisfaction,”

ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee.

46. Winsted, K.F., (1997), “The Service Experience in Two Cultures: A

Behavioral Perspective,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 337-360.

41

Appendix

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is listed two digital

codes as below:

Table Appendex-1 North American Industry Classification System (2002) 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 21 Mining 22 Utilities 23 Construction 31-33 Manufacturing 42 Wholesale Trade 44-45 Retail Trade 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 51 Information 52 Finance and Insurance 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 61 Educational Services 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 72 Accommodation and Food Services 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 92 Public Administration

42

Table Appendex-2 Chinese Standard Industrial Classification (The 7th edition) A. 農、林、漁、牧業 01 農、牧業 02 林業及伐木業 03 漁業 B. 礦業及土石採取業 04 能源礦業 05 其他礦業 06 土石採取業 C. 製造業 08 食品及飲料製造業 09 菸草製造業 10 紡織業 11 成衣、服飾品及其他紡織製品製造業 12 皮革、毛皮及其製品製造業 13 木竹製品製造業 14 家具及裝設品製造業 15 紙漿、紙及紙製品製造業 16 印刷及其輔助業 17 化學材料製造業 18 化學製品製造業 19 石油及煤製品製造業 20 橡膠製品製造業 21 塑膠製品製造業 22 非金屬礦物製品製造業 23 金屬基本工業 24 金屬製品製造業 25 機械設備製造修配業 26 電腦、通信及視聽電子產品製造業 27 電子零組件製造業 28 電力機械器材及設備製造修配業 29 運輸工具製造修配業 30 精密、光學、醫療器材及鐘錶製造業 31 其他工業製品製造業 D. 水電燃氣業 33 電力供應業 34 氣體燃料供應業 35 熱能供應業 36 用水供應業 E. 營造業 38 土木工程業 39 建築工程業 40 機電、電信、電路及管道工程業 41 建物裝修及裝潢業 42 其他營造業 F. 批發及零售業 44-45 批發業 46-48 零售業 G. 住宿及餐飲業 50 住宿服務業 51 餐飲業 H. 運輸、倉儲及通信業 53 陸上運輸業 54 水上運輸業 55 航空運輸業 56 儲配運輸物流業 57 運輸輔助業 58 倉儲業 59 郵政及快遞業 60 電信業 I. 金融及保險業 62 金融及其輔助業 63 證券及期貨業 64 保險業 J. 不動產及租賃業 66 不動產業 67 租賃業 K. 專業、科學及技術服務業 69 法律及會計服務業 70 建築及工程技術服務業 71 專門設計服務業 72 電腦系統設計服務業 73 資料處理及資訊供應服務業 74 顧問服務業 75 研究發展服務業 76 廣告業 77 其他專業、科學及技術服務業 L. 教育服務業 79 教育服務業 M. 醫療保健及社會福利服務業 81 醫療保健服務業 82 社會福利服務業 N. 文化、運動及休閒服務業 84 出版業 85 電影業 86 廣播電視業 87 藝文及運動服務業 88 圖書館及檔案保存業 89 博物館、歷史遺址及類似機構 90 休閒服務業 O. 其他服務業 92 支援服務業 93 環境衛生及污染防治服務業 94 宗教、職業及類似組織 95 維修服務業 96 未分類其他服務業 P. 公共行政業 98 公務機構及國防事業 99 國際組織及外國機構

畢業論文the establishments of taiwan customer satisfaction...

Documents