مفهوم رضایت در بازارهای صنعتی: دیدگاه زمینه ای و یک مطالعه موردی از صنعت نرم افزار

The starting point for this study was the obvious “mismatch” between the dominating, consumer marketing-oriented way of approaching customer satisfaction on the one hand and our current understanding of industrial buyer–seller relationships and networks on the other. The purpose of this paper is to present a relational and contextual perspective on customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction in industrial markets. To illustrate the usefulness of the perspective, this paper presents a case study on the emergence of dissatisfaction in a buyer–seller relationship within its network context in the software industry. On the basis of the three-level framework highlighted in this paper, i.e., the inner context of a buyer–seller relationship, the connected network of a buyer–seller relationship, and the outer context of the connected network, it is argued that it is possible to develop a richer understanding of the emergence of satisfaction in industrial markets.

Consumer satisfaction is one of the core areas of interest in marketing in the academic world and practice 1, 2, 3 and 4. Some evidence has been presented regarding a link between customer satisfaction, customer relationship continuity, and the performance of the firm 5, 6 and 7. Different approaches to the measurement of customer satisfaction developed in consumer research [1] have had a strong effect on quality models developed in services marketing research and in various TQM approaches, as well as on the discussion of customer satisfaction in industrial marketing 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The recent emergence of relationalism or “relationship marketing” as a core philosophy of marketing has gradually shifted the emphasis from transactions to long-term relationships in both academic research and managerial practice 13, 14 and 15. A large amount of research has been conducted concerning interorganizational business relationships and networks. The earliest research concentrated mostly on understanding the nature of dyadic relationships based on the seminal observation that both customer and supplier are active [16]. In the next phase, the focus changed to understanding the dynamic development of dyadic relationships 17 and 18. One of the main conclusions of the Europe-based International/Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) Group studies is that a dyadic relationship has to be studied in the context of a larger set of interfirm relationships which form the business context of the focal dyad. This network perspective has recently attracted considerable interest among business marketing researchers 19, 20 and 21. However, the relational orientation also calls for a more complete understanding of satisfaction. The relationship perspective emphasizes the mutual nature of satisfaction (c.f. the concept of buyer–seller customer satisfaction in Emerson and Grimm [22]). Thus, the satisfaction of both business parties can be seen as a cohesive factor or force in the development of buyer–seller relationships. Within long-term business relationships, a repeated purchase situation is usually, at the same time, a pre-purchase situation. For instance, the customer will not repeat his purchase if his expectations have not been fulfilled [23]. Furthermore, high customer satisfaction often also creates bonding and commitment between interacting parties, which inevitably increases customer retention 24 and 25.

In this paper, we have viewed the concept of satisfaction in industrial markets as more complex and multifaceted than it is in the “mainstream” literature. It is probably also more difficult and demanding to study satisfaction and dissatisfaction from our perspective than from a more traditional one. However, we believe we have contributed to a more realistic understanding of the conditions affecting customer satisfaction in industrial markets. We admit that contextually sensitive studies on customer satisfaction are more time-consuming and resource-demanding than traditional customer surveys. In conducting a study like the one presented in this paper, a number of in-depth interviews with key actor-informants in both the buying and the supplying organizations, in their connected networks and in the industry, have to be conducted. The fact that industrial companies usually have relatively few key customers [20] means that it is feasible to gather and analyze qualitative information on customer satisfaction. This is also true for larger industrial corporations, where the proper unit of analysis is the business unit that is operationally responsible for customer relationships. On the other hand, due to the smallness of the customer base, there is often no real need for, or even the possibility of, quantitative analysis. Statistically significant quantitative studies of customer satisfaction probably require the inclusion of many unimportant customers in the sample. Moreover, in, e.g., a specific bidding situation, it is more important for a supplier to know about the satisfaction perceptions of key decision makers within a single customer organization than about “average” satisfaction ratings in its customer base. The inherent richness of the information gathered in this manner also poses a great challenge to the researcher. He or she has to analyze and reduce the information to a manageable format without losing its potential for generating insightful interpretations of the current situation. Research reports usually consist of various narratives capturing the informants' perspectives on the subject matter in different contexts. Traditionally-thinking managers may have problems accepting such information as a basis for their decision making. They usually demand more “objective”, i.e., usually quantified, information which they believe to be more reliable. However, we argue that the “objectivity” of such numbers is an illusion. If we really aim to achieve a deep understanding of industrial customer satisfaction in context, the ambiguity of information has to be accepted. The richness and controversy in this qualitative information can also create new opportunities for managers really to see the “deep structures” of their business, and how this affects the emergence of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction beyond numerical indicators [47]. The important decision of whether a focal supplier should consider single key customer relationships, broader customer relationship portfolios, or “average” customers' relationships as the unit of analysis for measuring customer satisfaction in context should be grounded on this deep structural information.