Search results

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to critique the adequacy of efforts to capture the complexities of customer experience in a business-to-business (B2B) context using input–output measures. The paper introduces a strategic customer experience management framework to capture the complexity of B2B service interactions and discusses the value of outcomes-based measurement.

This is a theoretical paper that reviews extant literature related to B2B customer experience and asks fresh questions regarding B2B customer experience at a more strategic network level.

The paper offers a reconceptualisation of B2B customer experience, proposes a strategic customer experience management framework and outlines a future research agenda.

This paper is conceptual and seeks to raise questions surrounding the under-examined area of B2B customer experience. As a consequence, it has inevitable limitations resulting from the lack of empirical evidence to support the reconceptualisation.

Existing measures of customer experience are problematic when applied in a B2B (services) context. Rather than adopting input- and output-based measures, widely used in a business-to-consumer (B2C) context, a B2B context requires a more strategic approach to capturing and managing customer experience. Focussing on strategically important issues should generate opportunities for value co-creation and are more likely to involve outcomes-based measures.

Improving the understanding of customer experience in a B2B context should allow organisations to design better services and consequently enhance the experiences of their employees, their customers and other connected actors.

This paper critiques the current approach to measuring customer experience in a B2B context, drawing on contemporary ideas of value-in-use, outcomes-based measures and “Big Data” to offer potential solutions to the measurement problems identified.

The aim of the paper is to study the degree of independence of customers' portfolio concentration measure from the pricing policy adopted by rating agencies.

The paper tests different measures of customers value (revenues or profits and customer lifetime value) and different concentration measure (top customer or Herfindahl‐Hirschman index) on the customers' portfolio of rating agencies in the time period 1999‐2008. Simulating different pricing models, the paper tests the sensitivity of these measures to discounted fees applied to best customers and identifies measures that are more and less sensitive to the discount applied.

Concentration measures that consider all the customers' portfolios and look at both cost and revenues related to the service on a multi‐period time horizon (CLV) are less sensitive to the discount policy respect to the others.

Results point out some opportunities related to apply more complete approaches defined by marketing science on the financial service industry in order to construct better measures for the economic independence. The paper works only with publicly available data and more details about the fee applied to each customer could increase the significance of the results achieved.

The paper contributes to the current debate on the economic independence of rating agencies stressing the opportunity of rethinking the measures on economic independence that are currently considered by supervisory authorities.

The paper is the first empirical application of standard marketing concepts of customers' concentration measure to the rating industry.

The paper studies the pricing policies adopted by ratings agencies.

Models of value creation that have been proposed for supporting value-based management are described and analyzed, including the Balanced Scorecard, the Baldrige Quality Award Criteria, the Deming Management Method, the Service-Profit Chain, and the Skandia Intellectual Capital Model. These models are compared, their potential for guiding the identification of value drivers and performance measures for value-based management is assessed, and management issues that must be addressed if such models are to contribute to long-run value creation are explored. These issues include causally linking value drivers to each other and to financial outcomes, the extent to which the models take a dynamic, or whole-system, view of value creation, and whether multiple value drivers should be explicitly weighted and combined to form a “value index.” Finally, the substantial body of research evidence linking intangible value drivers to financial outcomes is reviewed, and some directions for further research are offered.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.

The purpose of this paper is to measure service productivity using the Service Enterprise Productivity in Action (SEPIA) model. The research operationalises only one of the five stakeholder groups, the customer interface which incorporates service complexity (SC), customer interactions, customer channel, customer loyalty (CL) (new) as inputs, and CL (referred and repeat) and willingness to pay as output measures.

The research extends our understanding of existing service productivity models with the development of the SEPIA model. Data were collected from 14 organisations operating in the Australian travel and tourism industry, which was analysed using a data envelopment analysis input oriented variable return to scale method as applied to the SEPIA model customer interface.

Four key findings from the research include: customer choice and their ability to pay is a determinant of service productivity; service productivity is a two stage process when measured; SC is not categorical; and quality business systems do impact service productivity.

A limitation of this research is that only one (customer) of the five key stakeholders, customer, employee, manager, supplier and shareholder, was operationalised in this research paper.

The operationalisation of the SEPIA customer interface using transactional data and measuring non-financial, intangible factors of productivity provide managers with insights on what services to offer, when to invest in or promote the use of technology and whether to spend marketing effort on customer acquisition or customer retention.

The SEPIA model positions service firms within a social and service value network and provides a range of customer measures that extend the current capital (K), labour (L), energy (E), materials (M) and service (S), KLEMS measure of productivity and can be used to show the impact customers have on service productivity.

This paper aims to extend previous studies on new product development (NPD) performance by identifying the product advantage, new product performance and organisational performance indicators that are considered by small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) to be most relevant to their performance.

A quantitative research approach was adopted, using a cross-sectional survey of a sample of 137 firms representing the industry sectors active within the Irish economy. The research instrument was based on existing recognised research measures.

The results suggest that: large firms consider that their products derive advantage through product quality and cost, while SMEs are more concerned with satisfying customer needs; larger firms concentrate on market measures in measuring new product performance, while SMEs focus on customer acceptance measures; and in measuring organisational performance larger firms focus on market share and profitability, while SMEs concentrate on profitability and sales growth.

This study identifies the aspects of product advantage, new product performance and organisational performance on which firms concentrate, thereby increasing our ability to redirect their focus from what they consider to be important, to what will have an impact on their firm's performance.

This study identifies the aspects of product advantage, new product performance and organisational performance on which firms concentrate, thereby increasing our ability to redirect their focus from what they consider to be important, to what will have an impact on their firm's performance.

Customer service is often described as consisting of a set of measurable elements. Similarly, market response to customer service may be viewed as consisting of a set of components which are measurable. Most published empirical studies of the relationship between customer service and market response, however, have represented market response through the use of a single measure. The results of an empirical study of interset association between two sets of measures, one representing the elements of customer service (measured in service levels) and the other representing various forms of market response, are reported. Canonical correlation analysis of data collected from 91 grocery channel dyads indicated (as expected) a closer association of market response with customer perceptions of customer service than with supplier perceptions of the same. Also presented, is the contribution of individual measures to the close association between market response and customer perceptions of customer service.

Nowadays, maintenance companies form networks, where multiple organizations and actors can deliver value to the customers. Current literature does not take into account how the value created by the entire network can be measured. The purpose of this paper is to address this research gap by identifying how the value created by the maintenance network as well as the participating individual organization can be measured simultaneously.

The research has been carried out using the qualitative research approach. The findings of the study are based on literature search as well as research processes carried out in two maintenance service networks.

The study presents a framework and propositions on how to measure network value in maintenance services. According to the results, the network value can be measured from the following five perspectives: financial capital, i.e., savings or growth; end customer capital such as the end customer satisfaction and recommending customers; network capital, i.e., know-how development and learning; sustainable capital such as business continuity and environmental safety; and relationship capital, such as reputation and new contacts.

Despite the increasing amount of literature on performance measurement in networks, theory is still lacking that reflects the complexity and dynamism when value is delivered to customers through maintenance networks. Significant novelty of the research is based on combining network, service, and value perspectives in performance measurement.

This paper seeks to explore empirically the relationships between efficiency, financial performance and customer service quality among a representative cross‐section of Australian banks and credit unions and the correlations between these categories of measures. In particular, it seeks to explore the strength of the relationship between efficiency, financial performance and service quality. Results show that all financial performance measures (interest margin, expense/income, return on assets and capital adequacy) are positively correlated with customer service quality scores. In contrast, the absence of a consistently positive relationship between efficiency and financial performance suggests that financial institutions that pursue improved financial performance through the single‐minded pursuit of lower costs may be fundamentally misguided.