7.1 Implement a causal customer satisfaction model

Selecting or redesigning a customer satisfaction model, requires a set of objective selection criteria. Accordingly I have set twelve design criteria at which a customer satisfaction model should comply, so called model user requirement specifications (model-URS);

  1. Problem solving model.
    • - The model should lead to improvement of customer satisfaction challenges and an increase of the effectiveness and strength of B2B business development.
  2. Proven model.
    • - The model should be accepted and/or known in literature and industry.
  3. Comprehensive model.
    • - The model should be a causal construct with a high correlation between the latent and manifest variables.
  4. Generic B2B model.
    • - The model should fit in a B2B environment regardless the type of industry.
    • - To comply with Pareto driven organisations the model should have an out-side-in paradigm.
  5. Transparent and specific model.
    • - The model should be easy to understand and free of ambiguous criteria and processes.
  6. Feasible model.
    • - The model should be applicable within the bounds of B2B strategy and business processes/models
  7. Implementable model.
    • - The model should fit within marketing communication strategies.
  8. Tracking performance over time
    • - The model should serve for each individual EU country and/or class of markets, each EU business model and for a B2B organisation as a total.
  9. Bench marking
    • - The model should support internal benchmarking across countries, class of markets and business models.
    • - The model should support external bench marking across nations, industries and sectors.
  10. Diagnosing the effects of various quality initiatives
    • - The model should be applicable for diagnosing of product quality, service quality and overall quality initiatives.
  11. Result orientated model
    • - The model should have a logical and result driven process flow.
  12. Measurable model.
    • - The model must deliver objective and measurable criteria for customer satisfaction management

On the basis of the above criteria I recommend to implement the European Customer Satisfaction Index model (ECSI) as processed and renamed by EPSI, see figure 18. The model is described in my literature study and it comply with the above ten criteria. See chapter 5.1.4. The European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI).

The model has a strong focus on Europe. The model includes the latent corporate image variable which fulfils a significant role in risk reduction and information efficiency. Perceived product quality and perceived service quality two other important latent variable which fulfil an important function in B2B consultative selling organisation

Recommended SCI model – ECSI / EPSI model

Figure 18 Recommended SCI model – ECSI / EPSI model.

 

The ultimate objective of the Pan European program is to generate, analyse and present results from all these dimensions and relate them to key performance indicators. The EPSI approach is based on a casual model. The general strict anticipation within EPSI is that the econometric model should be able to explain around two thirds of what drives customer satisfaction. In general, the EPSI model is able to explain the major part of the variation in customer satisfaction based on the five specified drivers in the model.

EPSI is characterized by independence and a scientific background. These are combined with regularity in surveys, proven quality of methods and results, rich international benchmark database and new areas of research offered by the market and society. The network of EPSI national platforms and clients is active in around 20 European countries.

EPSI Research entity with office in London, England and the main operational office in Stockholm, Sweden, coordinates Pan European EPSI program. The participating countries conduct national studies based on comparable models and methods. In each of the countries one or more industries are included. The entire operation is coordinated and harmonized, to achieve maximal benchmarking opportunities for multi-national users, by the R&D office in Stockholm.