IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/05-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impact of Support Services on End-users’ Satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • D. VANDAELE
  • P. GEMMEL

Abstract

Research paper Purpose Despite the increased outsourcing of support services and their growing impact on the business industry, academic research on support services is not extensive. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of support services on the satisfaction of end-users – i.e. customers of the service organization purchasing the support services. Design Our research includes the visibility of support services to end-users and the importance attached by them, to investigate their impact on end-users’ satisfaction. Findings First, our research indicates that visible support services considered important by end-users are more critical to the purchasing organization than initially considered. Second, the performance of the support services supplier has a significant impact on the end-users’ satisfaction with the business service delivered by the service organization. Research implications Future research is needed to further explore the area of criticality of support services and their impact on end-users’ satisfaction and to establish a measurement scale for customer satisfaction in B2B services. Practical implications Support services can be critical to the purchasing organization. Therefore, the selection of an outsourcing partner should include more aspects than just price; the opinion of the endusers can be an additional selection criterion. Value of the paper This paper brings the concept of customer satisfaction into the field of B2B services. Moreover, this study contributes to the research field of support services by investigating their importance to the purchasing organization and by relating them to the end-users’ satisfaction. to be stationary. Our research is performed in the context of a financial services provider and analyzes the post-complaint periods of 2,326 customers. Our findings indicate that (i) it is interesting to consider complainants since they represent a typical and rather active customer segment, (ii) furthermore, it is beneficiary to invest in complaint handling, since these investments are likely to influence customers’ future behavior and (iii) survival forests are a helpful tool to investigate the impact of complaint handling on future customer behavior, since its components provide evidence of changing effects over time.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Vandaele & P. Gemmel, 2005. "Impact of Support Services on End-users’ Satisfaction," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 05/300, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
  • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:05/300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_05_300.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abraham, Katharine G & Taylor, Susan K, 1996. "Firms' Use of Outside Contractors: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(3), pages 394-424, July.
    2. Quélin, Bertrand & Duhamel, François, 2003. "Bringing Together Strategic Outsourcing and Corporate Strategy:: Outsourcing Motives and Risks," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 647-661, October.
    3. Homburg, Christian & Rudolph, Bettina, 2001. "Customer satisfaction in industrial markets: dimensional and multiple role issues," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 15-33, April.
    4. Andreas Eggert & Wolfgang Ulaga, 2002. "Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets?," Post-Print hal-00484980, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. Everaert & G. Sarens & J. Rommel, 2006. "Sourcing of Accounting: Evidence from Belgian SMEs," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/403, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    2. Steven Globerman & Aidan Vining, 2004. "The Outsourcing Decision: A Strategic Framework," International Trade 0404007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Anthony J. deLeon & Sharmila C. Chatterjee, 2017. "B2B relationship calculus: quantifying resource effects in service-dominant logic," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 402-427, May.
    4. Roger Strange, 2011. "The outsourcing of primary activities: theoretical analysis and propositions," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(2), pages 249-269, May.
    5. John S. Heywood & W.S. Siebert & Xiangdong Wei, 2011. "Estimating the Use of Agency Workers: Can Family-Friendly Practices Reduce Their Use?," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 535-564, July.
    6. Jae Song & David J Price & Fatih Guvenen & Nicholas Bloom & Till von Wachter, 2019. "Firming Up Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 1-50.
    7. Gunasekaran, Angappa & Irani, Zahir & Choy, King-Lun & Filippi, Lionel & Papadopoulos, Thanos, 2015. "Performance measures and metrics in outsourcing decisions: A review for research and applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 153-166.
    8. Dermot Leahy & Catia Montagna, 2006. "'Make-or-Buy' in International Oligopoly and the Role of Competitive Pressure," Dundee Discussion Papers in Economics 197, Economic Studies, University of Dundee.
    9. James Spletzer & Elizabeth Weber Handwerker, 2015. "The Role of Establishments and the Concentration of Occupations in Wage Inequality," Working Papers id:7427, eSocialSciences.
    10. Patrick Francois & Joanne Roberts, 2003. "Contracting Productivity Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(1), pages 59-85.
    11. Pol Antras & Elhanan Helpman, 2004. "Global Sourcing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(3), pages 552-580, June.
    12. Yi-Ju Lo & Tung Hung, 2015. "Structure offshoring and returns on offshoring," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 443-479, June.
    13. Niquidet, Kurt & O'Kelly, Glen, 2010. "Forest-mill integration: A transaction cost perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 207-212, March.
    14. Garcia, Angel & Jaumandreu, Jordi & Rodriguez, Cesar, 2004. "Innovation and jobs: evidence from manufacturing firms," MPRA Paper 1204, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Corinne Perraudin & Héloïse Petit & Nadine Thèvenot & Bruno Tinel & Julie Valentin, 2009. "Inter-firm dependency and employment inequalities: Theoretical hypotheses and empirical tests," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 09019, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    16. Yuhan Ge & Qing Yuan & Yaxi Wang & Keunsoo Park, 2021. "The Structural Relationship among Perceived Service Quality, Perceived Value, and Customer Satisfaction-Focused on Starbucks Reserve Coffee Shops in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Bernd Görzig & Andreas Stephan, 2002. "Outsourcing and Firm-level Performance," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 309, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Basu, Arnab K. & Chau, Nancy H. & Soundararajan, Vidhya, 2019. "Wage fairness in a subcontracted labor market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 24-42.
    19. Giuseppe Bognetti & Michele Santoni, 2010. "Can domestic unions gain from offshoring?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 100(1), pages 51-67, May.
    20. Marcello Estevao & Saul Lach, 1999. "Measuring temporary labor outsourcing in U.S. manufacturing," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1999-57, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:05/300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.