Satisfaction and Force Group Analysis - Research Paper Example

? SATISFACTION AND FORCE GROUP ANALYSIS Satisfaction Analysis ‘Satisfaction’ is a term that can be used in varied contexts and from numerous perspectives. However, satisfaction is a point where one feels satisfied, contended. It can be a situation where an individual agrees and approves his immediate environment, events, occurrences, object, services, product etc. In other words, fulfillment or gratification of any desire can also be termed as ‘satisfaction.’ According to Zethimal et al. (1993), satisfaction is considered to be the outcome that is derived when desired services and perceived services are compared. In a study by Chadee, Doren and Mattson (1996), tourism experiences have been catered to where quality factors are targeted for deriving the global satisfaction of tourists. The research reveals that different tourist encounters rate for different quality factors, thus confirming that satisfaction is perceived differently by every individual in accordance with his desired need and alleged service. Satisfaction is generally referred to customer’s content. It is the point where a customer approves a product based on a comparison between his perceived performances of the same to his expectations from the product. The term ‘satisfaction’ can also be swapped by different expressions such as discharge of a service, fulfillment of an obligation or a claim. Attaining customer satisfaction has become one of the prime goals of any organization or sector, may it be banking, retailing, hospitality and numerous others. The concept has compelled eminent authors to perform rigorous studies and analysis in order to measure its worth and various techniques through which a quantitative and qualitative measurement of ‘satisfaction’ can be performed. Satisfaction from organizational perspective is also critical. What an organization thinks about the term ‘satisfaction’ and how it intends to incorporate it in its business practice, must also be considered. In one of the study performed by Todd (2006) on identifying the customer satisfaction pertaining to a banking environment clearly states that satisfaction derived by customer through the services rendered by the bank has actually paid the organization manifolds in future. Here not only pertaining to the banking sector but almost all sectors and industries, the ultimate aim of an organization is to achieve growth and it is almost impossible to attain the objective till the time the organization achieves customer satisfaction." Hence from this perspective, satisfaction can be defined as an imperative element that aligns organizational practices with customer’s expectations leading to the firm’s organizational success and future growth and customer’s gratification as well. The study reveals that satisfaction varies from customer to customer. In banking, the popular impression one has is that personal service satisfies customers but this is just one little element of its measurement. Satisfaction entails other components as well such as convenience, location, proximity, price efficiency etc, hence it is said that there is no particular way to measure customer satisfaction. There are numerous experts who have devoted extended careers in studying customer satisfaction but can’t identify what satisfaction exactly means and on what specific grounds it should be measured. Importance of Measurement of Customer Satisfaction Measurement of customer satisfaction is extremely essential as it helps an organization to analyze what a customer expects from a product or a firm. It is all the more needed as: The performance raking, if not measured properly, can be misleading; performance trends, if not studied on proper grounds, can reveal misguided information and moreover, faulty deductions can further lead towards improper investment and exorbitant losses for the company (Brandt 1997). In a research conducted by Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml (1991), customer satisfaction levels from various sectors were consolidated including telephone repair, retail banking and insurance. In this very study and many others (Crompton and Mackay 1989), efforts are made in order to measure the customer perception of service quality. Other researches have also frequently used this tool to measure ‘satisfaction’. To measure the gap between the perceived services and the desired services, this tool is divided into two sections: first containing 22 items to measure the customer service expectation from various companies such as banking etc, and second divided into 22 items to measure the perception from the specific company or organization. This tool of measurement is preferred by many as it entails five dimensions to give it a more holistic approach for determining satisfaction. The five dimensions include tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Researches have confirmed the fact that satisfaction measurement is not limited to survey generation only as it is just one aspect of its measurement. In a research conducted by Shelly (1997), it was clearly mentioned that generally surveys regarded to be the most common measurement criteria are designed to educe obsequious responses which generates biasness. Thus, satisfaction measurement needs involvement of innovative and reliable techniques. Gulledge (2006) explored a seven step model for measuring customer satisfaction whereby components considered comprise: Situation assessment: learn your customer Qualitative – employees: Involvement of employees towards customer satisfaction Qualitative – customers and noncustomers: Insight towards strengths & weaknesses of existing and potential prospects Quantitative – employees: Measurement of employee satisfaction that can be related to customer satisfaction Quantitative – customers and noncustomers: Rating of customer satisfaction can help in benchmarking Data deployment and use: Identifying and implementing desired change Quantitative tracking: Making the process a perpetual exercise (Gulledge G 2006) Need for Implementation of Satisfaction Measurement System or Model It is imperative for every organization to understand the concept of customer satisfaction and even more important to gauge the performance on a regular basis through techniques such as performance appraisals, introducing bonus plans, department wise measurements or effective communication strategies (Rich and Dana 2002). Many organizations are suffering the ill effects of unauthentic measurement of customer satisfaction such as measurement on attribute to attribute basis generates halo effect (Wirtz 2001), thus a well structured and well framed customer satisfaction measurement and management system can facilitate in ascertaining pre-defined business objectives by designing and developing a market oriented business plan, identifying the key performance indicators, product development, service assessment, continuous up gradation and benchmarking (Dickey 1998). Task 2 Focus Groups Disadvantages of Focus Group Research Focus groups are a method through which a group of members are interviewed at a particular time encouraging interaction between the moderator and the group members and amongst the members as well (Mansell, Bennett, Northway, Mead and Donna  2004). This is a well acclaimed technique due to its dynamicity and potential delving deep and generating a level of insight that probably no other unidirectional technique could do such as observation, surveys etc., provided the method is applied to its best (Ward 1994). Focus group methods are specifically meant for collecting qualitative data and have been adopted as a preferable method over the years by many researchers in various field such as health care research, service industry, voluntary organizations etc (Mansell, Bennett, Northway, Mead and Donna  2004); however, this method is prone to ambiguity, concerns over its execution, appropriate size framework, objective etc. It is often criticized that focus group over a period of time are influenced by one or more than one influential or overriding people in a group that generates biasness of results in the future. Though the moderator in that group does try to maintain balance, yet lack of experience and dominance could topsy-turvy the ultimate objective of the act. Moreover, it is very easy to get swayed or distracted from the original issue or research area and move off track. In this situation the facilitator does have an important role to play, yet rowdy, rugged and tough group is difficult to control at times. Here the skills of a moderator to handle complex situations are required most. Moreover, in situations of personalized judgment and participation as in health care research or any other where respondent is required to highlight his feelings over sensitive issues, focus groups do not seem to be the apt choice. It is difficult for people to openly share their thoughts, views, opinion for subjects which are sensitive or personal. The facilitator plays a very critical role here to control the environment and accomplish the desired objective of the task initiated (Reventlow and Tulinius 2005). Hence, focus groups in particular are not an effective method for bringing out personal revelations for sensitive or controversial concerns. Moreover, focus groups are not very projectable in nature, as the results or the outcome derived from such research can have the same projectability when compared with other qualitative techniques. Not considering the new developments in focus group, these couldn’t be organized in all places. Time and location constraints make this option less feasible in various situations (Pearce 1999). Thus, such groups cannot be taken for as a generalization for the universal data. Such groups are beneficial for the initiation of a research and after which a more structured, authentic and more reliable technique could be added on in resolving a research problem. It is argued that members of a focus group who are intervened and observed in a closed netted environment might behave differently under situations when they not watched purposely. People behave in an unexpected manner when they are aware that every move they make is under supervision. This unreal environment of a focus group might generate results which are artificial and subjected to biasness (Marketing News1993, 27). Focus groups are also revolving around ethical concerns as explored in a few of the researches conducted. Ethical variables such as privacy, cultural sensitivities subjected to languages, cross cultural environment, religion and tradition, norms etc. often pose difficult situations in conducting focus group research. Kalyani (2011) has clearly revealed in her study conducted on the concept of ageing and society dealt with Asian participants and found that people have differences and need to be catered while conducting such research. Moreover, now the concept of focus group is consistently eroding and getting washed as other consumer oriented techniques have emerged (Pfanner and Eric 2006). To make focus group research more meaningful and productive, new trends have been opted in the recent pass to overcome the barriers of traditional focus group research. Traditionally, in a focus group members were involved in a discussion about a specific product while the moderator and the other team concerned watched them closely from behind the scenes. Members were aware that they were watched but one of the recent trends has been of using a collage building task whereby the participants or the members of the group were judged about their feelings and opinions of a brand or a concept on a techno front (Amel and Touzi 2011). Very recently for Uniliver, Ms. Koles designed four tables with different objects that depicted the various sensory motions that are touch, smell, sight and taste. iPods were distributed to members which were inbuilt with pop music. Participants were asked to visually express their feelings regarding the two web based applications related to Sauve, a hair line product. Likewise through this collage building process, a deeper insight into the women’s emotions and feelings could be raced making the participants feel more comfortable and relaxed and helping organizations to draw more realistic results. Second successful trend in focus research is the use of virtual focus groups by getting members involved in Facebook chats, twitter chats and other social networking sites, encouraging use of video conferencing etc (Harris and Leslie 1995). Adler and Yosepha (2002) conducted a virtual focus group study on pregnant women who were on home bed rest. Members find it all the more convenient and time effective to be a part of the discussion and group representing a common goal or subject of discussion. Likewise, a deeper thought process could be instigated with a more controlled environment. Reference List Adler, Carrie L. and Zarchin R. Yosepha. 2002. “The Virtual Focus Group: Using the Internet to Reach Pregnant Women on Home Bed Rest. “ Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing: JOGNN31 (4):418-27. Amel, Hamrouni D. and Maha Tauzi. 2011. “Technique of Collage for Store Design Atmospherics.” Qualitative Market Research14 (3):304-323. Brandt, Randy. Oct 27, 1997. “Satisfaction Studies Must Measure What the Customer Wants and Expects.” Marketing News31 (22):17. Chadee, Doren D. and Ian Mattson. 1996. “An Empirical Assessment of Customer Satisfaction in Tourism.” The Service Industries Journal 16 (3): 305. Cirillo, R. and D. Silverstein. 2002. “How To Measure Customer Satisfaction -- Solution Providers Are Stepping up Customer-Satisfaction Programs in an Effort to Hold onto More Business.” VARbusiness18 (14):52. Crompton, John L. and Kelly J. Mackay. 1989.“Users Perception of the Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions in Selected Public Recreation Programs.” Leisure Sciences 11: 367- 375. Davenport, Todd. 2006. “Satisfaction -- for What It's Worth.” American Banker [New York, N.Y]: 1. Eric, Pfanner. 2006. “Agencies Look Beyond Focus Groups to Spot Trends.” New York Times [New York, N.Y]: C.2. Gulledge, Larry G. 1996. “Satisfaction Measurement Is More than Doing Surveys.” Marketing News30 (22):8. Harris, Leslie M. 1995. “Technology, Techniques Drive Focus Group Trends.” Marketing News29 (5):8. John, Dickey D. 1998. “Creating a Customer Satisfaction Measurement System.” Industrial Management40 (2):8-11. Jochen, W. 2001. “Improving the Measurement of Customer Satisfaction: A Test of Three Methods to Reduce Halo.” Managing Service Quality11 (2):99-112. Kalyani, Mehta K. 2011. “The Challenges of Conducting Focus-Group Research Among Asian Older Adults.” Ageing and Society 31 (3): 408-421. Parasuraman, A., Leonard L. Berry and Valerie A. Zeithaml. 1991. “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale.” Journal of Retailing 67 (4): 420. Mansell, Ian, Glynis Bennett, Ruth Norway, Donna Mead and Laurie Moseley. 2004. “The Learning Curve: The Advantages and Disadvantages in the Use of Focus Groups as a Method of Data Collection.” Nurse Researcher11 (4):79-88. Micheal, P. 1998-1999. “Getting full value from focus-group research.” Ivey Business Journal63 (2):72-76. Reese, Shelly. 1997. “What's Behind Those Satisfaction Surveys?”Business and Health15 (8):29-35.  Reventlow, S. and C. Tilinius. 2005. “The Doctor as Focus Group Moderator--Shifting Roles and Negotiating Positions in Health Research.” Family Practice: 335-40. Marketing News. 1993. “Convention Focus Groups Are a Way to Increase Geographic Rep.” Marketing News27 (1):FG2. Ward, Alison. 1994. “The Handbook for Focus Group Research.” Journal of Marketing58 (3):120. Read More