外文翻譯--顧客滿意度指數(shù)模型的演變和未來(lái)（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1900單詞，10700英文字符，3050漢字</p><p>　　出處：Johnson M D, Gustafsson A, Andreassen T W, et al. The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20

2、01, 22(2):217–223.</p><p>　　The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models</p><p>　　MD Johnson，A Gustafsson，TW Andreassen，L Lervik，J Cha</p><p><b>　　A

3、bstract</b></p><p>　　A number of both national and international customer satisfaction barometers and indices have been introduced in the last decade. For the most part, these satisfaction indices are

4、embedded within a system of cause and effect relationships or satisfaction model. Yet there has been little in the way of model development. Of critical importance to the validity and reliability of such indices is that

5、the models and methods used to measure customer satisfaction and related constructs continue to lear</p><p>　　Keywords: Customer satisfaction National barometers </p><p>　　1. Introduction</

6、p><p>　　Customer satisfaction has taken on national and international significance with the development of national satisfaction barometers and indices in Sweden (Fornell, 1992), the US (Fornell, Johnson, Ander

7、son, Cha, & Bryant, 1996) and Norway (Andreessen & Lindestad, 1998). Indices have also been pilot tested in New Zealand, Austria, Korea and the European Union. It remains to be seen whether these indices will dev

8、elop on a global level and, importantly, in what form. Of critical importance to the v</p><p>　　Viewing satisfaction as a form of consumption utility is also consistent with Poiesz and von Grumbkow's (19

9、88) general framework for understanding economic “well being”. This framework views economic well being as one component of an individual's overall quality of life. Other domains include evaluations of health, socio-

10、cultural context, political freedom and stability. Economic well-being is itself composed of three sub-components, job satisfaction, income evaluation, and consumer or customer </p><p>　　2. The evolution of

11、national satisfaction index models</p><p>　　Established in 1989, the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) was the first truly national customer satisfaction index for domestically purchased and con

12、sumed products and services (Fornell, 1992). It has historically included approximately 130 companies from 32 of Sweden's largest industries. The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) was introduced in the fall

13、 of 1994 and reports results for approximately 200 companies from 34 industries (Fornell, 1996). The Norwegian Customer S</p><p>　　In reviewing the national indices, we pay particular attention to the ACSI m

14、odel specification. This model is an evolution of the original Swedish model, has been adopted on a smaller scale in New Zealand and Taiwan (Fornell, 1996) and Austria (Hackl, Scharitzer, Zuba, 1996), and is the basis fo

15、r the models being used in Norway and the EU. A critical evaluation of the model is, therefore, important to develop the best possible model specification. </p><p>　　5. Summary and discussion</p><

16、p>　　A number of both national and international customer satisfaction barometers and indices have been introduced in the last decade, most of which are embedded within a system of cause and effect relationships (satis

17、faction models). Of critical importance to the validity and reliability of such indices is that the models and methods used to measure customer satisfaction and related constructs continue to learn, adapt, and improve ov

18、er time. Building on recent findings and current research trends, w</p><p>　　We summarize and discuss our findings with respect to each of the proposed changes. One change was to add multiple benchmark compa

19、risons for price to isolate a perceived price index. The model successfully isolates perceived price, and by removing “value” from the model and replacing it with price, we remove the overlap that exists between value an

20、d quality in, for example, the ACSI and ECSI models. We also argued that price may have a direct effect on loyalty over and above its indirect effect </p><p>　　Building upon the original NCSB model, our prop

21、osed model also includes two relationship commitment variables. Affective commitment captures more of the positive (or negative) relationship and trust that has built up between company and customer over time. Calculativ

22、e commitment captures more of the economic consequences or costs associated with switching product or service providers. Both constructs are positively affected by satisfaction in four of five industries. As for the effe

23、ct of price o</p><p>　　One of the most important findings is the large positive effect that affective commitment has on loyalty. The effect is significant in four of five categories, bus transport again bein

24、g the exception. In these four industries, affective commitment has a larger effect on loyalty than does satisfaction directly. This suggests that satisfaction affects loyalty largely through its ability to build strong

25、relationships between companies and customers. Adding the commitment variables has the benefit o</p><p>　　Another major change is that we replace customer expectations, as an antecedent to satisfaction, with

26、 corporate image as a consequence of satisfaction. Recall that this change is based on the cross-sectional nature of the national index data, where a customer's consumption experiences (satisfaction) should have some

27、 influence on their perceptions of corporate image. The model is successful at isolating the corporate image construct, and the construct behaves as expected. Satisfaction has a consi</p><p>　　The direct eff

28、ect of satisfaction on loyalty, which ranges from a low of 0.130 for trains to a high of 0.289 for banks, is also positive and significant for each industry. This direct effect captures the effects of satisfaction on loy

29、alty that are not mediated by the corporate image or commitment constructs. Given that we have added more drivers of loyalty, it is useful to examine the total effect that satisfaction has on loyalty in each case. The to

30、tal effect is the sum of all direct and indire</p><p>　　Complaint handling and the SERVQUAL constructs were two areas where the model did not perform as well as expected. In the ACSI model, complaint behavio

31、r is modeled as a consequence of satisfaction. Because complaint handing is an increasingly important means of improving satisfaction, we used the quality of complaint handling among complaining customers as a driver of

32、both satisfaction and loyalty. Although we successfully isolate a complaint-handling construct, it has little effect on either sa</p><p>　　The NCSB model uses a variation on the SERVQUAL constructs (tangible

33、s, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) as service quality dimensions across industries. In contrast, the ACSI uses an overall quality construct, while the ECSI distinguishes between overall service and ov

34、erall product quality. As argued earlier, this is largely a matter of choice. How one specifies product or service quality depends on the level of detail versus generality desired in the research. Using the SERVQ</p&g

35、t;<p>　　Overall, however, our results are quite promising. The pure price construct functioned as anticipated with respect to both satisfaction and loyalty. Cumulative satisfaction was found to update corporate im

36、age, which in turn impacts customer loyalty. Cumulative satisfaction is also an antecedent to relational commitment, which in turn has a relatively large impact on customer loyalty. As a result, the new NCSB model explai

37、ns significantly more variance in loyalty than other national index models </p><p>　　顧客滿意度指數(shù)模型的演變和未來(lái)</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　一些國(guó)內(nèi)和國(guó)際的顧客滿意度晴雨表在過(guò)去十年中已經(jīng)實(shí)施。在大多數(shù)情況下，這些顧客滿

38、意度指標(biāo)被嵌入在因果聯(lián)系或滿意度模型的系統(tǒng)中，但模型中用以衡量顧客滿意度與關(guān)系構(gòu)建中至關(guān)重要的指數(shù)的有效性和可靠性還在反復(fù)的研究和改進(jìn)，以使它更貼近實(shí)際。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：顧客滿意 顧客滿意度晴雨表</p><p><b>　　1、引言</b></p><p>　　瑞典顧客滿意度晴雨表（Fornell,1992）作為全國(guó)乃至國(guó)際

39、性的顧客滿意度指數(shù)的基礎(chǔ)，已在美國(guó)（Fornell,Johnson,Anderson,Cha,&Bryant,1996）、挪威(Andreassen&Lindestad,1998)實(shí)施。而且指數(shù)也已在新西蘭、奧地利、韓國(guó)和歐洲聯(lián)盟試行。這些指數(shù)是否能發(fā)展成為全球指標(biāo)，更重要的它會(huì)以何種形式發(fā)展，這都是有待研究的。這種模型中用以衡量顧客滿意度與關(guān)系構(gòu)建中至關(guān)重要的指數(shù)有效性和可靠性在不斷學(xué)習(xí)，而且更貼近實(shí)際，并且被反復(fù)改進(jìn)

40、。</p><p>　　作為對(duì)顧客滿意度測(cè)評(píng)的方式，它也符合Poiesz Von Grumbkow (1998)為了解經(jīng)濟(jì)“繁榮”而對(duì)于公共事業(yè)所作的總體框架。這一框架作為一件經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉使每個(gè)人組成一個(gè)整體的生活品質(zhì)。其他領(lǐng)域包括健康評(píng)估、社會(huì)文化背景、政治自由和安定。經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉本身是有三個(gè)方面組成，工作滿足感、收入評(píng)價(jià)、消費(fèi)者或客戶滿意。在整體層面上，Poiesz Von Grumbkow等同于顧客福利滿意。這種福

41、利型或滿意累積正是國(guó)家顧客滿意度指數(shù)建立的基礎(chǔ)。</p><p>　　2、滿意度指數(shù)模型的演變</p><p>　　瑞典顧客滿意度晴雨表（SCSB）1989年創(chuàng)建以來(lái)，是首次真正的為國(guó)內(nèi)購(gòu)買(mǎi)、消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)測(cè)評(píng)的全國(guó)性顧客滿意度指數(shù)（Fornell,1992）。它歷史性的涉及了32個(gè)瑞典最大的產(chǎn)業(yè)中大約130家公司。美國(guó)顧客滿意度指數(shù)（ACSI）建立于1994年秋季，它的測(cè)評(píng)結(jié)果涉及34個(gè)

42、產(chǎn)業(yè)中的近200家公司(Fornell,1996)挪威顧客滿意度晴雨表(Andreassen&Lervik,1999;Andreassen&Lindestad,1998)在1996年實(shí)施，截至1999年，報(bào)告結(jié)果涉及12個(gè)不同行業(yè)的42家公司（企業(yè)對(duì)消費(fèi)者、企業(yè)對(duì)企業(yè)）。近些年，在開(kāi)發(fā)中試用的歐洲顧客滿意度指數(shù)（ECSI）橫跨四大行業(yè)，歐洲聯(lián)盟的11個(gè)國(guó)家（Eklof,2000）。</p><p>

43、;　　再看全國(guó)指數(shù)，我們特別注意ACSI模型的規(guī)格，這種模型是原瑞典模型的演變，它適用于范圍較小的新西蘭和臺(tái)灣（Fornell,1996）、奧地利（Hackl、Scharitzer & Zuba,1996）是被用來(lái)作為在挪威和歐盟測(cè)試指標(biāo)的基礎(chǔ)。因此，模型演變的關(guān)鍵是制定最佳模型規(guī)格。</p><p><b>　　5、總結(jié)和討論</b></p><p>　　一

44、些國(guó)內(nèi)和國(guó)際顧客滿意度指數(shù)晴雨表在過(guò)去十年中已經(jīng)實(shí)施。在大多數(shù)情況下，這些顧客滿意度指標(biāo)被嵌入在因果聯(lián)系或滿意度模型的系統(tǒng)中。這種模型中用以衡量顧客滿意度與關(guān)系構(gòu)建中至關(guān)重要的指數(shù)的有效性和可靠性在反復(fù)的研究和改進(jìn)。就目前的研究結(jié)果和研究趨勢(shì)，我們提出了一些修改和測(cè)試建議，我們通過(guò)NCSB調(diào)查出的數(shù)據(jù)發(fā)現(xiàn)大眾普遍支持?jǐn)M議的改動(dòng)。</p><p>　　我們總結(jié)和討論對(duì)于每一個(gè)擬議改變的結(jié)果。變化之一是增加了多重比較

45、基準(zhǔn)價(jià)格而孤立了知覺(jué)物價(jià)指數(shù)。這種模型成功分離了顧客的知覺(jué)價(jià)格，成功取代了模型中的“價(jià)值”概念，消除了模型中指標(biāo)的重疊，例如：ACSI、ECSI模型。我們還認(rèn)為，物價(jià)所產(chǎn)生對(duì)其中程度的直接影響可能會(huì)超過(guò)通過(guò)滿意而產(chǎn)生的間接影響。這是因?yàn)闈M意度作為一種態(tài)度型構(gòu)造，可能只是作用于質(zhì)量和價(jià)格忠誠(chéng)的局部的影響。滿意的價(jià)格的直接影響在四個(gè)五大行業(yè)中是積極、有效的，公共交通例外。忠誠(chéng)的直接效果在五個(gè)行業(yè)，航空公司和銀行（系數(shù)0.096和0.098）

46、是顯著的。在某些行業(yè)，這些結(jié)果和預(yù)言，當(dāng)從忠誠(chéng)和滿意度評(píng)價(jià)中跳出時(shí)，顧客重新發(fā)現(xiàn)價(jià)格的重要性。價(jià)格忠誠(chéng)在兩個(gè)價(jià)格競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力強(qiáng)的行業(yè)——航空公司和銀行的直接影響力是巨大的，這一點(diǎn)是不足為奇的。</p><p>　　建立在最初的NCSB模型之上，我們的模型還包括兩個(gè)關(guān)系模式承諾變數(shù)。我們相信公司和客戶之間建立起積極情感關(guān)系已經(jīng)有一段時(shí)間。在四個(gè)五大行業(yè)中，雙方正在積極建構(gòu)令人滿意的影響。至于對(duì)物價(jià)的滿意效果，唯一的例外是

47、公共汽車(chē)運(yùn)輸業(yè)。情感承諾（從加油站的0.493至銀行的0.652）較之計(jì)算承諾（從航空公司的0.1550至火車(chē)運(yùn)輸?shù)?.272）對(duì)滿意度有較大影響。這并不令人驚訝。滿意度應(yīng)該作為增強(qiáng)客戶關(guān)系及形成客戶信任的主要貢獻(xiàn)者（Hart&Johnson,1999）。相比之下，顧客的滿意度應(yīng)該影響經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，顧客可以在經(jīng)濟(jì)上住在特定服務(wù)提供商，即使是滿意度偏低。（Jones&Sasser,1995）</p><p&g

48、t;　　其中最重要的結(jié)果對(duì)顧客忠誠(chéng)的正面的作用很大。對(duì)于四個(gè)五大類(lèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的效果是顯著的，而公共汽車(chē)運(yùn)輸仍是例外。這四個(gè)行業(yè)，對(duì)顧客承諾的影響在忠誠(chéng)度上較之于顧客滿意度來(lái)說(shuō)更直接，這表明，滿意度通過(guò)在公司和顧客之間建立強(qiáng)大的關(guān)系來(lái)影響顧客忠誠(chéng)。加上已承諾變數(shù)大大增加，有利于新模型在顧客忠誠(chéng)度的解釋能力上較之全國(guó)其他指數(shù)模型影響力加大。</p><p>　　另一個(gè)重大變化是，我們以顧客對(duì)企業(yè)形象與結(jié)果感到滿意為首因代替

49、客戶期望。這個(gè)改變是基于全國(guó)橫斷面性質(zhì)的指數(shù)數(shù)據(jù)。若顧客的消費(fèi)經(jīng)歷（滿足）、他們所公司的看法等都能影響公司的形象。成功的模型是孤立于企業(yè)形象建設(shè)以及構(gòu)建企業(yè)意料之中的行為。顧客對(duì)公司的滿意度在每個(gè)行業(yè)中都持續(xù)不斷大大影響著公司的形象（從火車(chē)運(yùn)輸?shù)?.433至銀行的0.575）。這反映了顧客的消費(fèi)經(jīng)歷、顧客的經(jīng)驗(yàn)、企業(yè)的形象都在顧客對(duì)企業(yè)的滿意度的測(cè)評(píng)中起著重要作用。在五大行業(yè)中，顧客的忠誠(chéng)度對(duì)企業(yè)形象的影響是小的但是卻顯而易見(jiàn)（從燃?xì)庹?/p>

50、的0.160至航空公司的0.256）。我們相信這將持續(xù)影響對(duì)于那些最終考慮購(gòu)買(mǎi)（即審議確定）的企業(yè)客戶了解公司品牌形象。</p><p>　　顧客的滿意度從最低點(diǎn)的火車(chē)運(yùn)輸?shù)?.130至最高點(diǎn)的銀行的0.289來(lái)看，忠誠(chéng)度的形成對(duì)各行業(yè)是積極的和顯著的。這直接影響對(duì)那些公司形象或承諾建構(gòu)的公司捕捉顧客的滿意度的效果表示滿意。考慮到我們已經(jīng)增添了忠誠(chéng)的動(dòng)力，那對(duì)于我們?cè)谌魏我环N情況下研究整體影響都是有幫助的。整體效

51、應(yīng)都直接和間接影響著顧客滿意度與忠誠(chéng)度，即0.551、0.627、0.471、0.557、0.458分別為航空公司、銀行、公共汽車(chē)、火車(chē)和加油站。正如我們所想的那樣，忠誠(chéng)顧客總滿意效果最大的產(chǎn)業(yè)是在那里挪威顧客有更多的選擇，最值得注意的是銀行、加油站和航空公司。</p><p>　　SERVQUAL的建構(gòu)和投訴處理這兩個(gè)范疇的示范演示并沒(méi)有如我們預(yù)期的那樣。在ACSI模型，是仿照投訴行為的后果滿意。因?yàn)橥对V處理日

52、益成為提高顧客滿意度的重要手段，我們把顧客滿意度和顧客忠誠(chéng)度作為衡量處理客戶投訴滿意程度的指標(biāo)。雖然我們成功的把處理顧客投訴體系孤立了起來(lái)，但這樣對(duì)顧客滿意度和顧客忠誠(chéng)度影響不大。最可能的解釋是，投訴管理體系的產(chǎn)業(yè)并非特別有效或能創(chuàng)造顧客滿意、顧客忠誠(chéng)。這符合（Fornell,1996）ACSI數(shù)據(jù)分析，分析表明投訴管理系統(tǒng)能夠壓制投訴。調(diào)查結(jié)果也符合博爾頓（1999）的看法，他認(rèn)為，修復(fù)服務(wù)中的不足對(duì)餐飲和旅館的大多數(shù)顧客來(lái)說(shuō)是無(wú)效的

53、。</p><p>　　NCSB模型采用作為全國(guó)行業(yè)服務(wù)質(zhì)量方面標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的SERVQUAL進(jìn)行的構(gòu)建（有形性、可靠性、靈敏性、穩(wěn)定性和同理性）。相比之下，ACSI模型利用了總體素質(zhì)框架，而ECSI模型運(yùn)用了整體服務(wù)和區(qū)分整體服務(wù)的產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量框架。正如有人所說(shuō)，這主要是個(gè)人選擇。顧客對(duì)于所要訂購(gòu)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)的質(zhì)量如何取決于細(xì)節(jié)層次的研究與一般性預(yù)期。NCSB模型利用SERVQUAL的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)將展開(kāi)測(cè)評(píng)的重點(diǎn)放在了服務(wù)行業(yè)。然而

54、，我們的結(jié)果顯示這樣的測(cè)評(píng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還有問(wèn)題，比如有系統(tǒng)模式問(wèn)題、有具體模型構(gòu)建問(wèn)題。我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，大多數(shù)的路徑，從五個(gè)方面對(duì)服務(wù)品質(zhì)的滿意度并不高。我們的建議是，要么運(yùn)用國(guó)內(nèi)整體產(chǎn)品型號(hào)和/或服務(wù)質(zhì)量建構(gòu)（如用在ACSI、ECSI的型號(hào)），要么增加工業(yè)公司或者特定公司的滿意（Johnson & Gustafsson,2000）。</p><p>　　但是，從總體上看，我們的成績(jī)是很可觀的。如同預(yù)計(jì)的那樣，純粹的