Customer Satisfaction, Investigation

JÖNKÖPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL
JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY
C ustomer Sa tisfact i on
An Investigation of Trivselhus
Paper within: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration,

JBTC17
Author: Linus Ivarsson
Alexander Nilsson
Torbjörn Rimfält
Tutor: Helgi Valur Fridriksson
Jönköping June, 2010
Bachelor Thesis within Business Administration
Title: Customer Satisfaction - An Investigation of Trivselhus
Authors: Linus Ivarsson, Alexander Nilsson, Torbjörn Rimfält
Tutor: Helgi Valur Fridriksson
Date: June 2010
Key Words: Customer Satisfaction, Trivselhus, Construction Companies, Energy Efficien-
cy, Environmental Friendliness, Houses
Abstract
Purpose:
This thesis investigates and analyzes the customer satisfaction over a 10-year time period
among Trivselhus customers.
Background:
More companies in the building sector are starting to realize the importance of using cus-
tomer satisfaction as a tool to enhance their competitive advantage. Customer satisfaction
brings several positive aspects to a company, which can contribute to a successful business.
It is crucial to fulfill customers‟ wants and needs in order to obtain customer satisfaction.
Building a house is one of the largest investment people make in life, with important deci-
sions that can affect their current way of living. Customer satisfaction is, therefore, crucial
for a company like Trivselhus, where it is essential to keep their customers satisfied by of-
fering the right products that fulfill their expectations.
Another increasingly important aspect in people‟s lives today is the environment. This has
now come to affect the house building industries as they have to fulfill customer expecta-
tions regarding energy efficiency and environmental friendliness.
Method:
To answer the purpose, primary data have been collected by conducting a telephone sur-
vey. The survey was made randomly among Trivselhus customers. From the different theo-
ries, important categories that affect customer satisfaction were found. Aspects from all
these categories were included in the questionnaire to explain customer satisfaction. The
analysis is based on statistical data generated from the survey. Central tendency values and
regression analysis makes it possible to explain which variables affect customer satisfaction
Conclusion:
The outcome of the research signifies, that customer satisfaction among Trivselhus cus-
tomers has not changed during all the years covered in this research. There are several va-
riables affecting customer satisfaction. These variables are included in different categories;
Complaints, Expectations, Service Quality, Energy, Product Quality, and Image. Further-
more, there is not enough evidence to prove that energy efficiency and environmental
friendliness affect customer satisfaction geographically.
i
Kandidatuppsats inom Företagsekonomi
Titel: Kundnöjdhet – En Undersökning av Trivselhus
Författare: Linus Ivarsson, Alexander Nilsson, Torbjörn Rimfält
Handledare: Helgi Valur Fridriksson
Datum: Juni 2010
Nyckelord: Kundnöjdhet, Trivselhus, Byggsektorn, Energiförbrukning, Miljövänlighet,
Hus
Sammanfattning
Syfte:
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka och analysera kundnöjdheten bland Trivselhus kun-
der över en 10 års period.
Bakgrund:
Fler företag inom byggsektorn har börjat inse vikten utav att använda kundnöjdhet som ett
redskap för att skaffa sig konkurrensfördelar. Kundnöjdhet medför flera positiva aspekter
till ett företag, som kan bidra till en framgångsrik affärsverksamhet och det är viktigt att
uppfylla kundernas förväntningar och behov för att få kunde nöjd.
Att bygga ett hus är en utav de största investeringar som görs i livet, med viktiga beslut som
kan påverka ens levnadssituation. Kundnöjdhet är därför avgörande för ett företag såsom
Trivselhus, där det är viktigt att hålla sina kunder nöjda genom att erbjuda rätt produkter
som uppfyller deras förväntningar och krav.
En annan viktig aspekt idag är miljön. Det har visat sig att miljön har kommit att påverka
byggsektorn eftersom de nu måste uppfylla kunders förväntningar även angående miljö och
energi aspekter.
Metod:
För att besvara syftet har primärdata samlats in genom en telefonundersökning. Undersök-
ningen gjordes slumpmässigt bland Trivselhus kunder. Från teorier hämtades viktiga kate-
gorier som påverkar kundnöjdhet. Aspekter från alla dessa kategorier ingick i frågeställ-
ningen för att kunna förklara kundnöjdhet. Analysen bygger på statistiska uppgifter. Me-
delvärden samt regressions analys gör det möjligt att förklara vilka variabler som påverkar
kundnöjdheten bland Trivselhus kunder.
Slutsats:
Resultatet utav studien visar att kundnöjdheten bland Trivselhus kunder inte förändrats
under åren som behandlats, men det finns flera variabler som påverkar kundnöjdhet. Dessa
variabler är inkluderade i olika kategorier; Klagomål, Förväntningar, Servicekvalitet, Energi,
Produktkvalitet och Image. Vidare så finns det inte tillräckligt med bevis för att miljö och
energi påverkar kundnöjdheten geografiskt.
ii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................2
1.3 Research Questions ...............................................................................2
1.4 Company Background ............................................................................3
1.5 Perspective .............................................................................................4
1.6 Delimitations ...........................................................................................4
2 Frame of Reference ................................................................... 5
2.1 Choice of Theory ....................................................................................5
2.2 What is Customer Satisfaction? .............................................................5
2.2.1 Positive Aspects .....................................................................................5
2.2.2 Negative Aspect .....................................................................................6
2.2.3 Customer Expectations ..........................................................................6
2.2.4 A Salesperson’s Impact, and Affections .................................................7
2.2.5 Impact on Market Share .........................................................................8
Figure 1 ........................................................................................................................8
2.2.6 Handling Complaints ..............................................................................9
2.2.7 Customer Satisfaction in Home Building ................................................9
2.2.8 Kano’s Model ........................................................................................ 10
2.2.9 Two Different Approaches .................................................................... 11
2.3 Definition of Customer Satisfaction....................................................... 11
2.4 Choice of Measurement ....................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Home-Buyers Satisfaction Model ......................................................... 12
Figure 2 ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.2 The EPSI-Model ................................................................................... 13
Figure 3 ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Summary Measurement ....................................................................... 14
3 Method ..................................................................................... 16
3.1 Research Approach .............................................................................. 16
3.1.1 Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research ............................................ 16
3.1.2 Inductive Versus Deductive Approach .................................................. 16
3.2 Collecting Data ..................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Primary and Secondary Data ............................................................... 17
3.2.2 Sampling .............................................................................................. 17
3.2.3 Climate Zones ...................................................................................... 18
3.3 Telephone Survey ................................................................................ 20
3.4 Questionnaire Design ........................................................................... 21
3.4.1 Introduction Questions.......................................................................... 22
3.4.2 Image ................................................................................................... 22
3.4.3 Expectations ......................................................................................... 23
3.4.4 Product Quality ..................................................................................... 23
3.4.5 Energy .................................................................................................. 23
3.4.6 Service Quality ..................................................................................... 24
3.4.7 Complaints ........................................................................................... 24
3.4.8 Word-of-Mouth ..................................................................................... 25
3.4.9 Total Satisfaction .................................................................................. 25
iii
3.5 Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 25
3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................ 25
3.5.2 Skewness ............................................................................................. 25
3.5.3 Multiple Regression Model ................................................................... 26
3.5.4 Multiple Coefficient of Determination .................................................... 26
3.5.5 Significance Level................................................................................. 26
3.6 Method Problem ................................................................................... 27
4 Empirical Findings .................................................................. 28
4.1 Central Tendency Values ..................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Introduction Questions.......................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Image ................................................................................................... 29
4.1.3 Expectations ......................................................................................... 29
4.1.4 Product Quality ..................................................................................... 30
4.1.5 Energy .................................................................................................. 31
4.1.6 Service Quality ..................................................................................... 32
4.1.7 Complaints ........................................................................................... 33
4.1.8 Word-of-Mouth ..................................................................................... 34
4.1.9 Total Satisfaction .................................................................................. 34
4.2 Regression Analysis ............................................................................. 34
4.2.1 2000 – 2001 ......................................................................................... 37
4.2.2 2002 – 2003 ......................................................................................... 37
4.2.3 2004 – 2005 ......................................................................................... 38
4.2.4 2006 – 2007 ......................................................................................... 38
4.2.5 2008 – 2009 ......................................................................................... 39
4.2.6 Special - 2 ............................................................................................ 39
4.2.7 Regression Models Overview ............................................................... 40
5 Analysis ................................................................................... 42
5.1 Analysis 2000 – 2001 ........................................................................... 42
5.2 Analysis 2002 – 2003 ........................................................................... 43
5.3 Analysis 2004 – 2005 ........................................................................... 45
5.4 Analysis 2006 – 2007 ........................................................................... 46
5.5 Analysis 2008 – 2009 ........................................................................... 48
5.6 Analysis Special Group – 2 .................................................................. 49
5.7 Summary Analysis ................................................................................ 50
5.8 Geographical Analysis .......................................................................... 52
Table 1 ....................................................................................................................... 52
6 Conclusion .............................................................................. 55
7 Discussion ............................................................................... 56
References ................................................................................... 59
Appendices .................................................................................. 62
Appendix 1: English Questionnaire ................................................................... 62
Appendix 2: Swedish Questionnaire ................................................................. 66
Appendix 3: Question Abridgements ................................................................. 70
Appendix 4: Questioner Comments .................................................................. 73
2000 – 2001 ...................................................................................................... 73
2002 – 2003 ...................................................................................................... 73
iv
2004 – 2005 ...................................................................................................... 74
2006 – 2007 ...................................................................................................... 75
2008 – 2009 ...................................................................................................... 76
Appendix 5: Regression Models........................................................................ 77
2000 – 2001 ...................................................................................................... 77
2002 – 2003 ...................................................................................................... 78
2004 – 2005 ...................................................................................................... 79
2006 – 2007 ...................................................................................................... 80
2008 – 2009 ...................................................................................................... 81
Special – 2 ........................................................................................................ 82
v
Customer Satisfaction - An Investigation of Trivselhus Ivarsson, Nilsson, and Rimfält
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
As more companies are starting to realize the importance of customer satisfaction, it has
become a vividly discussed topic on what impact it has on a company‟s operations (Matz-
ler, Hinterhuber, Bailom, and Sauerwein, 1996). Moreover, Swedish companies in the
building industry is beginning to see customer satisfaction as a tool to increase their com-
petitiveness on the market (Sthen and Bergström, 2002) According to several researchers,
customer satisfaction occurs when customers expectations are met, or exceeded, and is
thus highly depend on the fulfillment of expectations (Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and
Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell,
2001). Arguably, it is crucial for companies to understand what the customers demand and
need. High levels of customer satisfaction bring several positive aspects to a company; it is
believed that customer satisfaction has a positive relationship with economic profit (Ander-
son, Fornell, and Lehmann, 1994).Moreover, it will lower customer‟s price sensitivity (For-
nell, 1992), and contribute to the creation of loyal customers, which in turn implies a stabile
future cash-flow (Matzler et al., 1996). Furthermore, it is recognized that high levels of cus-
tomer satisfaction imply a healthy company with competitive products, successful man-
agement, and loyal employees (Grigoroudis, Nikolopoulou and Zopounidis, 2008).
Companies operating in the house building industry must regard themselves more as a ser-
vice organization rather than a manufacturing firm and focus on the whole offering sur-
rounding the actual product (Ozaki, 2003). With a focus on the whole „offering‟, companies
have a higher possibility of getting satisfied customers and thus achieve a competitive ad-
vantage and compete successfully on the market in the long run (Torbica and Stroh, 2000).
Trivselhus is a company in Sweden who produce prefabricated wooden family houses.
Their responsibility is to supply houses that satisfy customers‟ wants and needs. Building a
house can be considered a milestone in life and the decisions one takes during that time is
very important and can affect peoples and families current way of life. Furthermore, it is
one of the largest investments people make, where the average final price on a house pro-
vided by Trivselhus is in the range between 2.5 – 3 million SEK (A. Ek, personal commu-
nication, 2010-02-23). This gives a perspective on how big the investment is and how im-
portant it is to satisfy customers‟ every need. Customer satisfaction is, therefore, crucial for
a company like Trivselhus, where it is essential to keep their customers satisfied by offering
the right products that are up to quality standards.
In the current information society, customer satisfaction is something that gives a high de-
gree of competitive advantage if a company can keep that edge (Burns and Bowling, 2010;
Matzler and Hinterhuber, 1998). It is also something that makes the company more pro-
ductive in the long run, since the costs of actual marketing campaigns could be kept at a
lower rate (Fornell, 1992). Furthermore, customer satisfaction will lower the employee
turnover since a high level of customer satisfaction will reflect on the salespersons and
makes them satisfied as well (Fornell, 1992).
1
In the digital world that we live in today, one always has the opportunity of getting one‟s
voice heard. Blogs, notice boards and social networks are today playing a central role in
many people‟s lives and everyone have the ability to spread their word, and have the ability
to form and alter other people‟s minds and opinions about specific subjects or objects
(Turban, Volonino, McLean, and Wetherbe, 2009). This could, in the point of view of cus-
tomer satisfaction and Trivselhus, be seen as both a threat and as an opportunity. Looking
back at the history of Trivselhus, up to half of all their overall sales has originated from
word-of-mouth due to that they have been able to keep their customers satisfied (A. Ek,
personal communication, 2010-02-23). It is believed that high levels of customer satisfac-
tion together with perceived quality have a positive relationship with market share in the
consequence of a word-of-mouth behavior from satisfied customers (Matzler and Hinter-
huber, 1998). Furthermore, Burns and Bowling (2010) agrees that customer satisfaction
have a positive effect on a word-of-mouth behavior.
One increasingly important aspect in people‟s lives today is the environment. Specifically
when it comes to houses, where a high cost for every household is the energy costs. That is
why there is an increasing pressure both from customer but also from governments to
maximize energy efficiency. 2019 it is decided by the European Union (EU) that all new
houses should be more or less self-sufficient (A. Ek, personal communication, 2010-02-23).
That adds pressure on house producers to produce products that can fulfill these upcoming
criteria‟s.
A Swedish governmental authority –Boverket – has divided Sweden up in to three different
climate zones (Johansson, 2009). These climate zones represent different geographical part
of Sweden, which have different climate conditions and therefore demand special energy
requirements (Johansson, 2009).
The authors argue that house manufacturers such as Trivselhus shoulder a great responsi-
bility when it comes to offering and informing both new and old customers about upcom-
ing regulations and products that can increase the energy efficiency in houses. That is why
this thesis combines the concept of customer satisfaction together with a geographical
perspective of customers‟ attitudes towards energy efficiency and environmental friendli-
ness.
1.2 Purpose
This thesis investigates and analyzes the customer satisfaction over a 10-year time period
1.3 Research Questions

 Have the customer satisfaction among Trivselhus customers changed over a 10-
year period?
 What are the main factors that affect customer satisfaction?
 Do energy efficiency and environmental friendliness affect customer satisfaction
geographically?
2
1.4 Company Background

“Trivselhus is one of the leading companies in Sweden producing prefabricated wooden family houses. Our
main market is Sweden but we do also export to Norway, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, the Nether-
lands and the UK. All our houses are well planned and our aim is to combine good architecture with a
maximum of quality, accurate details and the best efficiency when it comes to energy saving and sustainabili-
ty” (Trivselhus).
Trivselhus has a history that starts 1968. During that year the siblings Peterson started
Korsberga Träindustri. During a 20-year period they produced around 5000 houses under
the brand Smålands Trivselhus. However, during that period the production mainly con-
sisted of smaller holiday houses (Trivselhus, 2003).
1989 is the year when the company gets a new set of owners who gives the company a new
name and the logotype that is used today. Trivselhus i Korsberga AB is the new name. Due
to the financial problems that Sweden had during the beginning of the 1990s, the market
for small and holiday houses in Sweden went in to a crisis. In March 1993, Trivselhus i
Korsberga AB declared bankruptcy. However, it did not take long time before a new com-
pany was founded. Trivselhus i Vetlanda AB started of fresh with new facilities and a new
chief architect from 1994 that would change the whole concept and the company Trivsel-
hus as we know it today starts its history (Trivselhus, 2003).
During the mid 1990s the market were mainly demanding easier and cheaper alternatives
when it came to producing houses. However, Trivselhus choose to offer more exclusive
products and among other things introduced their Green Line where there also was an ex-
tra focus on energy efficiency. The overall company concept of flexibility soon becomes
one of the company‟s most valuable comparative advantages compared to some of their
main competitors (Trivselhus, 2003).
During 1999 the company got a new owner. From this time, and up until the most recent
recession, Trivselhus has been having a steady and healthy growth. The company intro-
duced a variety of new products and put a lot of effort in to producing new and exclusive
catalogues to give out to all new potential customers (Trivselhus, 2003).
During the period from 1993 to 2003, the company grew from 23 to 178 employees and
the number of delivered houses grew from 31 in 1993, up to 383 houses in 2003. During
the same time period, the total turnover went from 21.4 million SEK to 419.1 million SEK
(Trivselhus, 2003). As shown in the sampling section 3.2.2., the company‟s most productive
periods were during the period from 2004 to 2007. The most recent years have been very
tough on the company due to the worldwide recession. That meant a loss of almost half of
Trivselhus‟ sales and the workforce went from around 400 to 225, which they today have in
their four different manufacturing facilities and 27 different sales offices around in Sweden
(A. Ek, personal communication, 2010-02-23).
In the mid of 2009, the Swedish forest group Södra takes over the ownership of Trivselhus,
which, at that point, were on the verge of bankruptcy. The transition period with the new
owner has been very smooth and has been very appreciated by the company and all their
different stakeholders since Södra have put the company in a much more stable financial
position (A. Ek, personal communication, 2010-02-23).
3
Trivselhus is represented in a couple of other countries around in Europe; however, their

main market is still Sweden. The company has chosen a different approach on the interna-
tional market by creating a niche of special products that are not offered in Sweden de-
pending on some special needs in other European countries. For example, Trivselhus are
specializing in government projects such as hospitals and schools in the UK, cheap houses
in Germany and very big and exclusive houses in Holland. However, the export only
represents about 20 % of the total production (A. Ek, personal communication, 2010-02-
23).
There are upcoming EU regulations for the year 2019, where a new set of directives regard-
ing energy consumption will be set. With these regulations, the energy consumption of a
house will be regulated to consume 0 kilowatt hour per square meter and year. Trivselhus,
now with the support of Södra, is working hard with environmental issues and energy-
efficiency. They are already today working with the construction of a concept house that
will be a plus-energy house. That means that the house by itself will produce more energy
than it consumes. This house is set to be constructed some time during 2011 and Trivsel-
hus hope that they will be seen as a company for the future and will be able to offer cus-
tomers these special, exclusive, and flexible houses. However, now also with a high con-
cern for the environment and houses with a low and efficient running cost (A. Ek, personal
communication, 2010-02-23).
Flexibility is a key word within Trivselhus. They are offering their sketches and give their
customers inspiration and tips on how to build a new house. Moreover, almost every house
that is built is unique, and on average 120 – 130 hours is spent on sketching every house,
where there are possibilities for the customers to develop a house that fits their needs.
Trivselhus special way of constructing the houses offers the customers the ability to change
and alter the houses to fit specifically the customer‟s way of living and family constellation
(A. Ek, personal communication, 2010-02-23).
1.5 Perspective
This research is conducted from the perspective of the customer in order to provide Triv-
selhus with valuable information concerning the level of customer satisfaction among its
customers. It investigates and analyzes customer satisfaction using existing theories and
models.
1.6 Delimitations
Because of insufficient contact details on Trivselhus‟ customers from year 1993 up to 1999,
the authors decided to limit this research to cover Trivselhus‟ customer from year 2000 to
2009. This limitation was also done considering the nature of this research where the time
limit makes it hard to conduct a comprehensive marketing research of such large scale.
Furthermore, the research was limited to include solely private customers since the authors
considered the houses build by companies to be of another character.
4
2 Frame of Reference
2.1 Choice of Theory
The first part of this chapter presents the general comprehension about customer satisfac-
tion presented by a number of different researchers. Moreover, the chapter discusses what
customer satisfaction consists of, and how it contributes to the company in terms of profit
and market share. All this information builds the foundation for a definition of customer
satisfaction, presented in 2.3. Section 2.4 presents two different models that are used in or-
der to measure customer satisfaction. These models are discussed and summarized and
presented in 2.5.
2.2 What is Customer Satisfaction?

Kondo (2001) argues that customers value satisfaction and quality in many different ways.
Therefore, the expression „no customer dissatisfaction‟ does not necessarily go hand-in-
hand with „customer satisfaction‟. Fornell (1992) argues that changes in satisfaction are
consequences from past decisions. He continues to explain that quality is judged by the
consumer and that the most important measurement of quality is how it affects customer
satisfaction (Fornell, 1992). This is further strengthened by Herrmann, Huber and Brauns-
tein (2000), who argue that whether or not a customer considers their purchase to live up
to their expectations, i.e. whether the customer is satisfied or not, is dependent on the per-
ceived quality.
According to Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994), there is a positive relationship be-
tween customer satisfaction and economic profit for the company. Arguably, customer sa-
tisfaction is an important component in order for the company to be profitable.
Increased global competition has lead to a greater emphasis on customer satisfaction
(Johnson and Fornell, 1991). Matzler, Hinterhuber, Bailom, and Sauerwein (1996) argue
that there are an increasing number of companies that starts to recognize the importance of
customer satisfaction for future business. In attempting to increase customer satisfaction it
is necessary to understand what the customer wants before they realize it themselves.
One major challenge that companies are facing is to improve customer satisfaction and
keeping their customers satisfied, which becomes a way for companies to differentiate
themselves from their competitors (Torbica & Stroh, 2000).
2.2.1 Positive Aspects
Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) say that companies that strive for high customer
satisfaction are more likely to receive larger economic returns. They also recognize that
these economic returns are not immediately realized. Matzler et al., (1996) argue that cus-
tomer satisfaction act as an indicator of future business opportunities, where a satisfied
customer is loyal to the company, which implies a stabile future cash-flow. This is streng-
thened by Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) who acknowledge that there is a posi-
tive relationship between customer satisfaction and profitability.
5
An increase in customer satisfaction will lower customer price sensitivity since the custom-
ers are willing to pay more for goods that meets their expectations (Fornell, 1992; Matzler
et al., 1996). Furthermore, Matzler et al. (1996) argues that having satisfied customers de-
creases the firm‟s cost of retaining new customers significantly. Fornell (1992) also finds
that customer satisfaction reduces marketing costs for the firm and increase marketing
costs for the competitors. Furthermore, it will lower the employee turnover since a high
level of customer satisfaction affect salespersons and make them satisfied (Fornell, 1992).
Fornell (1992) also finds that customer satisfaction will enhance reputation of the company
and reduce the costs for the company in terms of warranty claims and rework. Customer
satisfaction is also a meaningful measurement for quality; if quality improvements are made
but not recognized by the customers, it is an unnecessary improvement (Fornell, 1992).
Furthermore, Grigoroudis, Nikolopoulou and Zopounidis (2008) finds that high level of
customer satisfaction indicate a healthy company, since it is result of factors like motivated
and loyal employees, successful management, and competitive products.
According to Burns and Bowling (2010), companies are using customer satisfaction as a
tool to increase their competitive advantage. This is strengthened by Matzler and Hinter-
huber (1998), who say the goal is to reach a high level of customer satisfaction with con-
cern to important product features in order to obtain sustainable competitive advantage.
2.2.2 Negative Aspect

Rust and Oliver (2000) say that a customer that is satisfied with a product or service will
raise their repurchase frequency and future expectations. Due to the customers higher ex-
pectations it will become more difficult for the firm to satisfy the customers in the next
purchase cycle. According to Rust and Oliver (2000), this might damage the company in
the long run. A company that raises customer‟s expectation to high will get problem with
retaining the same customer satisfaction in the future. The company would be better of re-
ducing the expectations and then deliver more than expected (Ciavolino and Dahlgaard,
2007). Furthermore, Rust and Oliver (2000) wonder if satisfactions are a suitable goal and
argues that companies do not gain advantage by seeking a high level of customer satisfac-
tion when it just raises expectations that are hard to reach and, in turn, increases cost for
trying to reach these higher expectations. This is further strengthen by Anderson, Fornell,
and Rust (1997) who argue that productivity within the company will be damaged because
of the cost and the search after customer satisfaction. Furthermore, in addition to higher
cost, the company must add more effort in improving product attributes or overall product
design to keep satisfaction at desired level (Anderson, Fornell, and Rust, 1997).
2.2.3 Customer Expectations
Torbica and Stroh (2000) discuss the expectations that a customer forms about the future
performance of an item when buying a product or service. After experienced the product
or service the customer will evaluate how the product or service measure up to their expec-
tations. If the expectations are met, or exceeded, the customer will be satisfied. On the oth-
er hand, dissatisfaction will be the result if the expectation is not fulfilled (Torbica and
Stroh, 2000). Johnson and Fornell (2001) argue that satisfaction should increase with age,
and that older customers are more pessimistic than younger once, implying that older cus-
tomers have lower expectations which are easier met. Past quality, as well as past expecta-
tions, should have a positive effect on customer satisfaction (Anderson, Fornell, and Leh-
mann, 1994).
6
Oliver (1980) argues that customers‟ expectations are influenced by the customer‟s past ex-
perience with the product and brand as well as other symbolic elements of the company
that sells the product. According to Fornell and Johnson (1993), there are more accurate
expectations among competitive industries. Fornell (1992) argues that customers might be
dissatisfied even when expectations are met. This would occur when the customers are
forced to buy a product which they perceive as a low-quality product, and when their ex-
pectations of low quality are met. Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) claim that as
customer expectations increase it may have negative effect on customer satisfaction in the
short-run, but a positive effect on customer satisfaction in the long-run. This positive effect
on customer satisfaction in the long-run is due to the fact that customers evaluate the
products with all past expectation and quality information in concern, as well as expecta-
tions of future quality. Therefore, firms trying to do a „comeback‟ from bad reputation in
the past should be aware of that it will take time before they will return since the customers
evaluate their satisfaction in concern of past experiences (Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann,
1994).
2.2.4 A Salesperson’s Impact, and Affections
Kapoor and Kulshrestha (2009) argue that products have different meaning to different
people and that the role and behavior of the salesperson affects the customer‟s emotions
and attitude towards the product and the company as a whole. Since the salesperson
represent the company and its products, the behavior of that salesperson influence cus-
tomers‟ perception of the company and its products. There is evidence, presented by com-
panies and researchers showing that service quality have a positive effect on profit (Zei-
thaml 2000). Furthermore, Kapoor and Kulshrestha (2009) argue that it is the responsibility
of the salesperson to present the products which fits the customers‟ wants, needs, and ex-
pectations. Thus, the salesperson plays an important role in customer satisfaction. This is
further strengthened by Oliver (1980), who states that expectations are influenced by front-
line personnel and personal perceptions, and as stated before, customer satisfaction is by a
large extent formed by expectations. Customer satisfaction might therefore be explained
more by customers‟ affections than by the features and quality of the product itself (Burns
and Bowling, 2010). According to Oliver (1980), satisfaction is a result of customers‟ ex-
pectations that are met or exceeded and dissatisfaction occurs when expectations are not
met. In order to investigate customers‟ affection towards a product one has to measure
stable personal characteristics such as personal traits (Burns and Bowling, 2010).
Customers possess two different disposition which are discussed in the field of customer
satisfaction; positive affection (PA) and negative affection (NA) (Burns and Bowling,
2010). Burns and Bowling (2010) explains that NA expresses to which degree the custom-
ers express an aversive mood, and PA explains to which extent the customers feel positive-
ly engaged, aroused and enthusiastic. Customer satisfaction can generally be explained with
PA, but not with NA (Burns and Bowling, 2010). An individual‟s disposition will affect
their perceptions towards a product; an individual with high NA perceive a product more
negatively regardless of the quality of the product (Burns and Bowling, 2010).
7
2.2.5 Impact on Market Share
According to Fornell (1992), one cannot assume that customer satisfaction is correlated
with an increase in market share, and argues that it might even be the opposite case. Trying
to increase market share is an offensive strategy whereas creating satisfied customers is a
defensive strategy (Fornell, 1992). An offensive strategy is costly for the company that de-
mand resources that might be needed to satisfy customers, and a defensive strategy makes
it more costly for the competitor to gain market share (Fornell, 1992). This is further
strengthened by Grigoroudis, Nikolopoulou, and Zopounidis (2008), who state that there is
no clear relationship between company growth and customer satisfaction. However, An-
derson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) argue that high customer satisfaction should increase
market share in the long run. Furthermore, Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) say that only a
high level of customer satisfaction that has an impact on customer loyalty. They go on by
saying that an increase in market share is direct linked to an increase in customer satisfac-
tion and loyalty. It is believed that a high level of customer satisfaction and perceived quali-
ty have a positive effect on market share as a result of word-of-mouth of satisfied custom-
ers (see Figure 1) (Matzler and Hinterhuber, 1998). This is strengthened by Burns and
Bowling (2010) who claim that there is a positive relationship between customer satisfac-
tion and word-of-mouth behavior.
Figure 1
(Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998, p. 28)
However, one cannot be certain of a positive relationship between customer satisfaction
and market share (Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann, 1994). An increase in market share
may lead to the possibility of economies of scale, which enables the company to charge
lower prices. This in turn will lead to a short-term increase in customer satisfaction. How-
ever, economies of scale may have a negative effect on customer satisfaction in the long-
run since it might lead to a lower quality of their products. Even though the level of cus-
tomer satisfaction is decreasing, economic returns may be increasing. Anderson, Fornell,
and Lehmann (1994) add that customer satisfaction and market share have a positive rela-
tionship in the long-run when it concerns undifferentiated industries with homogenous
customers.
8
2.2.6 Handling Complaints

Companies can gain customer commitment and loyalty through an investment in customer
complains handling (Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998). Furthermore, Spreng, Har-
rell, and Mackoy (1995) state that customers are often dissatisfied with the way the compa-
nies handle their complaints. Smith and Bolton (1998) argue that a company‟s handling of
customer complaints is crucial since the company have to both re-establish the customer
satisfaction and add force to restore customer‟s loyalty, or the customer might turn to a
competitor. This is strengthened by Fornell and Wernerfelt (1976) who state that compa-
nies should see complaints as a communication tool to enhance loyalty and increase cus-
tomer satisfaction. Customer who experience a service failure and later receives positive
complaints handling show stronger brand loyalty and an improved level of satisfaction.
This would not have been the case if the customer had not experienced a failure recovery
incident (Smith & Bolton 1998). This is further strengthened by Spreng et al., (1995) who
state that in the way the companies handle complaints can give positive influences on the
total satisfaction, even more than the original service would have generated. Fornell and
Wernerfelt (1976) and Davidow (2003) argue that there is empirical evidence suggesting
that effective complaint handling will create positive consumer word-of-mouth communi-
cations and enhance loyalty that will have a positive impact on customer retention. Accord-
ing to Davidow (2000), the customers will evaluate their response by the time it takes the
organization to respond, and a fast response will affect satisfaction and have positive im-
pact on word-of-mouth.
2.2.7 Customer Satisfaction in Home Building

It has become increasingly important for companies in the house building industry to be
more customer-centric (Ozaki 2003). Sthen and Bergström, (2002) argue that companies on
the Swedish building market have realized the importance of spending more attention on
customer satisfaction as competition increase. To understand what customers want and
what they are willing to pay for the product has been the critical issue for companies in or-
der to understand their customer‟s needs, in order to offer correct functional requirements.
This is a new way of thinking for the house building industry that must see themselves as
service organizations more than manufacturing firms (Ozaki 2003). According to Torbica
and Stroh (2000), companies have to make sure that their customers are satisfied in order
to have competitive advantage and to compete successfully in the long run. The extent of
customer satisfaction comes from the „total offering‟ and not only from a part of the offer-
ing. Due to this, all parts of the offering must be designed, produced and delivered as a to-
tal package of product and services (Torbica and Stroh, 2000). Furthermore, Ozaki (2003)
says that many researchers emphasize the importance of a deeper understanding of cus-
tomer‟s requirements in order to satisfy their customers and attain a successful business. In
order to understand the level of customers‟ satisfaction it is necessary for companies to
have a continuous and regular evaluation of customer satisfaction (Torbica and Stroh,
2000). This requires a high-quality communication flow within the company as well as be-
tween the company and customer (Ozaki, 2003). Ozaki (2003) finds three important issues
regarding the focus of customers among house building companies in order to obtain a
higher level of customer satisfaction; first, a highly efficient service policy. Second, to pro-
vide a customized house with features built upon a certain standard of quality, which will
meet the customers‟ expectations and needs. Third, to have an efficient information flow
within the company, this enables customers‟ requirements to reach the recipient.
9
2.2.8 Kano’s Model

There are two views on quality; must-be quality and attractive quality (Kondo, 2001). Kon-
do (2001) argues that attractive quality is often hidden, while must-be quality is obvious to
the customer. Attractive quality is the most important when it comes to satisfy customers.
It easily becomes surplus, and the quality that seems to be excessive to manufacturers but is
demanded by the customers often leads to new technology (Kondo, 2001). Kondo (2001)
claims that there is a relationship between must-be quality and attractive quality. He goes
on by saying that a product that has received many complaints might still be more attrac-
tive to customers and sell more than a product that has received few complaints, simply
because it is more appealing to customers. Without companies‟ efforts to provide custom-
ers with attractive quality, customer satisfaction would not be attainable (Kondo, 2001). By
fulfilling the required quality expected by the customers does not necessarily result in high-
er customer satisfaction (Matzler et al., 1996).
Matzler et al. (1996) use Kano‟s model in order to detect what type of product require-
ments yields the higher customer satisfaction. Kano‟s model distinguishes three types of
requirements which influence customer satisfaction (Matzler et al., 1996).
These requirements are:
1. Must-be requirements: requirements that the customer takes for granted, if
these are not fulfilled, the customer will be dissatisfied and are no longer inter-
ested in the product. However, if these requirements are fulfilled, the customer
satisfaction will not increase (Matzler et al., 1996).
2. One-dimensional requirements: usually demanded by the customer. The

customer satisfaction is proportional to the level of fulfillment of the require-
ments. That is – the higher the level of fulfillment, the higher customer satisfac-
tion, and vice versa (Matzler et al., 1996).
3. Attractive requirements: Additional requirements that are not demanded or

expected by the customer. If these are fulfilled, the customer satisfaction will be
more than proportional. If these requirements are not fulfilled, the customer
will not be dissatisfied (Matzler et al., 1996).
Matzler et al. (1996, p. 16) state that a company should: “[f]ulfill all must-be requirements,
be competitive with regard to one-dimensional requirements and stand out from the rest as
regards attractive requirements.”
The advantages for organizing the requirements according to Kano‟s model are many; it
helps companies since it indicates what product requirement has greatest impact on cus-
tomer satisfaction and enables the company to focus on their product development regard-
ing the most important issues (Matzler et al., 1996). Furthermore, it makes the process of
customer-tailored solutions easier since the company already has an idea of what customers
expect and want.
10
2.2.9 Two Different Approaches

Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) recognize two different approaches to customer
satisfaction; cumulative and transaction-specific. Transaction-specific customer satisfaction
evaluates the satisfaction based on a specific purchase or occasion in the past. The cumula-
tive approach makes a collective evaluation based on the total experience of the product or
service over time. Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) argue that this makes cumula-
tive satisfaction more interesting than transaction-specific satisfaction since it can act as an
indicator for a firm‟s current and past performance. This research is going to focus on the
cumulative satisfaction since the respondents are asked to take past experiences into con-
sideration when answering the survey.
2.3 Definition of Customer Satisfaction

Taking the all information presented above into consideration, the authors define customer
satisfaction as something that is highly dependent upon the fulfillment of customer‟s ex-
pectations (Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber, and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh,
2000; Matzler et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell, 2001). Customer‟s expectations, in turn,
originate from their past decision as well as their symbolic view of the company of which
they are planning to make a purchase from (Oliver, 1980; Fornell, 1992). Furthermore, cus-
tomer expectations are influenced by the company‟s front-line personnel as their actions
represent the whole company as well as its products (Oliver, 1980; Kapoor and Kulshres-
tha, 2009).
High level of customer satisfaction is an indication of a healthy company (Grigoroudis, Ni-
kolopoulou, and Zopounidis, 2008). The authors argue that companies should strive to ob-
tain a high level customer satisfaction since it ultimately brings loyal customers that are less
price-sensitive as they are willing to pay more for products that meets their expectations
(Fornell, 1992; Matzler et al., 1996). This enables companies to focus more upon product
development rather than marketing expenses since loyal customers are likely to bring the
company a steady future cash flow (Matzler et al., 1996). Loyal customers will also contri-
bute to an increase in market share in the long run, through a positive word-of-mouth be-
havior (Burns and Bowling, 2010; Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann, 1994; Matzler and
Hinterhuber, 1998).
2.4 Choice of Measurement

In order to investigate customer satisfaction, the authors use suitable theoretical frame-
works that explain how to actually measure it. Theories that explain what the different ele-
ments of satisfaction are and to interpret how they affect customer satisfaction are also
used.
Sweden was the first country to measure customer satisfaction on a national level. The
measurement was called the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB), and was
conducted annually beginning from 1989 (Fornell, 1992). The SCSB was intended to work
as a complement to productivity measures, where productivity focuses on the quantity of
output whereas SCSB focus on the quality aspect as observed by the buyer (Fornell, 1992).
The intentions of the SCSB were to provide companies with industry comparisons, com-
parisons over time, predictions of long-term performance, and answers to specific ques-
tions.
11
According to Fornell (1992), researcher has not yet come to a consensus on a unified me-
thod to measure customer satisfaction. One can identify three aspects within all existing
methods; general satisfaction, confirmation of expectations, and the distance from the cus-
tomer‟s hypothetical ideal product (Fornell, 1992).
2.4.1 Home-Buyers Satisfaction Model
Figure 2
(Torbica and Stroh, 2000, p. 34)
Satisfied customers are essential in order for a company to compete successfully in the long
run, and the company needs to measure its level of customer satisfaction continuously
(Torbica and Stroh, 2000). Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue that construction companies
mostly focus upon the product itself, neglecting the importance of the service surrounding
it. It is of importance for the company to realize what feature of their product has greatest
impact on customer satisfaction since a small correction of such feature might lead to high
increase in the level of satisfaction. Torbica and Stroh (2000) present a model with the in-
tention to detect important features concerning home buyer customer satisfaction.
The model (Figure 2) explains that product and service performance determine customer
satisfaction, were product represent the actual house and the service represent the service
provided before, after, and during the building process. Torbica and Stroh (2000) explain
that the satisfaction of home-buyers is reached when the customer‟s wants and needs of
the product and service are fulfilled. Furthermore, the model express that the factor of
home-buyer satisfaction goes beyond the product itself, and builds more upon the expe-
riences around the purchase (Torbica and Stroh, 2000). This implies that it is not solely the
house that is included in the price, it is also the whole experience surrounding the purchase.
As seen in the model presented by Torbica and Stroh (2000), the product can be broken
down to two parts; the house itself and the house design, were house design is a feature
which determines house-buyer satisfaction to a large extent. Torbica and Stroh (2000) con-
clude that home-buyer satisfaction is defined by three parts: house design, the house itself,
and the service surrounding.
This model is constructed in order to measure home-buyers‟ satisfaction. Even though this
model is useful in detecting customer satisfaction, the EPSI-model presented in the next
section is more in-depth and goes into greater detail regarding the elements of customer sa-
tisfaction.
12
2.4.2 The EPSI-Model
Figure 3
(Eskildsen & Kristensen, 2008, p. 844)
The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a well-known and recognized mea-
surement of customer satisfaction and product quality, as it relates the measurers of quality
to consumer behavior (Kondo, 2001). Inspired by the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Ba-
rometer (SCSB) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), a unified mea-
surement of customer satisfaction for Europe was developed (Eskildsen and Kristensen,
2008). The European Performance Satisfaction Index (EPSI) (Figure 3) was introduced in
2000 after a one-year long pilot study conducted in 11 European countries (EPSI Rating,
2010). The model is managed by the European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM), the European Organization for Quality (EOQ), and the academic network Inter-
national Foundation for Customer Focus (IFCF) (Eskildsen and Kristensen, 2008). Fur-
thermore, a technical study supported by the European Commission was conducted prior
to the pilot study. The intention of the EPSI model is to provide a result that is relevant,
reliable, valid, and with financial implications for the future (EPSI Rating, 2010). The EPSI
model explains perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty, which are de-
termined by image, expectation, product quality, and service quality. The circles in the fig-
ure represent the latent variables and the arrows represent the connections between the va-
riables (EPSI Rating, 2010). Since all of these variables are defined as latent, they have to be
explained by measurable variables in order to be able to investigate them sufficiently
(Eskildsen and Kristensen, 2008). At least three measurement variables are given to each la-
tent variable in order to receive more precise estimates. The EPSI framework uses standard
questions in order for the results to be sufficient across different industries. In order for
the results to be reliable and valid, it needs data from at least 250 customers and the data
should be collected via telephone interviews. Moreover, the model is analyzed through Par-
tial Least Squares (PLS), which is seen as superior to other techniques when regarding pre-
diction on customer satisfaction and loyalty (Eskildsen and Kristensen, 2008).
13
When looking at this model, one can identify that customer satisfaction is affected by the
perceived image, expectations, product quality, and service quality. This view is aligned with
the researcher‟s opinions that customer satisfaction is dependent on fulfilled expectations
(Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler
et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell, 2001). The customer‟s symbolic view of the company i.e.
image, is also a part of customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1980), as well as front-line personnel,
i.e. service, which plays an essential part in formation of customer‟s attitude towards the
company and its products (Oliver, 1980; Kapoor and Kulshrestha, 2009). Therefore, the
authors claim that the EPSI-model is a valid model of measurement since it is aligned with
the theories presented in previous sections.
2.5 Summary Measurement

Since the EPSI-model covers several important variables concerning customer satisfaction,
the authors decided to use the EPSI-model as a foundation when investigating customer
satisfaction. The Image variable is important since it influence customer satisfaction in
terms of symbolic elements of a company, which in turn affect customers‟ expectations
(Oliver, 1980). Furthermore, customer satisfaction is dependent on the fulfillment of cus-
tomers‟ expectations (Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and
Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell, 2001), which justifies the variable
Expectations.
The variable concerning Product Quality is also important, which is strengthened by Matz-
ler and Hinterhuber (1998) who say that product features is important in order to obtain
high levels of customer satisfaction as well as competitive advantage. The authors argue
that the design of the house is also included in the Product Quality variable, which is
shown in the Home-Buyer Satisfaction model (Figure 2). Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue
that house design determines home-buyer satisfaction to a large extent, making it an impor-
tant part of the Product Quality variable. Furthermore, construction companies should
consider themselves more as a service organization (Ozaki, 2003), and focus more upon
the experience surrounding the product since service is an important factor in customer sa-
tisfaction (Torbica and Stroh, 2000). This strengthens the fact to include the Service varia-
ble when measuring customer satisfaction.
An important factor within the Service variable is complaint and how the company handles
complaints. If a customer experience a service failure, it is crucial for the company to han-
dle customers‟ complaints efficiently in order to retain the customers trust. If a company
succeed in handling customers‟ complaints in an efficient manner, it is likely that the level
of customer satisfaction will increase even beyond the level the customer had before the
failure occurred (Spreng et al., 1995). Therefore, the authors would like to emphasize that
complaints and the handling of complaints constitutes an important part of the Service va-
riable.
14
Moreover, Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue that companies should not consider the product
and the service as two separate parts, and instead focus upon the „total offering‟ in order to
be able to give the customers a satisfactory experience throughout the construction
process.
As shown in the EPSI-model, these four variables (Image, Expectations, Product Quality,
and Service Quality) will affect customer satisfaction separately as well as the variable Per-
ceived Value, which explains how valuable the customers perceive their purchase to be.
The variable Perceived Value will, in turn, affect customer satisfaction as well.
15
3 Method
3.1 Research Approach
3.1.1 Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research
According to Hyde (2000), the traditional view upon quantitative research is that it ex-
amines data which are numbers, and the view upon qualitative research is that it examines
data which are words. Brannick and Roche (1997) claim that this understanding of quantit-
ative and qualitative research is incorrect since both of them are dealing with numbers and
words. Instead, Brannick and Roche (1997) would like to define quantitative research as
something that focus upon the link between several defined attributes concerning many
cases, and qualitative research as something that focus on the link between contextualized
attributes concerning relative few cases. The two types of research are similar in the way
that both concern interplay between ideas and evidence.
The main difference between the two types of research is often the number of participants
and how to analyze the answers from the research. In qualitative research, methods of in
depth interviews or focus groups are usually used (Sanchez, 2006). Compared to a quantita-
tive research, the participants have the chance to express their attitudes, behavior and expe-
riences (Sanchez, 2006). In quantitative research, methods such as questionnaires and struc-
tured interview can be used on a larger scale of people. The aim of this method is to gener-
ate statistics to analyze a larger population (Sanchez, 2006).
The authors decided to use quantitative research to investigate customer satisfaction among
Trivselhus‟ customers during a period of ten years. The most valid result would be reached
if a large part of the population was investigated, something that would have been costly
and time-consuming with qualitative research.
3.1.2 Inductive Versus Deductive Approach

Research can be divided into two different approaches; the deductive approach, and the
inductive approach. The deductive approach begins with generalizations and is looking to
discover if these generalizations applies to specific examples (Hyde, 2000). The inductive
approach is in the opposite direction; it begins with observations of specific examples and
seeks to establish generalizations (Hyde, 2000). Arguing from observations generally is an
inductive way, while basing arguments on factors such as laws, rules and accepted prin-
ciples generally is deductive (Burney, 2008).The deductive approach can be called the wa-
terfall. It starts with a theory moving to hypothesis, observations to end up with a confir-
mation. The inductive approach can, on the other hand, be called the climbing hill. It starts
up with observations moving to a pattern, tentative hypothesis to end up with a theory
(Burney, 2008). Both quantitative and qualitative researchers use deductive as well as induc-
tive approaches when conducting their research (Hyde, 2000).
The authors of this thesis use a deductive approach. The thesis is moving from existing
theories in order to make hypotheses, and through observations analyze customer satisfac-
tion among Trivselhus customers.
16
3.2 Collecting Data

3.2.1 Primary and Secondary Data
A researcher can opt for collecting data from secondary sources or from primary sources.
Primary data is data collected for this specific study. Whereas secondary data is data col-
lected by others for the use of their specific purpose (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill,
2009). Due to the nature of this study where the intention is to investigate a specific com-
pany‟s customer satisfaction, the authors have decided to collect primary data in form of a
telephone survey.
Secondary data in terms of company information and background history has also been
used in this research in order to get a deeper understanding about the company.
3.2.2 Sampling
The authors were supplied with an Excel file from Trivselhus that contained 4357 entries.
All that information represents most of the customers that the company had during the
time between 2000 and 2010. The entries includes information about: agreement number,
agreement date, delivery date, name, social security number, phone number at work, cell
phone number, home telephone number, home address, delivery address, delivery town,
and deliver county.
Firstly, the authors decided to delete all company customers and only include private per-
sons in the sampling. The total number of customers went down to 3955. The reason to
exclude company customer is that the authors considered the houses build by companies to
be of another character than private houses.
Secondly, all entries were divided up in to time periods. The authors decided to divide it up
in periods of two years. This because most of these houses takes on average 1.5 to 2 years
to build from the first contact with Trivselhus until the house is finished (A. Ek, personal
communication, 2010-02-23). Due to this information that was given by the company, it
was decided that this decision would not alter the overall and general conclusion of this re-
search.
Following is the number and percentage of houses represented from each time period:
2000 – 2001: 343 ≈ 9.5 %
2002 – 2003: 786 ≈ 19.9 %
2004 – 2005: 1064 ≈ 26.9 %
2006 – 2007: 1081 ≈ 27.3 %
2008 – 2009: 638 ≈ 16.1 %
Thirdly, as further explained in 3.2.3, the list was divided up according to the three differ-
ent climate zones that Sweden has (Johansson, 2009). In Climate Zone 3 one could find the
majority of houses produced by Trivselhus during the last ten years. Following are the
number and percentage of houses represented from each climate zone:
17
Climate Zone 1: 53 ≈ 1.3 %

Climate Zone 3: 3599 ≈ 92 %
Due to the low frequency of houses that have been built in Climate Zones 1 and 2, the au-
thors decided upon a ratio that in each time period there should be at least one participant
from Climate Zone 1 and two from Climate Zone 2. In some cases, where the randomly
selected people in each time period did not fulfill these criteria‟s it was manually taken care
of that the criteria‟s of the climate zones was fulfilled in each time period. The authors still
argue that the final sample is fully random, due to the total number of customers and the
low frequency of houses from Climate Zone 1 and 2.
Fourthly, as the total sample was divided up in time periods and sorted by climate zone,
every entry was given a random number by using the =Rand() function in Microsoft Office
Excel 2007. To make sure that the sample will correlate with the central distribution theo-
rem and to be normally distributed, a sample size of 30 from each time period was col-
lected, since 30 is the rule used to be able to statistically analyze the data set (Aczel &
Sounderpandian, 2009).
Sorted by their random number given by Excel, the list was used until 30 participants from
each group were reached. Due to the five periods, each including 30 people, the final num-
ber of participants that will take part in the research will be 150 people.
If, for some reason, the authors have to replace some of these randomly selected individu-
als, it is of importance to find as similar sample replacement as possible in order to still
capture the randomness of the original sample. The information about the individuals that
is known to the authors is the location of where the house is build and at what time it was
constructed. This means that the closest sample replacement to get is in the same year and
in the same climate zone.
3.2.3 Climate Zones

“The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning – Boverket – is the central government authority
for town and country planning, management of land and water resources, building and housing” (Schultz,
2009).
When making the sampling for the research, the authors used the three different climate
zones that Boverket has established (Johansson, 2009). Since Boverket is an official central
government authority it is a credible source and though there are some other definitions on
how Sweden‟s climate zones could be divided the decision to take use of Boverket defini-
tion was made.
Boverket´s own definition and arguments to why there are different climate zones in Swe-
den follows:
“Climate Zones have been introduced to allow for the setting of more suited demands to the building's energy
requirements with respect to temperature conditions at the site. The reason is the different climatic conditions
that exist in our elongated country. Climatic Zones go from North to South I, II and III respectively. Three
climate zones are found to be sufficient since they are covering the minimum requirements of society” (Jo-
hansson, 2009).
18
The zones are divided up as followed and as pictured on the map:
Climate Zone 1: Norrbottens, Västerbottens

and Jämtlands County.
Climate Zone 2: Västernorrlands, Gävleborgs,

Dalarnas and Värmlands County.
Climate Zone 3: Västra Götalands, Jönkö-

pings, Kronobergs, Kalmar, Östergötlands, Sö-
dermanlands, Örebro, Västmanlands, Stock-
holms, Uppsala, Skåne, Hallands, Blekinge and
Gotlands County.
(Saint-Gobain Isover AB, 2010)

Since Trivselhus is a company that mainly operates in the southern parts of Sweden the au-
thors found, as presented in the sampling section 3.2.2, that around 90 % of all the houses
that Trivselhus have construct during the last ten years is included in Climate Zone 3.
However, since Sweden has such different climates, especially if one would compare direct-
ly from north to south, the authors found it important to include this in their research. Es-
pecially when it comes to the research question that concerns the environment and energy
efficiency the answers and findings from the research could differ due to the geographical
climate differences that Sweden offers.
19
3.3 Telephone Survey

For this research, the authors decided upon using the method of conducting telephone in-
terviews. Conducting telephone interviews and marketing researches trough the use of tel-
ephone is something that in the past decades have grown tremendously (Gillham, 2008).
There are, however, some aspects that one has to be aware of before deciding to use this
method. According to Gillham (2008), some of the negative aspects of conducting inter-
views or marketing research by telephone can be summarized by:
1. A general dislike or distance towards „the factor of irritation‟ and undesirable com-
munication
2. There is no use of „none verbal elements‟ such as the ability to read body language
3. The interviews can only last under a limited time
Another potential problem or issue when using this method is the ethical problem and the
invasion of privacy. The ethical problem is foremost present in face-to-face interviews and
occurs when the interviewer and the interviewee affect each other as a result of ethical dif-
ferences (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Even though ethical problems could be a potential bias
in telephone interviews, it is significantly less present than in face-to-face interviews (Bry-
man and Bell, 2007).
The managers at Trivselhus have provided the authors with contact information and given
the authors the right to use this information in order to contact their old customers. The
authors have also been given the right to use the name Trivselhus when conducting the re-
search.
When calling people, one always faces the problem of calling at „a bad time‟ or facing „the
factor of irritation‟. There are a couple of ways of managing these issues in order to mini-
mizing them. Gillham (2008) suggests that before conducting telephone interviews, it might
be appropriate to either send out a presentation letter where the main points of the re-
search are presented, or in advance make shorter preparation calls where a time can be
booked. However, due to the fairly short and structured form of this research, the authors
have decided to use neither of those preparation methods. The decision was based on the
time and costs involved in using those preparation methods. Sending out a presentation let-
ter would be both costly money wise, and the authors may face the issue that the planned
sampled people might no longer be living at the addresses that is provided on the informa-
tion list. The reason why the authors have decided to not make preparation calls is simply
because it might end up requiring as much time as the intended average time of the whole
interview. There is also a possibility of receiving less spontaneous responses if the partici-
pants are too well prepared (Gillham, 2008).
Due to the nature of this study, the inability to read body language when conducting the re-
search via telephone is less of a problem since the authors are focusing on a quantitative
study where the participants will answer giving a number ranging from one to six. Howev-
er, the authors do not have the ability to detect whether the participant understand the
question correctly, which could be a problem if it turns out that the different participants
answer the questions based on different grounds (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Furthermore,
the authors are well aware of the fact that each telephone interview can only last a short pe-
riod of time and have taking this in to consideration when developing the questionnaire.
20
In the same way as the negative aspects, Gillham (2008) has summarized the positive as-
pects of making telephone interviews as following:
1. It can combine the advantages of sample surveys and deeper interviews
2. Have some quality aspects in common with the face-to-face interview
3. No geographical limits
4. Different degrees of interview structures are possible
As Gillham (2008) mentions, telephone interviews offers the possibility to combine posi-
tive aspects of sample surveys and deeper interviews, which makes it possible to conduct
deeper interviews to a lower cost than face-to-face interviews. Furthermore, telephone in-
terviews have some aspects in common with face-to-face interviews where it makes it easi-
er to detect emphasis regarding different questions and understand the participant‟s feel-
ings and attitudes, compared to written surveys such as e-mail surveys (Gillham, 2008).
Through the telephone, one has the ability to effectively reach a random sample of people
from different geographical areas
The only real option instead of conducting telephone interviews, is to send out e-mails.
However, there are two main negative aspects of this method, where the main problem is
simply the contact information. Since this research include old customers of Trivselhus ten
years back, and from the first couple of years the contact information is simply not suffi-
cient enough. The second negative aspect is that one can only assume that around 20 % of
the people who are asked will answer the questionnaire (Neuman, 2005 cited in Saunders et
al. 2009). This would be a problem since there were a limited number of customers during
the first years in the contact information received from Trivselhus. The authors might
therefore end up with not enough participants in order to complete the survey. Telephone
interviews, on the other hand, have a response rate around 70 percent (Hox and De Leeuw,
1994; Yu and Cooper, 1983). Furthermore, if the interviewer expresses confidence and en-
gagement during the persuasion of participation, the response rate might increase even
more (Durrant, Groves, Staetsky, and Steele, 2010).
To conclude, the authors made the choice to conduct their research by using the method
of telephone interviews mainly due to limited contact information and a high response rate.
Another reason is that it enables the authors to have greater control of the pace of the re-
search. As mentioned above, some of the face-to-face advantages such as the detection of
attitudes and feelings can also be used when asking people by telephone which can help the
authors to more thoroughly answer their research questions and analyze their findings.
3.4 Questionnaire Design

The telephone survey was constructed as an interviewer-administered questionnaire with
rating and closed end questions (Saunders et al., 2009). Many researchers argue that when
conducting a survey, oral interviews is the best method due to the high response rate and
that the interviewer has a chance to explain possible confusions (Brannick and Roche,
1997; Matzler et al., 1996; Seimiatycki, 1979).
21
The telephone survey was conducted during evenings and afternoons when it was assumed
that the response rate would be highest. To prevent misunderstandings the authors in-
formed the participants about the purpose of the survey. The survey questions existed of
category questions and numeric rating questions with an equal distance with a rating scale
from 1-6 (Saunders et al., 2009). The scale was constructed in a way that number 1
represent bad/extremely dissatisfied, and 6 represent the highest value excellent/extremely
satisfied, this was told to the participants before the questionnaire started. The scale from 1
to 6 is used in order to make the participants to take a stand regarding the questions asked.
The questionnaire was constructed by partially using an earlier survey performed by the
company IMA Marknadsutveckling AB on assignment of Trivselhus. This was done to ob-
tain appropriate questions regarding housing construction. The EPSI model was used in
order to incorporate the concept of customer satisfaction in to the questionnaire. Ques-
tions regarding Energy were added to include energy efficiency and environmental aspects.
Furthermore, the Home-Buyer Satisfaction model (Figure 2) was also included when con-
structing the questions.
3.4.1 Introduction Questions

As an introduction, the survey began with gathering general information about whether the
participant currently live in their Trivselhus-house, if this was the first time they built a
house, how many people lives in the house today, and through whatever media they first
came into contact with Trivselhus.
1. Is it correct that you live in a Trivselhus?
2. Was it the first time that you did build a house?
3. How many live in the house today?
4. Through which media did you first come in contact with Trivselhus?
3.4.2 Image
In the Image category, the authors wanted to find out how Trivselhus customers perceived
the company before the purchase of their house. Oliver (1980) says that customers‟ expec-
tations are influenced by their symbolic view of the company. Furthermore, Fornell (1992)
and Herrmann, Huber, and Braunstein (2000) argue that satisfaction is achieved when the
company lives up to the customers‟ expectations. And the customers‟ expectation depends
upon how they perceive the quality of the company to be.
5. To which degree did you perceive Trivselhus trustworthiness before the pur-
chase?
6. To which degree did you perceive Trivselhus competence before the pur-
chase?
7. How affordable did you find Trivselhus to be before the purchase?
22
3.4.3 Expectations
For a customer to be satisfied it requires that expectations are met by the company (For-
nell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber, and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al.,
1996; Jonsson and Fornell, 2001). As a result of this, the authors have chosen the following
questions in order to find out what level of expectation the customer had prior to the pur-
chase. It is important for the company to know what customers expect in order to fulfill
their expectations.
8. What were your expectations on Trivselhus service?
9. What were your expectations on Trivselhus flexibility?
10. What were your expectations on your house regarding energy consumption
and environmental friendliness?
3.4.4 Product Quality

Product Quality deals with how satisfied the customer is with the end-product and the con-
struction process. A high rating from the participants indicate that the customer is satisfied
with the product i.e. expectations are met. The authors have chosen questions about Build
Quality, Design, and Material Quality. Matzler and Hinterhuber (1998) say that unique
product features is important in order to reach a high level of satisfaction, which in turn
place a part in obtaining a sustainable competitive advantage. The question regarding how
customers value the final product in relation to the sum they have invested was added since
the authors wanted to see how the customers perceive the product in relation to the money
spent.
11. How satisfied are you with looks and design of your house?
12. How satisfied are you with the materials and its quality?
13. How satisfied are you with the building quality and the house as a whole?
14. How satisfied are you with options and flexibility during the shaping of your
house?
15. How satisfied are you with options and flexibility during the construction of
your house?
16. How do you value the final product in relation to the sum that you have in-
vested?
3.4.5 Energy
The category Energy was added by the authors as the investigation will include how energy
efficiency and environmental friendliness affect customer satisfaction geographically. The
questions were constructed regarding how well Trivselhus succeeded to fulfill their cus-
tomers‟ expectations regarding energy.
17. How satisfied are you with the energy consumption of your house?
18. How environmentally conscious do you find yourself to be today?
23
19. How environmentally conscious did you find yourself to be when you built
your house?
20. To which degree did environmental friendliness and energy consumption
play a part during the construction of your house?
21. Did Trivselhus supply any special information or offers concerning envi-
ronmental friendliness and energy consumption?
22. How big of a role would environmental friendliness and energy consump-
tion played if you had built your house today?
23. How willing are you to pay extra for these attributes?
24. Are you aware of that you have energy efficient components such as doors
and windows in your house today?
25. If Yes – was it a conscious choice or a proposal given by Trivselhus?
26. If No – In the eventuality of changing these components would you choose
a more energy efficient option?
27. If Yes – where would you go to purchase these components?
3.4.6 Service Quality

According to Oliver (1980) and Kapoor & Kulshrestha (2009), customer satisfaction is in-
fluenced by frontline personnel due to that their behavior represents the whole organiza-
tion and the product. Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue that it is not enough to focus only on
the product, instead the focus should be on the total offering including the service sur-
rounding the product. The service part is relevant due to the fact that the house construct-
ing company must put more effort in to their service. The questions were constructed with
concern to how well Trivselhus fulfilled the customer‟s expectations regarding service qual-
ity.
28. How satisfied are you with availability to obtain information before agree-
ment in form of catalogs and webpage?
29. How satisfied are you with availability to get into contact with the company
and obtain information before the start of the construction?
30. How satisfied are you with information and contact during the construction?
31. How satisfied are you with the treatment and contact with your responsible
salesperson?
32. How satisfied are you with the coordination and communication between
Trivselhus, entrepreneurs and you as the customer?
3.4.7 Complaints
According to Spreng et al. (1995), companies can influence and increase customer satisfac-
tion through an effective handling of complaints. The questions regarding complaints and
handling complaints is added because it is interesting to see how it impact customer satis-
faction.
24
33. Have you had any problems with your house?

34. If Yes – Did you make any complains?
35. If Yes – How satisfied are you with Trivselhus handling of your complaints?
3.4.8 Word-of-Mouth
Trivselhus reach many of their customers through word-of-mouth, which means that loyal-
ty is something that Trivselhus is dependent on (A. Ek, personal communication, 2010-02-
23). Researchers have found a positive relationship between word-of-mouth and increased
market share (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998). Burns & Bowling (2010) argue that there is a
positive relationship between word-of-mouth and customer satisfaction.
36. Have you or could you recommend Trivselhus to others?
37. If Yes – Do you know if anyone after that has built a Trivselhus?
3.4.9 Total Satisfaction

This question was included since the authors wanted to find how satisfied Trivselhus‟ cus-
tomers were with the „total offering‟, including all aspects of the experience before, during,
and after the purchase.
38. How satisfied are you totally with Trivselhus as a house provider when all
the aspects are weight in?
3.5 Data Analysis

This section will present the different types of statistical analysis methods. They vary from
descriptive statistics to multiple regression models. Concerns regarding skewness and signi-
ficance level are also explained. Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and Statistical Package for So-
cial Science (SPSS) are the tools used in order to analyze the data.
3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics

Based on this quantitative research, the data will be statistically analyzed using descriptive
statistics. The data gathered from the research was put in an Excel sheet for the purpose of
this analysis. Some of the questions that were asked were in from of Yes or No. In all of
those questions Yes were giving the number 1 and No 0, this was done in order to be able
to draw statistical conclusions on the answers. The descriptive analysis gives information
about everything from central tendency, to standard deviations and variance, which later
can be used to analyze the data and draw conclusions on the problem at hand. Since the au-
thors are only interested in finding the average value from each question, it is only the cen-
tral tendency values that are used when analyzing the data.
3.5.2 Skewness
When measuring central tendency, one can choose from three different measures; mode,
mean, and median (Aczel and Sounderpandian, 2009). If a data set is symmetrically distri-
buted, all the three central tendency measures are the same. However, if the distribution is
leaning more towards the right than to the left, or vice versa, the distribution is skewed
(Aczel and Sounderpandian, 2009). For a skewed distribution, median is the central ten-
dency to use since it is least affected by the extreme values in the data set.
25
3.5.3 Multiple Regression Model

Due to limitations in Microsoft Office Excel 2007, the authors chose to use SPSS when
performing the regression analysis.
Regression analysis is useful when it is of interest to understand the relationship between a
dependent variable and an independent variable (Aczel and Sounderpandian, 2009). How-
ever, it could be the case that several independent variables contain information that can
explain the dependent variable. In such a case the model is called a „Multiple regression
model‟. A multiple regression model is used in order to find how a dependent variable can
be explained by a combination of other independent variables (Aczel and Sounderpandian,
2009). Logically, by using multiple independent variables it will result in more precise pre-
dictions of the dependent variable. This is true to a certain degree. As more and more in-
dependent variables is included in the model, one get a perfect fit which leaves no degrees
of freedom for error and this might end up allowing no chance of variation (Aczel and
Sounderpandian, 2009). This problem and the solution are further discussed in the section
below.
3.5.4 Multiple Coefficient of Determination

In order to understand what affect the independent variables in a multiple regression has
on the dependent variable; a multiple coefficient of determination is used. This coefficient
is R2 and it measures the proportion of the variation of the dependent variable that is
caused by the combination of independent variables (Aczel and Sounderpandian, 2009). In
other words, R2 measures how good the fit is between the regression model and the data.
However, there is limitations regarding R2; it will continue to increase along with an in-
crease in independent variables which will result in poor predictions as it appears to be a
good fit between the model and the data. As mentioned in the previous section, this leaves
no room for variance. Therefore, it is better to use adjusted R2 which is corrected for de-
grees of freedom and gives a more reliable indication, solving the problem of inadequate
variance (Aczel and Sounderpandian, 2009).
3.5.5 Significance Level

Significance level is denoted α and is used in order to reject different hypothesis, and
whenever the p-value falls below the selected α, the hypothesis is rejected (Aczel and
Sounderpandian, 2009). However, there is always a risk to reject a true hypothesis, which is
known as a „type I error‟. As long as one follow the policy of always using a significance
level, it is definite that the maximum probability of „type I error‟ is no more than α (Aczel
and Sounderpandian, 2009). Furthermore, a „type II error‟ occurs when a false hypothesis is
accepted, which is more likely when higher significance level is used. Setting the signific-
ance level will therefore affect the probability of both type I and II errors, and the problem
is to find a compromise between the probabilities of the two different errors. The standard
values to use for α is 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 (Aczel and Sounderpandian, 2009). There is also a
possibility to mathematically calculate the risk of the two errors and find the ultimate com-
promise, but that is impractical and almost impossible to do (Aczel and Sounderpandian,
2009).
Intuitively, one could argue that a significance level of 95% is the most reasonable to
choose since it is the middle choice of the three standard values, it is also the level used in
this research.
26
3.6 Method Problem

In this section, the authors discuss problems that have arisen during the research process.
Problems that can arise within telephone interviews are that the participants might misin-
terpret the questions. In order to prevent misinterpretations from the participant, the au-
thors can help and explain potential problems. Furthermore, problems within telephone in-
terviews are that the participants can be in a surrounding which affects their answers. In
the case that the participants seemed to be busy, the authors suggested to return at a more
appropriate time to conduct the survey.
Another problem that can arise is the misunderstanding of the participants‟ interpretation
of the grading system of the questionnaire. A 4 in the rating scale can mean that the partic-
ipant is extremely satisfied, while for others it just means they are satisfied. In order to
eliminate misinterpretation of the system, the authors explained the grading system. Even
after the author‟s explanation, it should not be taken for granted that the participants will
remember the explanations due to the length and the structure of the questionnaire. This
because of the questions sometimes goes from being a rating question to move over to Yes
or No questions. The choice of having a scale of 1 to 6 was due to the fact that the authors
wanted the participants to take a position regarding the questions asked.
27
4 Empirical Findings
4.1 Central Tendency Values
In this section, the different central tendency values will be presented. The values are
created by using the descriptive statistics function in Microsoft Office Excel 2007. This
section is divided up after the different types of questions that were asked in the question-
naire. They are divided up in the following categories: Introduction Questions, Image, Ex-
pectations, Product Quality, Energy, Service Quality, Complaints, Word-of-Mouth and To-
tal Satisfaction. Each question is measured seven times, first following the 5 different time
periods that were included in the research. Also together with one special group and one
total group where all the answers for all periods were included, independent on from which
time period.
The Special Group -1 is compiled by customers who had made some kind of complaint to
Trivselhus. It was decided to specify this group in order to see the central tendency mainly
on the question about handling complaints and to be able to compare the total satisfaction
value from this group with the total group.
As mentioned, the different time periods include 30 customers each and thus the total
group includes 150 customers. The Special Group -1 includes the 52 customers from the
research that have made some kind of complaints.
The values presented are, depending on the type of question, either mean, median, or
mode. Mode is the type of central tendency that is used for qualitative questions. Mean and
median are used for the quantitative questions. Depending on the skewness calculated by
the descriptive statistics together with the count of each group determines which of the
two to use.
The questions in this section have been abridged. However, they have the same numbers as
in the questioner design (section 4.3). To see the full question and the abridged versions at
the different parts in the thesis see Appendix 3: Question Abridgements.
4.1.1 Introduction Questions

Question 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 Special - 1 Total
1. Live in 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes
Trivselhus?
2. First time 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes
build?
3. How 3.633 4 3.33 3.77 4 4 4
many live
in?
4. Which 10 =Other 7 =Internet 7 =Internet 7 =Internet 3 = Trade 7 =Internet 7 =Internet
media, first Magazine
time
contact?
Qualitative questions and optional meanings of the numbers
Q1: 0=No, 1=Yes
28
Q2: 0=No, 1=Yes

Q4: 1=Radio, 2=TV, 3=Trade Magazine, 4=Local Press, 5=National Press, 6=Friends, 7=Internet, 8=Found a lot owned by Trivselhus,
9=Brochure, 10=Other
The findings from the first couple of introduction questions do not reveal any information
that is of importance for this research. Most people that were involved in this research did
still live in their Trivselhus-house and were first-time builders. The total median of how
many people that live in the houses is 4. The most frequent media of first time contact
were overall the internet. Interesting though is the two outliers 2000-2001 and 2008-2009.
During the first time period most people had some other alternative to the 9 different that
were given, or they could not remember or specify through which media they made the
first time contact. During the last period, 2008-2009, trade magazines were the most fre-
quent answer.
4.1.2 Image
5. Degree of 4.97 5 4.97 5 5.2 5 5
Trustworthiness?
6. Degree of 5.1 5 5 5 5 5 5
Competence?
7. How Affordable? 4.53 4.53 4.1 4 4.53 4.08 4.34
The questions regarding the Image of the company show a constant impression over all the
presented groups. Question 5 and 6 have no real outliers and have a total median of 5. This
indicates that the Image gives a picture of a reliable, trustworthy and competent company.
However, on question 7 the overall score from the individual groups and the total are low-
er. With a ranging score from 4 to 4.53 it indicate that the customers from the beginning
had an image of a more high-end company with more expensive products, that in compari-
son to their competition was not as affordable.
4.1.3 Expectations
8. Expectations 5.17 5.50 5.40 5.13 6 6 5
Service?
9. Expectations 5 6 5.03 5.3 6 6 5
Flexibility?
10. Expectations 4.17 5 4.57 4.67 5 5 5
Energy?
29
Overall, the expectations of the company‟s service, flexibility and ability to produce energy
efficient houses were very high. In some way, these questions could be seen as rhetorical.
When committing to such a big investment as a house, it could be seen as obvious that the
expectations are very high. Question 9 regarding flexibility, which have a high score, indi-
cates that flexibility offer by Trivselhus is highly anticipated by their customers. Expecta-
tions about the energy consumption and overall environmentally friendliness, is over the
years slightly lower, however, one can see that there is an increasing trend.
4.1.4 Product Quality

11. Satisfied, Looks 5.33 5 6 6 6 5 6
Design?
12. Satisfied, Material 4.97 5 5 5 5.23 5 5
Quality?
13. Satisfied, Build 4.97 5 5 5 5 5 5
Quality?
14. Satisfied, Options 5.33 4.77 5 5 5 5 5
& Flexibility
Shaping?
15. Satisfied, Options 4.57 4.53 4 5 5 3.90 4.5
& Flexibility
Construction?
16. Value Final 5.10 5 4.83 5 4.8 4 5
Product/Investment?
Questions 11 to 13 cover how satisfied the customers are with the product itself and its
quality. The overall score is very high. There are no real outliers, all the scores are quite
constant with the only exception of that the look and design question have the total median
of the highest value, 6.
Question 14 and 15 show that most of the customers are very happy with the options and
flexibility offered by the company. These actual values indicate that Trivselhus have lived
up to the expectations that the customers had regarding this matter. The only outlier on
question 15 is Special Group -1. Since this group only contains customers that had prob-
lems and have made a complaint on something on their houses, this number could indicate
that the options and flexibility during the construction was part of the problem.
Question 16 indicates that the customers value their final product high, compared to the
financial means that were invested. Compared to question 7, the total score is the same,
however, on a year by year comparison, the score on question 16 is higher. This could indi-
cate that the customer in the end got more out of their money compared to the image that
they had before the start. Special Group -1 has, however, a score below average, which
could be explained by that they have been having problems with their houses and does not
find that they got the product they paid for.
30
4.1.5 Energy
17. Satisfied, Energy 4 4.37 4.33 4.17 4.47 4.02 4
Consumption House?
18. Environmentally 4.43 4.3 5 4 4.33 4.25 4
Conscious, Today?
19. Environmentally 3.27 3.53 3.33 4 3.83 3.52 3.54
Conscious, Build?
20. Degree of Envi- 2.97 3.4 3.33 4 3.83 3.46 3.39
ronmental Conscious,
Construction?
21. Trivselhus Special 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No
Energy Info?
22. Degree, Energy 2.8 4.83 5 4.6 5 4.79 5
Roll Today?
23. Willingness to Pay 4.07 4.2 4 4.23 3.93 4.08 4
Extra?
24. Aware of Energy 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes
Components in
House?
25. (If Yes, Q. 24) 2 =No, 2 =No, 2 =No, 2 =No, 2 =No, 2 =No, 2 =No,
Conscious Choice? Trivselhus Trivselhus Trivselhus Trivselhus Trivselhus Trivselhus Trivselhus
26. (If No, Q. 24) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Change to Energy =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No
Components today? Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer
27. (If Yes, Q. 26) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Were Would You Go? =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No =No/No
Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer
Q21: 0=No, 1=Yes
Q24: 0=No, 1=Yes
Q25: 1=Yes Conscious Choice, 2=No Given By Trivselhus
Q26: 0=No/No Answer, 1=Yes
Q27: 0=No/No Answer, 1=Contact Product Supplier, 2=Collect Offers, 3=Visiting Building Suppliers, 4=Contact Trivselhus
Question 17 covers the satisfaction of the energy consumption of the house. Compared to
many of the pervious questions, the overall score is lower with a median of 4. This indi-
cates that there still is room for improvement on this subject.
31
Question 18 and 19 are personal questions where the participants are supposed to rank
their own environmental consciousness today, as well as during the time that the house was
built. Overall, customers that are building a Trivselhus-house are quite environmentally
conscious with an overall median of 4. One interesting fact from the research is that the
central tendency value is lower during the time that the house was built. This was true in all
the different groups, even the latest group that did build their houses quite recently. This
could indicate that the move and building process of a house have made the people in-
volved in this research more environmentally conscious.
On question 19 one can see that the overall consideration of environmental friendliness
and energy consumption during the building process was low. With a total mean of 3.39 it
is one of the lowest scores from the whole research. Question 21 gives a mutual answer
from all groups. This question is of qualitative character, and the 0 in this case equals the
answer No. This means that most of the participants did not feel that they were given any
special alternatives or information about environmental friendly materials and energy con-
sumption.
On the question regarding how big of a role energy considerations will play if the partici-
pants built their house today, the score is quite constant around the value 5. However,
there is one clear outlier in form of the first group, 2000-2001. There are no clear explana-
tions to why this is the case and what factors that could contribute to this answer. Howev-
er, on the following question about how willing the participants are to pay extra for these
attributes, the total median is 4 without any real outliers. This indicates that there still is a
hesitation when it comes to pay extra for energy efficient attributes. Even though it might
lower their energy expenses in the long run.
Questions 24 and 25 have a clear trend where most of the customers were aware of that
they had energy efficient components in their houses. It was also clear that it was a sugges-
tion made by Trivselhus, due to that the energy efficient components was usually incorpo-
rated in to the standard equipment. Questions 26 and 27 are depending on 24 and 25 and
since most of the customers answer Yes on question 24 there were very few people who
actually answered question 26 and 27.
4.1.6 Service Quality

28. Satisfied, Info 4.8 4.27 4.7 5 5 4.15 5
Catalogs &
Webpage?
29. Satisfied, Info 5 4.57 4.63 5 5 4.44 5
Before?
30. Satisfied, Info 4.3 4.03 4 4.13 4.2 3.5 4
Construction?
31. Satisfied 5.1 3.67 5 5 6 5 5
Responsible
Salesperson?
32
32. Satisfied, 4.27 3.93 4.07 3.93 4.07 3.19 4

Coordination and
Communication?
The satisfaction level of the catalogs and webpage that Trivselhus supplies show an overall
high score. There are two minor outliers, one of them being 2002-2003. However, there are
no extra comments or other information that can explain why the score is lower during
that time period.
The questions from 29 to 31 handle the personal communication and the responsible sales
persons involved. The satisfaction level about the information before the start of the con-
struction together with the responsible salesperson is equal to a total median of 5. The re-
sponsible salespersons do, however, score a slightly higher over the years. Interestingly, the
satisfaction level of the information during the construction is lower. This fact is supported
by the many different comments that were given and can be seen in Appendix, Questioner
Comments. Those comments also support the lower score on question 32 about how well
the coordination and communication between Trivselhus, the entrepreneurs, and the cus-
tomer were working.
4.1.7 Complaints
33. Any 0 =No 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 0 =No 1 =Yes 0 =No
Problems?
34. Complaints? 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 1 =Yes 0 =No 1 =Yes 0 =No
35. Handling of 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Complaints?
Q33: 0=No, 1=Yes
Q34: 0=No, 1=Yes
Totally, the level of problems and complaints are quite low. However, it is interesting to see
that during three of the time periods more than 50 % of the participant has had some kind
of problem. Only one of the periods has more than 50 % complaints, excluding Special
Group - 1. Special Group - 1 group is as explained only including people that made com-
plaints. The interesting number from that group is the handling complaints, which has the
value of 2. Still at a scale from 1 to 6 there is a lot of improvement to make regarding the
handling of the customers complaints.
33
4.1.8 Word-of-Mouth
Question 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 Special Total
36. Recommend 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes
Trivselhus?
37. (If Yes) Any 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No
Build After
Recommenda-
tion?
Throughout all the periods, the mode on question 36 equals 1 which means that most of
the customers, after the completion of their house, could recommend Trivselhus to others.
Note that even from Special Group - 1 most of them could recommend the company to
others. Even though that there were participants that had influenced others and answered
Yes on question 37 it was only a minority.
4.1.9 Total Satisfaction

38. Satisfied, 5 5 5 5 4.8 3.69 5
Totally?
The total satisfaction over the periods is high. The only outlier is the one that could be
predicted from Special Group - 1. As it shows, the total satisfaction is considerable lower
when the customers have made a complaint. With a mean of 3.69 it is more than one point
under the average.
4.2 Regression Analysis

The aim of the regression analysis is to the highest degree explain the variation in the va-
riables that explains the Total Satisfaction of Trivselhus customers. This is done by running
the regression several times and excluding different independent variables in order to
achieve the highest adjusted R2 value. The following table presents the final regression
models from all the different groups, which are the different time periods plus one special
group.
In the Special Group - 2, compared to Special Group – 1, all of the interviewed customers
that had made some kind of complaint were excluded. Since the authors chose to exclude
those customers, the questions about complaints and handling complaints were also ex-
cluded before executing the regression. This due to the simple fact that the authors knew
that the people involved in this special model had not made any complaints. The authors
wanted to make one special regression with customers that never had problems with their
houses that lead to complaints.
34
As shown below, complaints are a factor that almost always affects the outcome of cus-
tomer satisfaction. Thereby, the authors argue it was important to present one regression
model that was not affected by this factor. It is now possible to see which variables that is
of highest importance for the customers that had a product without problems. Included in
the research was 98 participants without complaints, all of them are included in Special
Group – 2.
The table presents the understandardized coefficients B value and the (standard error). The
stars (*) represents if and on which level the variable is significant or not. If the box is emp-
ty it means that the variable was excluded from the final model. Correlation testing was
made prior to the regression. The authors found no correlation that will affect the outcome
of the analysis. Due to the fact that the correlation did not affect the regression, the deci-
sion was made not to include the correlation tables.
To see all the models from each group and to follow at which level each variable were ex-
cluded and how it affected the adjusted R2 see Appendix 5: Regression Models. The ques-
tions in this section have been abridged. To see the full question and the abridged versions
at the different parts in the thesis see Appendix 3: Question Abridgements.
Question 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 Special - 2
5. Degree of Trustworthiness? 0.645 ** 0.409 ** 0.688 ** 0.154 **

(0.229) (0.152) (0.115) (0.077)
6. Degree of Competence? -0.653 ** 0.246 0.158
(0.184) (0.197) (0.107)
7. How Affordable? 0.211 * 0.085
(0.101) (0.067)
8. Expectations Service? 0.277 ** -0.808 **
(0.115) (0.237)
9. Expectations Flexibility? -0.602 ** -0.495 **
(0.123) (0.111)
10. Expectations Energy? 0.200 ** -0.288 **
(0.088) (0.076)
11. Satisfied, Looks Design? 0.442 ** 0.328 ** 0.153
(0.196) (0.149) (0.107)
12. Satisfied, Material Quality? 0.717 ** 0.155 *
(0.146) (0.0.81)
13. Satisfied, Build Quality? 0.158 0.645 ** 0.111
(0.120) (0.118) (0.083)
14. Satisfied, Options & 0.147 -0.348 **
Flexibility Shaping? (0.091) (0.120)
15. Satisfied, Options & -0.322 ** -0.341 ** -0.396 ** -0.075

Flexibility Construction? (0.141) (0.108) (0.100) (0.066)
35
16. Value Final 0.408 ** 0.340 **

Product/Investment? (0.191) (0.108)
17. Satisfied, Energy 0.347 ** 0.312 ** 0.380 **

Consumption House? (0.123) (0.085) (0.126)
20. Degree of Environmental -0.227 ** -0.534 ** -0.056

Conscious, Construction? (0.105) (0.106) (0.046)
21. Trivselhus Special Energy -0.322

Info? (0.230)
22. Degree, Energy Roll Today? 0.356 ** 0.655 ** 0.181 **

(0.104) (0.103) (0.057)
23. Willingness to Pay Extra? 0.186 0.356 ** -0.269 **
(0.111) (0.090) (0.090)
28. Satisfied, Info Catalogs & -0.189 0.276 * 0.287 **
Webpage? (0.133) (0.131) (0.071)
29. Satisfied, Info Before? 0.639 ** -0.215 -0.341

(0.215) (0.164) (0.205)
30. Satisfied, Info Construction? 0.719 ** 0.977 ** 0.097 0.285 **
(0.090) 0.123 (0.066) (0.058)
31. Satisfied Responsible -0.133 ** 0.239 ** 0.121 **
Salesperson? (0.056) (0.104) (0.048)
32. Satisfied, Coordination and 0.310 ** 0.214 ** -0.565 **

Communication? (0.113) (0.096) (0.113)
34. Complaints? -1.316 ** -1.231 ** -0.715 * -3.048 ** -0.870 **

(0.537) (0.265) (0.372) (0.344) (0.258)
35. Handling of Complaints? 0.395 * 0.216 ** 0.117 0.967 0.242 **
(0.205) (0.075) (0.106) (0.106) (0.093)
Adjusted R2 0.602 0.950 0.755 0.957 0.922 0.646
N 30 30 30 30 30 98
Commentary; * = Significant at a 0.1 (90 %) level, ** =Significant at a 0.05 (95 %) level
Trivselhus Special Energy Info? and Complaints? Is represented as dummy variables
The numbers in brackets are standard error.
36
In the sections from 4.2.1 to 4.2.6 is a summary of the table presented in words. The first
and final regression models are presented from each group with their respective Adj.R2 (ad-
justed R2) for a compression and to see the positive effect of the exclusion of some of the
independent variables. The dependent variable for all the groups is Satisfied Totally. How-
ever, depending on the group, all the different independent variables are presented. If the
name of the independent variable have a strike through its name it means that it is not sig-
nificant on a 95 % significance level (α= 0.05). The R2 interpretation combines the value
of the Adj.R2 with the independent variables and explains to which degree the variation in
Satisfied Totally can be explained with the different variables from each group.
For an overview model to see which of the variables that were included in the different
groups see 4.2.7. The meaning of that table is to give a clearer overview of which variables
that were mostly used and which affected customer satisfaction from year to year. The
questions in this section have been abridged. To see the full question and the abridged ver-
sions at the different parts in the thesis see Appendix 3: Question Abridgements.
4.2.1 2000 – 2001

Model 1: Including all variables: Adj.R2 = -0.176
Model 16: Excluding Expectations Service, Build Quality, Trust, Expectations Flexibility,
Info Construction, Competence, Expectations Energy, Energy Roll Today, Energy Con-
sumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info, Affordable, Responsible Salesperson, Pay
Extra, Materials Quality and Options Flexibility Shaping: Adj.R2= 0.602
Model 16 is the model which gives the highest Adj.R2= 0.602
For all regression models see appendix Regression Models, 2000 - 2001
Dependent variable (y) = Satisfied Totally
Independent variables (x) = Looks Design, Options Flexibility Construction, Final
Product/Investment, Energy Consumption, Info Catalogs, Info Before, Coordination and
Communication, Complaints and Handling Complaints
R2 interpretation: = 0.602. Therefore 60,2 % of the variation in Satisfied totally can be
explained by the variation in = Looks Design, Options Flexibility Construction, Final
Product/Investment, Energy Consumption, Info Catalogs, Info Before, Coordination and
Communication, Complaints and Handling Complaints
4.2.2 2002 – 2003

Model 1: Including all variables: Adj.R2= 0.885
Model 14: Excluding Info Before, Coordination and Communication, Expectations Flex-
ibility, Energy Roll Today, Options Flexibility Shaping, Pay Extra, Expectations Energy,
Materials Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info, Energy Consumption Construction, Affordable,
Info Catalogs and Looks Design : Adj.R2= 0.950
37
Independent variables (x) = Trust, Competence, Expectations Service, Build Quality,

options Flexibility Construction, Final Product/Investment, Energy Consumption, Info
Construction, Responsible Salesperson, Complaints, Handling Complaints
R2 interpretation: = 0.950. Therefore 95 % of the variation in Satisfied Totally can be ex-
plained by the variation in = Trust, Competence, Expectations Service, Build Quality, op-
tions Flexibility Construction, Final Product/Investment, Energy Consumption, Info Con-
struction, Responsible Salesperson, Complaints, Handling Complaints
4.2.3 2004 – 2005

Model 13: Excluding Final Product/Investment, Options Flexibility Construction, Mate-
rials Quality, Looks Design, Affordable, Info Construction, Expectations Energy, Expecta-
tions Flexibility, Build Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info, Options Flexibility Shaping and
Energy Roll Today: Adj.R2= 0.755
Independent variables (x) = Trust, Competence, Expectations Service, Energy Con-
sumption, Energy Consumption Construction, Pay Extra, Info Catalogs, Info Before, Re-
sponsible Salesperson, Coordination and Communication, Complaints, Handling Com-
plaints
R2 interpretation: = 0.755. Therefore 75.5 % of the variation in Satisfied Totally can be
explained by the variation in = Trust, Competence, Expectations Service, Energy Con-
sumption, Energy Consumption Construction, Pay Extra, Info Catalogs, Info Before, re-
sponsible Salesperson, Coordination and Communication, Complaints, Handling Com-
plaints
4.2.4 2006 – 2007

Model 9: Excluding Looks Design, Info Catalogs, Trust, Responsible Salesperson, Final
Product/Investment, Expectations Service, Energy Consumption and Build Quality:
Adj.R2= 0.957
Independent variables (x) = Competence, Affordable, Expectations Flexibility, Expecta-
tions Energy, Material Quality, Options Flexibility Shaping, Options Flexibility Construc-
tion, Energy Consumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info, Energy Roll Today, Pay
Extra, Info Before, Info Construction, Coordination and Communication, Complaints,
Handling Complaints
38

explained by the variation in = Competence, Affordable, Expectations Flexibility, Expecta-
tions Energy, Material Quality, Options Flexibility Shaping, Options Flexibility Construc-
tion, Energy Consumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info, Energy Roll Today, Pay
Extra, Info Before, Info Construction, Coordination and Communication, Complaints,
Handling Complaints
4.2.5 2008 – 2009

Model 12: Excluding Final Product/Investment, Info Before, Trivselhus Energy Info, Ma-
terials Quality, Energy Consumption Construction, Affordable, Expectations Service, Re-
sponsible Salesperson, Competence, Coordination and Communication and Energy Con-
sumption: Adj.R2= 0.922
Independent variables (x) = Trust, Expectations Flexibility, Expectations Energy, Looks
Design, Build Quality, Options Flexibility Shaping, Options Flexibility Construction, Ener-
gy Roll Today, Pay Extra, Info Catalogs, Info Construction, Complaints, Handling Com-
plaints
explained by the variation in = Trust, Expectations Flexibility, Expectations Energy, looks
Design, Build Quality, Options Flexibility Shaping, Options Flexibility Construction, Ener-
gy Roll Today, Pay Extra, Info Catalogs, Info Construction, Complaints, Handling Com-
plaints
4.2.6 Special - 2
Model 14: Excluding Info Catalogs, Info Before, Expectations Service, Expectations Flex-
ibility, Competence, Coordination and Communication, Options Flexibility Shaping, Ener-
gy Consumption, Final Product/Investment, Pay Extra, Trivselhus Energy Info, Expecta-
tions Energy and Options Flexibility Construction: Adj.R2= 0.646
For all regression models see appendix Regression Models, Special
Independent variables (x) = Trust, Affordable, Looks Design, Material Quality, Build
Quality, Energy Consumption Construction, Energy Roll Today, Info Construction, Re-
sponsible Salesperson
39

explained by the variation in = Trust, Affordable, Looks Design, Material Quality, Build
Quality, Energy Consumption Construction, Energy Roll Today, Info Construction, Re-
sponsible Salesperson
4.2.7 Regression Models Overview

In the table below, an overview of all the regression models are presented. It is quite similar
to the table presented 4.2. However, the different variables that are included in the models
are represented with an X. This is made to give a full overview of which variables that are
of importance for each group and are affecting customer satisfaction. There are no num-
bers to analyze, just the simple fact that the variable was included in the final regression
model, and affects customer satisfaction. As can be seen both in the questionnaire design
(section 3.4) and central tendency (section 4.1), the different questions are divided up into
categories. In this case knowing which categories the different variables belong to can help
to further understand which main factors that are of importance for the outcome of cus-
tomer satisfaction.
Questions 5-6 belongs to the Image category, Q 8-10 to Expectations, Q 11-16 to Product
Quality, Q 17 20-23 to Energy, Q 28-32 to Service Quality and Q34 and 35 to Complaints.
If there it is a strike trough the X, it means that it was not significant on a 95 % level.
40
Question 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 Special - 2
5. Degree of Trustworthiness? X X X X
6. Degree of Competence? X X X
7. How Affordable? X X
8. Expectations Service? X X
9. Expectations Flexibility? X X
10. Expectations Energy? X X
11. Satisfied, Looks Design? X X X
12. Satisfied, Material Quality? X X
13. Satisfied, Build Quality? X X X
14. Satisfied, Options & Flexibility X X

Shaping?
15. Satisfied, Options & Flexibility X X X X

Construction?
16. Value Final Product/Investment? X X
17. Satisfied, Energy Consumption X X X

House?
20. Degree of Environmental X X X

Conscious, Construction?
21. Trivselhus Special Energy Info? X
22. Degree, Energy Roll Today? X X X
23. Willingness to Pay Extra? X X X
28. Satisfied, Info Catalogs? X X X
29. Satisfied, Info Before? X X X
30. Satisfied, Info Construction? X X X X
31. Satisfied Responsible Salesperson? X X X
32. Satisfied, Coordination and X X X

Communication?
34. Complaints? X X X X X
35. Handling of Complaints? X X X X X
41
5 Analysis
This section analyzes all the findings. The analyses are done for all the different groups that
were included in the regression. Note that it is the Special Group -2 that it is analyzed in
this case. The Special Group – 1 is not included in the analysis. Special Group – 1 does,
compared to Special Group – 2, only include the participants that made complaints. The
decision was made to only present the central tendency values from Special Group – 1 to
state the factual results. However, as shown in the regression models, and as analyzed in
this section, complaints are a factor that affects customer satisfaction. That is why the au-
thors chose to exclude this group from the regression since it already is known what the
main problem is from this group. The author felt that it was of greater importance for the
research and the company to focus on Special Group – 2 in the analysis. This in order to
see which variables that affects customer satisfaction when the products deliver on its full
capacity.
The analysis looks foremost on the regression models, with complementary information
from the central tendency values and comments given by the participants to further streng-
then the findings. The analysis is also connected to the theoretical part of the research for a
deeper explanation and understanding of the results.
The analyses are done separately for each group without taking any concern to each other.
Even if there is a risk of repeating some aspects, the authors want to give the reader the
ability to see the analysis from every group in order to understand the different variables
that affect customer satisfaction. However, a summary analysis from all the groups is pre-
sented in the end of the chapter (5.7).
5.8 is a separate analysis on the different climate zones. However, this analysis is only based
on the central tendency numbers generated through the descriptive statistics. The findings
from the central tendency‟s that are used can be found under section 4.2. The regression
models are found under section 4.3 and the significance level used is 95 % (α=0.05).
5.1 Analysis 2000 – 2001

As the regression model for 2000 – 2001 shows, the looks and design of the house consti-
tutes an important part of how satisfied the customer are. This is in line with what Torbica
and Stroh (2000) show in their Home-buyer satisfaction model (Figure 2, section 2.4.1.)
that house-buyer satisfaction depends at a large extent on the design of the house. Trivsel-
hus has, already from the start in 1993, offered their customers the possibility of being in-
volved in developing the house and its design. This might be a reason for that the look and
design is a significant variable in determining Trivselhus‟ customer satisfaction. As shown
in 4.2.2., Trivselhus receive a central tendency of 5.33 in 2000 and 2001 regarding looks
and design, which is a high value although it is under the average score.
Furthermore, one can find that the possibility of options and flexibility during the con-
struction represent a significant variable of customer satisfaction. This implies that custom-
ers value the chance to influence the construction. Ozaki, (2003) argues that in order to ob-
tain a higher customer satisfaction it is good to provide a customized house with a certain
standard of quality that meets the customer‟s expectations. In order to meet the customer‟s
wants and needs it is important for the company to understand these requirements (Ozaki,
2003). Trivselhus is working with flexibility as a core value within their organization and
this is shown to be important since the result from the regression analysis shows that op-
tions and flexibility given to the customers during the construction is a significant variable.
42
This is strengthened by comments made by customers (Appendix 2000-2001), where cus-

tomers express that Trivselhus has high flexibility and no restrictions. As shown in section
4.2.4., Trivselhus receives a central tendency of 4.57 regarding this variable, which is
slightly above the average score for all ten years.
The financial investment versus the final product is another variable in the regression that
is significant. Customers are always seeking the highest return of investment. Looking at
the central tendency for this variable (section 4.2.4.), one can see that the customer in this
period gave a central tendency score of 5.10, which is above average score and indicate that
the customers perceive the house being worth their money spent.
Energy consumption was also proven a significant variable when determining customer sa-
tisfaction among Trivselhus‟ customers. This shows that the energy consumption is an im-
portant factor when determining customer satisfaction, which can be explained by the
worldwide increase in environmental concerns. As shown in section 4.2.5., the central ten-
dency is 4, which implies that customers are fairly satisfied but that there is room for im-
provements.
The information that the customers received before the construction was also a significant
variable that will affect how totally satisfied the customers are. To have well-structured in-
formation before the construction starts, are, to many customers, often necessary in order
to plan and monitor the process. Ozaki, (2003) states that in order to have an effective flex-
ibility, it is required to have efficient information flow within the company so that the in-
formation from the customer reaches the right recipient. As the central tendency (section
4.2.6.) shows, the customers in this period gave a score of 5, which implies that customers
are satisfied with information before the construction. Moreover, it is proven that the suc-
cess of the coordination and communication between Trivselhus, the entrepreneurs, and
the customers is another significant variable. As shown in the section 4.2.6., Trivselhus
receives a score of 4.27 which implies that there is room for improvements. The informa-
tion availability before the agreement was also included in the regression but is not signifi-
cant with α=0.05, and should therefore not be taken in to consideration when analyzing the
results.
The final significant variable for 2000 – 2001 is complaints. Complaints have a negative
impact on customer satisfaction. However, an effective handling of complaints can have
positive impact on customer satisfaction. This is strengthened by Spreng et al. (1995) who
states that customer satisfaction can increase with a successful complaints handling, even
beyond the level that they had before. Furthermore, Fornell and Wernerfelt (1976) and
Davidow (2003) argue that effective complaints handling will have a positive effect on
word-of-mouth communications among customers and enhance loyalty that will have a
positive impact on customer satisfaction.
5.2 Analysis 2002 – 2003

As one can see from the regression model for 2002 – 2003, customers‟ expectations regard-
ing service is an important variable when determining customer satisfaction. This is streng-
thened by several researchers who state that customer satisfaction depend on the fulfill-
ment of customers‟ expectations (Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000;
Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell, 2001).
43
Looking at the central tendency for customers‟ expectations regarding service (section
4.2.3.), one can see that the central tendency is 5.50, which means that Trivselhus‟ custom-
ers have high expectations regarding service. Furthermore, Image in terms of trust and
competence is also proven important variables that affect customer satisfaction. This is
aligned with Oliver (1980) who argues that customers‟ expectations is a response of the
customers‟ past experience of the brand and product as well as other symbolic elements of
the company. As shown in the section of central tendencies for Image (4.2.2.), Trivselhus
receive high values for both trust and competence, which implies that the customer perce-
ive Trivselhus as a trustworthy and competent company.
Whether or not the customers‟ get adequate options and room for flexibility during the
construction is shown to affect how satisfied they will become. This can be explained by
Osaki (2003), who says that companies must understand their customers‟ requirement in
order to be able to satisfy them. Osaki (2003) argues that it is important to provide custo-
mized houses which fulfill their customers‟ requirements. As shown in section 4.2.4., Triv-
selhus receive a central tendency value of 4.53 in 2002 – 2003 regarding this variable, which
is slightly above the average score for all the periods. However, as the comments made by
the customers indicate, there is room for improvement regarding this issue. The customers
commented that the company had difficulties adjusting to customers requirements (Ap-
pendix 2002-2003).
How the customers value the finished product in relation to the financial means they have
invested does also affect their overall satisfaction. Intuitively, it means that a customer will
be more satisfied with their house the more they get out of their investment. Customers in
this time period gave a central tendency score of 5 (section 4.2.4.), which is a high score
that implies that they perceive the house to be worth their money spent. Build quality was
also included in the regression model. However, this variable should not be considered
since is not significant on a significance level of 95 %.
The level of energy consumption of the customers houses determine how satisfied they will
become, which implies that customers are increasingly aware of energy consumption, and
perhaps more concerned about the environment. The central tendency for how satisfied
the customers are with the level of energy consumption is 4.37 (section 4.2.5.). This score
indicate that the customers are satisfied with the energy consumption of their house but
that there is room for improvements. The comments made by the customers indicated that
they thought it was too little attention spent on energy efficiency attributes (Appendix
2002-2003).
Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue that construction companies must consider themselves
more as a service organization and put more effort to improve the service surrounding the
product. During 2002 - 2003, Trivselhus customers felt that the information given during
the construction, and the contact with the responsible salesperson, were two important va-
riables which have an effect on customer satisfaction. This is supported by Oliver (1980)
and Kapoor and Kulshrestha (2009), who state that front-line personnel and their action
influence customer expectations since the personnel represent the company as a whole, in-
cluding its products. As seen in the comments made by the respondents of the survey (Ap-
pendix 2002-2003), there is a number of opinions expressed regarding the salespersons.
These opinions will, therefore, ultimately have an effect on customer‟s satisfaction.
44
Looking at the central tendency for information received during the construction (section
4.2.6.), one can see that a score of 4.03, while still above average, it is room for improve-
ments. The central tendency for how satisfied the customers are with the responsible sales-
person is 3.67, which is the lowest score of all periods. This implies that the customers in
2002 – 2003 are not satisfied with the salesperson. Since expectations regarding services in
this period were high, a central tendency of 5.50, it indicates that Trivselhus was not able to
fulfill their customers‟ expectations regarding services.
The last two variables that affect customer satisfaction in 2002 – 2003 are complaints and
how the company handles their complaints. This is strengthened by Spreng et al. (1995),
who state that if companies handle their customers‟ complaint in an effective way, it might
increase the level of customer satisfaction beyond the level the customer had before the
complaint. Furthermore, Fornell and Wernerfelt (1976) say that companies should see
complaints as a tool to enhance loyalty and increase customer satisfaction. When conduct-
ing the survey, the participant commented on Trivselhus poor handling of complaints (Ap-
pendix 2002-2003), implying that it will have a negative effect on customer satisfaction.
5.3 Analysis 2004 – 2005

In 2004 – 2005, trust is the only variable in the category Image that is proven to have an
impact on customer satisfaction. Competence was also included in the regression model,
however, it is not included in the analysis since it was proven not significant. There is,
therefore, only one variable in the Image category that affects customer satisfaction in 2004
– 2005. Nonetheless, Image and symbolic elements of the company is important in the cre-
ation of customer expectations (Oliver, 1980). Observing the central tendency for trust in
section 4.2.2., one can see that a value of 4.97 is slightly below average for all periods but
still indicates that Trivselhus‟ customers perceive the company as trustworthy. Customers‟
expectation regarding service is also an important variable when determining customer sa-
tisfaction, which is aligned with the theories that claim that customer satisfaction is depen-
dent on the fulfillment of customers‟ expectations (Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and
Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell,
2001). The central tendency value for customers‟ expectations regarding service is 5.40,
which is a high value and indicated that the customers expect good service throughout the
purchasing process.
In the Energy category, there are several variables that affect customer satisfaction. How-
ever, the question regarding the customers‟ willingness to pay extra for energy efficient
attributes was not significant and should therefore not be taken into consideration. The
level of energy consumption, as well as to what degree energy efficiency and environmental
friendliness was incorporated in the construction of their house, are two variables in the
Energy category which affect customer satisfaction. This implies that customers are increa-
singly aware of their energy consumption, which affects how satisfied they will become.
Therefore, it is crucial for Trivselhus to supply energy efficient options in order to meet the
demand from their customers. Looking at the central tendency values for the two signifi-
cant variables included in the regression (section 4.2.5.), one can see that there are low
scores for both the level of energy consumption, as well as to what degree energy efficiency
and environmental friendliness was incorporated when building their house. This implies
that they did not spend enough effort to incorporate energy efficiency in to their house.
Since they are not completely satisfied with the energy consumption of their house, it is
something that could be interpreted as brought upon themselves.
45
Construction companies should focus more upon the whole „offering‟ surrounding the
product since service is an important factor in customer satisfaction (Torbica and Stroh,
2000). Moreover, it is believed that front-line personnel and their action will influence cus-
tomer expectations (Oliver, 1980; Kapoor and Kulshrestha, 2009). This is supported by the
results from the regression model as the treatment and contact with the responsible sales-
person is proven an important variable in 2004 - 2005, which will affect customer satisfac-
tion. The central tendency for how satisfied the customer were with the salesperson is 5
(section 4.2.6.), which is the same as the average for all periods. A central tendency of 5 is a
high score, however a few customer expressed their displeasure regarding the salesperson
(Appendix 2004-2005), which implies that there is still room for improvements. Further-
more, the success of the coordination and communication between Trivselhus, the entre-
preneurs, and the customer is proven to be important in the determination of customer sa-
tisfaction. This variable has a central tendency of 4.07, implying that the customers are not
entirely satisfied. Information received via catalogs and webpage, as well as information re-
ceived prior to the construction is also included in the regression, but should not be taken
in to consideration since these two variables are not significant.
Whether the customers had Complaints and how the companies handle complaints are two
other variables included in the regression model but they are not significant, and should
therefore not been taken into consideration.
5.4 Analysis 2006 – 2007

In the period of 2006-2007, the regression model shows that expectation concerning flex-
ibility and energy is variables that are important in the determination of customer satisfac-
tion. Customer satisfaction will occur when customer‟s expectations are met or exceeded
(Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler
et al., 1996; Johnson and Fornell, 2001). Looking at the central tendency for customer ex-
pectations regarding flexibility and energy (section 4.2.3.), one can see that the central ten-
dency is 5.3 for flexibility and 4.67 for energy, which means that Trivselhus‟ customers
have high expectation regarding these variables. The customer has high expectations re-
garding Trivselhus‟ flexibility due to the fact that the company uses flexibility as a core val-
ue.
How the customers perceive Trivselhus competence and how affordable they are, were also
variables that were included in the regression model. However, these two variables are not
significant and are therefore not considered.
Furthermore, Product Quality in terms of material quality is showed to be an important va-
riable. According to Fornell (1992), consumers judge the quality in different ways and the
best measurement of quality is how it affects customer satisfaction. As shown in section
4.2.4., Trivselhus receive a central tendency of 5 regarding material quality. How satisfied a
customer will be is also determined by the options and flexibility that they are given during
the construction. This is in line with Ozaki (2003) who states that in order to achieve cus-
tomer satisfaction, it is necessary to understand what customers require. In section 4.2.4., it
is shown that Trivselhus receives a central tendency of 5 regarding options and flexibility
during the construction. This score is over the average score for all periods. The high score
implies that customers are satisfied, however, there were some comments made by cus-
tomers about improvements regarding flexibility (Appendix 2006-2007). Options and flex-
ibility during the shaping process was also included in the regression model, however, it
was not significant and is therefore not considered.
46
Furthermore, in the Energy category, variables that affect the overall satisfaction are to
which degree the environmental friendliness and energy efficiency were taken in to consid-
eration during the customer‟s construction, together with to what degree the customers had
considered environmental friendliness and energy efficiency if the house would have been
built today. As shown in the central tendency section 4.2.5., the customer in this time pe-
riod got a central tendency value of 4 and 4.6 respectively. Another significant variable
within the Energy category is the willingness from customers to pay extra for energy effi-
ciency attributes. In section 4.2.5 the central tendency value of this variable is 4.23, which is
above the total average score, implying that customers in this period are willing to pay extra
for energy efficiency attributes. Because these variables are included in the regression, it is
proven that it is necessary for Trivselhus to supply their customers with different energy
solutions in order to keep their customers satisfied. A variable that is included in the re-
gression model, which should not be taken into consideration because it was not significant
were the variable regarding if Trivselhus supplied any special information or offers con-
cerning environmental friendliness and energy consumption.
Moreover, in the Service category, the regression models shows that, during 2006 – 2007
significant variables that will affect customer satisfaction were information during the con-
struction, as well as the communication and coordination between Trivselhus, entrepre-
neurs and the customers. This is strengthened by Torbica and Stroh (2000), who argues
that construction companies must add more effort within the service area to meet the cus-
tomer‟s wants and needs. Furthermore, Torbica and Stroh (2000) say that a small increase
in the service quality can increase customer satisfaction. Looking at the central tendency
(section 4.2.6.), one can see that the central tendency for information during construction is
4.13, and 3.93 for communication and coordination. This indicates that, during the period
2006 – 2007, Trivselhus customers were fairly satisfied with these variables. There are a few
comments made by customers that indicate displeasure of the communication and coordi-
nation between Trivselhus, the entrepreneur, and the customer (Appendix 2006-2007).
This implies that this is an area that needs improvements. The variable regarding informa-
tion prior to the construction were also included in the regression, but should to be taken
in to consideration since it is not significant.
In 2006 – 2007, complaints and how Trivselhus handle complaints are variables that affect
customer satisfaction. In the event of complains, companies has, according to many re-
searchers, a chance to turn the situation around to their advantage. Spreng et al. (1995) ar-
gues that customer satisfaction will be affected in a positive manner through successful
handling complaints by the company. This is further strengthened by Fornell and Werner-
felt (1976) who say that companies can increase customer satisfaction and loyalty if they see
complaints as a tool to communicate with the customer. However, there are a few custom-
ers that commented that Trivselhus handle their complaints badly, which imply that this is
an area that needs improvement (Appendix 2006-2007).
47
5.5 Analysis 2008 – 2009

Looking at the regression model from this period, one can see that customers‟ expectation
is an important variable when determining customer satisfaction. The regression model in-
cludes customers‟ expectations regarding both flexibility and energy, and is proven to have
an effect on customer satisfaction. This is supported by several researchers who say that
customer satisfaction occur when customers‟ expectations are fulfilled (Fornell, 1992;
Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al., 1996;
Johnson and Fornell, 2001). Looking at the central tendency regarding customers‟ expecta-
tion of flexibility and energy (section 4.2.3.), one can see that the expectations regarding
flexibility is 6, which is the highest score possible. This means that Trivselhus‟ customers
demand a high level of flexibility, which is in line with Osaki (2003) who says that compa-
nies must meet their customers‟ requirements and supply customized houses in order to get
satisfied customers. The central tendency regarding customers‟ expectations about energy is
5, which is a high value, implying that customers have high expectations regarding energy.
Furthermore, Oliver (1980) argues that customers‟ expectations are influenced by past ex-
perience with the brand as well as symbolic elements of the company. This is supported by
the findings of the regression model where Image in terms of trust is proven to be a varia-
ble that has an effect on customer satisfaction among Trivselhus‟ customers. For 2008 –
2009, the central tendency of trust is 5.2 (section 4.2.2.), which indicates that customers
perceive Trivselhus as a trustworthy company.
According to the findings from the regression model, the looks and design of the house, as
well as the build quality, are both important variables when determining customer satisfac-
tion. This is strengthened by Torbica and Stroh (2000), who explain through their Home-
Buyer Satisfaction Model (Figure 2, section 2.4.1) that the design of the house, as well as
the house itself, play‟s a major role in how satisfied house-buyers will become. The central
tendency for the looks and design of the houses built in 2008 – 2009 is 6 (section 4.2.4.),
which is the highest score possible, implying that the customers are very satisfied. This
could be explained by the fact that the customers are to a large extent involved in sketching
their houses, and thus, they have options to alter the design after their needs. The build
quality of the house, on the other hand, received a central tendency value of 5(section
4.2.4.), which is also a high value implying that customers are satisfied with the build quality
of their house. This is strengthened by comments made by customers that the house is of
high standard and good quality (Appendix 2008-2009). Furthermore, as the regression
model shows, the amount of option and flexibility given to the customer during the shap-
ing of their house will also affect customer satisfaction. This is aligned with Osaki (2003)
who state that companies must understand their customers‟ requirements and that it is im-
portant to provide customized houses that fulfill these requirements. This variable received
a central tendency of 5, implying that the customers are satisfied. The amount of options
and flexibility given to the customer during the construction is also included in the regres-
sion model. However, this variable is not significant and should therefore not be taken into
consideration.
48
In the Energy category, several variables affect customer satisfaction. To what extent the
customers would consider energy efficiency and environmental friendliness if they were to
build a house today is proven to be a significant variable. As mentioned earlier, customers‟
expectation regarding energy consumption is a variable that has an effect on customer sa-
tisfaction in 2008 - 2009. This implies that Trivselhus‟ customers are concerned about
energy consumption, which is in line with the fact that the customers will consider energy
consumption if they were to build a house today. Furthermore, the customers‟ willingness
to pay extra does also affect customer satisfaction. Looking at the central tendency value
for each of the included variables (section 4.2.5.), one can see that the value for the extent
to which the customers consider energy efficiency and environmental friendliness if they
were to build a house today is 5. This implies that customers are well aware of energy con-
sumption and it is, therefore, crucial for Trivselhus to fulfill these demands in order to get
high level of customer satisfaction. The willingness to pay extra has a central tendency of
3.93. This means that, even if the customers are aware of energy consumption, they are not
particularly willing to pay extra for such attributes.
Torbica and Stroh (2000) state that construction companies must focus more upon the
whole „offering‟ including the service surrounding the product. In other words, service
constitutes an important part in customer satisfaction. This is supported by the findings
from the regression model where it is proven that the information given through the cata-
logs and webpage determine how satisfied the customer will become. The central tendency
of this variable is 5 (section 4.2.6.), which is a high value indicating that the customers are
satisfied with the information given. The amount of information received by the customer
during the construction is also included in the regression model, but is not significant and
is therefore not considered.
The final two variables included in the regression model for 2008 – 2009 are complaints
and how Trivselhus handle complaints. Both of these variables are proven to affect cus-
tomer satisfaction. This is aligned with the theory presented by Spreng et al. (1995), who
argued that if companies handle complaints in an efficient manner that is pleasing to the
customer there is a possibility that customer satisfaction will increase, even beyond the lev-
el they had before. In the unfortunate event of complaints, companies could view com-
plaints as a tool to increase loyalty and customer satisfaction (Fornell and Wernerfelt,
1976).
5.6 Analysis Special Group – 2

As mentioned, this group only consists of participants without complaints. The focus is to
be able to explain which variables that affects customer satisfaction when the issue of
complaints is excluded.
In this Special Group -2 model it is proven that Image in terms of trust is a significant vari-
able that affects customer satisfaction. This is supported by Oliver (1980), who argues that
customers‟ expectations is influenced by their past experience regarding the products,
brand and other symbolic elements connected to the company. As shown in the section of
central tendencies for trust (section 4.2.2.), Trivselhus received a score of 5. This indicates
that customers perceive Trivselhus as a trustworthy company. Another variable in the Im-
age category that was included in the regression model was how affordable the customers
perceived Trivselhus to be. However, this variable was not significant and therefore not be
considered.
49
Furthermore, within the Product Quality category, the variables looks and design, material
quality, and build quality was included in the regression model but none of them is signifi-
cant and should therefore not be taken into consideration.
Moreover, in the Energy category, a variable that is proven to affect customer satisfaction
is to what extent the customer would consider energy efficiency and environmental friend-
liness if they were to build a house today. This implies that customers are concerned about
energy consumption, and that it is an important factor when determining how satisfied they
will become. When looking at the central tendency (section 4.2.5.) regarding this variable, it
is equal to 4.79, which implies that it is important for Trivselhus to offer energy solutions
in order to fulfill the customers‟ demands. To what extent energy efficiency and environ-
mental friendliness was incorporated in the construction of the customer‟s house were a
variable that was not significant and therefore not be considered.
In this final regression model, the variable how satisfied the customers were with the re-
sponsible salesperson, as well as with the information given during the construction. These
two variables are both significant variables, and thus, have an effect on customer satisfac-
tion. This is supported Oliver (1980) and Kapoor and Kulshrestha (2009) who argue that
actions made by front-line personnel will influence how customers will perceived the com-
pany. Furthermore, Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue that it is important for construction
companies to put more effort to improve the service surrounding the product. In other
words, companies have to consider themselves more as a service organization. Looking at
the central tendency for how satisfied the customers are with the responsible salesperson
(section 4.2.6) a score of 5 tells us that the customers are satisfied with their salesperson.
Regarding the central tendency for information given during the construction (section
4.2.6) a score of 3.5 implies that the customers are not satisfied with the given information.
5.7 Summary Analysis

Taking all the previous analyses into consideration, one can see that Image in terms of
competence and foremost trust is important variables that affect customer satisfaction. To
what degree the customers perceive Trivselhus to be trustworthy is a variable that is in-
cluded in more than half of the regression models previously presented. As argued before,
this is in line with Oliver (1980) who argue that the symbolic elements of a company as well
as customers past experiences of a brand form customers‟ expectations of the company.
During the 10-year period that this research covers, one can see that Expectations affect
how satisfied Trivselhus‟ customers will become. This is supported by theories presented
by numerous researchers who argue that customer satisfaction depend upon the fulfillment
of customers expectations (Fornell, 1992; Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica
and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al. 1996, Johnson and Fornell, 2001).
In the Product Quality, there have been various variables affecting customer satisfaction
during the ten years that this research covers. Whether the customers get enough options
and flexibility to change their house during the construction is a variable that has been
proven to affect customer satisfaction several times. This is supported by Osaki (2003) who
says that companies must understand their customers‟ wants and needs, and that it is im-
portant to provide customized houses to fulfill these specific wants and needs.
50
Another variable that is proven to affect customer satisfaction more than once during this
10-year period is how the customers value the finished product in relation to the financial
means invested. Arguably, it indicates that Trivselhus‟ customers will be more satisfied with
their house the more they get out of their investment. The final variable included in the
Product Quality category that affected customer satisfaction more than once, is how satis-
fied customers are with the looks and design of their house. This indicates that Trivselhus
customer‟s value the flexibility and possibility to influence the design of their house. This is
aligned with what Torbica and Stroh (2000) present in their Home-Buyer Satisfaction
Model (Figure 2, section 2.4.1.), where it is clear that the design plays an important role
when determining customer satisfaction among home-buyers. Material quality and build
quality are to other variables that are proven to affect customer satisfaction. These to vari-
able can be seen as incorporated in the product, making it the second part of Torbica and
Stroh‟s (2000) Home-Buyer Satisfaction Model.
In the Energy category, the variable regarding the level of energy consumption is proven to
affect customer satisfaction several times during this 10-year period. This implies that cus-
tomers are increasingly concerned about their energy consumption. Furthermore, it is
proven that the level of concern regarding energy efficiency and environmental friendliness
incorporated when they build their house is an important variable. This indicates that Triv-
selhus‟ customers are concerned about energy consumption, which is in line with the fact
that the customers will consider energy consumption if they were to build a house today.
Looking at the central tendency values regarding how environmental conscious the cus-
tomers were when they build their house versus how conscious they are today, one can see
that the customers are more conscious about the environment today (section 4.2.5.). The
central tendency value for how environmental conscious the customer are today is 4 and
how conscious they were when they build their house is 3.54. Both values are not particu-
larly high values, which imply that Trivselhus‟ customers are moderate conscious about the
environment. Moreover, customers‟ willingness to pay extra for energy efficiency attributes
does also affect customer satisfaction. Due to the fact that these variables regarding energy
efficiency are proven to affect customer satisfaction, it indicates that Trivselhus has to
supply their customers with adequate solution regarding energy efficiency and environmen-
tal friendliness in order to meet the existing demand and obtain high levels of customer sa-
tisfaction.
There are several variables in the Service category that affect how satisfied Trivselhus‟ cus-
tomers will become. Torbica and Stroh (2000) argue that construction companies must
consider themselves more as a service organization and put more effort to improve the
service surrounding the actual product. Service can therefore be seen as important in order
to satisfy customers. The most frequent variable that affects customer satisfaction within
the Service category is how satisfied the customer is with the coordination and communica-
tion between Trivselhus, the entrepreneur, and themselves. Furthermore, throughout the
last ten years, Trivselhus‟ customers felt that the information they were given during the
construction, as well as the contact with their responsible salesperson are two other impor-
tant variables that affect how satisfied they will become. This is in line with Oliver (1980)
and Kapoor and Kulshrestha (2009) who say that front-line personnel‟s actions affect cus-
tomers‟ perception and expectations about the company since salespersons represent the
company and its products. Information received via catalogs and the webpage, as well as
information given to the customers prior to the construction are the last two variables, in-
cluded in the Service category, that has been proven to affect customer satisfaction during
the last ten years.
51
The final category that is included in this research, and which is proven to have a strong ef-
fect on customer satisfaction is Complaints. This category contains two variables; whether
or not the customer had any complaints, and how satisfied they are with Trivselhus‟ han-
dling of complaints. Spreng et al. (1995) say that complaints and companies way of han-
dling complaints will affect customer satisfaction. Furthermore, Spreng et al. (1995) say that
if complaints are handled efficiently, customers might end up being more satisfied than
they were before they had a complaint. Moreover, Fornell and Wernerfelt (1976) argue that
complaints are a tool to increase loyalty and customer satisfaction.
5.8 Geographical Analysis

Table 1
Question Climate Climate Climate
Zone - 1 Zone - 2 Zone - 3
10. Expectations Energy? 5 4.64 5
17. Satisfied, Energy Consumption House? 4 4.07 4
18. Environmentally Conscious, Today? 5 4 4
19. Environmentally Conscious, Build? 3.16 3.14 3.58
20. Degree of Environmental Conscious, 3.4 3.14 3.41

Construction?
21. Trivselhus Special Energy Info? 0 =No 0 =No 0 =No
22. Degree, Energy Roll Today? 5.2 4.71 5

23. Willingness to Pay Extra? 4.8 4.07 4
24. Aware of Energy Components in House? 1 =Yes 1 =Yes 1 =Yes

25. (If Yes) Conscious Choice? 2 =No, 2 =No, 2 =No,
Trivselhus Trivselhus Trivselhus
26. (If No) Change to Energy Components 0 0 0
today? =No/No =No/No =No/No
Answer Answer Answer
27. (If Yes) Were Would You Go? 0 0 0
=No/No =No/No =No/No
Answer Answer Answer
38. Satisfied, Totally? 4.2 4.36 5
Q21: 0=No, 1=Yes
Q24: 0=No, 1=Yes
Q25: 1=Yes Conscious Choice, 2=No Given By Trivselhus
Q26: 0=No/No Answer, 1=Yes
Q27: 0=No/No Answer, 1=Contact Product Supplier, 2=Collect Offers, 3=Visiting Building Suppliers, 4=Contact Trivselhus
52
The authors chose to geographically divide Sweden up in to three different climate zones
(see section 3.2.3) according to the information provided by Boverket (Johnasson, 2009).
The reason for this is that these different climate zones differ in temperature and climate
conditions, and therefore demand special concerns regarding energy consumption (Johans-
son, 2009). As mentioned in section 3.2.3, there is unevenness in the distribution of cus-
tomers across these climate zones, where Climate Zone 3 is over-represented. Therefore,
the authors decided to include at least one customer from Zone 1 and two from Zone 2 in
each time period, in order for every climate zone to be represented. Below, it is presented
how many customers that were interviewed from each climate zone and the percentage it
represent in relation to all participants interviewed. As one can see in the sampling section
3.2.2, the final distribution in the research is fairly similar to the population.
Climate Zone 3: 131 ≈ 87.33 %
Table 1 presents the central tendency for each answer on the questions regarding energy-
efficiency and environmental friendliness, together with total satisfaction in the same man-
ner as in section 4.2.
Prior to this research, the authors anticipated the answers to show a difference between the
three climate zones, where Climate Zone 1 was thought to have higher concerns regarding
energy consumption than Climate Zone 3. However, as one can see in Table 1, there is lit-
tle difference between all three climate zones. This indicates that Trivselhus is successful in
their work of constructing houses that is adapted to the different climate zones.
When studying Table 1 more closely, one can see that the expectations regarding energy
consumption is fairly equal across the three climate zones. Since the participants were
asked to answer on a scale from 1 to 6, a central tendency around 5 is considered to be
high. This implies that all customers, no matter from where they live, have high expecta-
tions regarding energy efficiency. However, on the question regarding how satisfied the
customers are with the energy consumption of their house, the central tendency for all cli-
mate zones is 4. Arguably, the customers‟ expectations are not completely fulfilled. Since
customer satisfaction is dependent on the fulfillment of customer expectations (Fornell,
1992; Herrmann, Huber and Braunstein, 2000; Torbica and Stroh, 2000; Matzler et al.,
1996; Johnson and Fornell, 2001), this should mean that the overall customer satisfaction
should decrease. However, looking at question 38 in Table 1, one can see that customers in
Climate Zone 3 are generally very satisfied, but the customers in Climate Zone 2 and Cli-
mate Zone 1 in particular are less satisfied. One should take into consideration that there
are many other variables that affect customer satisfaction, and that it is therefore almost
impossible to argue that energy consumption alone will have this affect on customer satis-
faction. Nonetheless, it is obvious that Climate Zone 1 differ from Climate Zone 3 regard-
ing total satisfaction. The authors argue that energy consumption play‟s a more important
role in Climate Zone1 due to the fact that it have a colder climate and that the residents in
this climate zone are more agreed upon the fact that they have to put more effort into
screening their houses. This is aligned with the answers on question 23, where the custom-
ers rate their willingness to pay extra for energy-efficiency attributes. The answer shows
that customers in Climate Zone 1 are the ones that are most willing to pay extra for such
attributes, which indicates that customers living in this zone are more prepared to take pre-
cautions in order to lower their energy costs. Furthermore, if these customers were to build
53
a house today (question 22), the customers in Climate Zone 1 are the ones that would have
the highest concern regarding energy-efficiency and environmental friendliness. However,
looking at question 19, were the customers was asked how environmentally conscious they
considered themselves to be when they build their house, the customers in Climate Zone 3
has the highest score. The customers in Climate Zone 1, however, claim that they are more
environmental conscious today, the central tendency is 5. Climate Zone 2 and 3, on the
other hand, has a central tendency of 4, which is still above average. However, it has to be
noted that the sample size for Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 2 is not sufficient enough
to assume normality. Therefore, the findings from these climate zones cannot represent the
entire population.
54
6 Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis was to investigate the customer satisfaction among Trivselhus‟
customers over a period of 10 years. This purpose is fulfilled when answering the research
questions presented below.
Research Question 1: Have the customer satisfaction among Trivselhus customers changed over a 10- year
period?
There is a high level of customer satisfaction among Trivselhus‟ customers during all the
years that is covered in this research. The results are conclusive; Customer satisfaction has
not changed during this period of 10 years.
Research Question 2: What are the main factors that affect customer satisfaction?
There are several variables affecting customer satisfaction. In order to generalize the an-
swer, these variables are included in different categories. The categories are Complaints,
Expectations, Service Quality, Energy, Product Quality, and Image.
The category that includes most variables that affect customer satisfaction is Complaints.
Expectations include second most variables and can also be considered to be an important
factor that affects customer satisfaction. Energy and Service Quality include the same
amount of variables that affect the determination of customer satisfaction. There are also
several variables included in Product Quality that affect how satisfied the customers will
become. Image was also included, although, with the least number of variables.
Research Question 3: Do energy efficiency and environmental friendliness affect customer satisfaction geo-
graphically?
There is no substantial difference between the three climate zones regarding attitudes to-
wards energy efficiency and environmental friendliness. However, one can detect a slightly
higher concern regarding energy efficiency in Climate Zone 1, implying that customers in
Climate Zone 1 is a bit more interested in lowering their energy consumption. One can also
conclude that customers in Climate Zone 3 are generally very satisfied, whereas customers
in Climate Zone 2 and Climate Zone 1 are less satisfied. This implies that there is a geo-
graphical difference of customer satisfaction. However, one has to take into consideration
that there are several other variables that affect customer satisfaction, which makes it hard
to argue that energy efficiency and environmental friendliness alone have this impact. Fur-
thermore, the sample size for Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 2 are small, and normal
distribution cannot be assumed. Nonetheless, it is obvious that customer satisfaction differ
between customers in Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 3.
55
7 Discussion
Throughout this research, the words customer satisfaction and Trivselhus are the two main
keywords that have been used. Two different words with completely different meanings.
However, in this research the two have been combined to make a research, which has put
both of them in a new light. Customer satisfaction is something that includes many differ-
ent theories that is usually not applied within the building industry that Trivselhus operates
in. In the same meaning, the authors got the impression that customer satisfaction is a
widely used word within the company without the full and complex understanding of the
concept.
In the theoretical part of this research, it has been shown that the concept of customer sa-
tisfaction is much more complex than it might seem. It is dependent on various issues
within an organization. Even though there are many different models and ways to ap-
proach and measure customer satisfaction, all of them can be considered as measurement
of the overall performance within an organization. In order to truly satisfy customers, an
organization needs to offer more than a competitive product or service. A satisfied cus-
tomer knows what it can expect and have trust in that the company perform and deliver up
to their expectations. In addition, they expect surplus values, more than just the product it-
self. Surplus values in form of the availability of contact and information together with how
well complaints are handled are surplus values that stand out in this research.
Trivselhus is a company that undoubtedly knows that they have satisfied customers over
the years, which is proven by their stabile results and growth over a longer period of time.
Moreover, with the fact that many of their sales comes from recommendations by word-of-
mouth from satisfied customers. However, the authors got the impression that customer
satisfaction had not yet been measured in a sufficient way in order to fully understand what
features are strong and on which points the company can improve.
With satisfied customers, word-of-mouth becomes a tool for a company to increase their
sales and their brand value. As shown from the research, most of the participants from all
groups are willing to recommend Trivselhus to others. This fact is also supported by the
CEO of the company. He claims that their sales rely heavily upon recommendations and
word-of-mouth. In today‟s society with the easy availability of communication around the
world with cell phones, internet, and social networks, the aspects of the concept world-of-
mouth has grown. Nowadays, information can be obtained and shared in a way that com-
panies, including Trivselhus, have to be aware of. As shown in this research, the media
used to first come in to contact with the company was the internet. Even though the au-
thors have nothing to comment or criticize on the webpage used by Trivselhus, it is impor-
tant for the company to acknowledge the importance of this media and continue to evolve
the use of the internet in their operations. Notice boards, blogs, chats, and social networks
are new ways that the company could use to make the customer more personally involved
and to ease the spread of word-of-mouth. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter
are ways to, in a more personal way, communicate with the customers, and also a way for
others to meet up and share their experiences and inspirations.
In this research, the authors have, by their year by year comparison, presented which fac-
tors that is of highest importance in order for the customers to be satisfied. Some of the re-
sults presented in this research could probably be further explained by looking at the com-
pany itself in order to see if different operations and management styles have been used
that could explain why some of the variables are included during the different time periods.
56
Because in this research, the authors have only been looking at the customer without trying
to explain the issues and findings from a managerial point of view.
That is why one of the most important comments from the authors to the company is that,
in case of unexpected or surprising results from this research, the authors recommend to
look at the operation and management to find an explanation. Moreover, the authors want
to raise a greater awareness of the complexity of customer satisfaction and how it can af-
fect the overall performance of the company. As shown, there are different variables that
affect customer satisfaction year from year. However, there are similarities and conclusions
that could be drawn out of this research over the whole time period which gives Trivselhus
indications on where they should put extra effort or improve their work. One aspect that is
clear is that customer satisfaction includes much more than the product itself. Of course,
the product is the base of everything. However, the authors feel that, in the case of Triv-
selhus, where the company has developed and produced such a strong product, they reach
a point where the company would benefit more from develop new and evolve existing sur-
plus values rather than the product itself.
Concerning the energy part of the research, it was mainly included due to the fact that
people are more aware of the issues and problems concerning the environment. Also that
the producers of houses soon are set against very hard and demanding rules concerning
energy consumption of houses. The research shows that the overall awareness of these is-
sues among Trivselhus customers is high. The interesting part is that the results show that
most of the customers find themselves to be more aware of environmental issues after they
have constructed their house.
The overall goal of this research was partly for the authors personally to obtain a deeper
understanding of the customer satisfaction concept. The plan was to be able to test and use
the concept of customer satisfaction in the real world in collaboration with a company.
Trivselhus offered to take part in the research, and their wish was to, from a new angle,
look at their customers and understand what factors affect customer satisfaction. In today‟s
society where more people are increasingly conscious of the environmentally it was of in-
terest to profile their customers from environmental point of view and to look at the geo-
graphical differences.
To summarize the information useful for the company, the main finding from this research
is that the handling of complaints has to be done in a better and in a more efficient way. As
shown by the central tendencies from Special Group – 1 in 4.2 the average values from
most questions and categories are the same compared to the other groups up until the cat-
egory Service Quality. This supports what was previously stated that Trivselhus offers a
strong and competitive product but fail on some of the surplus values. This is supported by
comments given by the customers throughout this research, problems with contact, prom-
ises and responsibilities. Customers claim that they have been waiting for weeks and
months just to get in contact and then they get promises that are not kept. The authors
cannot take sides or know who is right or wrong in the different cases. However, the fact is
still that the complaints are made. Once more, the authors does not see the full picture
when it comes to complaints but it is clearly shown in this research that complaints and the
handling of complaints is a factor that clearly affects customer satisfaction among Trivsel-
hus customers.
57
However, in the end one should remember that most of Trivselhus customers are very sa-
tisfied with the company and the products which they offer. Positive comments given
throughout the research covers most of the categories that is shown to be of most impor-
tance for customer satisfaction. It is just important to continue to work with and evolve
surplus values, because the spread of word-of-mouth could also be used in a negative way.
One recommendation that is given by quite a few customers in the research is to offer cus-
tomers turnkey contracts. The authors agree that by offering turnkey contracts it is clear
who has the responsibility and the company gets the chance to develop their surplus values
and offers their customers a full package deal, which can prove to increase the overall cus-
tomer satisfaction for all Trivselhus‟ customers.
58
References
Aczel A. D., Sounderpandian J., (2009). Complete Business Statistics (7th ed.). Boston: Ir-
win/McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market
Share, and Profitability: Findings From Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 53-66
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. & Rust, R.T. (1997). Customer Satisfaction, Productivity, and
Profitability: Differences Between Goods and Services. Marketing Science, 16(2), 129-145
Brannick, T. & Roche, W.K. (Eds.). (1997). Business Research Methods: Strategies, Techniques and
Sources. Dublin: Oak Tree Press
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press
Inc.
Burney A. S. M. (2008). Inductive & Deductive Research Approach. Retrieved 2010-03-25,
from
http://www.drburney.net/INDUCTIVE%20&%20DEDUCTIVE%20RESEARCH%20
APPROACH%2006032008.pdf
Burns, G.N. & Bowling, N.A. (2010). Dispositional Approach to Customer Satisfaction
and Behavior. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 99-107
Ciavolino, E. & Dahlgaard, J.J. (2007). ECSI- Customer Satisfaction Modeling and Analy-
sis: A Case Study. Total Quality Management, 18(5), 545-554
Davidow, M. (2000) The Bottom Line Impact of Organizational Responses to Customer
Complaints, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24( 4), 473-490
Davidow, M. (2003). Organizational Responses to Customer Complaints: What Works and
What Doesn‟t, Journal of Service Research, 5(3), 225-250
Durrant, G.B., Groves, R.M., Staetsky, L. & Steele, F. (2010). Effects of Interviewer atti-
tudes and behaviors on Refusal in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 1-36
EPSI Rating (2010). Model approach. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from http://www.epsi-
rating.com/images/stories/files/model_approach.pdf
Eskildsen, J. & Kristensen, K. (2008). Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty as predic-
tors of future business potential. Total Quality Management, 19(7–8), 843–853
Fornell, C. & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Defensive Marketing Strategy by Customer Complaint
Management: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 337-346.
Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience.
Journal of Marketing, 56(January), 6-21
Fornell, C. & Johnson, M.D. (1993). Differentiation as a basis for explaining customer sa-
tisfaction across industries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 681-696
59
Forsberg, E. (2010). Nästan alla unga har tillgång till internet, men bara fyra av tio har morgontid-
ning, Retrieved 2010-04-22, from http://www.internetstatistik.se/content/2266-bara-4-av-
10-15-29-aringar-har-en-morgontidningsprenumeration-i-hushallet-men-nastan-alla-har-
tillgang-till-internet.html
Gillham B. (2008). Forskningsintervju,Tekniker och genomförande. Malmö: Studentliteratur
Grigoroudis, E., Nikolopoulou, G. & Zopounidis, C. (2008). Customer satisfaction baro-
meter and economic development: An explorative ordinal regression analysis. Total Quality
Management, 19( 5), 441–460
Herrmann, A., Huber, F. & Braunstein, C. (2000). Market-driven product and service de-
sign: Bridging the gap between customer needs, quality management, and customer satis-
faction. International journal of production economics, 66(2000), 77-96
Hox, J.J. & De Leeuw E.D. (1994). A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone, and
face-to-face surveys. Quality and Quantity, 28(4), 329-344
Hyde, K.F. (2000). Recognizing deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Mar-
ket Research, 3(2), 82-89
Johansson P. (2010, February 9). Start, Kontakta oss, Frågor & svar, Bygg- och konstruk-
tionsregler , Klimatzoner. Retrieved 2010-03-19, from http://www.boverket.se/Kontakta-
oss/Fragor-och-svar/Bygg-och-konstruktionsregler/Om-avsnitt-9-i-BBR/Klimatzoner/
Johnson, M.D. & Fornell, C. (1991). A framework for comparing customer satisfaction
across individuals and product categories. Journal of Economic Psychology 12, 267-286
Kapoor, A, & Kulshrestha, C. (2009). Consumers‟ perceptions: an analytical study of influ-
ence of consumer emotions and response. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(3),
186-202
Kondo, Y. (2001). Customer satisfaction: How can I measure it? Total Quality Management,
12(7-8), 867- 872
Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H.H. (1998). How to make product development projects
more successful by integrating Kano‟s model of customer satisfaction into quality function
deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25–38
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H., Bailom, F. & Sauerwein, E. (1996). How to delight your
customers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(2), 6-18
MiMi. Marketing & Web, Customer Satisfaction. Retrieved 2010-03-13, from
http://en.mimi.hu/marketingweb/customer_satisfaction.html
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfac-
tion Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(November), 460-469
Ozaki, R. (2003). Customer-focused approaches to innovation in house building. Construc-

tion Management and Economics, 21(September), 557-564
Rust, R.T. & Oliver, R.L. (1997). Should we delight the customer. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28(1), 86-94
60
Sanchez A. (2006). The Difference Between Qualitative and Qualitative Research. Re-
trieved 2010-03-25, from http://e-articles.info/e/a/title/THE-DIFFERENCE-
BETWEEN-QUALITATIVE-AND-QUANTITATIVE-RESEARCH/
Schultz O. (2009, January 27). Start, Om Boverket, About Boverket. Retrieved 2010-03-19,
from http://www.boverket.se/Om-Boverket/About-Boverket/
Saint-Grobain Isover AB (2010). Krav på specifik energianvändning och installerad eleffekt. Re-
trieved April 6, 2010, from
http://www.isover.se/byggkonstruktioner+och+tekn+installationer/bbr/krav
+p%C3%A5+specifik+energianv%C3%A4ndning+och+installerad+eleffekt
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.).
Essex: Prentice Hall
Siemiatycki, J. (1979). A Comparison of Mail, Telephone, and Home Interview Strategies

for Household Health Surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 69(3), 238-245
Smith, A.K. & Bolton, R.N. (1998). An Experimental Investigation of Customer Reactions
to Service Failure and Recovery Encounters: Paradox or Peril?, Journal of Service Research, 1
(1), 65–81.
Spreng, R.A, Harrell, G.D. & Mackoy, R.D. (1995). Service Recovery: Impact on Satisfac-
tion and Intentions, Journal of service marketing, 9(1), 15-23
Stehn, L. & Bergström, M. (2002). Integrated design and production of multi-storey timber
frame houses-production effects caused by customer-oriented design. International Journal of
Productions Economics, 77, 259-269
Tax, S.S, Brown, S.W. & Chandrashekaran, M. (1996). Customer Evaluations of Service
Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing. Journal of marketing,
62(April), 60-76
Torbica Z.M. & Stroh, R.C. (2000). Hombsat - An instrument for Measuring Home-Buyer
Satisfaction. Quality Management Journal, 7(4), 32-44
Trivselhus (2006). Kundsidor, English. Retrieved 2010-03-19, from
http://www.trivselhus.se/
Trivselhus AB (2003). Monterings färdiga hus, när började det? [Power Point Movie]. Korsberga:
Trivselhus AB.
Turban E., Volonino L., McLean E., Wetherbe J., (2009). Information Technology for Manage-
ment: Transforming Organizations in the Digital Economy, International Student Version,( 7th ed.).
Hoboken: Wiley
Yu, J. & Cooper, H. (1983). A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effect on Re-
sponse Rates to Questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, XX(February), 36-44
Zeithaml, V.A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers:
What we know and What we need to learn. Journal of the academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 67-85
61
Appendices
Appendix 1: English Questionnaire
Trivselhus Survey Mars/April 2010
1. Is it correct that you live in a Trivselhus?
Yes No
 
2. Was it the first time that you did build a house?

Yes No
 
3. How many live in the house today?
4. Through which media did you first come in contact with Trivselhus?
Radio TV Trade Maga- Local press National Pa- Friends Other
zine pers
      
Image
5. To which degree did you perceive Trivselhus trustworthiness before the
purchase?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
6. To which degree did you perceive Trivselhus competence before the pur-
chase?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
7. How affordable did you find Trivselhus to be before the purchase?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
Expectations
8. What were your expectations on Trivselhus service?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
9. What were your expectations on Trivselhus flexibility?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
62
10. What were your expectations on your house regarding energy consumption
and environmental friendliness?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
House/Product
11. How satisfied are you with looks and design of your house?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
12. How satisfied are you with the materials and its quality?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
13. How satisfied are you with the building quality and the house as a whole?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
14. How satisfied are you with options and flexibility during the shaping of your
house?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
15. How satisfied are you with options and flexibility during the construction of
your house?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
16. How do you value the final product in relation to the sum that you have in-
vested?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
Energy
17. How satisfied are you with the energy consumption of your house?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
18. How environmentally conscious do you find yourself to be today?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
19. How environmentally conscious did you find yourself to be when you built
your house?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
63
20. To which degree did environmental friendliness and energy consumption

play a part during the construction of your house?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
21. Did Trivselhus supply any special information or offers concerning envi-
ronmental friendliness and energy consumption?
Yes No
 
22. How big of a role would environmental friendliness and energy consump-
tion played if you had built your house today?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
23. How willing are you to pay extra for these attributes?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
24. Are you aware of that you have energy efficient components such as doors
and windows in your house today?
Yes No
 
25. If Yes – was it a conscious choice or a proposal given by Trivselhus?

Conscious Trivselhus
 
26. If No – In the eventuality of changing these components would you choose a

more energy efficient option?
Yes No
 
27. If Yes – where would you go to purchase these components?

Contact Product Collect Offers Visit building Contact Triv-
Supplier Suppliers selhus
   
Service
28. How satisfied are you with availability to obtain information before agree-
ment in form of catalogs and webpage?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
64
29. How satisfied are you with availability to get into contact with the company
and obtain information before the start of the construction?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
30. How satisfied are you with information and contact during the construc-
tion?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
31. How satisfied are you with the treatment and contact with your responsible
salesperson?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
32. How satisfied are you with the coordination and communication between
Trivselhus, entrepreneurs and you as the customer?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
33. Have you had any problems with your house?

Yes No
 
34. If Yes – Did you make any complaints?

Yes No
 
35. If Yes – How satisfied are you with Trivselhus handling of your complaints?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
36. Have you or could you recommend Trivselhus to others?

Yes No
 
37. If Yes – Do you know if anyone after that has built a Trivselhus?
Yes No
 
38. How satisfied are you totally with Trivselhus as a house provider when all
the aspects are weight in?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
Other general comments, something that was especially good or bad, something
they should think about or do differently?
65
Appendix 2: Swedish Questionnaire

Trivselhus Marknadsundersökning Mars/April 2010
1. Stämmer det att Ni bor i ett Trivselhus?

Ja Nej
 
2. Var detta första gången Ni byggde ett hus?

Ja Nej
 
3. Hur många bor i huset idag?
4. Via vilket medium kom Ni först i kontakt med Trivselhus?

Radio TV Bransch Tid- Lokalpress Rikstäckande Vänner och Övrigt
ningar Tidningar Bekanta
      
Image
5. Till vilken grad uppfattade Ni Trivselhus pålitlighet innan köp?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
6. Till vilken grad uppfattade Ni Trivselhus kompetens innan köp?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
7. Hur prisvärt ansåg Ni Trivselhus vara innan köp?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
Förväntningar
8. Vad var dina förväntningar på Trivselhus service?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
9. Vad var dina förväntningar på Trivselhus Flexibilitet?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
10. Vad var dina förväntningar på ditt hus angående energiförbrukning och mil-
jövänlighet?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
66
Hus/Produkt
11. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Utseende, design på huset?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
12. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Materialval och dess kvalitet?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
13. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Byggkvalitet och husets helhet?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
14. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Tillvalsmöjligheter och flexibilitet under utformningen

av Ert hus?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
15. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Tillvalsmöjligheter och flexibilitet under byggnation?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
16. Hur värderar Ni den slutgiltiga produkten i förhållande till summan som Ni
investerat?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
Energi
17. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Energiförbrukningen på Ert Trivselhus?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
18. Hur miljömedveten anser Ni att Ni är idag?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
19. Hur miljömedveten anser Ni att Ni var när Ni byggde Ert hus?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
20. Till vilken grad vägdes miljövänlighet och energiförbrukning in i Ert bygge?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
67
21. Erbjöd Trivselhus Er information eller speciella alternativ angående miljö-

vänlighet och energiförbrukning?
Ja Nej
 
22. Hur stor roll hade miljövänlighet och energiförbrukning spelat in om Ni

hade byggt Ert hus idag?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
23. Hur villig skulle Ni vara att betala extra för dessa egenskaper?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
24. Är Ni medveten om Ni har energisnåla komponenter såsom fönster och dör-

rar i Ert hus idag?
Ja Nej
 
25. Om Ja – var det ett medvetet val eller var det ett förslag angivet av Trivsel-
hus?
Medvetet Trivselhus
 
26. Om Nej – Vid eventuellt byte av dessa skulle ni då välja ett energisnålare al-
ternativ?
Ja Nej
 
27. Om Ja – hur skulle Ni gå till väga?

Kontakta Produk- Samla Offer- Besöka Bygg- Kontakta
tleverantör ter varuhus Trivselhus
   
Service
28. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Tillgängligheten till information före avtal i form av
t.ex. kataloger och hemsida?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
29. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Tillgänglighet till kontakt och information innan bygg-
nation?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
30. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Löpande information och kontakt under byggnation?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
68
31. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Bemötande och kontakt från Er ansvariga säljare?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
32. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Samordning och kommunikation mellan Trivselhus,

Entreprenör och Er själva som kund?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
33. Har Ni haft något problem med Ert hus?

Ja Nej
 
34. Om Ja – Är det något som krävt reklamation?

Ja Nej
 
35. Om Ja – Hur nöjd är Ni med Trivselhus handläggning av Er reklamation?

1 2 3 4 5 6
     
36. Har Ni eller skulle Ni rekommendera Trivselhus till andra?

Ja Nej
 
37. Om Ja – Vet ni om någon av dessa därefter har byggt ett Trivselhus?

Ja Nej
 
38. Hur nöjd är Ni med, Totalt sett, med Trivselhus som leverantör, då ni väger
in alla aspekter?
1 2 3 4 5 6
     
Övriga allmänna kommentarer, något som var särskilt bra eller dåligt, något som
dom borde tänka på, göra annorlunda?
69
Appendix 3: Question Abridgements

Due to space limitations and the design of the thesis, abridgements of the questions have
been used sometimes throughout the text. In case of confusion or misunderstandings the
following table presents the original question, its number, and how the question has been
abridged in the thesis and where which version is used.
Number Original Question In Central Tendency/ In Regression Models

Regression Tables
N/A
1 Is it correct that you live in a Trivselhus? Live in Trivselhus?
N/A
2 Was it the first time that you did build a First time build?
house?
N/A
3 How many live in the house today? How many live in?
N/A
4 Through which media did you first come in Which medium, first time contact?
contact with Trivselhus?
Trustworthiness
5 To which degree did you perceive Degree of Trustworthiness?
Trivselhus trustworthiness before the
purchase?
Competence
6 To which degree did you perceive Degree of Competence?
Trivselhus competence before the purchase?
Affordable
7 How affordable did you find Trivselhus to How Affordable?
be before the purchase?
Expectations, Service
8 What were your expectations on Trivselhus Expectations Service?
service?
Expectations, Flexibility
9 What were your expectations on Trivselhus Expectations Flexibility?
flexibility?
Expectations, Energy
10 What were your expectations on your house Expectations Energy?
regarding energy consumption and
environmental friendliness?
Looks, Design
11 How satisfied are you with looks and design Satisfied, Looks Design?
of your house?
Materials, Quality
12 How satisfied are you with the materials and Satisfied, Material Quality?
its quality?
Build Quality
13 How satisfied are you with the building Satisfied, Build Quality?
quality and the house as a whole?
Options & Flexibility,

14 How satisfied are you with options and Satisfied, Options & Flexibility Shaping?
Shaping
flexibility during the shaping of your house?
70
Options & Flexibility,

15 How satisfied are you with options and Satisfied, Options & Flexibility
Construction
flexibility during the construction of your Construction?
house?
How do you value the final product in Final Product/Investment

16 Value Final Product/Investment?
relation to the sum that you have invested?
Energy Consumption
17 How satisfied are you with the energy Satisfied, Energy Consumption House?
consumption of your house?
N/A
18 How environmentally conscious do you find Environmentally Conscious, Today?
yourself to be today?
N/A
19 How environmentally conscious did you Environmentally Conscious, Build?
find yourself to be when you built your
house?
Energy Consumption,
20 To which degree did environmental Degree of Environmental Conscious,
Construction
friendliness and energy consumption play a Construction?
part during the construction of your house?
Trivselhus Energy Info

21 Did Trivselhus supply any special Trivselhus Special Energy Info?
information or offers concerning
environmental friendliness and energy
consumption?
Energy Roll Today
22 How big of a role would environmental Degree, Energy Roll Today?
friendliness and energy consumption played
if you had built your house today?
Pay Extra
23 How willing are you to pay extra for these Willingness to Pay Extra?
attributes?
N/A
24 Are you aware of that you have energy Aware of Energy Components in House?
efficient components such as doors and
windows in your house today?
N/A
25 If Yes – Was it a conscious choice or a (If Yes) Conscious Choice?
proposal given by Trivselhus?
N/A
26 If No – In the eventuality of changing these (If No) Change to Energy Components
components would you choose a more today?
energy efficient option?
N/A
27 If Yes – Where would you go to purchase (If Yes) Were Would You Go?
these components?
Info Catalogs
28 How satisfied are you with availability to Satisfied, Info Catalogs & Webpage?
obtain information before agreement in
form of catalogs and homepage?
Info, Before
29 How satisfied are you with availability to get Satisfied, Info Before?
into contact with the company and obtain
information before the start of the
construction?
71
Info, Construction
30 How satisfied are you with information and Satisfied, Info Construction?
contact during the construction?
Responsible Salesperson
31 How satisfied are you with the treatment Satisfied, Responsible Salesperson?
and contact with your responsible
salesperson?
Coordination and
32 How satisfied are you with the coordination Satisfied, Coordination and
Communication
and communication between Trivselhus, Communication?
entrepreneurs and you as the customer?
N/A
33 Have you had any problems with your Any Problems?
house?
Reclamation
34 If Yes – Did you make any complains? Complaints?
Handling Reclamation
35 If Yes – How satisfied are you with Handling of Complaints?
Trivselhus handling of your complaints?
N/A
36 Have you or could you recommend Recommend Trivselhus?
Trivselhus to others?
N/A
37 If Yes – Do you know if anyone after that (If Yes) Any Build After Recommendation?
has built a Trivselhus?
38 How satisfied are you totally with Trivselhus Satisfied Totally

Satisfied, Totally?
as a house provider when all the aspects are
weight in?
72
Appendix 4: Questioner Comments
2000 – 2001
General Company (Good) General Company (Bad)
Good recommendation of entrepreneur Would get a refund on the undelivered
products but there was never any money
The company was courteous
Want to have better monitoring
Quality construction
Poor final accession
True quality
Further follow-up
Good material selection
Poor contact during construction
High standard
More active involvement in the construc-
Thoughtful
tion
Low energy
Poor calculus
High flexibility and no restrictions
Poor estimates,-it is always more expen-
Has built two houses sive than you think
Took part in the production Disaster in taking responsibility
Surprisingly easy to make changes Tibro kitchen does not work
Listened to our needs Disappears after the construction but still
probably the best of the worst
Check carefully all subcontractors and
provide references
Poor information about the external walls
were not included in the price
Poor carpenters
Lack of support from Trivselhus
There should be support all the way
through construction
The company can probably qualify for
fuskbyggarna (cheating builders, Swedish
television program)
More turn-key operation (Totalentrepe-
nad)
Salesperson (Good) Salesperson (Bad)
Trusted seller The seller had poor knowledge and too
little information
The seller had many ideas
The seller disappeared soon after the
Good seller
agreement
73
2002 – 2003
Good, well-built house Problems with the contractor from the
beginning
Skilled carpenters
Takes no responsibility
We are very pleased
Should have shown more interest
Should think more about energy
They had difficulty to adapt to customer‟s
requirements
Heavy process when we wanted to
change something
Did not get enough information and ad-
vice
The company should carefully check their
entrepreneurs
Problem between Trivselhus and the car-
penters
Difficult to reach
It was very good before the contract was
signed, then they disappeared
Absolutely no follow-up
The architect had no expertise on envi-
ronmental awareness
If you did not choose the default execu-
tion you had to pay an overcharge
Tried for three years to get parts that
were included in the contract
It was only when we signed the contact
that we realized that there was no turn-
key contract, the company should have
been clearer on this
We wanted to be able to choose our own
independent inspector
Poor recommendation of contractors
Poor handling of the complaints
73

- The seller was not so accommodating
from the start
The seller has promised to arrange the er-
rors, but still nothing has happened after
three years
The seller had too much to do and was
difficult to reach
The seller ignored us after we signed the
contract
2004 – 2005
Really good house company Bad construction
Not so cheap but good More support during the construction
Good contractors Not good carpenter
Fantastic house After two inspections, it took over 1 year
to fix all the errors
Flexible, good seller, fast and good an-
swer
Generally good
Salesperson (good) Salesperson (Bad)

- Not qualified salespersons
The seller in Jönköping defaulted with his
mission
74
2006 – 2007
Good at being punctual Get total turn-key operation
Very nice house but also very expensive They take no liability for their contractors
Has previously issued Trivselhus com- Be more customer-oriented than sales-
ments that they listened and made fol- oriented and become more advisory.
low-ups on They promised too much as they did not
live up to
Complaints department work badly
The salesperson and builders were not
good but the house was fine
The energy consumption was higher than
expected
Better spreadsheet work must be done,
be honest and include the worst case sce-
nario
Following up of subcontractors should
be better. Improve customer relation-
ships
Project management can be improved
Better dialogue with the architect and
better feedback
More flexibility and suggest other solu-
tions, particularly in the energy sector
Be more in media
Poor focus on helping entrepreneurs

- -
75
2008 – 2009
A great product and incredible good We had to find out much ourselves
communication The salesperson wanted to come to clo-
High standards and good contractors sure quickly
We had high requirements and is almost The contractor had too much to do and
completely satisfied we had to take hold of things ourselves
Good standard quality. The choice of contractor was bad, got the
impression that it was compelled to use
these
Lost contact with customers when you
signed the contract
It was messy in the drawing stage
More balancing meetings between cus-
tomer and the entrepreneur. A schedule
where you can see when things will hap-
pen. This to make it easier for customers
to make decisions at the right time.
Clearer price list for the basic design.

- The salesperson disappeared when we
signed the contract
76
Appendix 5: Regression Models

2000 – 2001
Model 1: Including all variables: Adj.R2 = -0.176
Model 2: Excluding Expectations Service: Adj.R2 = 0.020
Model 3: Excluding Expectations Service and Build Quality: Adj.R2 = 0.160
Model 4: Excluding Expectations Service, Build Quality and Trust: Adj.R2 = .0265
Model 5: Excluding Expectations Service, Build Quality, Trust and Expectations Flexibili-
ty: Adj.R2= 0.346
Model 6: Excluding Expectations Service, Build Quality, Trust, Expectations Flexibility
and Info Construction: Adj.R2= 0.410
Info Construction and Competence: Adj.R2= 0.460
Info Construction, Competence and Expectations Energy: Adj.R2= 0.500
Info Construction, Competence, Expectations Energy and Energy Roll Today: Adj.R2=
0.531
Info Construction, Competence, Expectations Energy, Energy Roll Today and Energy
Consumption Construction: Adj.R2= 0.554
sumption Construction and Trivselhus Energy Info: Adj.R2= 0.568
Info Construction, Competence and Expectations Energy, Energy Roll Today, Energy
Consumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info and Affordable: Adj.R2= 0.582
sumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info, Affordable and Responsible Sales Person:
Adj.R2= 0.595
sumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info, Affordable, Responsible Sales Person and
Pay Extra: Adj.R2= 0.602
sumption Construction, Trivselhus Energy Info, Affordable, Responsible Sales Person, Pay
Extra and Materials Quality: Adj.R2= 0.593
77
Extra, Materials Quality and Options Flexibility Shaping: Adj.R2= 0.602
Extra, Materials Quality, Options Flexibility Shaping and Info Catalogs: Adj.R2= 0.583
2002 – 2003
Model 2: Excluding Info Before: Adj.R2= 0.094
Model 3: Excluding Info Before and Coordination and Communication: Adj.R2= 0.918
Model 4: Excluding Info Before, Coordination and Communication and Expectations
Flexibility: Adj.R2= 0.928
ibility and Energy Roll Today: Adj.R2= 0.936
ibility, Energy Roll Today and Options Flexibility Shaping: Adj.R2= 0.941
ibility, Energy Roll Today, Options Flexibility Shaping and Pay Extra: Adj.R2= 0.946
ibility, Energy Roll Today, Options Flexibility Shaping, Pay Extra and Expectations Ener-
gy: Adj.R2= 0.948
ibility, Energy Roll Today, Options Flexibility Shaping, Pay Extra, Expectations Energy
and Materials Quality: Adj.R2= 0.949
Materials Quality and Trivselhus Energy Info: Adj.R2= 0.948
Materials Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info and Energy Consumption Construction: Adj.R2=
0.950
Materials Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info, Energy Consumption Construction and Afford-
able: Adj.R2= 0.949
78
Materials Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info, Energy Consumption Construction, Affordable
and Info Catalogs: Adj.R2= 0.949
Info Catalogs and Looks Design : Adj.R2= 0.950
Info Catalogs, Looks Design and Build Quality: Adj.R2= 0.948
2004 – 2005
Model 2: Excluding Final Product/Investment: Adj.R2= 0.443
Model 3: Excluding Final Product/Investment and Options Flexibility Construction:
Adj.R2= 0.522
Model 4: Excluding Final Product/Investment, Options Flexibility Construction and Ma-
terials Quality: Adj.R2= 0.578
Model 5: Excluding Final Product/Investment, Options Flexibility Construction, Materials
Quality and Looks Design: Adj.R2= 0.623
Quality, Looks Design and Affordable: Adj.R2= 0.659
Quality, Looks Design, Affordable and Info Construction: Adj.R2= 0.686
Quality, Looks Design, Affordable, Info Construction and Expectations Energy: Adj.R2=
0.708
Quality, Looks Design, Affordable, Info Construction, Expectations Energy and Expecta-
tions Flexibility: Adj.R2= 0.721
tions Flexibility and Build Quality: Adj.R2= 0.734
tions Flexibility, Build Quality and Trivselhus Energy Info : Adj.R2= 0.744
79

tions Flexibility, Build Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info and Options Flexibility Shaping:
Adj.R2= 0.751
tions Flexibility, Build Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info, Options Flexibility Shaping and
Energy Roll Today: Adj.R2= 0.755
tions Flexibility, Build Quality, Trivselhus Energy Info, Options Flexibility Shaping, Energy
Roll Today and Handling Complaints: Adj.R2= 0.752
Roll Today, Handling Complaints and Info Before: Adj.R2= 0.747
Roll Today, Handling Complaints, Info Before and Complaints: Adj.R2= 0.737
Roll Today, Handling Complaints, Info Before, Complaints and Responsible Sales Person:
Adj.R2= 0.716
2006 – 2007
Model 2: Excluding Looks Design: Adj.R2= 0.929
Model 3: Excluding Looks Design and Info Catalogs: Adj.R2= 0.939
Model 4: Excluding Looks Design, Info Catalogs and Trust: Adj.R2= 0.943
Model 5: Excluding Looks Design, Info Catalogs, Trust and Responsible Sales Person:
Adj.R2= 0.947
Model 6: Excluding Looks Design, Info Catalogs, Trust, Responsible Sales Person and Fi-
nal Product/Investment: Adj.R2= 0.950
Model 7: Excluding Looks Design, Info Catalogs, Trust, Responsible Sales Person, Final
Product/Investment and Expectations Service: Adj.R2= 0.954
Product/Investment, Expectations Service and Energy Consumption: Adj.R2= 0.956
80
Product/Investment, Expectations Service, Energy Consumption and Build Quality:
Adj.R2= 0.957
Product/Investment, Expectations Service, Energy Consumption, Build Quality and Triv-
selhus Energy Info: Adj.R2= 0.954
Product/Investment, Expectations Service, Energy Consumption, Build Quality, Trivsel-
hus Energy Info and Competence: Adj.R2= 0.953
2008 – 2009
Model 2: Excluding Final Product/Investment: Adj.R2= 0.821
Model 3: Excluding Final Product/Investment and Info Before: Adj.R2= 0.846
Model 4: Excluding Final Product/Investment, Info Before and Trivselhus Energy Info:
Adj.R2= 0.865
Model 5: Excluding Final Product/Investment, Info Before, Trivselhus Energy Info and
Materials Quality: Adj.R2= 0.880
terials Quality and Energy Consumption Construction: Adj.R2= 0.892
terials Quality, Energy Consumption Construction and Affordable: Adj.R2= 0.900
terials Quality, Energy Consumption Construction, Affordable and Expectations Service:
Adj.R2= 0.907
terials Quality, Energy Consumption Construction, Affordable, Expectations Service and
Responsible Sales Person: Adj.R2= 0.914
sponsible Sales Person and Competence: Adj.R2= 0.918
sponsible Sales Person, Competence and Coordination and Communication: Adj.R2= 0.922
sponsible Sales Person, Competence, Coordination and Communication and Energy Con-
sumption: Adj.R2= 0.922
81
sponsible Sales Person, Competence, Coordination and Communication, Energy Con-
sumption and Options Flexibility Construction: Adj.R2= 0.920
sponsible Sales Person, Competence, Coordination and Communication, Energy Con-
sumption, Options Flexibility Construction and Info Construction: Adj.R2= 0.914
Special – 2
In this regression all of the interviewed people that had made some kind of complaint were
excluded. Since the author choose to exclude those persons the questions about complaints
and handling complaints were also excluded before the start of the regression. This due to
the simple fact that the author already at that point knew that the people involved in this
special model had not made any complaints.
Model 2: Excluding Info Catalogs: Adj.R2= 0.618
Model 3: Excluding Info Catalogs and Info Before: Adj.R2= 0.623
Model 4: Excluding Info Catalogs, Info Before and Expectations Service: Adj.R2= 0.628
Model 5: Excluding Info Catalogs, Info Before, Expectations Service and Expectations
Flexibility: Adj.R2= 0.632
ibility and Competence: Adj.R2= 0.636
ibility, Competence and Coordination and Communication: Adj.R2= 0.639
ibility, Competence, Coordination and Communication and Options Flexibility Shaping:
Adj.R2= 0.642
ibility, Competence, Coordination and Communication, Options Flexibility Shaping and
Energy Consumption: Adj.R2= 0.644
gy Consumption and Final Product/Investment: Adj.R2= 0.646
gy Consumption, Final Product/Investment and Pay Extra: Adj.R2= 0.646
82
gy Consumption, Final Product/Investment, Pay Extra and Trivselhus Energy Info:
Adj.R2= 0.646
gy Consumption, Final Product/Investment, Pay Extra, Trivselhus Energy Info and Ex-
pectations Energy: Adj.R2= 0.645
tions Energy and Options Flexibility Construction: Adj.R2= 0.646
tions Energy, Options Flexibility Construction and Energy Consumption Construction:
Adj.R2= 0.644
tions Energy, Options Flexibility Construction, Energy Consumption Construction and
Looks Design: Adj.R2= 0.642
tions Energy, Options Flexibility Construction, Energy Consumption Construction, Looks
Design and Affordable: Adj.R2= 0.642
83

Customer Satisfaction, Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Customer Satisfaction, Investigation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Customer Satisfaction, Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JÖNKÖPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL

Paper within: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration,

1.3 Research Questions

1.4 Company Background

Trivselhus is represented in a couple of other countries around in Europe; however, their

2.2 What is Customer Satisfaction?

2.2.1 Positive Aspects

2.2.2 Negative Aspect

2.2.3 Customer Expectations

2.2.4 A Salesperson’s Impact, and Affections

2.2.5 Impact on Market Share

2.2.6 Handling Complaints

2.2.7 Customer Satisfaction in Home Building

2.2.8 Kano’s Model

2. One-dimensional requirements: usually demanded by the customer. The

3. Attractive requirements: Additional requirements that are not demanded or

2.2.9 Two Different Approaches

2.3 Definition of Customer Satisfaction

2.4 Choice of Measurement

2.4.1 Home-Buyers Satisfaction Model

2.4.2 The EPSI-Model

2.5 Summary Measurement

3.1.2 Inductive Versus Deductive Approach

3.2 Collecting Data

Climate Zone 1: 53 ≈ 1.3 %

3.2.3 Climate Zones

The zones are divided up as followed and as pictured on the map:

Climate Zone 1: Norrbottens, Västerbottens

Climate Zone 2: Västernorrlands, Gävleborgs,

Climate Zone 3: Västra Götalands, Jönkö-

(Saint-Gobain Isover AB, 2010)

3.3 Telephone Survey

3.4 Questionnaire Design

3.4.1 Introduction Questions

3.4.4 Product Quality

3.4.6 Service Quality

33. Have you had any problems with your house?

3.4.9 Total Satisfaction

3.5 Data Analysis

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics

3.5.3 Multiple Regression Model

3.5.4 Multiple Coefficient of Determination

3.5.5 Significance Level

3.6 Method Problem

4.1.1 Introduction Questions

Q2: 0=No, 1=Yes

4.1.4 Product Quality

26. (If No, Q. 24) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.1.6 Service Quality

32. Satisfied, 4.27 3.93 4.07 3.93 4.07 3.19 4

4.1.9 Total Satisfaction

4.2 Regression Analysis

Question 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 Special - 2

5. Degree of Trustworthiness? 0.645 ** 0.409 ** 0.688 ** 0.154 **

15. Satisfied, Options & -0.322 ** -0.341 ** -0.396 ** -0.075

16. Value Final 0.408 ** 0.340 **

17. Satisfied, Energy 0.347 ** 0.312 ** 0.380 **

20. Degree of Environmental -0.227 ** -0.534 ** -0.056

21. Trivselhus Special Energy -0.322

22. Degree, Energy Roll Today? 0.356 ** 0.655 ** 0.181 **

5. Degree of Trustworthiness? 0.645 0.409 0.688 0.154

15. Satisfied, Options & -0.322 -0.341 -0.396 ** -0.075

16. Value Final 0.408 0.340

17. Satisfied, Energy 0.347 0.312 0.380 **

20. Degree of Environmental -0.227 -0.534 -0.056

22. Degree, Energy Roll Today? 0.356 0.655 0.181 **

32. Satisfied, Coordination and 0.310 0.214 -0.565 **

34. Complaints? -1.316 -1.231 -0.715 * -3.048 -0.870