QUT Digital Repository:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

This is the author version published as:

This is the accepted version of this article. To be published as :

This is the author’s version published as:

Masrom, Md Asrul & Skitmore, Martin (2009) Conceptual models of

satisfaction level in construction. In: The Second Infrastructure
Theme Postgraduate Conference : Conference Proceedings, 26 March
2009, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland.
Catalogue from Homo Faber 2007

Copyright 2009 [please consult the authors]

 CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF SATISFACTION LEVEL IN CONSTRUCTION
Md. Asrul Nasid Masrom1
[email protected]
Martin Skitmore2
[email protected]

Abstract:
It is recognized that, in general, the performance of construction projects does not meet
optimal expectations. One aspect of this is the performance of each participant, which is
interdependent and makes a significance impact on overall project outcomes. Of these, the
client is traditionally the owner of the project, the architect or engineer is engaged as the lead
designer and a contractor is selected to construct the facilities. Generally, the performance of
the participants is gauged by considering three main factors, namely time, cost and quality.
As the level of satisfaction is a subjective measurement, it is rarely used in the performance
evaluation of construction work. Recently, various approaches to the measurement of
satisfaction have been made in attempting to determine the performance of construction
project outcomes – for instance client satisfaction, consultant satisfaction, contractor
satisfaction, customer satisfaction and home buyer satisfaction. These not only identify the
performance of the construction project, but are also used to improve and maintain
relationships. In addition, these assessments are necessary for continuous improvement and
enhanced cooperation between participants. The measurement of satisfaction levels primarily
involves expectations and perceptions. An expectation can be regarded as a comparison
standard of different needs, motives and beliefs, while a perception is a subjective
interpretation that is influenced by moods, experiences and values. This suggests that the
disparity between perceptions and expectations may be used to represent different levels of
satisfaction. However, this concept is rather new and in need of further investigation. This
paper examines the current methods commonly practiced in measuring satisfaction level and
the advantages of promoting these methods. The results provided are a preliminary review of
the advantages of satisfaction measurement in the construction industry and
recommendations are made concerning the most appropriate methods for use in identifying
the performance of project outcomes.

Keywords: Performance measurement, satisfaction level, methods, advantages.

INTRODUCTION
Performance of construction is one of the issues that have been debated for
many years. Numerous efforts have been made in attempting to enhance
outcomes of construction performance. Despite the effective evaluation of the
overall project outcomes being seen as fundamental, the optimal approach
has not yet been discovered. The evaluation of the performance is gauged
mainly on the basis of three main dimensions, namely cost, time and quality.
However, soft measurements that consider participants’ satisfaction have also
been used in construction in order to improve the existing methods.

Satisfaction is used as an indicator for Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), for

instance in identifying client satisfaction, customer satisfaction, contractor

1
Phd Student, School of Urban Development, Faculty Built Environment and Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
2
Professor, School of Urban Development, Faculty Built Environment and Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
satisfaction and home buyer satisfaction. Typically, these are regarded as a
comparative function between perceptions and expectations (Cheng et al.,
2006). Lam et al. (2008) state that projects that are delivered on schedule, are
functional, fulfill safety requirements and conform with users’ expectation
greatly influence the judgement of performance. Moreover, owner satisfaction
and profit margins are considered as indicators in performance measurement
(Ling et al., 2008). Although many efforts have been made concerning this
issue, there is an absence of a common understanding among the
participants towards this approach. Given the above, the aim of this study is
to identify methods that are commonly applied in gauging performance
satisfaction levels in relation to project outcomes.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Systematic measurement of performance is a significant activity as it is
needed in order to determine areas of improvement. Basically, performance
can be assessed on two dimensions - objective measures and subjective
measures (Figure 1). The objective approach uses mathematical formulae to
calculate the value, while the subjective approach uses subjective opinions
and the personal judgement of participants, which mainly includes the quality
and functionality of the building and satisfaction levels of the participants
(Chan and Chan, 2004).

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Objective measures Subjective

Construction time Quality

Speed of construction Functionality
Time variation End-user’s satisfaction
Unit cost Design team satisfaction
Net present value Construction team
Accident rate satisfaction

Figure 1: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (Chan and Chan, 2004)

The time performance of the project is monitored according to the work

program prepared prior to commencement of the project. Chan and Chan
(2004) assert that time is the duration needed to complete the project
according to its schedule and is calculated as the numbers of days or weeks
from starting on site to the practical completion of the project.

Moreover, project performance can also be defined by the cost performance

of the project. According to Ling et al. (2008), cost performance is a
measurable indicator. Hence, it can predict the difference between the actual
and the budgeted cost of the project. Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999)
note the consensus view is that having projects completed within budget and
close to the original cost estimate constitutes project success. Although cost
performance indicators are broadly used to enhance the performance of
projects, project failure still seen as an inevitable problem due to several
causes. For example, strategies not fully understood by the participants, lack
of clarification of tasks to be performed, lack of milestones defining completion
dates and an insufficient planning process (Doloi and Lim, 2007).

Conversely, measures of quality, functionality and satisfactions are rarely

used in evaluating the level of the project performance due to their subjective
nature and need for in-depth interpretation. Differences in levels of happiness,
personalities, places and situations are further complications. Nevertheless,
the relationship between the quality of outcomes, satisfaction levels and
project performance has been continuously investigated by many researchers
over the last ten years.

Quality is a common determinant that is applied to assess the level of the

performance in construction projects. Ennew et al. (1993) define quality as the
ability of a service or product to perform its specified tasks. In addition, project
performance can also be obtained based on the participants’ satisfaction
levels. This approach can provide a negative or positive result by comparing
perceptions and expectations. Martzler et al (2004) agree that satisfaction
measurement is a relevant method in encouraging the continuous
improvement of the project. However, these approaches suffer from
limitations and are in need of improvement.

BASIC CONCEPT OF SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT

Measures of performance can be made in many ways. Previous studies show
that performance is mainly determined by the participants of construction
projects and is also interdependent. Soetanto and Proverbs (2002) assert that
satisfaction measurement generally involves psychological processes.
Therefore, it would be useful if some consensus existed on the definition of
satisfaction. As Oliver (1980) explains, satisfaction is derived from the Latin
satis (enough) and facere (to do or make). This suggests that satisfying
products and services have the capacity to provide what is being sought to
the point of being enough. Something that satisfies adequately fulfils
expectations, needs or desires and gives what is required, leaving no room for
complaints.

Churchill et al., (1982) conclude that most of the previous research focuses on
the link between expectation and perceived performance. In addition,
expectations, experiences and knowledge have been shown to be basic
judgements in evaluating satisfaction (Woodruff et al., 1983). In business,
customer evaluation is important in order to meet the customer’s
expectations, create loyalty and meet challenges. It also encourages service
providers in maintaining high service quality and assists in determining the
level of employees’ performance and efficiency (Liu et al., 2006). In marketing
disciplines, satisfaction is examined by comparing pre-purchase expectations
with post-purchase perceptions (Forsythe, 2007). To further understand the
process of satisfaction, Oliver (1996) demonstrates a complete process as
shown in Figure 2.

Product/Service Satisfaction Delivery

Delivery

Effects and Short-term

Expectations Performance Comparisons Attributions Appraisals Satisfaction Effects

Confirmation

Need
Fulfilment

Ideals
(Quality)

Fairness Consumptions
(Equity) Process
Regret

Long-term Effects

Apprehensions

Figure 2: The Complete Satisfaction Process (Oliver,1996)

Satisfaction has been considered in various perspectives. For instance, job

satisfaction has been broadly studied. Nerkar et al. (1996), for example,
found that an individual assessment of job satisfaction is a function of the
discrepancy between what an individual expects from the job and what the
individual receives. In other words, job satisfaction can be measured as the
extent to which rewards meet the perceived equitable level of rewards and
providing a positive emotional response for job experiences. In marketing
management, consumer expectations are determined by the implicit
comparison of expected and actual. Cpeziel et al. (1977) suggest that three
formulas are appropriate in gauging expectations as part of satisfaction
measurement (Figure 3). However, consumer satisfaction and decision
processes may be influenced by several variables such as attitudes,
perceptions, psychographic segments and behaviour. In summary, therefore,
satisfaction is a judgement or response made by the participants concerning a
product or service and which also provides a pleasurable level of consumption
fulfilment.

Equation 1: CS = facets (Should Be – Now)

∑
Equation 2: CS = facets (Would Like – Now)

∑
Equation 3: CS = facets (Expected to Be – Now)
∑
Figure 3: Formula of measuring expectation (Cpeziel et al., 1977)

Studies of satisfaction have been carried out since the 1960’s (Oliver 1980).
Commonly, major marketing research used to assess likely client satisfaction
is done through opinion surveys. Several aspects or criteria are used to
identify levels of client satisfaction, including product quality, service quality,
cost management and timeliness (Nowak and Washburn, 1998).

Thurau and Klee (1997) assert that quality is primarily treated as an overall
construct based on previous experience and the impressions of the customer
in relation to a product or service. A client’s evaluation of product quality in
marketing research is based on the feedback given concerning the overall
quality of the final product and clarity of results. SERVQUAL is a scale used in
evaluating the perceptions-expectations gap (Figure 4). It is a component of
overall client satisfaction as it comprises tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance and empathy (Cronin, 1994). However, this approach has
limitations as customers do not necessarily purchase the highest quality
service, but may also consider convenience, price and availability factors.

Service Quality

Tangibles Reliability Assurance

Empathy

Responsiveness

Figure 6- Service Quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992)

Figure 4: Model of SERVQUAL (Cronin, 2004)

Cost management has been found to be the most important factor in ensuring
the provider delivers a product or service within budget. This measure is one
of cost management and not of ability to provide the product at the lowest cost
(Su, 2004). However, timeliness is often a major concern for clients who are
under pressure to react quickly to changing market conditions in a highly
competitive environment (Nowak, 1998).
On the other hand, customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction results from
experiencing a service and comparing that experience with the quality of
service that was expected. Many studies of customer satisfaction have
concluded that there is a significant relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty (Su, 2004; Wirtz, 2001; Grigoroudis and Siskos, 2004;
Liu et al., 2006; 1999; Walker, 2001). Hence, the primary objective of service
providers and marketers is identical, for example to develop and provide
services that satisfy customer needs and expectations. In short, throughout
the service industry, the goal of the service marketer is to close or narrow the
gap between expectations and perceptions of customers.

CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT IN

CONSTRUCTION
The construction industry is challenged by the need to cope with change.
Performance measurement is dominated by the main parameters of quality,
time and cost of projects. However, to obtain a high product quality,
performance must be evaluated thoroughly and effectively. Success can be
considered to have occurred if the project is completed within the required
budget, time given and quality as specified in the contract, but the client still
needs to be satisfied. For that reason, satisfaction is an appropriate indicator
for evaluating the performance of a project. The construction industry is
similar to the marketing or business industry in terms of the involvement of
numerous stakeholders and their satisfaction related to the performance of
subsequent projects. Recently, many studies have been undertaken
concerning behavioural management - mainly of client satisfaction and
customer satisfaction (Palaneswaran et al., 2006; Wong, 2004).

Studies of satisfaction have noted that satisfaction is subjective and difficult to

measure and that models of satisfaction are largely conceptual (Procter et
al,1999). However, there are attempts to deal with client satisfaction of
consultant performance. Commonly, satisfaction can be assessed at interim
stages, final stages and overall. Three elements are applied in satisfaction
measurement: comparing product and service delivery, final outcome
satisfaction and satisfaction with satisfaction. Cheng et al. (2006), assert that
overall services, technical accuracy and people are the key performance
attributes for consultants as perceived by clients.

Satisfaction evaluation is fundamental for construction participants if they are

to survive in the marketplace. Tang et al. (2003) has concluded that by
measuring client satisfaction, the performance in delivering services can be
improved continuously and areas can be identified for improvement by
consultants. For example, research has shown that more effort is needed to
overcome the weaknesses of engineering consulting services in Hong Kong,
as these are slightly greater than professional services in general. Cheng et
al. (2006) identify technical accuracy, overall quality of service, people and
effective communication as main client satisfaction criteria. Mbachu and
Nkado (2006) found that there are areas for improvement in the services of
contractors and consultants, noting the evaluation of client satisfaction to be a
result of the clients’ perceived average levels of satisfaction in the building
development process.

Sohails (1995) stressed the benefit of taking an aggressive approach to

identify client satisfaction levels and the changes needed to eliminate
problems. In the construction industry, the clients’ needs or requirements are
usually assumed to be to attain the end product within budgeted cost and
time. Soetanto and Proverbs (2004) have suggested that satisfaction and
performance are related, as performance outcomes are the input and levels of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction are the output (Figure 4). Most of the studies
agree that between the input and output, a psychological processing, or black
box, exists that requires rational consideration in making decisions.

Antecedents States
(e.g. Expectations)

‘Black Box’
Performance (Processing Satisfaction/
Outcomes Psychological) Dissatisfaction

Figure 4- A mediated performance model of satisfaction (Soetanto and Proverbs, 2002)

The model in Figure 5 is based on the major factors that influence client
satisfaction of contractor performance - namely timeliness, client orientation,
communication, cost, quality and response to complaints (Ahmed et al.,
1995). Soetanto and Proverbs (2004) emphasize the importance of measuring
an abstract notion, such as the satisfaction level, and stress that the concept
should be observable, measurable and defined at an operational level.
 Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction

Subjective Assessment

Perceptions

Complaint Communication Timeliness

Quality Cost Orientation

Figure 5- Client satisfaction factors (Ahmed et.al, 1995)

Moreover, Cheung et al. (2000) propose dispute resolution satisfaction as an

effective measurement for the attainment of project objectives (Figure 6), as it
is consists of several variables that need to be considered. This shows that
the evaluation of satisfaction enables clients to reduce uncertainty and
antagonism, hence improving working relationships and trust.

Dispute Resolution Satisfaction

Environment Specific Project Specific

Organisation Specific Process Specific

Figure 6: Conceptual Model for the variables (Cheung, 2000)

On the other hand, client satisfaction evaluation can be implemented to help

maximise long term profits. This could be achieved by avoiding several
situations, such as project team changes, multiple architect/engineer team
contracts, schedule delay and missed milestones, over designing, negative
approaches to problems, low quality product, slow response for any queries,
slow review submittals, weak leadership and absence at final completion
(Haransky, 1999).

In addition, there are studies that largely emphasize customer satisfaction and
the difference between expectations and perceptions. Maloney (2002)
incorporates these ideas into guidelines for customers in evaluating electrical
contractor service quality and their influence on perceived quality. Moreover,
Yang and Peng (2008) emphasise that evaluating the performance of service
providers helps them to improve their services. They used a questionnaire
survey and statistical analysis as a tool for assessing satisfaction levels.

Several research projects have been undertaken aimed at developing a

satisfaction evaluation methodology for the construction industry and the
measurement of satisfaction in performance of procurement systems. As an
example, Jamali (2007) found satisfaction evaluation to be appropriate for
measuring the level of customer satisfaction of the quality of services received
by Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). As illustrated in Figure 6, SERVQUAL
measures customer satisfaction by incorporating both a cognitive component
(assessment of basic quality dimensions) and affective components (including
variable such as emotions, attributions and perceptions of equity).

Tangibles
Antecedents:

Reliability -Equity
-Attributions Subjective Satisfaction
-Cost/Benefit Assessment
Responsiveness -Emotions
-Zones of
Tolerance
Assurance

Empathy

Figure 6- Service Quality (Dima Jamali, 2007)

Forssythe (2007) stated that customer satisfaction in the residential

construction industry is influenced by genetic make-up and emotional
influences. In addition, there are four components involved in customer
behaviour when making decisions - such as decision process, input,
information processing and decision process variables. This approach could
constitute a competitive advantage in the market place, increased market
share, improved profitability and increased reputation. Leung et al (2004)
believe the discrepancies between goals derived from the measurement can
enhance levels of satisfaction.

Based on the above discussion, there is a consensus among researchers that

consideration of satisfaction levels of construction projects will ultimately
create a performance-enhancing environment. This would lead to harmonious
working relationships between participants, the pursuit of continuous
improvement, a mutual process in the real sense and support for the
development of long-term relationships and high satisfaction levels (Soetanto
and Proverbs, 2004; Cheong et al., 2003; Leung et al., 2004; Haransky, 1999;
Ahmed et al., 1995; Naoum, 1994). However, there have been few studies
focusing on the level of contractor satisfaction as an indicator of performance,
although contractor satisfaction is the best predictor in the early stage of the
project (to identify problems before they develop into conflicts and predicting
contractor satisfaction levels). A model of contractor satisfaction (Figure 7)
based on client performance has been established in order to identify
corrective action needed, improve cooperation and communication and to
maintain trust and cohesiveness (Soetanto and Proverbs, 2002).

Client performance attributes

Capability of the client’s
representative Client project Satisfaction of
Past performance and
project management performance contractor
experience
Financial soundness and
reputation for litigation
Communication channel

Project attributes Assessor attributes

Overbudget cost Perception that:
Percentage of design Clients regularly change their
completed before mind
commencement of work on Clients always want to
site minimise cost without
Distance of the project from considering quality
the client’s home office Clients do not know what they
Industrial building project want
Company assessor attributes
Contractor size measured in
terms of number of employee
Figure 7: Contractor satisfaction models based on client performance

CONCLUSION
Performance measurement has been widely studied in the construction
industry. Recent interest in gauging performance based on subjective
indicators such as satisfaction levels could be seen as a new attractive
approach in this field. Measurement based on satisfaction levels is commonly
used in marketing and business as customer loyalty can be evaluated
according to the gap between the expected and perceived performance.
Satisfaction measurement has been used in measuring construction project
performance as it can also encourage the participants in maintaining high
service quality and determining efficiency. The approach has been extensively
applied to measure client satisfaction, customer satisfaction and home buyer
satisfaction. Although contractor satisfaction is rarely used it still seen as the
best predictor for improved project outcomes and as a prerequisite for
harmonious working relationships.

This preliminary study indicates that different participants judge satisfaction in

different ways. The level of client satisfaction is influenced by time, cost, client
orientation, communication skills and the effectiveness of response to
complaints. Contractor satisfaction should be achieved by completing a
project according to plan, within cost and time budgets, satisfying owner
needs and generating profits. Future work will investigate this further by in-
depth interviews and surveys of Malaysian contractors’ satisfaction of client
performance. The detailed result is expected to provide a useful assessment
method for contractors and clients in enhancing construction performance.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. M & Kangari, R. (1995). Analysis of client–satisfaction factors in
construction industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11 (2), 36-
44.
Chan, A. P. C. & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for
measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
11 (2), 203-221.
Cheng,J., Proverbs, D.G. & Oduoza, C.F. (2006). The satisfaction levels of
UK construction clients based on the performance of consultants. Journal
of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13 (6), 567-
583.
Cheung, S.O., Tam, C.M., Ngekugri, I. & Harris, F.C. (2000). Factors
affecting clients’ project dispute resolution satisfaction in Hong Kong.
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 18, 281-294.
Churcill, G.A., Jr., & Surprenant,C. (1982). An investigation into the
determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 14,
491-504.
Cronin,J.J,Jr, & Taylor,S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL:
reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations
measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 125-131.
Czepiel, J, A. & Rosenberg, L,J. (1997), Consumer satisfaction: concept and
measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 5 (4), 403-
411.
Dissanayaka, S.M. & Kumaraswamy, M.M., (1999). Evaluation of factors
affecting time and cost performance in Hong Kong building projects.
Journal of Engineering. Construction and Architectural Management, 6 (3),
287-298.
Doloi,H. & Lim, M.Y. (2007). Measuring performance in construction projects-
a critical analysis with an Australian perspective. Proceedings of the
construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, Georgia Tech, Atlanta USA, 6-7 September.
Ennew,C.T., Reed, G.V. & Binks, M.R. (1993). Importance – performance
analysis and the measurement of service quality. European Journal of
Marketing, 27(2), 59-70.
Forsythe, P.J. (2007). A conceptual framework for studying customer
satisfaction in residential construction. Journal of Construction
Management and Economics, 25, 171-182.
Grigoroudis,E. & Siskos,Y. (2004). A survey of customer satisfaction
barometers:some results from the transportation-communications sector.
Journal of European Operational Research, 152, 334-353.
Haransky, S. (1999). Maximixing profit through client satisfaction: avoiding the
10 deadly sins. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29-30.
Jamali,D. (2007). A study of customer satisfaction in the context of a public
private partnership. Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,, 24 (4),
370-385.
Lam,E.W.M., Chan, A.P.C. & Chan, D.W.M. (2008). Determinants of
successful design-build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 134 (5), 333-341.
Liu,H.Y., Li,J. & Ge, Y,X. (2006). Design of customer satisfaction
measurement index system of EMS service. Journal of China Universities
of Posts and Telecommunications, 13, 109-113.
Lim, E.H & Ling, F, Y, Y. (2002). Model for predicting clients’ constricbution to
project success. Journal of Engineering, Journal of Construction and
Architectural Management, 5(6), 388-395.
Ling, F.Y.Y., Chan,S.L., Chong, E. & Ee, L.P., (2004). Predicting performance
of design-build and design-bid-build projects. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 130, 75-83.
Maloney,W.F. (2002). Construction product/service and customer satisfaction.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128 (6), 522-529.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H.H., Renzl, B. & Pichler, J. (2004). The
asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall
customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance-performance
analysis. Journal of Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 271-277.
Mbachu,J. & Nkado, R. (2005). Conceptual framework for assessment of
client needs and satisfaction in the building development process. Journal
of Construction Management and Economics, 24, 31-44.
Nerkar, A. A., Mcgrath, R.G. & Macmillan, I. A. (1996), Three facets of
satisfaction and their influence on the performance of innovation teams.
Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 167-188.
Nowak, L. & Washburn, J.H. (1998). Antecedents to client satisfaction in
business services. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(6), 441-452.
Oliver.R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences
of satisfaction decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
Oliver,R.L. (1996). Satisfaction- A behavioural perspective on the consumer,
Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Palaneeswaran, E., Ng, T. & Kumaraswamy, M. (2006). Client satisfaction
and quality management systems in contractor organizations. Journal of
Building and Environment, 4, 1557-1570.
Procter,C.J. & Rwelamila, P.D. (1999). Service Quality in the Quantity
Surveying Profession in South Africa, Proceedings of a Joint Triennial
Symposium CIB Commissions, Education Building, Middle Campus,
University of Cape Town, 5-7 September.
Sohail, M. (1996). Analysis of client satisfaction factors in construction
industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(2), 57.
Soetanto,R & Provers,D.G. (2002). Modelling the satisfaction of contractors:
the impact of client performance. Journal of Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 5(6), 453-465.
Soetanto,R & Provers,D.G. (2004). Intelligent models for predicting levels of
client satisfaction. Journal of Construction Research, 5(2), 233-253.
Su,A.Y.L. (2004). Customer satisfaction measurement practice in Taiwan
hotels. Journal of Hospitality Management,.23, 397-408.
Tang,S.L., Lu, M. & Chan, Y.L. (2003). Achieving client satisfaction for
engineering consulting firms. Journal of Management in Engineering,
19(4),166-172.
Thurau,T.H. & Klee,A. (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and
relationship quality on customer retention: a critical reassessment and
model development. Journal of Psychology and Marketing, 14(8), 737-764.
Walker, J. (2001). Client views of TESOL service: expectations and
perceptions”, Journal of Education Management, 15(4), 187-196.
Walker, D. & Hampson,K. (2003). Procurement Strategies – A relationship-
based approach. Blackwell Science Ltd.
Wirtz, J. (2001). Improving the measurement of customer satisfaction: a test
of three methods to reduce halo. Journal of Managing Service Quality,
11(2), 99-111.
Wong, C.H. (2004). Contractor performance prediction model for the United
Kingdom Construction Contractor: Study of logistic regression approach.
Construction”, Journal of Engineering and Management,.130(5), 691-698.
Xio,H & Proverbs, D. (2003). Factors in influencing contractor performance:
an international investigation. Journal of Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 10(5), 322-332.
Yang,J.B. & Peng,S.C. (2006). Development of a customer satisfaction
evaluation model for construction project management. Journal of
Construction Management, 43, 458-468.