Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2019 Customer centric success measures in project management Matti J. Haverila* School of Business and Economics, Thompson Rivers University, 900 McGill Rd., Kamloops, BC, V2C 0B8, Canada Email: mhaverila@tru.ca *Corresponding author Kai C. Haverila John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1450 Guy St., Montreal, QC H3H 0A1, Canada Email: kaihdaa@gmail.com Abstract: This research investigates 3,129 system delivery projects in the facilities management industry with an aim to understand customers’ perceptions of customer relationship quality, satisfaction, repurchase intent and the role of the value for money construct in the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent context. To test the hypotheses, the partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling was used to test the theoretical model. The findings show a significant and positive relationship between the relationship quality and customer satisfaction as well as between customer satisfactions and repurchase intent. Furthermore, it was discovered that the value for money construct is not directly related to customer satisfaction; instead it was found to partially mediate the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship. The study contributes to an increased understanding of the customer perceptions regarding relationship quality, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent and the role of value for money in complex system delivery projects. Future research opportunities will be discussed as well. Keywords: project management; relationship quality; customer satisfaction; repurchase intent; value for money. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Haverila, M.J. and Haverila, K.C. (2019) ‘Customer centric success measures in project management’, Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.203–222. Biographical notes: Matti J. Haverila is a Professor of Marketing at the Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. His research interests are in the mobile communications, marketing and R&D of technology intensive products as well as in customer satisfaction, loyalty and defection. His recent writings have appeared in Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing, International Journal of Product Development, and Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. 203 204 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila Kai C. Haverila is a PhD student at the Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada and has published articles in International Journal of Mobile Communications and Academy of Marketing Studies Journal. 1 Introduction Project managers and directors are constantly occupied with managing projects in terms of the quality of relationship between the supplier and the customer aiming to achieve project success. Project success is important to companies due to the fact that projects have become more strategically important for companies (Liu and Wang, 2014; Shenhar, et al., 1997). The assessment of project success is more increasingly considered using various customer perceptions like customer satisfaction and repurchase intent in addition to the iron triangle of project success measures of scope, time, and costs. These measures have received a lot of attention in project management research (Atkinson, 1999), but have been indicated to have a narrow view of project perspectives due to the limited focus on only three aspects (Bronte-Stewart, 2015) and also due to being too simplistic in nature to capture the inherent complexities of project management (Liu et al., 2016). While it is true that research increasingly recognises the multidimensional nature of project success (Jonasson and Ingason, 2017; Joslin and Müller, 2015; Shenhar et al., 2001), few studies have tried to clarify how the linkage between relationship quality, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent works in project management and particularly what is the role of the value for money construct in this context. Also, the focus of the research is often on the project team’s viewpoint, whereas previous research has investigated project management performance from the customer’s perspective only to a limited extent. The first objective of this study concentrates on identifying the impact of the quality of relationship on customer satisfaction while the second objective focuses on the impact of customer satisfaction on repurchase intent. Thirdly, the role of the value for money construct is investigated to assess whether the value for money construct has a direct impact on customer satisfaction or whether the value for money construct possibly has a mediating role in the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship. The specific projects studied were the installation of building maintenance control systems (heating, ventilation, air conditioning, security) in large facilities. In the context of system delivery projects, customer perceptions (i.e., customer satisfaction and repurchase intent) contend with how the procuring company perceives the supplier’s system delivery performance and the relationship between the system contractor and customer. Specifically, we examined how the customers perceive the supplier’s project management performance in terms of customer satisfaction, repurchase intent and value for money. The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework of the perceived quality of relationship, customer satisfaction, repurchase intent and the role of the value for money and test the hypothesised relationships using questionnaire-based empirical evidence. We focus on three main research goals. The first is to explain how the perceptions of relationship quality are associated with customer satisfaction and the second about how customer satisfaction is related to repurchase intent, and the third goal is assessing the role of value for money in this context. Customer centric success measures in project management 205 This research paper proceeds as follows. After the introduction, the literature review is conducted and the hypotheses are set. Following this, the methodology section, including the introduction of the firm, questionnaire development, and method of the study are presented. Next, the results are presented, and the analysis of the hypotheses is conducted. The results are discussed in light of previous literature. Finally, the managerial implications, research limitations and future research opportunities are discussed. 2 Literature review 2.1 Customer satisfaction in projects Many project management dimensions have been considered as critical for the success of projects. Quite often the project team’s internal perceptions of the project management system have been discovered as being critical success factors (Loo, 2002) in addition to project management processes and decisions (Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow, 2003), and project management standardisation (Milosevic and Patanakul, 2005). The prior literature has investigated variables related to project success from the project team’s or project manager’s point of view (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Pinto and Mantel, 1990; Slevin and Pinto, 1987). However, the customers do not necessarily have access to the same kind of operational knowledge of project management that the project team has. Obviously, customers have their own perceptions of the project management performance and, perhaps more importantly, the outcome of the project. Although customer satisfaction remains a somewhat ambiguous concept in project management (Ahola et al., 2008), the way the customers perceive the project delivery is crucial for the assessment of project success, and thus also for project managers and teams. The evaluation of customer satisfaction has been found to be one of the best practices in project management (Loo, 2002). Complex systems and integrated solutions are gaining popularity when project-based organisations are trying to serve their customer needs (Brady et al., 2005; Davies et al., 2006; Gann and Salter, 2000). There are certain requirements that are necessary in project management such as the integration of the project and business processes, knowledge flowing fluently between the customers and suppliers (Gann and Salter, 2000), and a good relationship between the supplier and customer (Grover et al., 1996; Kern, 1997; Lee and Kim, 1999). Complex systems require new kinds of capabilities from the firm delivering the project since the delivery occurs over an extended project lifecycle (Brady et al., 2005). Furthermore, the ownership and development of skills regarding how to create value for the customers in turn-key projects, and how customers in fact evaluate and compare the project suppliers in terms of benefits and sacrifice is becoming more and more critical (Ahola et al., 2008). In the context of service-dominant logic (S-D logic) this means that both the supplier and the customer are concerned with the application of their competencies, i.e., the knowledge and skills for the benefit of the project thus embracing the value-in-use and co-creation of value concepts (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). 206 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila 2.2 Customer satisfaction and repurchase intent in projects It has been claimed that project success goes further than meeting time, scope, and budget constraints. Shenhar et al. (1997) argue that success indicators should also incorporate the project’s impact on the customer, organisational effects, and the new opportunities the project opens. It is obvious that project efficiency factors like the cost, scope, and time goals can be assessed instantly; other aspects of success can only be appraised after the project has been closed. Thus, criteria other than cost, scope, and time should be incorporated in the project assessment including organisational benefits and benefits to stakeholders as well as the characteristics of the project product (Atkinson, 1999; Bronte-Stewart, 2015). Due to the fact that project success may be defined in different ways by different project stakeholders (Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996; Shenhar et al., 2001), the assessment of project success can be complicated. This is true in spite of the fact that the stakeholders agree on the project success measures. Customer satisfaction and repurchase intent, while strategic in nature (Bronte-Stewart, 2015), are typically measured after the project has closed and can be problematic to measure in an objective fashion (Diallo and Thuillier, 2004). While this might be the case, one could also claim that why should customers be satisfied if they have not received tangible benefits through the executed project (Allen, 2004). The long time frame and the long-term impact of a project can be the reasons why these other dimensions of success are more difficult to measure. Customer satisfaction and repurchase intent are measured after the completion of the project but it is also true that the complete state of customer satisfaction and repurchase intent may not be known until the customer has used the installed system for a certain period of time. The benefits of customer satisfaction have received a vast amount of interest in the marketing discipline (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Bernhardt et al., 2000; Morgan and Rego, 2006). The contemporary thinking is that high satisfaction causes higher repurchase intentions and loyalty among customers (Lam et al., 2004; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). In addition, higher satisfaction and loyalty causes more revenue, cash flow, and profitability (Ittner and Larcker, 1998). Eventually these benefits lead to higher stock prices and a higher market valuation of the firm (Aksoy et al., 2008; Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Gruca and Rego, 2005). As a result of higher satisfaction, more repeat business from the customer base should also be achieved in the context of project management. Where earlier studies have looked at the role of various success factors in the different phases of research and development (R&D) projects (Pinto and Slevin, 1988, 1989; Pinto and Mantel, 1990; Pinto and Prescott, 1988), their viewpoint has been that of the project itself, not how the customer perceived the project. It has been discovered that the role of the various success measures might vary during the project. The customary iron-clad success measures (time, cost and an acceptable level of performance) are perceived to be relatively more important in the early stages of the project. The more subjective and context-specific customer benefits and related success measures (e.g., customer satisfaction and repurchase intent) have been perceived to be relatively more important at the later stages of the project (Bronte-Stewart, 2015; Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Zolfaghari et al., 2017). It has also been argued, however, that the satisfaction of the project stakeholders is vitally important, and thus the cost, schedule, and performance are relatively Customer centric success measures in project management 207 less important (Baker et al., 1983). In agreement with these results, Rom et al. (2002) and Lipovetsky et al. (1997) investigated the project success factors and discovered that the benefits to the customer are the most important success criteria. Some researchers have also claimed that projects may fail with regards to the time, cost and output specifications but are still perceived to be successful in the long run as far as the customer is concerned (Bronte-Stewart, 2015). In addition, Rom et al. (2002) discovered that the internal performance measures have in fact not been used as frequently as the external success measures such as customer satisfaction. Lipovetsky et al. (1997) also found that benefits for the customer were not only the most important success measures, but that they were practically twice as important as success measures such as ‘meeting design goals’, which was the second most important success measure. On the basis of the previous discussion, the first research hypothesis reads as follows: H1 Customer satisfaction has a significant impact on repurchase intent in system delivery projects. 2.3 Customer satisfaction and relationship quality in project management In addition to customer satisfaction, the quality of the relationship is an important perceptual customer consideration (Dwyer et al., 1987; Grönroos, 1997; Harker and Egan, 2006; Williams et al., 2015). The objective in project management is to establish, develop, and maintain successful relationships (Fruchter and Sigué, 2005; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In business-to-business relationships this can be achieved either on a personal or company level (Holmlund, 1997), which means that companies need to develop commitment and trust in continuing relationships to enhance satisfaction (Rindell et al., 2014). The dimensions of the relationship at the company level can include issues such as inter-firm cohesion, attraction, and trust (Holmlund, 1997), as well as commitment, culture, communication, and conflict resolution (Chakrabarty et al., 2007). The nature of the customer-supplier relationship can be considered as highly relevant also in the project management context (Ahola et al., 2008) although it has not necessarily been considered as a project management success variable. Recent research has discovered, for example, that the drivers of customer satisfaction and relationship quality differ, in order and magnitude, during the course of a project depending on whether projects were delivered on-time or late (Williams et al., 2015). The concept of ‘perceived quality’ has been used to refer to the stakeholders’ perceptions of the project to judge project success in addition to reaching the project goals (Pinto and Mantel, 1990). These perceptions may include assessment regarding if the project found solutions to the problems it was created for; if it improved performance; and if the project is a definite improvement. Relationship quality, however, may contain more dynamic issues such as problem-solving and communication and more long-term issues such as image and trust (Ahola et al., 2008). Therefore, the quality of relationship is vital to the successful completion of the project (Cox et al., 2006; Fernie and Thorpe, 2007). Finally, Hellard (1995) identified nine elements of building collaborative relationships and Meng (2012) discovered ten indicators of the supplier-customer relationship. On the basis of this discussion, the second research hypothesis reads as follows: 208 H2 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila The relationship quality has a significant impact on customer satisfaction in system delivery projects. 2.4 Customer satisfaction and value for money in the project management context Value for money is another important consideration in the customer satisfaction and repurchases intent research. In service quality research, the role of value for money has been discovered to be crucial (Caruana et al., 2000) and to have a direct impact on customer satisfaction (Chiou, 2004; Fornell et al., 1996; Gera, 2011). The relevant extant value research has taken a utilitarian view so that the value construct has been measured as the net ratio of benefits to costs (Cravens et al., 1988; Sinha and DeSarbo, 1988; Williams and Soutar, 2009). Consequently, a buyer and seller gather values if the benefits (the output) received are greater than the resources spent (the input). In other words, both parties receive something more useful than what has been given up (Sinha and DeSarbo, 1988). It also has been argued that this utilitarian angle to value is one of the most prominent determinants of purchase intentions and repeat purchase behaviour (Chang and Wildt, 1994; Williams and Soutar, 2009; Zeithaml, 1988). In some contexts, it has been argued that repurchase intention is largely based on the satisfaction mediated by perceived value (Hume and Mort, 2010). In addition, perceived value for money has also been found to be a significant mediator of perceived quality, price, risk and willingness-to-buy (Sweeney et al., 1999). Value for money can also be an important construct in project management (Bing et al., 2005; Green, 1994; Lock, 2017) from the S-D logic point of view (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). This is due to the fact that project management is a business-to-business related activity where economical (Cooper, 1994; Michell et al., 2001; Walter et al., 2001) and functional value considerations (Heathcote, 2016; Sheth et al., 1991) are typically important in spite of the fact that the research in this regard is lacking. Typical functional value attributes include quality, reliability, durability and price (Williams and Soutar, 2009), of which price has been discovered to have a mediating role in this context (Chiua et al., 2007; Hair et al., 2006; Hume and Mort, 2010; Lina et al., 2012). Consequently, it is important to investigate the role of the value for money construct in the project management context as far as the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent are concerned. On the basis of this discussion the third research hypothesis reads as follows: H3a The value for money mediates the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent. H3b The value for money quality has a direct and significant impact on customer satisfaction in system delivery projects. For this research, we examine customers’ perceptions in the context of project management performance. The research model is illustrated in Figure 1. The dotted line indicates the possible direct impact of the value for money construct on customer satisfaction. The rectangle boxes represent the indicator variables for the relevant customer centric constructs. Customer centric success measures in project management Figure 1 3 209 Theoretical framework of the study Research methods 3.1 The firm The organisation that provided the data for our study is a Fortune 100 firm in the facilities management industry. The projects studied were the installation of new or retro-fit heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and security systems that it manufactured. Since the firm had threshold levels for its projects, most of the projects were for large customer facilities. The firm has operations in over 100 countries, and over 100,000 customers worldwide. The firm delivers thousands of complete system delivery projects to its customers annually. The firm had a variety of improvement initiatives in place, such as customer relationship management and Six Sigma process improvement, and constant aims in improving its performance. The choice of the industry can be justified by the large number of projects that are done on an annual basis, which provides a good basis for statistically reliable analysis. 3.2 The sample Each system delivery project had a formal contract that specified the project parameters, such as the scope of work, milestones, project completion, and cost. The contract also specified the key contact person in the customer organisation. This was typically the person in charge of over-seeing the project and was most commonly a facilities manager. Approximately 80% of respondents held this title, with most of the remaining being an engineer of some type. When the contract was initiated, the respondent was informed, in person, that a customer satisfaction survey would be conducted after the project was completed. The customer’s participation was requested. As a result, cooperation rates for the survey averaged approximately 60% to 65% each month. Within 30 days of signing off on the project as completed, the person’s name went into a sample frame for research. The sample frame was transferred to the market research firm on a monthly basis. The research firm attempted to reach all customers, by calling them up to five times. The data 210 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila in this research comes from respondents located in the USA. For the purposes of this study, data was aggregated over 18 consecutive months. During this period, 3,129 surveys were completed. 3.3 Questionnaire development The questionnaire was developed through a two-stage process by an experienced marketing research firm. First, a sample of 20 customers was the subject of qualitative depth interviews. The customers were asked to indicate issues related to the quality of relationship, value for money, satisfaction and repurchase intent with system delivery suppliers. There were a variety of drill down questions asked to get detailed responses. The results of these qualitative interviews were then converted into questions. This was then circulated to an executive steering committee in the supplier organisation for review and modification. The research firm then reviewed existing approaches in both commercial and academic research. For the purposes of this study, the questionnaire consisted of a total of eight questions. The customer satisfaction construct consisted of two questions in the model: overall satisfaction and overall performance in terms of meeting expectations. The relationship quality construct was composed of three items: relationship quality, follow-up and communication. The repurchase intent construct consisted of two items as follows: willingness to recommend and the overall level of repurchase intent. Finally, as typical in the relevant research, value for money was a single item construct representing the overall level of agreement with the value for money statement (Chiou, 2004; Fornell et al., 1996; Gera, 2011) (see Appendix 1). Since the survey was administered by phone, a five-point response scale was used. Questions used the scale ‘excellent-very good-good-fair-poor’ or an equivalent to measure the customer’s perceptions of the supplier’s performance. A ‘do not know’ option was available for all questions. 3.4 Analytical techniques To test hypotheses 1 and 2, partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the theoretical model using the SmartPLS software (version 3.2.7). Similar to the outlier analysis in Sattler et al. (2010) no outliers were discovered in the sample with standard residuals greater than +3 or lower than –3 (Hocking, 2003). 3.4.1 Assessment of the measurement model Following a recent approach for the testing of the reflective model (Ringle et al., 2018), the analysis was done in two stages where the analysis of the measurement model was done first and this was followed by the analysis of the structural model. When analysing the measurement model, the indicator loadings should be first examined and the standardised loadings should exceed the value of 0.70. This was the case in the dataset in this research. Second, the internal consistency reliability should be checked and the goal here is that composite reliability should be higher than 0.70 and below 0.95 (Ringle et al., 2018). The composite reliability values were 0.879 and 0.908, and the Cronbach alpha values were 0.727 and 0.798 respectively indicating high internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978; Ringle et al., 2018). Customer centric success measures in project management 211 Third, the convergent validity should be assessed and this is usually done with the average variance extracted (AVE) criterion and they should exceed the value of 0.50. The AVE in the case of customer satisfaction was 0.785 and in the case of repurchase intent was 0.831, and thus the criteria for the convergent validity was met in the dataset here. Fourth, discriminant validity should be assessed for the measurement model. The usual way to check discriminant validity of the latent variables when using PLS modelling is to use the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion. Here the requirement is that the square root of each latent variable’s AVE is greater than the latent variable’s correlation with any other construct in the model, which also was the case in the dataset under investigation here. The AVE in the case of customer satisfaction was 0.785 and in the case of repurchase intent was 0.831. These values are clearly greater than the highest squared correlations with other latent variables indicating good discriminant validity. Recent research recommends, however, that a new HTMT criterion should be used to evaluate discriminant validity. HTMT defined as the mean value of the indicator correlations across constructs (i.e., the heterotrait-monotrait of correlations) relative to the (geometric) mean of the average correlations of the indicators measuring the same construct. High HTMT values indicate a problem with discriminant validity (Ringle et al., 2018). The recommendation is that the HTMT values should not exceed 0.95. Also, this criterion for the convergent validity was met in this data set as the HTMT values were statistically significantly by being lower than one. This concludes the assessment of the measurement model. 3.4.2 Assessment of the structural model The first step when analysing the structural model is the analysis of the path coefficients. With the bootstrapping method in PLS, the significance of the path coefficient can be done (see Table 2). Second, in PLS model a R2 is provided to determine the explanatory power of the model. The indicator relevance in terms of R2 ranged between 0.48 and 0.54 indicating a moderate explanatory power of the model (Hair et al., 2006; Ringle et al., 2018). Third, the predictive power of the model should be done by means of the Q2 value using the blindfolding procedure present in SmartPLS. Resulting Q2 values of larger than zero indicate that the exogenous constructs have predictive relevance for the endogenous construct under consideration (Ringle et al., 2018), which was also the case here indicating good predictive power when using the Q2. Recently, new goodness-of-fit measures have also been introduced to PLS modelling. In this case, the standardised root mean square residual was used (SRMR) (Ringle et al., 2018), and here the criterion is that the values should not exceed 1.0. This was also the case in the current dataset. In addition, the latent constructs were checked for multicollinearity with the variance inflation factor (VIF), which should be below the critical threshold level of 10 (Belsley et al., 1980; Kleinbaum et al., 1988). It is noteworthy to mention that reasonable multicollinearity may not cause any problems in statistical analysis. If, however, severe multicollinearity is present, it can increase the variance of the coefficient estimates and make the estimates sensitive to changes in the model, and consequently the coefficient estimates can become unstable and difficult to interpret. In addition to the aforementioned tests in PLS, the common method variance should be checked if the responses to the model variables come from single respondents in a 212 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila one-time survey. This data collection was not, however, done as a one-time survey. As indicated in the sample section of this research, the survey data was aggregated over 18 consecutive months through a multitude of data collections. None of the responses came from the same respondents. Furthermore, the application of this test is not feasible in this research due to the fact that there is only one independent variable in the model (quality of relationship). For these reasons, the test for the common method variance was not performed. Seeing as all the criteria in the structural model assessment were met, this then concludes the assessment of the structural model. 3.4.3 Analysis of the impact of the value for money variable The ‘value for money’ question was introduced either as a mediator variable influencing the linkage between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent (Hypothesis 3a) or having a direct impact on customer satisfaction (Hypothesis 3b). Regarding the mediation effect, the required tests would be considered as follows (Shaver, 2005). First, there is a need to establish whether the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent is significant. Second, there is a need to discover if the indirect effects (customer satisfaction, value for money * value for money, repurchase intent) are significant. If these relationships are not significant, there is no mediator impact. The final test assesses whether the direct effect (customer satisfaction → repurchase intent) becomes insignificant if the mediator variable (value for money) is included in the model. The mediating role can either be partial or full. If the mediating role is partial, it means that the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent is reduced, but still remains significant. If the mediating role is full, then the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent becomes non-significant. 4 Results 4.1 Descriptive statistics The means and standard deviations for the relationship quality, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intent and value for money variables were calculated to assess the properties of the data. Due to the large number of observations (N = 3,129), all correlations were significant in Table 1 (Hair et al., 2006). The greatest correlation can be found between customer satisfaction and willingness to recommend, repurchase intent and willingness to recommend, and quality of relationship and communication (The shaded areas in Table 1). In addition, there is a need to assess multicollinearity, which can be done with the VIF assessment (Belsley et al., 1980; Kleinbaum et al., 1988). The threshold value not to be exceeded is 10, and as can be seen in Table 3, this threshold value is not exceeded, which therefore indicates a lack of multicollinearity. 4.2 PLS modelling analysis The results for the base model for relationship quality, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intent are in Table 2. Customer centric success measures in project management 213 Customer satisfaction 4.17 0.79 1.68 1.00 Value for money 3.34 0.91 1.51 0.53 1.00 Willingness to recommend 4.20 0.82 - 0.66 0.57 1.00 Repurchase intent 4.14 0.82 - 0.53 0.48 0.66 1.00 Met expectations 3.33 0.82 1.62 0.57 0.50 0.54 0.46 1.00 Quality of relationship 3.93 0.97 1.91 0.62 0.53 0.64 0.53 0.55 1.00 Follow-up 4.24 0.86 1.67 0.53 0.42 0.52 0.42 0.45 0.56 1.00 Communication 3.63 1.05 2.03 0.59 0.53 0.57 0.47 0.56 0.66 0.59 Variable Communication Follow-up VIF Quality of the relationship Met expectations Repurchase intent S.d. Willingness to recommend Mean Customer satisfaction Value for money Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and VIF Table 1 1.00 Results of the path model estimations. Table 2 Customer satisfaction Repurchase intent Path coefficient Standard error t-value Customer satisfaction - - - Quality of relationship 0.732* 0.052 14.000 Path coefficient Standard error t-value 0.064 10.645 - - 0.690* - Note: *p < 0.01. Summary of results for the hypothesis testing Table 3 Hypothesis Result H1 There is a significant relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent in system delivery projects. Supported H2 There is a significant relationship between relationship quality and customer satisfaction in system delivery projects. Supported H3a The value for money mediates the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent in system delivery projects. Supported H3b The value for money quality has a direct and significant impact on customer satisfaction in system delivery projects. Not supported When calculating the standard error and the T-value, a non-parametric bootstrapping routine to test the significance of the PLS path modelling results was used. As we can see 214 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila from the results in Table 2, both relationships in the base model are significant. Therefore, both Hypothesis 1 and 2 are supported. 4.3 The estimation of the mediating impact of value for money When testing whether the respondents’ value for money perceptions had a direct and significant impact on customer satisfaction, the PLS modelling procedure revealed that the relationship was insignificant (0.186, 2.241). Therefore, Hypothesis 3b is rejected. To test whether the respondents’ value for money perceptions mediate the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship, a mediation analysis was conducted. The method was explained in the analytical techniques section. The results are illustrated in Figure 2. As can be seen, the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent is significant without the impact of the value for money construct (the values not in parentheses). The numbers in the parentheses indicate the path coefficients and the respective T-values when the value for money is brought into the model. All relationships remain significant, which is the requirement for mediation (Shaver, 2005). The significance between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent deteriorates when the value for money construct is introduced indicating partial mediation. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a is supported. Figure 2 Mediating impact of value for money between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent In conclusion, the results of the PLS modelling revealed that the quality of relationship construct is significantly related to customer satisfaction, the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent are significantly related and finally that the value for money construct does not have a significant direct impact on customer satisfaction, but it does partially mediate the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship. 5 Discussion In the first research question, we asked about the relationship between the perceived quality of relationship and customer satisfaction in the context of complex system delivery projects. We found support for this hypothesis. In the second research question, we inquired whether there was a significant relationship between the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent in the same context, and we also found support for this hypothesis. Finally, we investigated the possible mediating impact of the value for money Customer centric success measures in project management 215 construct between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent. Support was also found for this hypothesis. The results point out two main contributions: the importance of customer perceptions that related to the quality of relationship evaluations in project management in achieving customer satisfaction, which of course has implications for customer-centred systems delivery. We will discuss these findings below. 5.1 Relationship quality and customer satisfaction in the context of complex system delivery projects The results showed that the impact of the customer’s perceptions regarding the quality of relationship is strong on customer satisfaction. Where earlier studies have discovered the importance of customer satisfaction as an important success criterion (Atkinson, 1999; Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Lipovetsky et al., 1997; Shenhar et al., 1997, 2001), we have complemented these findings by investigating the quality of the relationship in the project management context (Ahola et al., 2008; Holmlund, 2008). Ahola et al. (2008) link relationship quality with long-term benefits in buyer-supplier collaboration, whereas the shorter-term benefits are more related to the product of project management and the efficiency impacts that are achieved. Our results indicate that customer perceptions in terms of the longer-term oriented measure of relationship quality are relevant to the more immediate measure of customer satisfaction. This finding offers important input to the existing project success research where the project team’s perspective is typically geared towards the efficiency goals of scope, time, and costs. From the customer’s perspective, project management performance deals with establishing and maintaining a trustworthy relationship with the supplier. Previous research has discovered that relationship benefits typically play a greater role in short-term projects than in long-term projects (Olaru et al., 2008). This further emphasises the importance of the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship discovered in this research. This is due to the fact that the delivery of complex system delivery projects in the facilities management industry tends to be relatively short-term (less than year) rather than long-term (lasting for longer period of time). 5.2 Customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship This study was built on the premise that relationship quality is an important foundation for customer satisfaction in complex delivery projects. The empirical study was conducted within the facilities management industry that has a need to deliver complete systems repeatedly and successfully. In such an industry, in general, the value creation of integrated solutions is important (Brady et al., 2005). We purposely deviated from project-team centric studies on project success and focused on the customer perceptions. In particular, we first paid attention on the impact of relationship quality on customer satisfaction and then on the impact of customer satisfaction on repurchase intent. As mentioned, there is a need in this industry to ‘deliver complete systems repeatedly and successfully’. Therefore, achieving high repurchase intent is critical for success in the facilities management industry. 216 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila 5.3 The mediating impact of value for money in customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship Value for money is an important consideration in the business-to-business context. Therefore, it is likely that value for money can play an important role in customer satisfaction and repurchase considerations. Research done by Olaru et al. (2008) in the R&D industry discovered that customers are clearly more willing to repurchase (and recommend) if the offering is perceived as good ‘value for money’. They continue by logically claiming that high monetary sacrifice can significantly detract from value. They also somewhat illogically claimed that a high level of benefits does not necessarily guarantee a high repurchase intent. Therefore, the value or benefits received in relation to cost (i.e., value for money) is a more reliable measure in this regard. This seems to be the case also in complex system projects such as in the facilities management industry and in the R&D industry. Many prior studies have discovered a direct impact of the value for money construct on customer satisfaction. This study did not support this but rather discovered a partially mediating impact on the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship. It is possible due to the fact that customers are not able to detect and assess their true satisfaction immediately after the completion of the project. It was not possible to detect a direct impact of the value for money construct on customer satisfaction, but a mediation impact between customer satisfaction and repurchase intent was detected. 6 Conclusions This paper dealt with the project management experience of the customer in terms of relationship quality, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent as well as the role of the value for money construct in this context. The results indicate that the perceived project management performance in terms of relationship quality is significantly related to customer satisfaction, which on the other hand is also significantly related to the repurchase intentions of the customers in the facilities management industry. In addition, the value for money construct partially mediates the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship. The impact of customer experiences in terms of the longer-term oriented measure of relationship quality was significant on the more immediate measure of customer satisfaction. This implies that the project supplier should maintain an excellent quality of relationship with the customer by using ordinary project management methodologies, by following up with the customer to ensure resolution on issues brought to the attention of the supplier, and by establishing fast, accurate two-way communication to carry out successful projects. It is clear, however, that more research is needed on the contingencies influencing the relationship between a customer’s perceived project management performance and customer attitudes. 6.1 Theoretical and practical implications of the study This paper has discussed the role of customer centric measures, i.e., relationship quality, value for money, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent in the context of project management. Previous research has indicated that, in addition to the iron-clad success Customer centric success measures in project management 217 measures (time, scope and money), other measures are needed to assess the success of the projects due to their multi-dimensional nature. The results of this paper indicate that relationship quality indeed is an important customer centric success measure in project management which is an important finding both from the theoretical and practical point of view. As discussed in the literature review section, a project can even be deemed to be a failure in terms of the traditional success measures of time, scope and money. The results of this study may mean that, in this kind of situation, the role of the relationship quality may be critical from a long-term relationship perspective. Not surprisingly, the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent relationship was also significant in this study which is consistent with previous research. An interesting discovery in this research was the significant mediating role of the value for money construct in the satisfaction-repurchase intent relationship. In other words, the higher the perceived value for money of the project, the stronger the satisfaction-repurchase intent relationship. So, when customers perceive that the value for money of the project will be high, the more important it is for the repurchase intent, and thus for the ongoing relationship between the customer and the supplier. 6.2 Limitations and ideas for further research As in other related studies, this research also has its limitations. As indicated earlier, the sample and the data collection occurred in the USA. While the company had extensive amount of experience in the delivery of complex system projects, it would be important to expand the research approach taken in this study to other countries, as well as to other cultural contexts. For example, Lipovetsky et al. (1997) have discovered that different projects display different success factors, and therefore extending the research approach taken here to find out how different types of projects with different technological uncertainty and system scope behave, might be an interesting research direction to pursue. The systems that were installed by the facilities management industry supplier in this study have, for example, a reasonably long expected life. Therefore, it is feasible that the performance of the installed system over a long time period might vary and this could have an influence on the customer perceptions. In addition, the approach taken here was from a single project management supplier point of view where there is a strong interest in relationship quality, customer satisfaction, repurchase intent and value for money. The engagement of multiple suppliers into the same research project might add interesting viewpoints into the contemporary research in the context of project management research. The sample of this research was derived from large customers in the facilities management industry. Again, including smaller customers as respondents might also contribute into the research setting and offer new perspectives and discoveries to take place. Finally, in the PLS model, R2 (variance explained) was provided to determine the explanatory power of the model. The R2 value for the customer satisfaction endogenous variable was 0.536 and for the repurchase intent endogenous variable was 0.476. While the explanatory power of the model is moderate and significant, bringing other independent variables (other than quality of relationship) into play might possibly add value to the base model used in this study. An additional interesting viewpoint that could be taken would be to compare and contrast the perceptions of customers and project 218 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila managers regarding the constructs used in this study. The sample provided data for five consecutive quarters, however, in spite of that, looking at the stability of the relationships over a longer period of time would add additional validity to the results achieved in this study. References Ahola, T., Laitinen, E., Kujala, J. and Wikström, K. (2008) ‘Purchasing strategies and value creation in industrial turnkey projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.87–94. Aksoy, L. et al. (2008) ‘The long-term stock market valuation of customer satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp.105–122. Allen, D. (2004) Customer Satisfaction Research Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Integrating Customer Loyalty and Satisfaction Metrics in the Management of Complex Organizations, American Society for Quality, Ouality Press, Milwaukee. Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M. (1993) ‘The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction’, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.125–143. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Mazvancheryl, S. (2004) ‘Customer satisfaction and shareholder value’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp.172–185. Atkinson, R. (1999) ‘Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.337–342. Baker, B., Murphy, D. and Fisher, D. (1983) ‘Factors affection project success’, in Project Management Handbook, pp.669–685, Van Nostrand Reinhol, New York. Belassi, W. and Tukel, I. (1996) ‘A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.141–151. Belsley, D., Kuh, E. and Welsch, R. (1980) Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity, Wiley, New York. Bernhardt, K., Donthu, N. and Kennett, P. (2000) ‘A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.161–171. Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. and Hardcastle, C. (2005) ‘The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.25–35. Brady, T., Davies, A. and Gann, D. (2005) ‘Creating value by delivering integrated solutions’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.360–365. Bronte-Stewart, M. (2015) ‘Beyond the iron triangle: evaluating aspects of success and failure using a project status model’, Computing and Information Systems Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.19–36. Caruana, A., Money, A. and Berthon, P. (2000) ‘Service quality and satisfaction – the moderating role of value’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, Nos. 11/12, pp.1338–1353. Chakrabarty, S., Whitten, D. and Green, K. (2007) ‘Understanding service quality and relationship quality in IS outsourcing: client orientation and promotion, project management effectiveness, and the task-technology-structure fit’, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.1–15. Chang, T. and Wildt, A. (1994) ‘Price, product information and purchase intention: an empirical study’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.16–27. Chiou, J-S. (2004) ‘The antecedents of consumers’ loyalty toward internet service providers’, Information and Management, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp.685–695. Customer centric success measures in project management 219 Chiua, C-M., Sunb, S-Y., Sunc, P-C. and Jud, T. (2007) ‘An empirical analysis of the antecedents of web-based learning continuance’, Computers and Education, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.1224–1245. Cooke-Davies, T. and Arzymanow, A. (2003) ‘The maturity of project management in different industries: an investigation into variations between project management models’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.471–478. Cooper, R. (1994) ‘New products: the factors that drive success’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.60–76. Cox, A., Ireland, P. and Townsend, M. (2006) Managing in Construction Supply Chains and Markets, Thomas Telford, London. Cravens, D., Holland, C., Lamb, C.J. and Moncrieff, R. (1988) ‘Marketing’s role in product and service quality’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.285–304. Davies, A., Brady, T. and Hobday, M. (2006) ‘Charting a path toward integrated solutions’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.39–48. Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2004) ‘The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.19–31. Dwyer, F., Schurr, P. and Oh, S. (1987) ‘Developing buyer-seller relationships’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.11–27. Fernie, S. and Thorpe, A. (2007) ‘Exploring change in construction: supply chain management’, Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.319–333. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.39–50. Fornell, C. et al. (1996) ‘The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp.7–18. Fruchter, G. and Sigué, S. (2005) ‘Transactions vs. relationships: what should the company emphasize?’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.18–36. Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2000) ‘Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, Nos. 7–8, pp.955–972. Gera, R. (2011) ‘Modelling the service antecedents of favourable and unfavourable behaviour intentions in life insurance services in India: an SEM study’, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.225–242. Green, S. (1994) ‘Beyond value engineering: smart value management for building projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.49–56. Grönroos, C. (1997) ‘Value-driven relational marketing: from products to resources and competencies’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.407–419. Grover, V., Cheon, M.J. and Teng, J. (1996) ‘The effect of service quality and partnership on the outsourcing of information systems functions’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.89–116. Gruca, T. and Rego, L. (2005) ‘Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp.115–130. Hair, J.F.B.W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson, USA. Harker, M. and Egan, J. (2006) ‘The past, present and future of relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, Nos. 1–2, pp.215–242. Heathcote, J. (2016) Project Need to Add Value: Not Just Spend Money, Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design for Society, Leeds. Hellard, R.B. (1995) Project Partnering: Principle and Practice, Thomas Telford, London, UK. 220 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila Hocking, R. (2003) Methods and Applications of Linear Models: Regression and the Analysis of Variance, Wiley, Hoboken. Holmlund, M. (1997) Perceived Quality in Business Relationships, Doctoral dissertation, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki. Holmlund, M. (2008) ‘A definition, model, and empirical analysis of business-to-business relationship quality’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.32–62. Hume, M. and Mort, G. (2010) ‘The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.170–182. Ittner, C D. and Larcker, D.L. (1998) ‘Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction’, Journal of Accounting Research, Supplement, Vol. 36, pp.1–35. Jonasson, H.I. and Ingason, H.T. (2017) Project Ethics, Routledge, London. Joslin, R. and Müller, R. (2015) ‘Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp.1377–1392. Kern, T. (1997) The Gestalt of an Information Technology Outsourcing Relationship: An Exploratory Analysis, Atlanta, Association for Information Systems, pp.37–58. Kleinbaum, L., Kupper, L. and Muller, K. (1988) Applied Regression Analysis and other Multivariate Method, PWS-Kent, Boston. Lam, S., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. and Murthy, B. (2004) ‘Business-to-business service context customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.293–311. Lee, J. and. Kim, Y-G. (1999) ‘Effect of partnership quality on IS outsourcing success: conceptual framework and empirical validation’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.29–61. Lim, C. and Mohamed, M. (1999) ‘Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.243–248. Lina, T-C., Wub, S. and Choua, Y-C. (2012) ‘The integration of value-based adoption and expectation–confirmation models: an example of IPTV continuance intention’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.63–75. Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, A. and Shenhar, A. (1997) ‘The relative importance of project dimensions’, R&D Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.97–106. Liu, J. et al. (2016) ‘Praxis of performance measurement in public-private partnerships: moving beyond the iron triangle’, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 4. Liu, S. and Wang, L. (2014) ‘Understanding the impact of risks on performance in internal and outsourced information technology projects: the role of strategic importance’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp.494–1510. Lock, D. (2017) The Essentials of Project Management, Routledge, London. Loo, R. (2002) ‘Working towards best practices in project management: a Canadian study’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.93–98. Meng, X. (2012) ‘The effect of relationship management on project performance in construction’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.188–198. Michell, P., King, J. and Reast, J. (2001) ‘Brand values related to industrial products’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.415–425. Milosevic, D. and Patanakul, P. (2005) ‘Standardized project management may increase development projects success’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.181–192. Customer centric success measures in project management 221 Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W. (2001) ‘Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.131–142. Morgan, N. and Rego, L. (2006) ‘The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance’, Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.426–439. Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994) ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.20–38. Munns, A. and. Bjeirmi, B.F. (1996) ‘The role of project management in achieving project success’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.81–87. Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York. Olaru, D., Purchase, S. and Peterson, N. (2008) ‘From customer value to repurchase intentions and recommendations’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.554–565. Pinto, J. and Mantel, S.J. (1990) ‘The causes of project failure’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.269–276. Pinto, J. and Prescott, J. (1988) ‘Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project life-cycle’, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.5–18. Pinto, J. and Slevin, D. (1989) ‘Critical success factors in R&D projects’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.31–35. Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988) ‘Critical success factors across the project life cycle’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.67–75. Rindell, A., Svensson, G., Mysen, T. and Billström, A. (2014) ‘Satisfaction as a mediator between quality metrics in manufacturer-supplier relationships’, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.16–27. Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R. and Gudergan, S. (2018) ‘Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, No. 2. Rom, W., Tukel, I. and Muscatello, J. (2002) ‘MRP in a job shop environment using a resource constrained project scheduling model’, Omega, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.275–286. Sattler, H., Völckner, F., Riediger, C. and Ringle, C. (2010) ‘The impact of brand extension success driver on brand extension price premiums’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.319–328. Shaver, J. (2005) ‘Testing for mediating variables in management research: concerns, implications, and alternative strategies’, Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.330–353. Shenhar, A., Dvir, D.L.O. and Maltz, A. (2001) ‘Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp.699–725. Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O. and Dvir, D. (1997) ‘Mapping the dimensions of project success’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.5–13. Sheth, J., Newman, B. and Gross, B. (1991) Consumption Values and Market Choices: Theory and Applications, Southwestern, Cincinnati, Oh. Sinha, I. and DeSarbo, W. (1988) ‘An integrated approach toward the spatial modelling of perceived customer value’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.236–249. Slevin, D. and Pinto, J. (1987) ‘Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.33–41. Sweeney, J., Soutar, G., Cowan, E. and Johnson, L. (1999) ‘The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp.77–105. Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2008) ‘Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.1–10. 222 M.J. Haverila and K.C. Haverila Walter, A., Ritter, T. and Gemünden, H. (2001) ‘Value creation in buyer–seller relationships: theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier’s perspective’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.365–377. Williams, P. and Soutar, G. (2009) ‘Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism context’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.413–438. Williams, P., Ashill, N.J., Naumann, E. and Jackson, E. (2015) ‘Relationship quality and satisfaction: customer-perceived success factors for on-time projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp.1836–1850. Zeithaml, V. (1988) ‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.2–22. Zolfaghari, S., Aliahmadi, A. and Mahdavi, M. (2017) ‘From strategy to project effectiveness: introducing the three stages of strategic project management’, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.308–328. Appendix 1 The questionnaire 1 Thinking about your overall experience with the company during the past 12 months, how satisfied are you in doing business with the company? (Customer satisfaction) 2 Considering the quality of business solutions relative to the price paid, how would you rate the company on value for the money? (Value for money) 3 How likely would you be to recommend the company to others? (Willingness to recommend) 4 What is the likelihood that you will choose the company again when your next installation project (new construction or retrofit) occurs? (Repurchase intent) 5 Considering the company’s overall performance, the company has met your expectations as follows. (Met expectations) 6 Overall how do you rate the quality of the business relationship you have with the company? (Quality of relationship) 7 How would you rate the company for following up with you to ensure resolution of issues you have brought to their attention? (Follow-up) 8 How would you rate the company performance in establishing fast, accurate two-way communication with its customers? (Communication)