See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329208287

The Effects of Product Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: Evidence

from Malaysian Engineering Industry

Article · November 2018

DOI: 10.5296/ijim.v3i1.13959

CITATIONS READS

7 20,986

2 authors:

Chen Hoe Ling Shaheen Mansori

Sunway University Malaysia University of Science and Technology (MUST)
1 PUBLICATION   7 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

marketing, social marketing, management View project

Intrapreneurial Behavior and individual characteristics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shaheen Mansori on 27 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

The Effects of Product Quality on Customer

Satisfaction and Loyalty: Evidence from Malaysian
Engineering Industry
Ling Chen Hoe, DBA
Senior GM (Meiden Malaysia Sdn Bhd)
Senior Lecturer, Sunway College, KL, Malaysia

Shaheen Mansori, PhD

Malaysia University of Science and Technology, Malaysia

Received: September 20, 2018 Accepted: November 19, 2018 Published: November 23, 2018
doi:10.5296/ijim.v3i1.13959 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijim.v3i1.13959

Abstract
Organizations today are operating in an environment in which little is certain, the tempo is
quicker and the dynamics are more complex. The customer is central to the organization and
assessing customer satisfaction is a vital element in any strategy for business performance
improvement. This makes customer satisfaction a driver for survival, competitiveness and
growth. The key determinant for a sustainable business is customer loyalty as loyal customers
not only increase the value of the business, but they also enable businesses to maintain costs
lower than those associated with attracting new customers. By creating and preserving
customer loyalty, organizations develop a long term, mutually beneficial relationship with the
customers. The purpose of the research is to study the factors that can assist a company to
build a sustainable competitive advantage through the effective enhancement of customer
satisfaction and ultimately customer loyalty. The proposed conceptual model consists of the
different dimensions of product quality as the independent variables with customer
satisfaction. Garvin’s eight dimensions of Product Quality in Performance, Features,
Reliability, Conformance, Durability, Serviceability, Aesthetics and Perceived quality are
dimensions of Product Quality that affect Customer Satisfaction which impacts Loyalty. The
results provide insights to understand the dimensions of Product Quality that affect customer
satisfaction and higher satisfaction leads to higher customer loyalty in the engineering
industry in Malaysia.
Keywords: Product quality, Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty

20
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

1. Introduction
Competitive advantage is vital for an organization’s survival and development in the market.
Unless the organization develops and adapts its competitive strategy to the prevailing and
changing conditions in the market, let alone to achieve its objectives, its continuous survival
in the market is doubtful. Understanding the anatomy of competitive advantage is therefore of
paramount importance to organizations for a long term survival and success. Organizations
can gain competitive advantage when they are able to create and implement an innovative
strategy that is not implemented by their competitors (Ma, 1999). Galbearth (2009) highlights
positioning approach (Porter, 2008) and the resource-based view (RBV) (Wernerfelt, 1984) as
the two dominant perspectives of competitive advantage for a firm.
Tangible assets alone no longer can provide sustainable competitive advantages (Rodriguez
Perez & Ordóñez de Pablos, 2003). The resource-based theory hinges on the premise that the
source of competitive advantage lies in an organization’s internal resources as opposed to
their positioning in the external environment (Barney, 2001). This theory predicts that
specific types of resources owned and controlled by firms have the impetus to generate
competitive advantage and superior firm. A key to the success of an organization to create a
sustained competitive advantage is their ability to identify and build their distinctive
competencies, in order to produce the greatest value for all stakeholders (Bryson, Ackermann,
& Eden, 2007).
Sustained competitive advantage (SCA) is achieved when other competitors are not able to
duplicate the organization’s developed strategy (Rijamampianina, Abratt, & February, 2003).
SCA is the key differentiator of the organization in making its competition irrelevant.
Competitive advantage is not static; rather, it is extremely dynamic in nature, since it has to
be as flexible as market conditions, especially when customer needs and resources
availability are highly variables time to time.
Change in technology has changed the competition landscape. Traditional way of controlling
the resources simply does not work as small players also can have access to the advance level
of technology with a very affordable cost by using the available open source information or
the leasing facilities. Since sources of competitive advantage become scarcer, potential new
areas of competitive advantage must be explored (Markley & Davis, 2007). Competitive
advantage is created as a firm discovers a new or a more efficient way as compared to its
competitors or as soon as it innovates. Defining the source of innovation is equivalent to
describing the ways to create competitive advantages, possible through five main sources of
innovation: 1) the new technologies; 2) the modification of the demand or a new demand; 3)
the occurrence of a new segment; 4) the changes in the costs or the availability of means of
production; 5) the changes in the regulation (Passemard & Kleiner, 2000).
Clulow et al. (2003) see organizations as sustaining competitive advantage only if they are
able to continuously provide value to their customers. When this happens, customers are
identified and their needs are communicated throughout the entire organization, and every
employee evaluates every process, every task, and every decision by asking one vital
question: “How will this add value for our customers?” (Whiteley & Hessan, 1996).

21
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

Overall an organization should be able to create superior customer value (Day, 1990).
Adopting a customer centric vision enables an organisation understand their customers 1000
years ago, to win without a fight should be the supreme among all strategies. A firm can,
under certain situations, win without fight by carefully positioning itself through innovation
which affords it competitive advantages.
Building a competitive advantage involves understanding the needs of the market (customers)
and devising a strategy to make use of the resources that are available (or can be obtained) to
set the business apart from the competition. The strategy needs to take into account the target
market and the company’s strengths and weaknesses. Despite the high number of researches
that explain and study the significant impact of creating sustainable competitive advantages
of the performance of the company, still there are not many literature that focus on the factors
of competitive advantage from service and product perspective (for example; service quality,
product quality) in business to business (B2B) sector.
Thus, the primary aim of this research is to study the factors that can influence the customer
satisfaction and consequently customer loyalty. The preceding sections of the literature
review have focused on how organizations can achieve competitive advantage. From the
literature review, it has been ascertained that both the internal factors (organization’s human
resource capability) and external factors (business environment) are important in determining
the critical success factors for organizational performance. The focus of this research is on the
internal factors of the organization, namely the product quality of organizations and its effects
on customer satisfaction and loyalty.
2. Literature Review
The following section develops the conceptual framework for the research in seeking to
understand better customer’s needs and expectations to be derived from the following
literature review.
2.1 Product Quality
(Deming, 1982) taught that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations
can increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs. The objective of TQM as described by
(Deming, 1982) is to develop and sustain a competitive advantage through achieving utmost
efficiency manifested in cost reduction and improvement of customer satisfaction. Besides
Deming, many have contributed to the growth of quality management with some of them
having become known as quality gurus as follows (Waters & Waters, 2008):
Fiegenbaum (1986) looked at failure costs and developed the idea of total quality involving
everyone in an organization. Taguchi (1982) showed the importance of product design and
process control that results in quality products. Juran (1979) emphasized the role of top
management and customer focus. Crosby (1979) analyzed the total costs of quality and
methods for implementing quality management. Ishikawa (1963) emphasized the contribution
of workers to quality and introduced the concept of quality circles.
Total quality management (TQM) is an approach to improving the competitiveness,

22
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

effectiveness and flexibility of a whole organization. It is essentially a way of planning,

organizing and understanding each activity. TQM involves placing the customer as the focal
point of operations. The aim is to continuously improve process performance in order to
satisfy customer requirements (Zairi & Sinclair, 1995). (Kelsey & Bond, 2001) see TQM as
an integrated management system focused on customer satisfaction and continuous
improvement involving all employees in an organization.
(Guest, 2011) has argued that TQM is inextricably linked to HRM as a commitment to quality
management is one component of the business strategy. Without top management
involvement, commitment and leadership, a quality management program cannot succeed.
(Karia & Hasmi, 2006) in their study of quality management practices in Malaysia found that
they were positively correlated with employees’ work-related attitudes such as job
involvement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction and organizational commitment. (Mehra &
Ranganathan, 2008) found that quality management substantially increases customer
satisfaction across diverse industrial and cultural settings.
There are many different definitions and dimensions of product quality to be found in
academic literature. Quality has been defined in four categories namely excellence, value for
money, conformity to requirements and meeting of customer’s requirements (Reeves &
Bednar, 1994). 8 critical factors for product quality have been developed and utilized by the
researchers concerned - (Saraph et al., 1989, Flynn et al., 1994), (Black & Porter, 1996),
(Zeitz et al., 1997) and (Rao et al., 1999). They are Top Management support, Quality
information availability, Quality information usage, Employee training, Employee
involvement, Product/process design, Supplier quality and customer orientation.
Quality is a complex and multifaceted concept. In its broadest sense, product quality is the
ability of a product to meet or exceed customer’s expectations (Waters & Waters, 2008). The
most common operational definition posits quality as the customer's perception of product
and service excellence. In today’s competitive environment, quality is the key to an
organization’s success and survival. Intense global competition has highlighted the increasing
importance of quality. Superior quality no longer differentiates competitors; instead, it
validates the worthiness of a company to compete (Giffi et al., 1990).
(Garvin, 1987) developed a system of thinking about the quality of products by describing the
basic elements of product quality in eight dimensions. (Garvin, 1987): (Foster, 2001): pointed
out that quality is multidimensional and that each of its dimensions can be used strategically
to gain competitive advantage.
The following is a summary of Garvin’s eight dimensions of Product Quality:
1) Performance refers to a product's primary operating characteristics.
2) Features are additional characteristics that enhance the appeal of the product to the
customer. These are the secondary aspects of performance.
3) Reliability is the likelihood that a product will not fail within a specific time period when
put in use.

23
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

4) Conformance is the precision with which the product or service meets the specified
standards.
5) Durability measures the length of a product’s operating life.
6) Serviceability is the speed, ease and costs with which the product can be put back into
service when it breaks down.
7) Aesthetics refers to how the product looks, feels, sounds etc. It is a matter of personal
judgement and a reflection of individual preference.
8) Perceived quality is the quality attributed by the customer, noting that perception is not
always reality.

Figure 1. The 8 dimensions of product quality (Garvin, 1987)

According to (Garvin, 1987), recognition of these eight dimensions is important for strategic
purposes. An organization that chooses to compete on the basis of quality can do so in several
ways; it need not pursue all eight dimensions at once. Instead, a segmentation strategy can be
followed, with a few dimensions singled out for special attention.
2.2 Customer Satisfaction
Customers today have different needs and increasingly demand for higher quality of products
and services. However, in majority of case customer priorities often differ significantly from
what organizations think they are (Quinn & Humble, 1993). While the needs of customers
has been recognised as being of crucial importance but that understanding has not yet been
fully translated into action in terms of accessing the necessary information.
In general definition “quality” is “satisfying customer’s requirements” (Ghobadian, Speller,
& Jones, 1994). What quality means for the customer today no longer constitutes a
competitive weapon but the basic core offering expected by customers Drucker (2005)
suggests that the sole purpose of any organization is to create value for its customers. To
enjoy superior performance, we need to serve the customer in distinctive ways to attract,

24
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

satisfy and retain them (Hax & Wilde, 2003).

Customer satisfaction goes beyond service experience that a customer went through. It
incorporates value judgment and comparison to initial expectation of what the service quality
should be; oftentimes based it is an overall comparison between the value that customers
perceive and the price that they pays (Rust & Zahorik, 1993). By focusing on customer value
organizations think outwards, toward external customers and about ways in which customers
can achieve greater responsiveness to their needs (Wooduff, 1997). Fulfillment of customer
needs through delivering customer value, in turn increases customer loyalty (Gronholdt,
Martensen, & Kristensen, 2000).
2.3 Customer Loyalty
Lovelock (1983) conceptualized loyalty as the willingness of a customer to maintain a
relationship with the firm, continue to purchase and use its products or services and likely to
recommend the firm to others. Similarly, Gremler and Brown (1996) defined customer
loyalty as those who repeat purchase from the same product and service provider.
Cronin and Taylor (1992) stated that the relationship between service quality and customer
satisfaction has a direct impact on customer’s loyalty as the universal understanding that
keeping a loyal base of customers is much profitable for a company than attracting new
customers. The results of Brown and Chen’s (2001) study supported the contentions that there
is a positive correlation between loyal customers and profitability. Loyal customers are likely
to provide repeat business and were less likely to shop around than non-loyal customers
(Oliver, 2010).
Building customer loyalty is a business strategy to boost loyalty and maximize share of
customers. The pursuit of customer loyalty is a perpetual one. It is more of a journey than a
destination. Customer loyalty yields significant benefits if its pursuit is part of an overall
business strategy (Sower, Duffy, Kilbourne, Kohers, & Jones, 2001). According to Jones
(1996), customer loyalty is a prime determinant of long-term performance of organizations.
Increasing customer satisfaction and customer retention leads to improved profits, positive
word-of-mouth and lower marketing expenditures (Heskett & Sasser Jr, 2010).
The research of McMullan and Gilmore (2008) emphasizes the importance of a differentiated
approach to developing and managing customer loyalty by providing them value in the
products and services offering. By focusing on customer value organizations think outwards,
toward external customers and about ways in which customers can achieve greater
responsiveness to their needs (Wooduff, 1997). Organizations focus on achieving customer
satisfaction and loyalty by delivering superior value, an underlying source of competitive
advantage (Yang & Peterson, 2004).
Customer loyalty is one of the most important customer metrics in marketing due to the profit
impact of maintaining a loyal customer base (Oliver, 2010). The literature points out that
customer loyalty lead to firm profitability because customer loyalty positively influences firm
product-marketplace performance (Anderson & Mittal, 2000) and financial performance
(Gupta & Zeithaml, 2006). Brown and Chen (2001) propose three approaches used to

25
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

measure customer loyalty: 1) Behavioural measurement; 2) Attitudinal measurement; 3)

Composite measurement.
Behavioural measurements consider continuous, repetitious purchase behaviour as an
indicator of loyalty. The attitudinal measurements use attitudinal information to show the
emotional and psychological attachment inherent in loyalty, which include intentions for
re-purchase and the spreading of positive word-of-mouth about a product or service.
Composite measurement of loyalty combines both behavioural and attitudinal dimensions
(Rundle-Thiele & Maio, 2001). It measures loyalty in terms of preferences as a result of trust
in a product or service further explaining that a customer is sincerely loyal only when brand
commitment is present, which in turn is “mediated by a high degree of affective and cognitive
brand conviction and attitude strength.” When a customer is said to have strong resistance to
change brands and have durable conviction over time, there is a high tendency to be
committed to a brand, resulting to measurement of loyalty.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework

Customer-perceived quality represents a key determinant of sustainable business success

(Bartikowski et al., 2010). (Kumar et al., 2009) provides evidence of the positive impact of
quality on company performance regarding the four domains of company performance
studied, in particular employee relations (participation and morale), operating procedures
(improved products and services quality and productivity), customer satisfaction (reduced
number of customer complaints) and performance (increased profitability). Based on the
literature reviewed, it is recommended that Garvin’s framework of the 8 dimensions of
product quality be used in the research survey questionnaires to study and evaluate the
implementation of product quality management in the organization.
Hence, the following hypotheses were developed to test this phenomenon.
Hypotheses
H1 There is a direct relationship between Performance and Customer Satisfaction;

26
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

H2 There is a direct relationship between Features and Customer Satisfaction;

H3 There is a direct relationship between Reliability and Customer Satisfaction;
H4 There is a direct relationship between Conformance and Customer Satisfaction;
H5 There is a direct relationship between Durability and Customer Satisfaction;
H6 There is a direct relationship between Serviceability and Customer Satisfaction;
H7 There is a direct relationship between Aesthetics and Customer Satisfaction;
H8 There is a direct relationship between Perceived quality and Customer Satisfaction;
H9 There is a positive relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty.
3. Methodology
The selection of an appropriate methodology is fundamental to the success of any research
project. In choosing a methodology for conducting their research, researchers must balance
theoretical ambition with the practical constraints. There is no one best way of conducting
research, rather the method needs to be chosen to suit the specific circumstances of the
research (Babbie, 2015). A descriptive research method’s main purpose is to describe the
characteristics and details of the population such as who, what, when, where and how (Yin,
2013). Therefore, to carry out the study to ascertain customer satisfaction and its relationships
with the variables identified in the conceptual framework, quantitative primary data
collection is proposed to be collected using survey questionnaires via email to be sent to
customers of the different business segments of the industry.
Section A of the survey questionnaire consists of questions on organizational profile while
Section B solicits responses from the respondents representing their respective organizations
on the variables from the model developed for the research. Participants were asked to
consider aspects of the major suppliers of the company that provide parts, service, and/or raw
materials that have high contribution in their business processes and productions. Likert-type
scales are by far the most common survey instrument for attitude measurement based on three
reasons, namely: conformity with current research practice, ease of scale construction and
standards for measurement evaluation that align with test theory (Bartikowski, Kamei, &
Chandon, 2010). A commonly used 5-point Likert scale format is used to measure satisfaction
(McMullan, 2005). For Section B, a 5 point Likert scale measurements were administered,
ranging from 1 (representing strongly disagree) to 5 (representing strongly agree) with 3
indicating neutral.
4. Data Analysis and Discussion
For the purpose of this research a link to the survey questionnaires in Google Docs was sent
by email to 90 authorized personnel from the Procurement Department to respond on behalf
of their respective organization. Strategic Business Units (SBU) within an organization is
considered independently due to the differences in their business focus. 78 responses were
successfully collected from participants and included into the final analysis.

27
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

The research sets out to find the dimensions of service quality that affect customer
satisfaction and the mediating effects of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty in the
electrical engineering industry in Malaysia. The following is the breakdown of the Private /
Public sector profile of the customer organizations. The majority of the customer
organizations (87.2%) represent the Private sector while the remaining 12.8% are from the
Public sector.

Table 1. Organizational profile

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Sector
Private 68 87.2 87.2
Public 10 12.8 100.0
Total 78 100.0
Industry
Construction 7 9.0 9.0
Manufacturing 32 41.0 50.0
Power 24 30.8 80.8
Railway 10 12.8 93.6
Water 5 6.4 100.0
Total 78 100.0
Size of organization turnover
More than RM 50 Million 44 56.4 56.4
RM 10 - 50 Million 15 19.2 75.6
Up to RM 10 Million 19 24.4 100.0
Total 78 100.0

The following is the breakdown of the Industry the customer organizations are in. The
majority are from the Manufacturing (41%) and Power (30.8%) industry while Railway,
Construction and Water make up the remaining industries.
The size of the customer organizations in terms of turnover is shown below. Majority (56.4%)
has a turnover of more than RM 50 Million with the balance almost evenly split between
those with RM 10-50 Million (19.2%) and those with Up to RM 10 Million turnover (24.4%).
The country of origin of the customer organizations are represented below. Most of the
customer organizations are local (Malaysian) at 67.9% with a sizeable of Japanese origin
(24.4%). French and Korean although small in percentage make up the remaining.

28
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

4.1 Validity and Reliability Test

Table 2. Reliability and validity

Factor AVE CR Cronbachs
Loading Alpha
Performance
Current supplier’s product performance is important to 0.790 0.721 0.885 0.807
my organization
Product performance always meets our requirements 0.911
Current supplier’s products performance meet 0.842
requirements better than others options in market
Features
Current supplier product features is what we need for 0.797 0.661 0.854 0.742
our operation
Current supplier’s product features are desirable & 0.848
useful
Current supplier’s product features are more desirable 0.793
& useful than other competitors
Reliability
Current supplier’s product reliability can meet my 0.654 0.645 0.843 0.715
organization needs
Current supplier’s product is always reliable 0.863
Current supplier’s product is more reliable than other 0.872
competitors
Conformance
Current supplier’s product conformance can meet my 0.803 0.711 0.881 0.796
organization needs
Current supplier’s product always conforms to 0.904
requirements
Current supplier’s product is more conformant than 0.820
other competitors
Durability
Current supplier’s product durability is important to my 0.683 0.682 0.864 0.765
organization
Current supplier’s product is always durable 0.910
Current supplier’s product is more durable than other 0.868
competitors
Aesthetics
Current supplier’s product aesthetics is important to my 0.863 0.773 0.911 0.853
organization
Current supplier’s product is aesthetic 0.923
Current supplier’s product is more aesthetic than other 0.850
competitors

29
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

Serviceability
Current supplier’s product serviceability is important to 0.749 0.701 0.875 0.785
my organization
Current supplier’s product has high level of 0.905
serviceability
Current supplier’s product is more serviceable than 0.850
other competitors
Perceived Quality
Current supplier’s product quality can meet our 0.680 0.664 0.854 0.748
standards
Current supplier’s product has high quality 0.911
Current supplier product is of better quality than other 0.836
suppliers
Satisfaction
Current supplier has a strong focus on its customers 0.847 0.716 0.946 0.932
Current supplier’s product design differentiates it from 0.663
that of others
Current supplier’s employees are motivated to serve its 0.836
customers
Current supplier’s top management are committed to 0.876
customer satisfaction
Current supplier engages in continual monitoring of its 0.871
customer satisfaction activities
Current supplier engages in a continuous improvement 0.914
cycle
Current supplier engages in activities to add value to its 0.894
customers
Loyalty
My organization finds that current supplier can be 0.924 0.662 0.946 0.936
counted on to do what is right
My organization finds that current supplier has high 0.968
integrity
My organization finds that current supplier is 0.949
trustworthy
My organization tell others about our experiences with 0.880
current supplier
My organization recommends current supplier’s 0.958
products and services to others
My organization encourage others to use current 0.939
supplier’s products and services
My organization intend to continue the business with 0.881
the current supplier
Current supplier is my organization’s first consideration 0.931
as product and service provider
My organization will continue to be a loyal customer 0.925

30
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

The results from table 2 indicate that all variables have acceptable level of validity level as all
AVEs (more than 0.5) and CRs (more than 0.7) could meet the minimum required threshold.
In addition, the developed construct variables show high level of reliability as the calculated
Cronbach’s Alpha for all variables are above 0.7 minimum threshold.

Table 3. Hypotheses Testing

Sample Standard
Mean Error T-Value P-Value Supported
H1: Performance  Satisfaction 0.036 0.120 0.279 0.7807 No
H2: Features  Satisfaction 0.165 0.088 1.865 0.0651 No
H3: Reliability  Satisfaction 0.063 0.110 0.578 0.5646 No
H4: Conformance  Satisfaction -0.045 0.109 0.394 0.6941 No
H5: Durability  Satisfaction 0.260 0.109 2.334 0.0216 Yes
H6: Serviceability  Satisfaction 0.375 0.085 4.300 0.0001 Yes
H7: Aesthetics  Satisfaction 0.148 0.060 2.502 0.0140 Yes
H8: Perceived Quality  Satisfaction 0.357 0.116 3.101 0.0025 Yes
H9: Satisfaction  Loyalty 0.779 0.034 22.817 0.0001 Yes
Satisfaction R2= 0.573
Loyalty R2= 0.604

The output results from the bootstrap of 5000 samples show that hypotheses 1,2,3 and 4 are
not supported as the calculated p-values are more than 0.05 (H1: p-value Performance 
Satisfaction = 0.7807, H2: p-value Features  Satisfaction= 0.0651, H3: p-value Reliability
 Satisfaction= 0.5646, H4: p-value Conformance  Satisfaction=0.6941).
In addition, the results indicate that hypotheses 5,6,7,8 and 9 are supported as the calculated
p-value related to these hypotheses is less than 0.05 (H5: p-value Durability  Satisfaction:
0.0216/β=0.261, H6: p-value Service  Satisfaction: 0.000/β=0.375, H7: p-value Aesthetics
 Satisfaction: 0.0141/β=0.148, H8: p-value Perceived Quality 
Satisfaction=0.0025/β=0.357, H9: p-value Satisfaction  Loyalty =0.0001/β=0.779).
Overall it can be observed that Serviceability and Perceived Service Quality have highest
impact on Customer Satisfaction followed by Durability and Aesthetics aspect of industry
products. Finally, the current results show that Satisfaction has high and influence on the
level of Loyalty for industry products (H9: p-value Satisfaction  Loyalty=0.001/β=0.78).
4.2 Managerial Discussion
This study seeks to understand the relationships between the variables identified from
literature review that form the conceptual framework affecting companies in the electrical
engineering industry in Malaysia to contribute to the expansion of the scholarship.
For Product Quality, the areas highlighted by the Procurement representatives of customer

31
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

organizations as significant are Durability, Serviceability, Aesthetics and Perceived Quality.

Results indicate that Serviceability and Perceived Quality has the highest impact on Customer
Satisfaction, leading to Loyalty.
The results also indicate that Performance, Features, Reliability have influence on satisfaction
but this relationship is not significant. A possible explanation for this could be due to the
difference in emphasis of the Procurement personnel whom may stress on cost as their main
priority. This is in line with the findings of Saleki and Sayedsaleki (2012): that price
influences purchasing behavior and Jaafar et al. (2012): that perceived value affect
purchasing. Mwikali and Kavale (2012)’s study of suppliers’ selection in the African context
confirms the same.
To improve on Customer Satisfaction, the following has been highlighted by the customers as
the area of importance, namely a product design that differentiates from that of others in
terms of Serviceability, Perceived Quality, Durability and Aesthetics. Companies should seek
to build products based on the concepts of value innovation in order to create value for the
customers by improving on the aspects of the product quality that have been identified by the
customers’ representatives. This may require research and development for the products that a
superior to that of competitors offering that meet the needs of the customers and on the future
needs of the market. The improvements in Product Quality may also require investments in
the organization’s human resources to address the above concerns highlighted by the
customer’s representatives. It is therefore recommended for companies to review its talent
management program from the stages of attraction, training, development and retention of
their employees. Ways to engage and motivate their employees must also be reviewed taking
into consideration best practices in the industry.
5. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Study
A cross sectional study was undertaken to ascertain the customer’s feedback. It may be
difficult to expect a higher response rate as respondents may not fully see the benefit of the
research, thus curtailing their efforts or even limiting their participation. Recommendations
for future research can be made to address the limitations of this research, namely to carry out
a longitudinal study can be conducted as the expectation and requirements of customers can
change over time. As the sample size of 78 is relatively small, further research could be done
to replicate this study with other customer organizations in the industry to further validate its
findings. A qualitative approach using one on one interview or focus groups can be
considered for triangulation of findings to explore more insights and justify the current results
that indicate Performance, Features, Reliability and Conformance are not significant
contributor to the satisfaction of customers for industrial products.
References
Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of
Service Research, 3(2), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032001
Babbie, E. (2015). The practice of social research. Cengage Learning.

32
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic

management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56.
Bartikowski, B., Kamei, K., & Chandon, J. L. (2010). A verbal rating scale to measure
Japanese consumers’ perceptions of product quality. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 22(2), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851011026935
Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S. L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer
satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(5), 213-217.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110110395893
Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the Resource‐Based View of
Strategy and Distinctive Competencies to Work in Public Organizations. Public
Administration Review, 67(4), 702-717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00754.x
Clulow, V., Gerstman, J., & Barry, C. (2003). The resource-based view and sustainable
competitive advantage: The case of a financial services firm. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 27(5), 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590310469605
Day, G. S. (1990). Marketing Driven Strategy: Process For Creating Value. New York: Free
Press.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Center for Advanced En.
Drucker, P. F. (2005). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 100-109.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. Sage: London.
Galbreath, J. (2009). Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. European Business
Review, 21(2), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340910940123
Garvin, D. A. (1987). Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality. Harvard Business
Review, Nov.–Dec.
Gronholdt, L., Martensen, A., & Kristensen, K. (2000). The relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty: Cross-industry differences. Total Quality Management, 11(4-6),
509-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120050007823
Gupta, S., & Zeithaml, V. (2006). Customer metrics and their impact on financial performance.
Marketing Science, 25(6), 718-739. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0221
Hax, A. C., & Wilde, D. L. (2003). The Delta Model-a new Framework of strategy. Journal of
Strategic Management Education, 1(1), 1-21.
Heskett, J. L., & Sasser Jr, W. E. (2010). The service profit chain. Handbook of Service Science
(pp. 19-29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0221
Jaafar, S. N., Pan, E. L., & Mohaini, N. (2012). Asian Journal of Business and Management
Sciences, 2(8), 73-90.

33
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the
context of organizations and their environments. Strategic Human Resource Management, 46,
237-264. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.46.020195.001321
Jones, T. O. (1996). Why satisfied customers defect. Journal of Management in Engineering,
12(6), 11-11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1996)12:6(11.2)
Khilji, S. E., Davis, E. B., & Cseh, M. (2010). Building competitive advantage in a global
environment: Leadership and the mindset. The past, present and future of international
business and management. Advances in International Management, 23, 353-373.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-5027(2010)00000230021
Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. The Journal
of Marketing, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298304700303
Ma, H. (1999). Anatomy of competitive advantage: A Select framework. Management
Decision, 37(9), 709-718. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749910299129
Markley, M. J., & Davis, L. (2007). Exploring future competitive advantage through
sustainable supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 37(9), 763-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030710840859
McMullan, R. (2005). A multiple-item scale for measuring customer loyalty development.
Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 470-481. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040510625972
McMullan, R., & Gilmore, A. (2008). Customer loyalty: An empirical study. European
Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1084-1094. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891154
Mwikali, R., & Kavale, S. (2012). Factors Affecting the Selection of Optimal Suppliers in
Procurement Management. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(14).
Newhall, S. (2012). A global approach to talent management: High-quality leaders are the key
to competitive advantage. Human Resource Management International Digest, 20(6), 31-34.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09670731211260870
Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. ME sharpe.
Passemard, D., & Kleiner, B. H. (2000). Competitive advantage in global industries.
Management Research News, 23(7/8), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170010782307
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review,
86(1), 25-40.
Rijamampianina, R., Abratt, R., & February, Y. (2003). A framework for concentric
diversification through sustainable competitive advantage. Management Decision, 41(4),
362-371. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310468031
Rodriguez, P. J., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2003). Knowledge management and organizational
competitiveness: A framework for human capital analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management,
7(3), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310485640

34
 International Journal of Industrial Marketing
ISSN 2162-3066
2018, Vol. 3, No. 1

Rundle-Thiele, S., & Maio, M. M. (2001). Assessing the performance of brand loyalty
measures. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(7), 529-546.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006210
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market
share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4359(93)90003-2
Saleki, Z. S., & Sayedsaleki, S. M. (2012). The Main Factors Influencing Purchase Behaviour
of Organic Products In Malaysia. Interdiscliplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 4(1).
Tyson, S. (1995). Human resource strategy: Towards a general theory of human resource
management. Financial Times Management.
Waters, D., & Waters, C. D. J. (2008). Quantitative methods for business. Pearson Education.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Wooduff, R. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. J Acad Mark
Sci, 25(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894350
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The
role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21(10), 799-822.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing
customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and Schuster.
Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,
strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal
of Business Research, 63(7), 763-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.06.005

Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

35

View publication stats