College of Business and Economics

School of Commerce

Factors Affecting Particleboard Buyers’ Level of Satisfaction: The Case of

Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Company (ECAFCO) S.C

By

Zahra Abdulwahid

A Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University School of Commerce for the

Degree of Masters of Art in Marketing Management

June, 2021

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Factors Affecting Particleboard Buyers’ Level of Satisfaction, the Case of Ethiopian Chip
wood and Furniture Company (ECAFCO) S.C

Prepared By

Zahra Abdulwahid

Adviser: Getie Andualem (PhD)

A Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University School of Commerce for the Degree of
Masters of Art in Marketing Management

Addis Ababa University

School of Commerce

June, 2021
 Declaration
I, Zahra Abdulwahid, declare that, this thesis entitled “The Factors Affecting Particleboard Buyers’
Level of Satisfaction: The case of Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Share Company”, is the
outcome of my own effort and study under the guidance and suggestions of my Research Advisor.
The all source of materials used for the study have been acknowledged. This study has not been
submitted for any degree in this University and or any other Universities. It is offered for the
award of Master of Arts in Marketing Management.

By: Zahra Abdulwahid

Signature________________________

Date___________________________
 Statement of Certification

This Thesis work entitled to certify that, “Factors Affecting Particleboard Buyers’ Level of
Satisfaction, the case of Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Share Company” Submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of Masters of Marketing Management to
School of Commerce, Addis Ababa University, through the Department of Marketing Management
prepared by Zahra Abdulwahid is an original work completed by her under our guidance.

Research Advisor: Getie Andualem (PhD)

Signature:- _

Date: - 22/6/2021
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMERCE GRADUATE STUDIED MA
PROGRAM

FACTORS AFFECTING PARTICLEBOARD BUYERS’ LEVEL OF SATISFACTION: THE

CASE OF ECAFCO S.C

Prepared by: Zahra Abdulwahid

Approved by Board of Examiners

_____________________________ __________________

Chairman, Department Signature

Getie Andualem (PhD)

Advisor Signature

____________________________ ___________________
Internal Examiner Signature

____________________________ ___________________

External Examiner Signature

 Acknowledgment
Above all, I say many thanks for the Lord of Lord for the today success I have reached up on and
my supervisor to Dr. Getie Andualem who has contributing his thoughtfully guiding and valuable
assist with inside this research.

I would like to mention thanks for the Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Company’s s general
manager and marketing and sales department staff for the support they did in giving the
information which contributes for this study.

I would like to say thanks also for customers of the ECAFCO’s for giving fruitful data and ideas
related to this study. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to honorable families
and Friends for your support for the success of this research.

Zahra Abdulwahid
Table of Content

CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ...........................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Background of the Company ..................................................................................................................3
1.1.2 Overview of Particleboard Industry in Ethiopia .....................................................................................3
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..........................................................................................................................4
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION .......................................................................................................................................7
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................................7
1.5 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................................8
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...........................................................................................................................8
1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................................................8
1.8 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY ...............................................................................................................................9
1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS ......................................................................................................................................9
1.10 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................10

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................... 11

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................................................................ 11

2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................11

2.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................11
2.2.1 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .............................................................................................................................11
2.2.2 RELEVANT THEORIES RELATED TO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .....................................................................12
2.2.3 LEVEL OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .............................................................................................................19
2.2.4 THE IMPORTANCE OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ...........................................................................................19
2.2.5 FACTOR AFFECTING BUYER’S LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ................................................................................20
2.3 EMPIRICAL REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................25
2.3.1 PRODUCT QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................26
2.3.2 PRICE..............................................................................................................................................................26
2.3.3 COMPLAINT HANDLING ..................................................................................................................................27
2.3.4 INNOVATION ...................................................................................................................................................29
2.3.5 PRODUCT AVAILABILITY ................................................................................................................................29
2.3.6 SUPPLIER’S IMAGE AND REPUTATION.............................................................................................................30
2.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................................... 32

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 32

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................32

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................32
3.3 RESEARCH APPROACH....................................................................................................................................32
3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN .........................................................................................................................................33
3.5 POPULATION AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE ......................................................................................................33
3.6 DATA SOURCE AND TYPE ...............................................................................................................................35
3.7 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES...................................................................................................................35
3.8 DATA ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................................36
3.9 MODEL SPECIFICATION ...................................................................................................................................36
 3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ..............................................................................................................................38
3.11 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY...........................................................................................................................39
3.11.1 Validity ................................................................................................................................................. 39
3.11.2 Reliability .............................................................................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................................................. 42

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 42

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................42

4.2 RESPONDENTS RESPONSE RATE .....................................................................................................................42
4.3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS.....................................................................................................42
4.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC ON PURPOSE OF USE AND PARTICLEBOARD THICKNESS BUYER PURCHASED ..........43
4.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ...........................................................................44
4.5.1 Product Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 44
4.5.2 Particleboard Price ................................................................................................................................ 46
4.5.3 Complaint Handling .............................................................................................................................. 46
4.5.4 Innovation Practice ............................................................................................................................... 47
4.5.5 Product Availability .............................................................................................................................. 48
4.5.6 Supplier’s Image and Reputation .......................................................................................................... 49
4.5.7 Summary of Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................................ 50
4.6 CORRELATION ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................51
4.7 MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................53
4.7.1 Linear Regression Assumption Test ..................................................................................................... 53
4.7.2 Normality and Linearity ........................................................................................................................ 53
4.7.3 Multi-Collinearity ................................................................................................................................. 54
4.7.4 Homoscedasticity .................................................................................................................................. 55
4.8 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................55
4.9 HYPOTHESES TESTING ....................................................................................................................................59
4.10 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................60

CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 65

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMANDATIONS ................................................................................ 65

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................65

5.2 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDING .......................................................................................................................65
5.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................67
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................68
5.5 LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHER ............................................................................70

REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 71

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 79

APPENDIX I: SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION) ..................................................................................................................79

APPENDIX II: SURVEY (AMHARIC VERSION) ................................................................................................................84
APPENDIX III: ASSUMPTION TEST OF NORMALITY ......................................................................................................90
APPENDIX: IV MEAN SCORE RANGE AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................................................93
APPENDIX: V COMPANY’S (ECAFCO) BROCHURE .....................................................................................................94
 List of Table

TABLE 3.1: CRONBACH’S ALPHA DATA OF RELIABILITY ...........................................................................................41

TABLE 4.1: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ...............................................................................................43
TABLE 4.2: PURPOSE OF USE AND PARTICLEBOARD THICKNESS PURCHASED BY CUSTOMERS ..................................44
TABLE 4.3: PRODUCT/PARTICLEBOARD QUALITY .......................................................................................................45
TABLE 4.4: PRICE OF PARTICLEBOARD .......................................................................................................................46
TABLE 4.5: COMPLAINT HANDLING .............................................................................................................................47
TABLE 4.6: INNOVATION PRACTICE ............................................................................................................................48
TABLE 4.7: PRODUCT AVAILABILITY...........................................................................................................................49
TABLE 4.8: SUPPLIER’S IMAGE AND REPUTATION .......................................................................................................50
TABLE 4.9: SUMMERY OF MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION ...................................................................................51
TABLE 4.10: SUMMERY OF PEARSON’S CORRELATION ...............................................................................................52
TABLE 4.11: NORMALITY TEST (SKEWNESS AND KURTOSIS)......................................................................................54
TABLE 4.12: MULTI-COLLINEARITY ............................................................................................................................55
TABLE 4.13: MODEL SUMMERY...................................................................................................................................56
TABLE 4.14: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA).......................................................................................................56
TABLE 4.15: COEFFICIENTS .........................................................................................................................................57
TABLE 4.16: SUMMERY OF HYPOTHESES RESULT .......................................................................................................60
TABLE 4:17 SCORING RANGE OF LIKER SCALE ...........................................................................................................93
List of Figure
FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (DEVELOPED FROM LITERATURE REVIEW). ........................................................................31
FIGURE-2 HISTOGRAM .................................................................................................................................................90
FIGURE-3 P-P PLOT .........................................................................................................................................................91
FIGURE-4 SCATTER PLOT ............................................................................................................................................92
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ECAFCO: Ethiopia Chip wood and Furniture Company
EDP: Expectancy Disconfirmation Model
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Science
IV’s: Independent Variables
DV: Dependent Variable
 Abstract

Determining the factors that affect buyer satisfaction is the most vital for profit making entities
to reinforce customer satisfaction and sustain business profitably. The principal objective of
this study was to investigate the core factors that affect particleboard buyers’ level of
satisfaction in Ethiopia Chip wood and Furniture Share Company (ECAFCO S. C). To achieve
these, a quantitative research approach is employed using a structured questionnaire. Data was
collected from 355 respondents selected using a nonrandom convenience sampling technique.
The collected data was analyzed, interpreted, discussed and presented using descriptive,
correlation and multiple-linear regression analyses.

The descriptive analysis results revealed that Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Company
customers are dissatisfied. They’re dissatisfied with product quality, complaint handling,
innovation and product availability and indifferent to the supplier’s image and reputation and
particleboard price of the company. The correlation result showed that there’s a positive and
significant association between the six independent variables and buyer satisfaction. On the
other hand, the results of multiple regression analysis revealed that the independent variables
(product quality, price, innovation, product availability, compliant handling and supplier’s
image and reputation) have a positive and significant influence on buyer satisfaction.
Product/particleboard quality and innovation have a highly significant influence on explaining
buyer satisfaction as compared to other independent variables. And 72.5% of the response
variable (buyer satisfaction) is elucidated by these six independent variables.

Based on the study results, the researcher recommends that Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture
Company should be concerned about those influencing factors, especially product quality and
innovation to satisfy unsatisfied existing particleboard buyers as well as to attract a potential
buyer. So, ECAFCO must establish sophisticated particleboard production technology, and
provide improved and various latest particleboard to sustain in the market.

Keywords: Buyer/customer satisfaction, particleboard, influencing factors, ECAFCO

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study

Particleboard is a new form of engineered wood product that’s made from gluing collectively
sawdust, wooden chips, sawmill and synthetic resin (Komah, 2018). Particleboard invented in
1887 (Gene W, 2020). It referred to as low density fiberboard or chipboard (LDF) (McCoy
Mart, 2020). Kronospan (2021) explained that the main customers for particleboard are the
fixtures production and refurbishment/construction sectors. Particleboard is best for inner
components, additionally can be coated with an ornamental floor for application kitchen,
bathroom, bedroom, and workplace furnishings and shelving (Kronospan, 2021). Also, Gebi
(2015) cited in his study, as chip wood is used for ceiling, roofing & partition of interior house,
and used as raw material in making fixtures.

McCoy Mart (2020) explained that there are various type of engineered wood products used to
make fixtures and other wooden items for interior and external usage such as single layer
particleboard, three-layer particleboard, graded-density particleboard, melamine particleboard,
cement bounded particleboard, veneered particleboard, and laminate sheet. But, it used for
various internal applications, depending on the grading of the particleboard (Wood Solutions,
2020). Million Insights (2018) explained that particleboard market is segmented based on raw
materials such as Flakes, shaving, chip, and sawdust; end-users like infrastructures,
constructions, furniture, and others that might be explored in the future. The market demand for
glued-wood composite products, which includes particleboard, medium-density fiberboard and
plywood, has currently augmented dramatically all through the world, in particular for housing
creation and fixtures production (YiZheng et al., 2006).

The main objective of this study is to find out factors affecting particleboard buyers’ level of
satisfaction. A buyer’s satisfaction is a characteristic of the product’s perceived overall
performance and the buyer’s expectancies (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The client is dissatisfied, if
the product’s performance below expectancies. If overall performance equals expectancies, the
client is relieved. If overall performance exceeds expectancies, the client is exceedingly relieved
or delighted (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012). High satisfaction directs to undue customer loyalty,
companies have to make sure that they meet and exceed customer expectancies (Kotler and

1
Keller, 2012). Losing worthwhile clients can dramatically effect on a corporation’s profits
(Kotler and Keller, 2012). Even extra since the value of attracting a new buyer is estimated to be
five instance the value of maintaining a present day buyer happy (Kotler and Keller, 2012).
Also, Solomon et al. (2006) stated in this form customer dissatisfaction is commonly because of
expectancies exceeding the company’s capacity to deliver. When faced with unrealistic
expectancies concerning what it could do, the corporation can both accommodate those needs
with the aid of using enhancing the variety or high-satisfactory of products it offers, modify the
expectancies, or possibly even select to desert the customer if it isn't always viable to meet his
or her needs (Solomon et al., 2006).

Customer satisfaction totally shaped by overall quality, price, and expectations (Andrson,
Fornell, Lehmann, 1994). Management study Guide Team (2020) also explained that supplier
behavior such as customer response, compliant control etc and overall performance of product
and offering that are the capability of supplier-how to nurture the goods and offerings efficiently
and how skilled employees are affect customer satisfaction. Image and reputation of company is
also one of the factors that affect customer satisfaction. For example, Martensen et al. (2000)
cited in Mekonnen (2019) indicate that image expected to have a positive relationship and an
essential element in the customer satisfaction towards the customer expectations, and
satisfaction and loyalty of customers to the business enterprise. Jonathan (2005) stated that
companies that fail to cope with growing dissatisfaction among their customer base risk their
long-term health. So, Rahman, H. et al. (2014) found that finer responsiveness to customer
results to finer customer satisfaction since company success is related to responsiveness to
customer.

Generally, according to marketing theory, to be successful, a company has to provide greater

customer value and satisfaction than its competitors do (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012). Satisfied
clients purchase once more and inform others more or less their precise experiences.
Dissatisfied buyers frequently shift to rivals and disparage the product to others (Kotler and
Armstrong, 2012). Therefore, in order to maintain competitive advantage over the competitors
and brand reputability and generate sustainable substantial profit, company must listen and
response to customers’ need and wants, for example, continuously improving offering. So, to do
this, monitoring and finding out factors that affecting buyer’s level of satisfaction on regular is
must. For example, Kotler and Keller (2012) stated that many business entities are
systematically measuring how properly they deal with clients, figuring out the elements shaping

2
satisfaction, and converting operations and business orientation as a result. Wise companies
degree customer satisfaction regularly, due to the fact its far one key to customer retention
(Kotler and Keller, 2012). Kotler and Keller (2012) also stated that companies need to monitor
their competitors’ performance too, their customer loss rate and to touch the one who’ve
stopped shopping for or who’ve switched to any other provider to discover why. Totally, the
importance of monitoring/measuring factors affecting buyer’s level of satisfaction is
unquestioned to successfully run business. Thus, this thesis tried to find out factors affecting
particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction, the case of Ethiopian Chipwood and Furniture
Company based on primary and secondary data.

1.1.1 Background of the Company

Ethiopian Chipwood and Furniture Company (ECAFCO) located in Addis Ababa Nefas Selk
Lafto Sub-City, established in 1957 E.C. and started the production of Chipwood a year later
ECAFCO not only offers Chipwood product but also involved in construction, furniture and
services sectors. The company offering prefabricated house and conventional building,
construction materials such as Chipwood, stayropore block office and household furniture etc.
ECAFCO particleboard crafted from wood (eucalyptus tree) and 8mm, 10mm, 13mm, 16mm
and 19mm thickness supplied to the market (ECAFCO n.d; Gebi 2015). It was privatized in
2008 G.C. (Gebi, 2015). The company serves local market.

1.1.2 Overview of Particleboard Industry in Ethiopia

The history of wood industry in Ethiopia back to ETHARSO (Ethiopian Hardboard and Soft
board Factory), that was established by private Italian interests; at first as a general wood-
working shop and parquetry plant (UNIDO, 1990). The fiberboard plant was added in 1969. But
in 1974 the fiberboard plant was nationalized while wood working and parquetry plants remain
in the private ownership (UNIDO, 1990).

Ethiopia is one of the first countries to have introduced particleboard manufacture in developing
Africa (UNIDO, 1990). The particleboard of Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Company
(ECAFCO) was established 1957 and converted to state enterprise during Deng regime
(UNIDO, 1990). Particleboard output amounted to 6,157 m3 in the operating year 1988-89. Of
that, 65% of particleboard supply was absorbed by the building construction sector and the
company supply met 39% of the demand only (UNIDO, 1990). During this time, a

3
further problem in the utilization of particleboard in the furniture industry was its low quality,
which is reflected in the high rejected rate of particleboard inputs and the difficulty in
controlling the quality of finished products (UNIDO, 1990).

In generally in Ethiopia, wood processing industry has more than a hundred-year history and
production experience, but it is not as mature and advanced as its age (Chemical and
Construction Input Industry Development Institute, n.d). Even if, there is an increment in
number of establishment and number of worker employed in the sector, still it is trivial
compared to the prospective of the sector for the development and the capability to minimize
unemployment rate (Chemical and Construction Input Industry Development Institute, n.d).

1.2 Statement of the problem

For companies that are attentively oriented toward solving customer needs and wants
(consumer- targeted), maintaining customer satisfaction is each an intention and philosophical
instrument (Kotler and Keller, 2012). So, to attain a goal, in this dynamic and competitive
world, company should produce and delivering superior and competitive quality product which
fulfill and satisfy buyers’ needs and expectation interims of quantity and quality with fair price
than rivalry. Kotler and Keller (2012) stated that a highly satisfied customer commonly remains
unswerving longer, buys extra while the company introduces new and upgraded products, talks
favorably to others about the company and its products, will pay less interest to competing
manufacturers and is much less touchy to charge, give products or services thought to the
enterprise, and expenses much less to serve than new clients due to the fact transactions can end
up routine.

Anwar and Christan (2016) concluded in their study product quality, price quality and service
quality and marketplace are among factors that can torment customer satisfaction. Jahanshahi et
al. (2011); Jahanshahi et al. (2011); Senthilkumar (2012); Suhendar and Ruswanti (2019) also
found that the quality of product can effect on buyer satisfaction. Again, Ismail, Nazief and
Boge (2016) indicated that quality of product and price of product has a very good extent of
generality to enhance consumer satisfaction. But, Rahman (2014a); and Rahman, H. et al.
(2014) found that as price and quality of the offering has an insignificant impact on getting the
customers satisfied. With respect to quality, Andrson, Fornell & Lehmann,(1994) found that just
as current quality is expected to have a positive influence to determine overall customer
satisfaction, so should all past experiences with quality, as captured by expectations. With

4
regard to supplier’s reputation, Zhao and Smith (2006) indicated that supplier reputation
become extensively associated with customer monetary satisfaction, to customer social
satisfaction, and to customer trust. Complaint handling is another influencing variable assessed
in this study. By encouraging complaints whilst they are justified and by actively handling
customer problems, the company can preserve valued customers (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010).
On the other hand, Naveed et al. (2012) indicated that innovation influence customer
satisfaction in each organization due to the fact that organization brings revolutionary
adjustments in its goods to get customer satisfied and meet their needs. Innovation categorized
as New-to-the-world products (invention that create a whole new market) and New-to-the-firm
products (products that take the firm in a new direction) (Garcia, 2014). Product availability is
defined as the probability of a product being available in saleable circumstance while a
customer comes to seek it on a store shelf (Moussaoui et al. 2016 cited in Drilon and Gabriel
2017). Andrew (2010) stated in such way that business have not only to make products that
customer wants but also to make affordable to a sufficient number (enough quantity) to create
profitable demand.

Except one study by Rediat and Genet (2019) that assessed the effect of marketing mix on
customer satisfaction in Hawassa Chipwood Factory, research on factors affecting particleboard
buyers’ level of satisfaction almost null per researcher in Ethiopia. However, a lot of research
undertaken on factors affecting customer satisfaction and found out various factors though their
organization characteristics, situation, purpose, approach, time, and etc. were different. For
example, Azeb (2010) assessed factors affecting internet customer satisfaction; Yimer (2014);
Berhanu (2016); Fikirte (2016) and Azeb (2020) assessed customer satisfaction influencing
factors in banking industry, Getachew (2018) investigate factors affecting customer satisfaction
of customer services of bonded warehouse operation in Addis Ababa, Fasika (2018) assessed
factors affecting satisfaction of motor insurance customer, Mihret (2019) investigate factors
affecting customer satisfaction on tap water services delivery in Addis Ababa water and
sewerage authority, and Yodit (2019) assessed factors affecting customer satisfaction on
application based tax services in Addis Ababa. We can’t generalize the above study finding for
this research due to scope (concept, methodology, geographic, organization, target population
and so forth) variation. So, it needs to examine factors affecting buyers’ level of satisfaction as
per the industry.

5
Overall, choosing accurate factors affecting buyers’ level of satisfaction is difficult, because
satisfaction affected both controllable factors and uncontrollable forces. Need in no way
complete satisfied; satisfaction is only temporary (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010).

In Ethiopia, the demand for Chipwood is met both from import and domestic production. Abebe
W. (2019) stated that in Ethiopia market context there is a high discrepancy between demand
and supply of forest product due to population and economic growth. According to Abebe on
the average Ethiopia imported 65,610 meter cubes of various industrial wood products from
year 2007-2017 of that 6554 meter cube is particleboard. Musa (2018) explained that for
different purposes, Ethiopia is still importing particleboard from Saudi Arabia, China, Russia,
Dubai, among others. The imported particleboard comprises different Chipwood, Medium
Density Fiberboard (MDF), Timber that meet tensile strength and quality standard (Musa, M.
2018). Dagne Abetie (2018) also explained in his study as the existing companies are not fully
meeting the demand of the country due to this particleboard are importing from abroad.
Likewise, Rediate A. & Genet G.Tirfe (2019) found that the demand of the Chipwood market
still is not satisfied. For instance, in survey analysis with respect to Ethiopian Manufacturing
Sectors, Addis Ababa Chambers of Commerce and Sectoral Association (AACCA) (2014)
proved that about 86% of manufactures underutilized their capacity due to low working capital
and high cost of credit, breakdown of power and shortage of imported inputs from foreign
markets. Addis Ababa Chambers of Commerce and Sectoral Association also identified as
production cost of the domestic products were high, which might increase the selling price of
products. So, even if the side effect of these barriers might directly affect the suppliers’ capacity
to satisfy the markets, indirectly might dissatisfy buyers. With respect to company under study,
Gebi (2015) explained in his study as ECAFCO machinery/production tool was outdated and
declined in production capacity. According to UNIDO (1990) also 65% of ECAFCO
particleboard supply purchased by the building construction sectors and mentioned that as
company’s particleboard further problem in utilization in the furniture industry due to its low
quality. Hence, the particleboard buyers could not satisfy with existing local suppliers in one or
other things specially with ECAFCO, as may be inefficiencies of supplier to supply adequate
product, and or unable to provides various improved quality particleboard using sophisticated
production technology and high pricing etc.

In sum up, the country’s huge infrastructure expansion and urban centers’ remarkable building
construction activities provided an opportunity for rapid increase in demand for construction

6
materials (Gebi Sh., 2015). However, with growing construction development and furniture
product market demand in the Ethiopia, the current wood industry in general, and ECAFCO
specifically short in satisfying the market both interims of quantity and quality as mentioned
above, and therefore all wood industry operating in Ethiopia should recognize the need for
creating and delivering quality product that satisfies and meets the market demand at fair price.

Therefore, it is significant to analyses the factors that affect particleboard buyers’ level of
satisfaction, because the product is an important input in supporting construction and furniture
industries of Ethiopia. On the other hand, in spite of its relevance, the study also significant
since it’s the first study carry out on factors affecting particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction
in Ethiopia so far, though a considerable number of research undertaken on customer
satisfaction as discussed above. At first hand, this research examined factors affecting
particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction in the case of Ethiopia Chip wood and Furniture
Company (ECAFCO).

1.3 Research question

Depending on the research problem raised in this study, the researchers develop the following
research questions:
❖ To what extent does ECAFCO’s product quality affect buyers’ level of satisfaction?
❖ To what extent does ECAFCO’s particleboard pricing affect buyers’ level of
satisfaction?
❖ How does complain handling in ECAFCO affect buyers’ level of satisfaction?
❖ How does ECAFCO’s innovation affect buyer’ level of satisfaction?
❖ To what extent does product availability in ECAFCO affect buyers’ level of
satisfaction?
❖ How does the company’s image and reputation affect buyers’ level of satisfaction?

1.4 Research objective

While the main objective of the study is to find out the core factors affecting particleboard
buyers’ level of satisfaction, the specific objective are the following:
❖ To analyses the effect of product quality on buyers’ level of satisfaction;
❖ To examine the effect of price on buyers’ level of satisfaction ;
❖ To examine the effect of complaint handling on buyers’ level of satisfaction;

7
 ❖ To determine the effect of innovation on buyers’ level of satisfaction;
❖ To analyses the effect of product availability on buyers’ level of satisfaction and
❖ To determine the effect of company image and reputation on buyers’ level of
satisfaction.

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study

H1: Product quality affects buyers’ level of satisfaction;
H2: Price affects buyers’ level of satisfaction;
H3: Compliant handling affects buyers’ level of satisfaction;
H4: Innovation affects buyers’ level of satisfaction;
H5: Product availability affects buyers’ level of satisfaction;
H6: Supplier’s image and reputation affects buyers’ level of satisfaction;

1.6 Significance of the study

The study analyzed the key factors that affect particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction and also
interpreted the impact it has on the company over all competitiveness in satisfying and
generating return. The significance of studying buyers’ level of satisfaction indisputable, Abkari
and Radmand (2016) explained in their study 66% of unsuccessful organizations, failed since
they did not consider their customer satisfaction as a priority. So, the study is significant for the
company under study in this way:
• It reflects the company position relative to rivalry;
• It identifies potential market opportunities;
• It indicates improvement that the company must take action on to satisfy its customers
and identifies buyer expectation, needs and desires; etc.
The findings of the study hopefully provide a holistic picture of existing factors that affect
buyers’ level of satisfaction. The information that generated shall benefit the organization under
study and others like competitors, industry analysis and individuals who would like to engage in
this investment.

1.7 Scope of the study

The scope of this study focused on factors affecting particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction
specific to the Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Share Company. Additionally, the study
methodologically delimited to quantitative and survey questionnaires while geographically to

8
Addis Ababa city, customer of ECAFCO. With respect to conceptual issue, the independent
variables such as product quality, price, compliant handling, innovation, product availability
and supplier’s image and reputation whereas buyer satisfaction as dependent variable studied in
this study.

1.8 Limitation of the study

Though the researcher provides questionnaires with language participant understand, there
might be a response bias since the data collection instrument was a self-administered
questionnaire. The second limitation would be sampling biases, since the sampling design is
non-probability convenience sampling. The reason behind why researcher selects this sampling
is because of lack of customers list and so this makes difficult to select the sample frame
randomly and collect the data accordingly, and moreover not easy to find the customers of the
company that is found in different part of Addis Ababa sub city and as well it would be
economically expensive and time-consuming. But to minimize biases that might be generated
due to sampling, the researcher use large sample, control and assess the representative of the
survey sample. Also, the researcher distributes questionnaires to where large number
of ECAFCO customers found and do not make judgments about who should be asked to
participate in the study. Lastly, the generalizability of the finding and the conclusion drawn
from the study also limited to ECAFCO since the study specific to this company.

1.9 Definition of terms

Buyer/customer: Customer is an individuals and businesses that purchased goods and services
from another business (Khartit K., 2021).

Buyer satisfaction/ Customer satisfaction: the two are defined similarly. A buyer’s
satisfaction is a function of the product’s perceived performance and the buyer’s expectations
(Kotler and Keller, 2012). Or customer satisfaction it is the extent to which a product’s
perceived performance matches a buyer’s expectations (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012).

Particleboard-is a new type of engineered wood product which is manufactured from gluing
together sawdust, wood chips, sawmill and synthetic resin (Komah 2018).

9
Particleboard/Chipwood/Chipboard-the term is synonymy and used interchangeable
(ECAFCO n.d; Komah 2018; Wood Solutions 2020).

1.10 Organization of the study

The study was organized in five chapters. The first chapter includes background of study,
statement of the problem, research question, research objective, and significance of the study,
scope of the study, limitation of the study and definition of terms. The second discusses the
research methodology, research approach, research design, population and sampling and data
analysis technique. The third chapter discusses the review of related literature from both
theoretical and empirical data. The fourth chapter described the results and discussion while the
fifth chapter deals with summery of findings, conclusion and recommendations of the study.

10
 CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the review of related literature in the area of factors affecting Particleboard
buyers’ level of satisfaction presented. Theoretical and empirical reviews are reviewed. Finally,
the chapters also present the conceptual framework of the study.

2.2 Theoretical Review

2.2.1 Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the degree to which a product’s perceived performance suits a buyer’s
expectations (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012). And or a buyer’s satisfaction is a function of the
product’s perceived overall performance and the buyer’s expectations (Kotler and Keller, 2012).
Similarly, Solomon et al. (2006) also defined as consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is
determined generally by attitude/feeling someone has regarding a product after it’s been
purchased. Consumers have interaction in consistent manner comparing the materials they
purchase as they combine those goods into their day by day intake activities (Solomon et al.,
2006).

How do customers shape their expectancies? Expectations end result from past shopping
experience, friends’ and associates’ recommendation and marketers’ and competitors’
information and promises (Kotler and Keller, 2012). As well as, another authors Andrson,
Fornell & Lehmann (1994) also stated that expectations accrued facts about quality from
advertising, word of mouth, and popular media which is comprise information based on not
actual consumption experience. When something performs the way we thought it would, we
may not think much about it. If, on the other hand, it fails to live up to expectations, negative
affect may result. Furthermore, if performance happens to exceed our expectations, we are
satisfied and pleased (Solomon et al, 2006). According to Solomon et al. (2006) customer
dissatisfaction is usually due to expectations exceeding the company’s ability to deliver. When
confronted with unrealistic expectations about what it can do, the firm can either accommodate
these demands by improving the range or quality of products it offers, alter the expectations, or
perhaps even choose to abandon the customer if it is not feasible to meet his or her needs
(Solomon et al, 2006).

11
 2.2.2 Relevant Theories Related To Customer Satisfaction

Satisfaction is each a subjective feeling and an objective evaluation that a decision has fulfilled
a need or goal (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). Dissatisfaction happens while consumers have poor
emotions and trust that their dreams or wishes have now no longer been fulfilled (Hoyer and
MacInnis, 2010).

In order to explaining customer satisfaction different theories have been conceptualization based
on various standards are the Dissonance Theory, the Contrast Theory, the Expectancy
Disconfirmation Paradigm (EDP), The Comparison Level Theory, The Value–Precept Theory,
the Attributes Theory, The Equity theory, The Evaluation Congruity Theory, The Performance-
Importance Model and the Person-Situation-Fit Model. And the majorities of these theories
suggest that customer satisfaction is a relative concept and judged in relation to a standard
(Atila and Fisun, 2008). Except two models, which are more relevant for services industry that
is Importance-Performance Model and the Person-Situation-Fit Model, the following theories
including Kano model are reviewed in this study.

The Dissonance Theory: - Suggests that someone who anticipated a high-value product and
obtained a low-value product could apprehend the disparity and experience in a cognitive
dissonance (Atila and Fisun 2008 cited Cardozzo 1965). This concept holds that ‘post
experience evaluation are generally a function of the expectancy degree since the task of
identifying disconfirmation is assumed to be psychologically sore, Thus customers are posited
to perceptually distort expectation-discrepant overall performance so as to concur with their
previous expectation degree’ (Atila and Fisun 2008 cited Oliver, 1977). According to this
model, to acquire a greater product evaluation, business firms need to try to lift up expectancies
significantly beyond the product overall performance (Atila and Fisun 2008 cited Yi, 1990). But
this Theory fails to take in to account the concept of ‘tolerance level’ (Atila and Fisun, 2008).
Overall, the Dissonance Theory unsuccessful as a complete rationalization of consumer
satisfaction, however, it contributes to the understanding of the fact that expectations aren’t
static in that they could alternate all through a consumption experience (Atila and Fisun, 2008).

The Contrast Theory:-The Contrast ideas should count on that ‘ends result deviating from
expectancies will motive the scenario to favorably or unfavorably respond to the
disconfirmation experience in that a negative disconfirmation is assumed to result bring about a
deficient product assessment, whereas positive disconfirmation have to cause the product to be

12
very much appraised’ (Atila and Fisun, 2008 cited Oliver 1977). Atila and Fisun (2008) cited Yi
(1990) stated that customer intensify the difference, if real product performance less than the
customer’s expectations. If the Contrast Theory had been implemented to a consumption
context, then the deficient overall performance could be worse than minimally deficient, and
desirable overall performance would be higher than a score of desirable could propose (Atila
and Fisun, 2008 cited Oliver 1997). But, under the dissonance concept, the opposite effects
occur, perceived overall performance, whether it is less or more favorable than the consumer's
expectations, is attracted to the original expectation level (Atila and Fisun, 2008).

Expectancy Disconfirmation Paradigm (EDP):-According to this model consumers purchase

goods and services with pre-buy expectations about the predicted performance (Atila and Fisun,
2008). They stated that the expectancy degree then becomes a standard against which the
product is judged. That is, as soon as the service or product has been used, consequences are in
comparison towards expectancies. According the authors, if the final results suit expectancy
affirmation happens while disconfirmation happens wherein there may be a distinction among
expectancies and consequences. A customer is either satisfied or dissatisfied due to positive or
negative distinction among expectancies and perceptions (Atila and Fisun, 2008). Similarly,
Solomon et al. (2006) also stated that satisfaction, then, is incredibly encouraged by prior
expectations concerning all aspects of quality. According to the expectancy disconfirmation
model, the perspective that consumers shape beliefs about product performance based on
previous experience with the product and/or communications about the product that imply a
certain level of quality; their actual satisfaction relies on the degree to which performance is
consistent with these expectations (Solomon et al ,2006)

The Comparison Level Theory: -This Concept agree that there are more than one essential
determinants of comparison level for a product: (1) clients previous consumption practice with
comparable products, (2) situationally produced expectancies (the one created via different
marketing promotional efforts), and (3) the consumption familiarity of different patrons who
function as referent persons (Atila and Fisun, 2008).The situationally brought expectancies had
little impact on the user satisfaction extent though expectancies depend on earlier knowledge
had been the main determinant of buyer satisfaction. Consumers can also give much less
outlook about piece of information disseminated by producers, once they have knowledge about
offers and accurate data from other user of the product/offer too (Atila and Fisun 2008 cited Yi,
1990). Thus, the use of past experience suggested by the Comparison Level Theory as the

13
comparison standard in customer satisfaction evaluations can also additionally serve managers
to evaluate their performance with their rivals, and adopt required actions to catch-up or for
product differentiation (Atila and Fisun, 2008).

The Value Percept Theory: –According to this Theory satisfaction is an emotional reaction
this is induced with the aid of using a cognitive evaluative technique wherein the perceptions of
goods and services are in comparison to one's values, needs, wishes or desires (Atila and Fisun,
2008 cited Westbrook & Reilly, 1983). The value-disparity described as the degree to which the
product offers functions and overall performance attributes required or desired. The disparity
became assessed on only on distinct differential scale anchored with ‘offers some distance much
less than my needs’ and ‘offers precisely what I need’ (Atila and Fisun, 2008).

The Attribution Theory: -Is about causality and blame (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010).
According to this concept if offering doesn’t longer satisfy customers’ needs, customers’ may
try locate justification depending on three factors (Focus, stability and controllability) (Hoyer
and MacInnis, 2010). This theory assumes that customers generally tend to search for reasons
for product successes or screw ups and generally characteristic those successes or screw ups the
use of a 3 dimensional schema (Atila and Fisun 2008 referred to Folkes, 1989; Oliver &
DeSarbo, 1988; Pearce & Moscardo, 1984; Weiner et al 197; Hoyer and MacInnis 2010):
• Locus of Causality (internal or external) know as focus: this happened when the
acquisition final results, for example, made the buyer displeased and may be attributed
to internal or external situation. The situation become internal when buyer blame
themselves and or external when buyer blame the marketer or the firm.
• Stability (stable/everlasting or volatile/temporary): Stable reasons are consideration not
to differ over time, while unstable reasons are consideration to oscillate and range over
time.
• Controllability (volitional/ controllable or non volitional/uncontrollable): Both
customers and companies can either has managed an effect or unable to controllable
constraints.

Customers are much more likely to be disappointed if the root is seemed to be lasting, marketer
related, and not under the client’s control (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). Attribution concept can
offer marketers with guidance in how to deal with current or potential perceptions of customer
dissatisfaction. If the cause of the dissatisfaction absolutely is permanent, marketer related, and

14
under the marketer’s control, something ought to be done to correct the problem or give the
customer with restitution (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010).Atila and Fisun (2008) cited Folkes
(1984) demonstrate that the locus of causality dominates satisfaction judgments and satisfaction
is related greater with internal than with external factors. The attribution theory further appears
to be more beneficial to use in ascertaining customer dissatisfaction and complaining behavior
(Atila and Fisun, 2006).

The Equity Theory: -According this Theory, satisfaction exists while purchasers understand
their output/input ratio as being fair (Atila and Fisun 2008 cited Swan & Oliver, 1989).
Whether a customer feels equitably indulgenced or not may depend up on different factors
together with the fee paid, the advantages received, and the effort and time expended for the
duration of the transaction and the experience of preceding transactions (Atila and Fisun 2008
cited Woodruff et al 1983). This indicated that comparative baseline may take a lot of various
forms (Atila and Fisun 2008). Another Authors Hoyer and MacInnis (2010) stated that the hub
of equity concept regarding fairness of exchanges between people and their belief of these
exchanges, which helps in understanding consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Fairness in
the exchange the belief that people‘s inputs are equivalent to their outputs in an exchange
(Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). This concept has likeness with the Comparison Level concept
which thinks that bases of comparison utilized by buyers in satisfaction judgments can be
greater just expectancies (Atila and Fisun, 2008). This concept is different from other concepts,
in that satisfaction is evaluated relative to other parties (people) in an exchange and the
outcomes of all parties sharing the same experience are taken into consideration (Atila and
Fisun, 2008). According to this model, satisfaction is visible as a relative judgment that takes
into account both the qualities and benefits acquired through a purchase in addition to the cost
and efforts borne by a customer to obtain that purchase (Atila and Fisun 2008). Atila and Fisun
cited Fisk and Coney (1982), for instance, determined that customers were much less pleased
and had a less optimistic attitude toward an organization once they heard that other clients
obtained relatively a better price deal and better offering than them. And or mean their
perceptions of equitable cure by the organization translated into satisfaction judgments and even
affected destiny expectancies and buy intentions.

Hoyer and MacInnis, (2010) also stated that as long as buyer recognize that their inputs and
outputs are equitable with regards to the ones of the seller, they will be satisfied. This response
is accurate in terms of the goods and services itself as well as in terms of interactions with

15
employees while shaping a complaint (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). In other words, customers
who recognize that they've been handled fairly in the complaint process can be greater satisfied,
much more likely to shop for again, and much more likely to unfold positive word of mouth
(Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). However, if an inequity exists, customers will be disappointed
(Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). So they stated that Marketers need to work towards providing fair
exchanges, despite the fact that customer’ perceptions of fairness have a tendency to be biased
toward themselves.

One area in which marketers can directly have an effect on fairness perceptions is the
salesperson-customer interaction (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). The authors stated that
salespeople need to make every effort to ensure that their inputs fit customer inputs by listening
to consumer needs, answering questions, and seeking to offer an awesome deal. Promotions can
also augment perceptions of equity in an exchange (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). They stated
that giving a lower price or a free gift with purchase can make customers experience that they
are getting greater out of the exchange. In addition, companies need to make certain that outputs
are high-satisfactory by providing a quality product at a fair price, as target’s loyal customers
are pleased by the store’s value-priced designer house wares (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010).

The Evaluative Congruity Theory-Is cognitive corresponding procedure wherein a belief is in

comparison to evoked referent cognition to be able to assess an action or stimulus, so, according
to this concept satisfaction is a function of evaluative congruity. The end result of this cognitive
procedure is believed to create an emotional or motivational state. Customer satisfaction/
dissatisfaction are considered as an emotional state because it prompts the customer to assess
alternative course of action to decrease a current dissatisfaction state and /or reap a future
satisfaction state (Atila and Fisun, 2008 cited Sirgy, 1984). This model argues that there are
three congruity states; negative incongruity, congruity, and positive incongruity (Atila and
Fisun, 2008).

Negative incongruity is analogous to the confirmation/disconfirmation theory as a cognitive

state that outcomes from a negative discrepancy between the valence levels of a perception and
an evoked referent cognition, which makes dissatisfaction On the other hand, Congruity is a
cognitive state that results in a non-significant or negligible discrepancy among a belief and an
evoked referent cognition, which ends up in an impartial assessment state or a satisfaction state.
The third state called positive incongruity-state results from a positive discrepancy between a

16
perception and an evoked referent cognition, which generates satisfaction (Atila and Fisun,
2008).Unlike the EDP, this model views the customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction as a function
of one or more congruities between perceptual and evoked referent states and states that the
occurrence of multiple comparison processes could explain consumer satisfaction better (Atila
and Fisun, 2008).

The original Evaluative Congruity concept more explicitly, supposed that satisfaction can be
explained by one or more cognitive congruities, including among (1) new product performance
after utilization and anticipated product performance earlier than use, (2) new product
performance after use and old product performance earlier than use, (3) expected product
performance after purchase and ideal product performance before purchase, (4) expected
product performance after purchase and deserved product performance after use. Such
discrepancies are argued to independently impact customer’s overall satisfaction with a given
product (Atila and Fisun, 2008 cited Sirgy, 1984).

The key significant points of the Evaluative Congruity model appears to be its top potential in
determining the distinct states of satisfaction/dissatisfaction generating from distinct
combinations of expectations and performance outcome better than the EDP (Atila and Fisun,
2008 cited Chon 1992; Chon, Christianson Cin-Lin, 1998). According to the Evaluative
Congruity Theory, distinct expectation-overall performance combinations would possibly lead
to different satisfaction states (Atila and Fisun cited Chon & Olsen, 1991; Chon, 1992; Chon et
al 1998; Sirgy, 1994). Furthermore, Sirgy more proposed that product images must be
categorized as being functional (i.e. physical benefits related to the product) and symbolic (i.e.,
self image) and disputes that buyer satisfaction/dissatisfaction isn't most effective an evaluative
function of the customer’s expectancies and overall performance, however it's also an
evaluative function of the customer’s self image and product image congruity (Atila and Fisun,
2008). The functional congruity explained customer satisfaction better than symbolic congruity
(Atila and Fisun, 2008 cited Chon and Olsen, 1991).

It is critical to observe that even though Evaluative Congruity Theory has been presented as an
option approach to give an explanation for satisfaction practice, its methodological mechanism
is similar to that of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm (Atila and Fisun, 2008 cited Oh
& Parks, 1997). That is, both the Evaluative Congruity and Expectation-Disconfirmation
models are based on the disconfirmation concept which presupposes that customers shape

17
expectancies about the product previous to buy and evaluate those expectancies towards
perceived overall performance after the product is used. Both models, however, might not be
appropriate to use in consumption conditions in which customers do not have prior expectations
such as with unfamiliar products (Atila and Fisun, 2008).

Overall, Atila and Fisun (2008) indicated that there is widespread agreement among these
satisfaction theories as satisfaction is an evaluative judgment, which ends up from a contrast of
product overall performance to some types of evaluation criterion. The majority of those
concepts, for example, the Expectancy Disconfirmation Paradigm, the Comparison Level
Theory, and the Evaluative Congruity Theory agree that product overall performance greater
than previous expectancies or some type of requirements indicates satisfaction, while
dissatisfaction is the final results whilst product overall performance falls short/below of that
standard and or criterion(Atila and Fisun, 2008). Thus, majority of the satisfaction theories
embraces the disparity concept between the actual outcome and the expected (Atila and Fisun,
2008). So, according to authors this is the core most satisfaction model. While numerous
contrast requirements had been proposed withinside literature, no agreement exists regarding
which standard might be the most appropriate (which standard best predicts customer
satisfaction) (Atila and Fisun, 2008).

Kano Model:-One approach to customer satisfaction, known as the Kano-model, operates with
three types of expectation: basis, performance and enthusiasm expectations. The first consists
of the implicit and taken-for-granted qualities expected from a product. If these aren't satisfied,
the product by no means is capable of stay as much as the customer’s requirements, however
even though fulfilled, they don’t profile the product due to the fact these qualities are taken as a
right as a minimum. For the performance expectations satisfaction is comparatively to how
well the product lives up to the expectations. Such quality requirements are regularly specified
and articulated by the customer. As for enthusiasm-related product features, it is inaccurate to
name them expectations since their essential character is that they aren’t expected by the
customer. Therefore, such positive surprises can result in a totally wonderful feeling of
satisfaction, for the reason that product quality becomes even higher than expected. Moreover,
studies proof shows that product experience is vital for customer satisfaction. When customers
don’t have experiences they are relatively simple to satisfy, however with increasing
experience they become more difficult to satisfy. Subsequently, once they attain a positive
degree of familiarity with offering, satisfaction once more will becomes less complicated to

18
obtain, for the reason that customers are now specialist and this allows preference and
generates extra realistic expectations. Additionally, satisfaction degrees are explained not only
by the product bought however also by the expectations about the quality of another product
that were not bought. In different words, the better the expectations about unselected options,
the decrease the extent of satisfaction with the selected good. A general conclusion which one
must draw from this sort of dialogue is that customer ambition can be more than one and the
service or product provide so complex to evaluate that any measurement of satisfaction ought
to be used with caution (Salomon et al, 2006).

2.2.3 Level of Customer Satisfaction

David (2010) cited in Mekonnen (2019) stated that the degrees of satisfaction differ relying on
alternatives and the consumer may have other products against which they can compare the
company’s products. However, customer satisfaction almost always reported at an aggregate
level but measured at the individual level. Kotler and Keller (2012) stated that buyer satisfaction
is ranked on a degree from one to five. At a totally low degree of satisfaction (at first degree),
Buyer are possibly to desert the organization or even bad-mouth it. From second to four degree,
buyers are quite pleased however nevertheless locate it simple to leave whilst a higher provide
comes along. At five degree, the buyer is may be very possibly to repurchase or even
disseminate positive statement about the organization

2.2.4 The Importance of Customer Satisfaction

Kotler and Armstrong (2012) stated why is it so vital to satisfy the customer? Customer
satisfaction is a key to constructing profitable relationships with consumers to preserving and
developing consumers and reaping their customer lifetime value. Satisfied clients purchase a
product again, communicate favorably to others just about the product, pay much less interest to
competing product and advertising, and purchase other products from the company at the same
time as discontented consumer responds differently (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012). They
involve in bad statement about the company which frequently travels farther and quicker than
good statement. It can rapidly harm consumer attitudes about a company and its products
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2012).

19
 2.2.5 Factor Affecting Buyer’s Level of Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the overall impression of customer about the supplier and the products
and services delivered by the supplier (Management study Guide Team, 2020). Following are
the important factors that could affect customer satisfaction are department wise capability of
the supplier, technological and engineering or re-engineering aspect of products and services,
type and quality of response provided by the supplier, supplier’s capability to commit on
deadlines and how efficiently they are meet, customer service provided by the supplier,
complaint management, cost, quality, performance and efficiency of the product, supplier’s
personal facets like etiquettes and friendliness, suppliers ability to manage whole customer life
cycle and compatible and hassle free functions and operations ( Management study Guide
Team, 2020).

The Team classified these factors under two categories: supplier behavior and performance of
product and offering. Provider/supplier conduct - in the main relies up on at the conduct of its
senior subordinates, managers and inner personnel. All the functional activities like customer
reaction, compliant control and so on are the factors that rely on how skillful and trained the
internal and human resource of the supplier are whereas product performance that is regarding
all the products and services of the supplier depends on the capability of supplier to how to
nurture the products and services efficiently and how skilled employees are (Management study
Guide Team, 2020). Dissatisfaction of customers when supplier are unable to entertain
customers or their business strategy fail to build a good relationship with customers, they
probably end up with customers dissatisfaction (Management study Guide Team, 2020).
Management study Guide Team (2020) explained that it is very important for the supplier to
concentrate on customer needs and provides him the required products and services.

Consumer’s (or Buyer’s) approach arises out of consumers’ dissatisfaction with products,
services and the organizations that offer them (Jonathan, 2005). So according to this viewpoint
dissatisfaction generated from: the marketing system was unresponsive to customer wants;
marketing practitioners were unscrupulous; marketers made claims that were not borne out by
the actual performance of the product; consumers sought increased product quality and etc.
(Jonathan, 2005).

The sum of functions and characteristics of a service or product that endure on ability to fulfill
implied needs’ is known as quality (Kotler and Keller, 2012). Satisfaction will also depend on

20
product and service quality (Kotler and Keller, 2012). According to Kotler and Keller (2012)
Quality mean it is ‘fitness for use,’ ‘conformance to requirements,’ and ‘freedom from
variation’. The seller has delivered quality each time its product or service meets or exceeds the
customers’ expectation (Kotler and Keller, 2012). Performance quality (Grade) and
conformance quality are different (Kotler and Keller, 2012). Performance quality is the level at
which the product’s primary characteristics operate whereas conformance quality is the degree
to which all produced units are identical and meet promised specifications (Kotler and Keller,
2012).

Solomon et al. (2006) also stated that product quality affects customer satisfaction. Solomon et
al. (2006) stated that the one way to describe quality is to set up uniform standards to which
products from around the world should conform. The broad set of guidelines is known as ISO
standards (Solomon et al., 2006). Ismail, Nazief and Boge (2016) cited Garvin (1987); Kotler
and Keller (2012) thought that the quality of the product includes numerous measurements,
specifically performance, features, reliability, compliance, durability, service ability, aesthetics,
and perceived quality. Kotler and Armstrong (2012) stated that product quality is one of the
marketer’s most important positioning tools. According to Kotler and Armstrong quality has a
direct effect on product or service performance; thus, it is intimately connected to customer
value and satisfaction.

Level and consistency are the two dimensions of product quality (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012).
The Authors stated that in developing a product, the marketer need to first pick a quality level
that will assist the product’s positioning. Thus, Product quality means overall performance
quality that is the cap-potential of a product to carry out its functions (Kotler and Armstrong,
2012). Beyond quality level is high quality that can also mean high levels of quality
consistency, which mean conformance quality is freedom from defects and consistency (the
quality that customer pay for and expect) in delivering a targeted level of performance (Kotler
and Armstrong, 2012). Kotler and Armstrong recommended that all each companies should
attempt for high levels of conformance quality.

According to Kotler and Keller (2012) and Kusdiyah (2012) cited in Ismail, Nazief and Boge
(2016) described that as price may be measured from competitor price, affordable price, faire
price, discounted price and price suitability dimension. Kotler and Keller (2016) cited Susan M.
Keaveney (1995) factors leading to customer switching behavior; pricing is among the factors,

21
which are high price, price increases, unfairness price and deceptive price as it leads the
customers to switching behavior. According to Alan Zimmerman and Jim Blythe (2013) on
other hand customers weigh functional, operational, financial, relational, and personal benefits
against acquisition and internal costs as well as potential risks in figuring out whether or not a
price is fair. Thus, establishing the right price is crucial; Kucuk (2017) stated that price is the
major exchange medium in any transaction. There may be no exchange without the right price
(Kucuk, 2017). There are three vital elements at once and circuitously effect price and pricing
decisions: demand for the product; the cost of producing the product and the marketplace; and
purchaser’ awareness of the value elements of the product in comparison to different options to
be had in the marketplace (Kucuk, 2017). Customer will provide an interest to the price paid by
other customers, no one is glad to pay greater cash compared to other customers (Ismail, Nazief
and Boge, 2016). The equity of the price will affect the consciousness of the customers and it in
the long run will affect their willingness to grow to be a purchaser (Ismail, Nazief and Boge,
2016).

Jonathan (2005) stated that companies that fail to deal with growing dissatisfaction among their
customer base risk their long-term health. Complaining is much more likely whilst motivation,
ability, and opportunity are high, and it is also much more likely as the extent of dissatisfaction
or the severity of the trouble increases (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). By encouraging complaints
whilst they are justified and by actively handling customer problems, the company can preserve
valued customers (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). When customer dissatisfied, marketers ought to
at once take steps to reassure customers (Solomon et.al, 2006). Solomon et.al (2006) stated that
once the company confronts the trouble truthfully, consumers are regularly inclined to forgive
and forget. But whilst the company seems to be dragging its heels or overlaying up, on the other
hand, consumer resentment will grow. As the authors stated later this situation lead the
company to collapse. Kotler and Armstrong (2012) also stated that most unhappy customers by
no means inform the company about their problems. Therefore, a company must gauge
customer satisfaction on a regular basis. It must installation structures that inspire clients to
complain. In this way, the organization can learn the way properly it’s far doing and the way it’s
able to improve (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012). If customers know about the product however
aren't shopping for due to the fact they maintain unfavorable attitudes toward it, marketers
ought to find ways to change either the product or consumer perceptions (Kotler and
Armstrong, 2012). So, complaint handling construct is a significant factor that affects the buyer
level of satisfaction positively if well handled.
22
Innovation means to create a new product or make and implement a new process; the primary
motive of innovation is to gain sustainable competitive edge or enhance the performance of the
organization and to get customer satisfaction (Leonard-Barton, 1992 cited in Naveed et al.
2012). But it does not mean that innovation is all the time dealt with a completely novel issue
that is launch in a market however it's also innovation to enter in a new market with new
features (Naveed et al., 2012). When term innovation used, it means advent of something new
by companies that satisfy its customers and growth the marketplace share (Naveed et al., 2012).
Oslo Manual (OECD) (2005) cited in Diaw and Asare (2018) described that innovation are
goods, procedures, approach (organizational or marketing) that is substantially improved;
develop originally, and those that have been implement from other companies. Garcia (2014)
categorized innovation as New-to-the-world products (invention that create a whole new
market) and New-to-the-firm products (products that take the firm in a new direction).
According to Garcia, New to the firm are not new to the world, but are new to the firm, takes
this form: additions to existing product lines-product line extensions, flankers, or brand
extensions; improvement or revisions to existing products-minor changes to improve existing
products; repositioning-products that take on new uses; and cost reductions-products that
replace existing products by providing similar performance at a lower cost. Kucuk (2017) stated
that the primary precedence of the innovation must be to fix consumers’ problems while
enjoying a competitive advantage over available alternatives in the market. Thus, innovation is
helpful strategy to enhance buyers’ level of satisfaction and compete in the marketplace.

Technology mean is ‘a set of processes, tools, methods, procedures and equipment used to
produce goods or services’ (Schroeder (1989); Howells (2005) cited in Ryding, 2010). The fast
transforms in the technology are defied for the companies to satisfy the customers and to make
their loyalty through innovative products (Naveed et al., 2012). Naveed et al. (2012) stated that
when a company makes revolutionary product, customer satisfaction is achieved and the loyalty
of the customers also increases towards their product. Innovation influence customer
satisfaction in each organization due to the fact that organization brings revolutionary
adjustments in its goods to get customer satisfied and meet their needs (Naveed et al., 2012).
Martin (2019) explained that Company has to try incessantly to introduce changes and upgrades
to their products to make them more attractive to target audience. Martin (2019) also stated that
keeping your customer’s test and changing requirements in mind is of utmost importance,
especially when you’re competing with so many other companies. ECAFCO, due to outdated
technological manufacturing lacks new product developments that are new for its company and
23
including particleboard varieties which mostly needed by market, but not new to competitors
and customer (Company Report, 2012). Gebi (2015) also explained in his study as the
production machinery is outdated that established in 1966 G C. Thus, this technological
incapability might affect buyer satisfaction.

Product availability is defined as the probability of a product being available in saleable

circumstance while a customer comes to seek it on a store shelf (Moussaoui et al. 2016 cited in
Drilon and Gabriel 2017). A company can have the best price and value in the marketplace with
a matching message supported by promotion techniques, however if the product isn't always
there while customers want it, customers and revenue are lost (Kucuk, 2017). Andrew (2010)
also stated in such way that business have not only to make products that customer wants but
also to make affordable to a sufficient number (enough quantity) to create profitable demand.
So, Product availability might affects customer satisfaction.

Image and reputation are those relate to the organization and the popularity of its company
identity (Graeme, John and Ruth, 2001). Organization’s goodwill/image is the status of an
organization and it is an actual cherished intangible asset. Goodwill or high reputation develops
a promising image of the organization in the minds of the public/customers’ (Public
Administration Higher Study, 2020). A company image is the customer institutions to the
organization or corporation making the product or providing the service (Keller, 2013). Keller
(2013) stated that like individual brands, a corporate or company brand may evoke in
consumers a strong association to a product attribute. A corporate image will rely up on some of
elements which include the goods an organization makes, the actions it takes, and the way
wherein it communicates to customers (Keller, 2013). According to Keller (2013) common
product attributes, benefits or attitude are from its product quality and innovativeness; people
and relationship-customer orientation; value and programs-concern with environment and social
responsibility; and corporate credibility-expertise, trustworthiness and likability. Two specific
product-related corporate image associations are high quality and innovation—deserve special
attention (Keller, 2013). Keller (2013) stated client perceptions that organization makes
offerings of the very best excellent due to the fact that a superb company image affiliation.
Quality is one of the most important, if not the most important, decision factors for consumers;
and an innovative corporate image association creates consumer perceptions of a company as
developing new and unique marketing programs, especially with respect to product

24
introductions or improvements (Keller, 2013). Interestingly, consumers saw a company with an
innovative corporate image as not only expert but also trustworthy and likable (Keller, 2013).

Reputation is described as a collective evaluation of a company’s past actions and future

prospects that describe the company’s overall appeal to all its key parts when compared to other
leading competitors (Fombrun, 1996; Roberts and Dowling, 2002; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990
cited in Zhao and Smith, 2006). It displays a corporation’s general distinctiveness in the society
(Dollinger, Golden and Saxton, 1997 cited in Zhao and Smith 2006). Provider’s reputation
impacts customer attitudes and beliefs with regard to customer satisfaction because it is an
extrinsic information cue for the customer (Ping 1993; Selnes 1998 cited in Zhao and Smith
2006). Concerning ECAFCO, Gebi (2015) explained in his study that ECAFCO is the main
Chip wood board generating organization in Ethiopia since long years. The company’s
particleboard due to its quality prescribed among customers (Gebi, 2015). So, this likeability of
product might enhance buyers’ satisfaction. This study measures supplier’s image and
reputation from product the company made, the relationship it has with customers/responsive to
customer, and its credibility aspect only.

In general, as I understand from the existing literature and study document, customer
satisfaction measurement is not precise, I suppose due to this reason many researchers
employed different measurements which give them fruitful result depending the type and
characteristics of population under study. Thus, the measurements/variables the researcher
employees in this study are product quality, price, complaint handling, innovation, product
availability and image and reputation to identify and analyzes factors affecting particleboard
buyer’s level of satisfaction, the case of ECAFCO S.C.

2.3 Empirical Review

Abkari and Radmand (2016) explained in their study 66% of unsuccessful organizations, failed
since they did not consider their customer satisfaction as a priority. According to Hsieh et al.,
(2007) cited by Abkari and Radmand (2016) showed that in customer oriented organizations;
fully satisfaction customers repurchase 6 times more than satisfied customers in a period of 1-2
years. Tuli & Bharadwaj (2009) cited in Thogori and Jane (2014) observes that satisfied
customers are possibly to acclimatize a behavior of enhance in buy as well as a continuous buy
from the firm. In addition, Hanif, M., Hafeez, S., Riaz, A.,(2010) stated that customer
satisfaction is extremely essential as satisfied customer could assist in building good reputation

25
of brand and add value to the brand name and unfold a superb expression. Customer makes long
term profitable association with brand, if they satisfied (Hanif, M., Hafeez, S., Riaz, A., 2010).
Rahman, H. et al. (2014) concluded that customer satisfaction is a dynamic phenomenon.
Therefore, keeping up preferred extent of customer satisfaction requires company proactive
responsiveness in accessing, building & retaining satisfied customers for sustainable competitive
advantages in marketplace (Rahman, H. et.al, 2014). In this study the researcher measures the
particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction using the following six variables, the case of
ECAFCO.

2.3.1 Product Quality

Customer satisfaction has actual effect on profitability and study conducted among a large
sample of Swedish consumers discovered that product quality affects customer satisfaction,
which in turn results in augmented profitability among corporations who provide quality
products (Solomon et. al., 2006).

A lot of researches justifies that product quality is among the factor that affects the buyer
satisfaction. Ismail, Nazief and Boge (2016) also proved that the product quality improvement
and the competitive price could increase customer satisfaction. The study by Jahanshahi et al.
(2011) shows that as there were high positive correlation among the constructs of customer
services and product quality with customer satisfaction and loyalty. So Jahanshahi et al. (2011)
found that the quality of product encourages customer satisfaction. Other researchers,
Senthilkumar (2012) and Suhendar and Ruswanti (2019) study result showed that product
quality has an effect on buyer satisfaction. Anwar and Christan (2016) also revealed that
product quality is among the factors that influence and increase customer satisfaction. With
respect to factors affecting customer preference in the selecting particleboard and MDF,
Fatemeh, Majid and Amin (2013) found in their study about particleboard rank priorities for
factors in the selection by consumers: Nile and screw holding ability, homogeneity in structure,
edge strength of panel, durability and bending strength.

2.3.2 Price

Price can be used as a beneficial useful resource to boost revenue as well as customer
satisfaction (Ehsani and Ehsani, 2015). Herrmann et al., (2007) show that while price
perceptions instantly have an effect on satisfaction judgments as well as obliquely by

26
perceptions of price fairness. Suhendar and Ruswanti (2019) also found that price perceptions
affect customer satisfaction. Ali et al. (2010) found that as consumer satisfaction and price
reasonability has significant association. According to Ali et al. (2010) the customers can leave
the organization if he/she gets more reasonable prices to other providers. Ali et al. (2010)
proved that fairness of price is the strongest determinant of consumer satisfaction and the
competitive advantage to retain consumers for longer period of time. Hanif, M., Hafeez, S.,
Riaz, A., (2010) stated that price fairness is refers to consumers’ assessments of whether a
seller’s price is reasonable, acceptable or justifiable. Hanif, M., Hafeez, S., Riaz, A., (2010)
indicated in their study as price fairness had a significant effect on customer satisfaction. Ismail,
Nazief and Boge (2016) also found that as competitive price could increase customer
satisfaction. Malik et al. (2012) indicated that price has significant association with customer
satisfaction. Malik et al. (2012) found that increase in price has shown to have a negative impact
on customer satisfaction. Ismail, Nazief and Boge as indicated in their study the comparisons
with previous research give an explanation for that the price and product quality has a good
degree of generality to enhance consumer satisfaction. Anwar and Christan (2016) concluded in
their study customer satisfaction can affected by many factors such as product quality, price
quality and service quality and marketplace. In addition, as Kotler and Armstrong (2012) stated
the study finding, even in an improved economy, Fifty five percentages of purchasers say they
could instead get the attractive price than the good brand. So according to this study nearly two-
thirds say they will now shop at a different store with lower prices even if it’s less convenient.
Thus, to increase customer satisfaction company must consider, and set the right or fair price.

2.3.3 Complaint Handling

Some companies suppose they’re getting a sense of customer satisfaction by tallying

complaints, but research show that while customers are dissatisfied with their purchases about
25 percent of the time, only about 5 percent complain (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The rest 95%
either sense complaining isn’t always really well worth the attempt or don’t understand how or
to whom to complain. Customers simply prevent purchasing from the organization. Among the
clients who list a complaint, 54% to 70 % will make business with the organization again if
their complaint is determined (Kotler and Keller, 2012). According to Kotler and Keller (2012)
the percent surprisingly increased to 95 percent if the customer feels the complaint was resolved
quickly. So customers whose complaints are satisfactorily resolved inform an average of 5
people about the good treatment they received (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The average

27
disappointed client, but gripes to 11 customers. If every of those tell nevertheless other people,
the number exposed to bad word of mouth may grow exponentially (Kotler and Keller, 2012).
No matter how flawlessly designed and applied a marketing program is, errors will happen
(Kotler and Keller, 2012). The best thing a company can perform is make it uncomplicated for
customers to complain (Kotler and Keller, 2012). Suggestion forms, toll-free numbers, Web
sites, and e-mail addresses permit for quick, two-way communication (Kotler and Keller, 2012).
The 3M Company claims that over two-thirds of its product development thoughts come from
listening to customer complaints (Kotler and Keller, 2012). Given the potential downsides of
having an unhappy customer, it’s critical that marketers deal with negative experiences properly
(Kotler and Keller, 2012).

Although a large percentage of consumers do not complain, it is still in the marketer’s best
interests to be responsive when any consumers do (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). Rahman, H., et
al. (2014) also found that company achievement is related to with responsiveness to customer;
higher responsiveness to customer leads to higher customer satisfaction. Customers get
dissatisfied when they are not entertained appropriately concerning their complaints (Rizwan
and Ganesh, 2011). In their study Rizwan and Ganesh found that about 50% of customers are
satisfied and 50% are the customers who do not stand in the category of satisfaction. Customer
care and complaint management system may impact very negatively if not handled in a strategic
way (Rizwan and Ganesh, 2011).

Speedy reaction is important: fifty seven percentage of the consumers in one survey stated that
how speedy a website responds to e-mail affects their decision to shop for from that site in the
future(Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). According to Hoyer and MacInnis (2010) clearly, clients
could be greater happy and much more likely to shop for once more in the event that they get a
rapid reaction, mainly if it entails getting a reasonable exchange/refund policy or money back.
Dissatisfied customers who have been treated fairly can become even more loyal in the future
(Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). For example, a customer who installation a complaint website to
publicize his issues with a Sony electronics product transformed the web website online to an
enthusiastic fan site after the organization resolved the problem (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010).
So, if company handle complains wisely and give quick response by careful listening to
customers’ buyers’ level of satisfaction enhanced.

28
 2.3.4 Innovation

Gebi (2015) in his study indicated that as ECAFCO machinery was outdated and it production
capacity declined. When the buyers B2B, Joseph and William (1999) cited Balakrishnan and
Wernerfelt (1986) indicated that a competing technology offers benefits to the buying firm. For
example, according to the study another big reason behind Toyota’s achievement is its
manufacturing (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The company is the master of lean production and
incessant development so that its plants can produce as many as eight distinctive models at the
same time, bringing huge increases in productivity and market responsiveness (Kotler and Keller,
2012). Petr, Jiri and Maria (2014) stated that companies logically have to continuously improve
product quality based on the requirements of customers, and maintain customers’ satisfaction
amongst others via quality of their products.

Previous studies indicated that innovation has positive effect on customer satisfaction. For
example, Naveed et al. (2012) in their study, innovation is treated as independent variable,
customer satisfaction as moderating while brand loyalty as dependent variable. Naveed et al.
found that as there is positive association between innovation and customer satisfaction.
Daragahi (2017) also found that innovation has an effect on customer satisfaction and Daragahi
proved that more innovations improve customer satisfaction. So, according to Panayides (2006)
cited in Diaw and Asare (2018) in order to survive in current conditions of market, firms within
the industry must enhance their innovation capabilities to satisfy market demands and customer
preferences to maintain a long-term competitive advantage. Even the study by Anderson et al.
(2004) showed that if businesses fail to satisfy customers as effectively and efficiently as
competitors, customers and investors turn elsewhere. Diaw and Asare (2018) found that a
significant positive relationship between innovation and customer satisfaction. Diaw and Asare
(2018) determined that as product and service innovation is believed to be the key in satisfying
and retaining customers. This study concern is to measure innovations which are new to the
firm as of sophisticating production and information technology, product improvement and
development and its effect on buyer satisfaction.

2.3.5 Product Availability

With regard to product availability a lot of researchers study the effect of product availability on
customer satisfaction, the case of retailer store. But this study measure product availability in
manufacture/supplier store. Evidence from prior studies; Oliver (2012) indicated that the

29
availability of product frequently possibility to boom revenue and consumer satisfaction.
Supplier needs to deliver the right quantity at the right time since poor availability mean
dissatisfied customers and poor financial performance over the long run, and can cost at least
5% of sales (Oliver (2012). For example, according to Akiva (2009) cited in Thogori and Jane
(2014) also confirmed that inadequacy of sufficient stocks imply that business firms aren’t
capable of match supply and demand and this highly impact customer satisfaction and the
company’s bottom line and or revenue. Study on retailer industry by Ranjan and Puri (2012)
also found that lack of availability of product or out-stock has negative impacts on the
customer’s satisfaction, and Emmelhainz et al. (1991) cited in Ranjan and Puri (2012) also
indicated that 32% switched brands, and 41% bought other product or variety, even as14%
intended to visit to a different shop. Thus, when supplier/manufacturer sold and or distributes
the product directly, availability of product in store might affect buyers’ level of satisfaction.

2.3.6 Supplier’s Image and Reputation

Gupta (2002) cited in Mekonnen (2018) found that there is evidence between corporate and
reputation which helps competitive advantage for the firms by successfully differentiating it
from competitors. The advantages are including, willing to purchase, willingness to pay a
premium price, and lead to customer satisfaction. Stephen et al. (2007) cited Bloemer and
Ruyter (1998) stated that image does affect satisfaction, which in flip direct to store loyalty in
the situation of retailing. Diaw and Asare (2018) cited Anderson et al. (2004) also mentioned
satisfaction level established by purchaser’s eagerness to pay greater and tremendous word of
mouth for a specific brand. Zhao and Smith (2006) also indicated that supplier reputation was
significantly related to buyer economic satisfaction, to buyer social satisfaction, and to buyer
trust. Their study result indicated that reputation is linked to both economic and non-economic
satisfaction. Satisfied customer could assist in building good reputation of brand and add value
to the brand name and unfold a superb expression (Hanif, Hafeez and Riaz, 2010). According to
Hanif, Hafeez, and Riaz customer makes long term profitable association with brand, if they
satisfied. Though the case of study was on Hospitality Industry, Mekonnen (2018) found that
service quality, price and corporate image significantly and positively affect customer
satisfaction.

30
 2.4 Conceptual Framework
With the use of the related literature conceptual framework helps to hypothesize and test certain
relationships is designed as the following. In this research there are independent and dependent
variables. While the independent/predictor variables are product quality, price, complaint
handling, innovation, product availability, and supplier’s reputation and dependant/response
variable of this study is particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction. Thus, this dependent variable
expected to be influenced by independent variables (See Figure 1).

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Product Quality H1

H2
Price
H3
Complaint Handling Particleboard
H4
Buyers’
Innovation Level
H5 Satisfaction
Product Availability H6

Supplier’s Image
Reputation

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework (developed from literature Review)

31
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with research methodology employed to carry out the research. In this
chapter description of the study area, research approach, research design, population and
sample, data source and type, data collection technique, ethical consideration, data analysis is
discussed.

3.2 Description of the study area

The study area of which sample selected from was Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. So the target
populations of this study were only business buyer, customer of Ethiopia Chipwood and
Furniture Share Company (ECAFCO) found in Addis Ababa, and purchased particleboard from
the company.

3.3 Research Approach

The researcher employed quantitative research approach in order to study factors affecting
particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction. Research approaches are a plan and procedure for the
research that span the decision from broad assumption to detail methods of data collection,
analysis, and interpretation (Creswell, 2009). Research approach classified as qualitative,
quantitative and or combined techniques (Creswell, 2009).

However, the researcher selected to employed quantitative approach depending on purpose of

research, research questions and mode of enquiry designed. Quantitative approach entails
research that employ statistical analyses to acquire their findings. Key features include formal
and systematic measurement and the use of statistics (Marczyk, Dematteo and Festinger, 2005).
This approach employed to compute numeric data that will collected in the form of survey
questionnaires.

The study is categorized as quantitative if the variation in a phenomenon, situation or issue

quantified. Also quantitative research approach is more suitable to verify the degree of a
problem/phenomenon and where question is predetermined (Ranjit K., 2011). As well Leedy

32
and Ormrod (2001) cited in Carrie W. (2007) mentioned that quantitative research is specific in
its surveying and experimentation, as it builds upon existing theories.

A quantitative approach was used “as it is suitable to test relationships using hypothesis”
(Zikmund 2003). This survey method will be used to “easily facilitates the collection of data
from large group of respondents since it requires minimum investment to develop and
administer and is relatively easy for making generalization” (Zikmund, 2003). Quantitative
approach best, if the problem call for (a) the identification of factors that influence an outcome;
(b) the utility of an intervention or and understanding the best predictors of outcome; also to test
a theory and generalized the finding /explanatory; if the topic is not new or addressed with
many researchers (Johan W. Creswell and J. David Creswell cited in METHODSPACE, 2019).
Similarly, Nikita Th. (2020) stated that using quantitative analysis is works better if theory or
hypothesis wants to test or confirm.

Thus, the best qualified approach to undertake this study is quantitative since it fit with research
purpose, research problem and question as well mode of inequity designed.

3.4 Research Design

Research design refers to the plan used to examine the question of interest (Marczyk, Dematteo
and Festinger, 2005). To analysis factors affecting particleboard buyers’ level of satisfaction,
the case of Ethiopia Chipwood and Furniture Company, both descriptive and explanatory
techniques were employed. While descriptive study used to describe what is prevalent with
respect to the issue/problem under study and explanatory research attempts to clarify why and
how there is a relationship between two aspects of a situation or phenomenon (Ranjit K., 2011).

This study used descriptive study to describe the factors affecting particleboard buyers’ level of
satisfaction as well as used to describe the demography/customer information as it is whereas
used explanatory study to analyze the determining factors and or determine the relationship
between variables.

3.5 Population and Sampling Technique

According to Marczyk, Dematteo and Festinger (2005) every one of individuals which are
significant to the researcher is population. Thus, the population is the entire collection of all
observations of interest to the researchers. Selecting participants is one of the most important
aspects of planning and designing a research study (Marczyk, Dematteo and Festinger, 2005).

33
The populations considered in this study were business buyer, customers of ECAFCO. The
study target location was only Addis Ababa City.

Sampling is the process of selecting a few respondents (a sample) from a bigger group (the
sampling population) to become the basis for estimating the prevalence of information of
interest to you (Ranjit K., 2011). Or it is a representative portion of the population which is
selected for study (Robert and Richard, 2008).

The sampling design for this population was convenience sampling that is nonprobably
sampling. Nonprobability sampling designs are used when the number of elements in a
population is either unknown or cannot be individually identified (Ranjit K., 2011).
Convenience sampling involves selection of participants because they are convenient and
accessible (Robert and Richard, 2008). Of a nonprobability sampling convenience sampling is
the most suitable sampling for quantitative research approach, and mostly used by marketing
research. This approach enables to obtain a large number of completed questionnaires quickly
and economically (Zikmund, 2003).

The reason why the researcher not uses the probability random sampling and obliged to
employed nonprobability convenience sampling because of lack of customers list, so this make
difficult to select the sample frame randomly and moreover not easy to find the customers of the
company that found in different part of Addis Ababa sub city and as well as it would be
economically expensive and time consuming. Thus, the researcher choice to uses convenience
sampling which helps to collect the data from those who are the most accessible customer’s of
the company.

Sample Size
The sample size for this study was determined by using the formula developed by Cochran
(1963) the equation 1 to yield a representative sample for proportion:-

no=Z 2pq = (1.96)2X(.5) (.5) = 385

e2 (0.05) 2

Where
no = Sample size

34
e = the desired level of precision
p = the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population, and q is 1-p.
Z2 = the abscissa of the normal curve that cuts off an area α at the tails (1 - α equals the desired
confidence level, i.e. 95%). The value of Z is found in statistical tables which contain the area
under the normal curve.

The above sample size is the representative sample proportion at 95% confidence level and
5%precision when the population is large and unknown.

3.6 Data Source and Type

This study is based on survey questionnaire and so it employed the primary source in order to
achieve the research objective and answer research questions. The data collected consist of
quantitative data. Quantitative approach was employed to collect numerical data designed in the
form of structured survey questionnaires with the uses of liker scale.

3.7 Data Collection Procedures

The data collection procedures employed by research was questionnaires. Accordingly,
structured questionnaires were developed and distributed to ECAFCO customers to collect
quantitative primary data. A five liker rating scale measurement used that the respondents asked
to indicate their level of agreement and disagreement. The questionnaire has two sections: the
first section deals with collecting personal information of participants using a nominal scale
which have five questionnaires, and the second section is about customer intention factors
affecting their level of satisfaction which measure the dimensions of the hypothesized factors.

Under the second section, close-ended structured questionnaires are designed that answered
with use of liker scale. Therefore, a total of 37questionnaires designed to analyses factors
affecting buyers’ level of satisfaction using six measurements such as product quality, price,
complaint handling, innovation, product availability, and supplier image and reputation. Each of
measurement has six, four, six, five, three, and six items respectively. And seven items designed
with respect to the six independent variables to measure overall satisfaction. While
questionnaires related to product quality, innovation and product availability totally developed
by researcher whereas some of questionnaire related to price, complaint handling, and supplier’s
image and reputation with modification adopt from Mekonnen (2019); Seble (2016); Sisay
(2016); Million (2013); and one from Zhao and Smith (2006) which related to overall
satisfaction with respect to supplier reputation. So, the questionnaire items adopt from

35
Mekennen and Seble are (No 7 & 10) and (No 12, 13, 15 &16) whereas from Sisay and Million
are (26 &27), (28&29) respectively. The left developed by the researcher.

The English version of the questionnaires translated to Amharic version to distribute the
questionnaires for the respondents. The researcher has modifies the questionnaires when
necessaries. The customers were selected based on their willingness and convenient. The data
were collected from the customers at the company as well as by going to where the company
customers were available that is their sales display/shop such as marketo, mesalemia, Piasa,
Megenagna, Shoala etc, and working offices.

3.8 Data Analysis

Statistical procedures allow researchers to describe groups of individuals and events, examine
the relationships between different variables, measure differences between groups and
conditions, and examine and generalize results obtained from a sample back to the population
from which the sample was drawn (Marczyk, Dematteo and Festinger, 2005).

Data analyses is the process whereby researchers take the raw data that have been entered to the
data matrix and create information that can be used to tackle the objective for which the
research was undertaken. The researchers should take the raw data to present in the form of
table, charts or graphs in order to be observed the total distribution on a single variable or the
pattern of relationships between two or more variables (Kent, 2007). In this study table and
graphs was used.

The collected data with uses of survey questionnaire from primary source will analyzed using
both descriptive (mean, frequency and standard deviation) and inferential statistical of linear
regression analysis with the help of a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 23.0)
version. Linear regression analysis used to test the developed hypotheses and make prediction.

3.9 Model specification

The researcher employed the correlation and multi linear regression between the factors
affecting buyers’ level of satisfaction. Linear and multiple-model regression analysis are
conducted in order to see how much these variable affect buyers’ level of satisfaction. So,
buyers’ level of satisfaction(BLS) taken as dependent variable and Product Quality (PQ), Price
(PR), Complaint Handling (CH), Product Availability (PA), Innovation (INNV), and Supplier’s
Image and Reputation (SIR) are take as independent variables.

36
The linear regression model represents the conceptual framework of this study mathematically
expressed as follow:

Y=α+ β1X1 + β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ β5X5+ β5X6+ε…………………………...(1)

OBS= α + β1PQ1 + β2PR2+ β3CH3+ β4PA4+ β5INNV5+ β5SIR6+ε…..............(2)

Where:

Y= OBS (dependent variable)

α =is a constant (the intercept of the model);

β=is regression coefficients of Xi which indicates the mount of change in Y given a unit change

in the Xi variables and

X1=PQ

X2=PR

X3=CH

X4=PA

X5=INNV

X6=SIR

ε=is the error term

Under the assumption of

➢ ε ̰ N(0,1)mean zero and variance 1

➢ Linear relationship between outcomes (Y) and explanatory variable X

37
 ➢ Outcome (Y) should be normally distributed for each value of explanatory variable(X)

➢ Standard deviation of (Y) should be approximately the same for each value of (X) fixed

independent observations

➢ The observations(explanatory variables) should be independent

Description of Variable

The conceptual framework of this study contains two main categories of variable that is
dependent and independent variable.

Buyer Satisfaction: is dependent variable which might be affected by product quality, price,
complaint handling, innovation, product availability and Supplier’s image and reputation.

Product Quality: is independent variable high product quality increases buyers’ level of
satisfaction.

Price: is independent variable so setting fair price enhances buyers’ level of satisfaction.

Complaint Handling: is independent variable handling complaint (response speed and access
system) increases buyers’ level of satisfaction.

Innovation: is independent variable so continuous improvement of product and innovating

process increases buyers’ level of satisfaction.

Product Availability: is independent variable so availability of particleboard at company store

at any time buyers need enhances buyers’ level of satisfaction.

Supplier’s Image and Reputation: is independent variable so high trust /belief and perception
about company and company’s particleboard product increase buyer level of satisfaction.

3.10 Ethical Consideration

In order to make the study ethically acceptable, the researcher respects the right of study
participants: participants were briefed about the aim of the study and will be asked for their
cooperation to solve the problem under study. There should be no bias or discrimination in the
selection and recruitment of research participants. And also respondent name wasn’t mentioned,
and all data is collected for the purpose of the study and therefore would be kept confidential.

38
 3.11 Validity and Reliability
Whilst validity relates to the appropriateness of the measure to assess the construct it purports to
measure, reliability relates to the accuracy and stability of a measure (Robert and Richard,
2008).

3.11.1 Validity
Robert and Richard (2008) stated that validity concerned about to what extent does the testing
instrument actually measure the construct/concept/variable it purports to measure? So validity
relates to the questions: ‘what does the assessment device measure?’ or ‘Is it measuring what it
is supposed to measure? Validity is hard to measure afterwards, thus it must be confirmed
before the questionnaire is sent out. The questions should measure relevant issues
unambiguously and they should cover the entire research problem. Validity is always related to
the theory it is applied to and the concepts of the theory. It can be approached in two different
ways: internally and externally. Internal validity will tell if the measurements of the research
match with the concepts presented in the theory section. External validity tests if other
researchers arrive to the same results and conclusions from the research material (Heikkilä
2001). To enhance the validity the researcher careful designs the relevant questionnaire, and
rechecked with advisor before being sent out, not to overlook the essential point missed.

3.11.2 Reliability
Reliability is dependability of a measurement technique, and concerned with the consistency
(Robert and Richard, 2008). Reliable study is replicable; accordingly to be replicable, the
finding of the study must be consistent and sable this called reliability (Robert and Richard,
2008).

Reliability shows how precise the results are. Reliability can be examined both internally and
externally. Internal reliability is determined through measuring same statistics item more than
one times. The dimension is dependable is reliable, if the end result is the identical every time.
External reliability means that the measurements can be repeated in different studies and
situations. A reliable study requires the same results as in the original study. Low reliability
decreases validity, but nonetheless reliability is independent from the validity of the research
(Heikkilä, 2001).

If the dimension is dependable, then there may be much less risk that the acquired rating is
because of random elements and dimension blunders. Measurement reliability could be

39
measured with use of statistical evaluation which expressed as a correlation coefficient that tells
us something gap proximately the connection among units of scores/variables. So, this research
engaged Cronbach’s alpha to estimate the inner consistency of variables. It is a reliability
coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are positively related to one another.
Structured questionnaires with liker-scale would be used to remove unstructured answers.

Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient of reliability used to measure the internal

consistency of the scale; it represented as a number between 0 and 1 and items which scored
above the acceptable value are maintain. According to Tavakol & Dennick (2011) stated that if
a research study has more than one construct, it may not be logic to report the score alpha for
the study as a whole as the question that have large number will enhance the scale score of
alpha.

In principle therefore, alpha should be calculated for each of the concepts rather than for the
entire test or scale. According to Zikmund et al. (2010) reliability scale is fair when Cronbach's
alpha score is between 0.6 and 0.7; and adequate when it is equal or above .70. Thus, 0.6 is the
minimum scale accepted while 0.7 and above is the higher scale accepted in this study.

In order to increasing reliability and minimizing measurement error the administration of

measurement strategies should be consistent across all of the participants taking part in the
study. Second, the researchers should make certain that the participants understand the
instructions and content of the instrument or measurement strategy. So, the researcher provides
questionnaires with language participant understand and if necessary clarifies for them. Third,
the researcher practice before the study begins or entered in to data collection. Finally, every
effort should be made to ensure that data are recorded, compiled, and analyzed accurately. Data
entry should be closely monitored and audits should be conducted on a regular basis.

The coefficient alpha range for each variable is analyzed, the finding indicate that all the
independents and dependent variable of this study met the acceptable level since the reliability
test conducted for each variable of the instrument was adequate enough as shown form table 3.1
below. So, we conclude that each construct are understood by most of the respondents. The
result of reliability test for six independent variable product quality, price, complaint handling,
innovation, product availability, supplier’s image and reputation is summarized in table 3.1
below.

40
 Table 3.1: Cronbach’s Alpha Data of Reliability
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha No of Items
Independent Variables
Product Quality 0.770 6
Price 0.710 4
Complaint Handling 0.830 6
Innovation 0.881 5
Product Availability 0.794 3
Supplier’s Image and Reputation 0.802 6
Dependent Variable
Buyer Satisfaction 0.810 7
No of Items 37
Source: Own survey (2021)

41
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the data collected is analyzed, interpreted, discussed and presented using the
statistical tools which includes descriptive, correlation and multi-linear regression. SPPS
version 23.0 was used to analyze the data. The returned questionnaires; respondent’s
information; the descriptive analysis; correlation, assumptions for regression and regression
analyses were carefully carried and interpreted accordingly.

4.2 Respondents Response Rate

Of a total of 385 questionnaires distributed, 355 were returned while 30 questions were rejected
since the customers refused/declined to fill it. Therefore, 355 questions served as data for
analyses to present the findings and draw a conclusion. These returned questionnaires represent
92.21% response rate.

4.3 Demographic Profile of Respondents

The demographic profile section depicted the general characteristics of the respondents who
take part in the study, and it is vital part since it portray from whom data collected. The
summary of sex, range of age and level of education presented (See Table 4.1).

The majority of the respondents were males i.e. 81.7%; while 18.3% were females. Regarding
age range, 12.6% of respondents were between 27- 30 years, 40.6% between 31-40 years,
43.4% between 41-50 years, and 3.4% of them were greater than 50 years. The majority 84% of
respondents age falling between 31-50 years.

The education status of respondents were secondary (9–12th Grade) 10.4%; college diploma
55.8%; first degree 32.1%; and second degree and above 1.7% respectively. Of which diploma
and first-degree holders take up 87.9%. This shows that most of the respondents are educated,
and they have fully understood the questionnaire infilling it.

42
 Table 4.1: Demographic Profile of Respondents
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Gender Male 290 81.7 81.7
Female 65 18.3 100
Total 355 100
Age Group 27-30 45 12.6 12.6
31-40 144 40.6 53.2
41-50 154 43.4 96.6
>50 12 3.4 100
Total 355 100
Level of Secondary(9 – 12th Grade) 37 10.4 10.4
Education Diploma 198 55.8 66.2
First Degree 114 32.1 98.3
Second Degree and Above 6 1.7 100
Total 355 100
Source: Own survey (2021)

4.4 Descriptive Statistic on Purpose of Use and Particleboard Thickness

Buyer Purchased

As shown from table 4.2 below, for inquiry with regard to “for what purpose the company’s
particleboard is suitable to use”, majority 73.2% of the respondents reply that as the company’s
particleboard suitable for interiors partition and ceiling, each occupy 43.9% and 29.3%
respectively. This indicates that the company’s particleboard most suitable for construction.
And 26.8% of respondents portray as it is also suitable for furniture making.

With respect to particleboard thickness, 8 mm is the most frequently purchased by buyers from
the company which occupies 33.2%, followed by 13 mm (21.4%); 10 mm (19.2%); 16 mm
(13.2%); 19 mm (9.9%) and other (customized particleboard) (3.1%). Customized particleboard
is a panel prepared based on customers’ orders (See Table 4.2).

43
 Table 4.2: Purpose of Use and Particleboard Thickness Purchased By Customers
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Purpose of Use Interior Partition 156 43.9 43.9
Ceiling 104 29.3 73.2
Furniture 95 26.8 100
Total 355 100
Particleboard 8mm 118 33.2 33.2
Thickness 10mm 68 19.2 51.4
Customers Buy 13mm 76 21.4 73.8
16mm 47 13.2 87
19mm 35 9.9 96.9
Other(Customized Particleboard) 11 3.1 100
355 100
Source: Own survey (2021)

4.5 Descriptive statistics Analysis and Interpretation

In order to assess satisfaction level of ECAFCO’s customers, a five point liker scale used. The
descriptive statistics analysis analyzed using central tendency (arithmetic mean) and measure of
dispersion (Standard deviation (SD)) to illustrate the average responses of respondents for
each item and interpretation is concluded depending on grand mean of each independent
variable. While the smaller the SD mean the smaller the spread of scores which indicates the
respondents to some extend have similar opinion and the larger the SD mean the greater the
dispersal of scores that is shows the respondents have diverse response. Also, as necessary, the
research uses frequency percentage to interpret the data. The mean score used to interpret the
descriptive statistics adopted from Sözen and Güven (2019). Show in appendix.

4.5.1 Product Quality

Regarding product/particleboard quality, the respondents were asked six items (See Table 4.3).
So, the first ranked item is “Particleboard meets quality standard and uniformity in thickness”
with mean score 2.54, the second item is “overall the quality of company particleboard” with
mean score 2.48, the third item is “provide quality particleboard that fulfill buyer need” with
mean score 2.47, the fourth item is “durability of particleboard” with mean score 2.46 and the
fifth item is “company particleboard quality relative to competitors offering” with mean score

44
2.44 and the last is “delighted with company particleboard” with mean score 2.27. The grand
mean of company’s product quality is 2.4437, which indicate that majority of respondent have
disagreed on ECAFCO particleboard quality.

The result shows that the respondents have disagreed on company’s particleboard quality as of
conformity/standard and durability. The study also revealed that customers aren’t delighted or
satisfied with company product, thus, the company unable to provide quality particleboard
which fulfills buyer need; this indicates that the company particleboard performance less than
buyer expectation consequently the buyer dissatisfied. In addition, customers proved that as
company product quality is lower than competitors offering. UNIDO (1990) publication also
reported that as Company’s particleboard has low quality due to the fact that mostly not
purchased by furniture sectors.

Depending on this, I conclude that ECAFCO’s particleboard has low quality and competitive in
fulfilling buyer need. Evidence from previous study showed that Nile and screw holding ability,
homogeneity in structure, edge strength of panel, durability, and bending strength of
particleboard are among consumers selection criterion (Majid and Amin, 2013). So, in order
to meet both construction and furniture sectors buyer expectation, company should produce
particleboard according to conformity quality (standard set as baseline) and delivery durable
particleboard than competitors in the industry.

Table 4.3: Product/Particleboard Quality

Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation
The company particleboard meets quality standard and it
2.54 .974
thickness have uniformity
ECAFCO provides quality Particleboard which fulfills
2.47 1.012
buyers need
The company particleboard quality is good relative to
2.44 .917
competitors offering
The company’s particleboard durability is good 2.46 .957
You are delighted with company’s particleboard quality 2.27 .850
Overall, the quality of company’s particleboard is very
2.48 .937
good
Grand Mean = 2.4437
Source: Own Survey (2021)

45
 4.5.2 Particleboard Price
Here, under price measurement, the respondents were asked four items in table 4.4 below to
investigate price fairness. The first item is “ECAFCO’s particleboard price fairness relative to
competitors offering with score mean 3.22, the next item is “ECAFCO’s Particleboard price
fairness” with mean score 3.19, the third item is “Price of particleboard relative to the quality it
has” with mean 3.12, the fourth item is “Price information is clear and understandable to
customers” with mean score 3.09. Regarding the company’s particleboard price, the respondents
reply neutral response with grand mean score 3.1570. This show that customers of ECAFCO
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; they are indifferent toward particleboard price.

Table 4.4: Price of Particleboard

Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation
ECAFCO Particleboard price is fair 3.19 .941
The company particleboard price is good relative to the 3.12 .968
quality it has
The company particleboard price is fair and good than 3.22
.970
competitors
Price information is clear and understandable to customers 3.09 .980
Grand Mean = 3.1570
Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.5.3 Complaint Handling

The third independent variable is complaint handling. Under this variable, a series of six
statements presented to respondents. As shown from table 4.5 below, the first ranked statement
is “continuously buying company product and recommend it to other buyers’’ with mean score
2.53, the second is “system establishment to encourage complaint customers” with mean score
2.50, the third is “company policies and procedures” with mean score 2.49, The fourth is “talk
positively about the product of the company” with mean score 2.37, the fifth is “takes feedback
from customer and makes corrective action” with mean score 2.36, and the last is “response to
the complaint quickly” with mean score 2.32. The result of descriptive statistics indicated
that most of the respondents have disagreed with grand mean score 2.4286. This demonstrates
that ECAFCO’s complaint handling system is completely poorest. So, ECAFCO should resolve
the issue that prompted the customer’s disparagement as business buyers have a significant
impact on company sales volume and revenue if they switched the company.

46
 Table 4.5: Complaint Handling
Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation
The company established system such as suggestion 2.50 .868
form/box, web site, e-mail, telephone line etc to
encourage the complaint customers
The company response to the complaint quickly 2.32 .889
The company policies and procedures considered the 2.49 .861
situation
The company takes feedback from its customer and 2.36 .840
makes corrective action to delight its customers
I will buy the company’s product continuously and 2.53 .821
recommend ECAFCO particleboard to other buyers
I will talk positively about the product of the company 2.37 .858
every chance I get
Grand Mean = 2.4286
Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.5.4 Innovation Practice

The study designed five items to assess ECAFCO innovation practices. The result of descriptive
statistics shown in table 4.6 below, the first ranked statement from innovation is “sophisticating
production technology than the competitors in the industry” with mean score 2.51, second is
“provides improved new particleboard to satisfies customers need” with mean score 2.43, the
third is “offer various sophisticated particleboard to satisfied customers' preference than the
past” with mean score 2.37, the four item is “implemented website, email, social media, etc. to
access timely and complete information for customers” with mean score 2.35, and the fifth item
is “particleboard quality more improved than the past” with mean score 2.25. With respect to
company’s innovation practice, the majority of respondents reply disagree with grand mean
score is 2.3831. This depicted that ECAFCO’s customers are dissatisfied with company
innovation practices. Thus, the company has to improve particleboard quality and offer various
new particleboards to satisfy both existing and potential buyers, as well as has to sophisticate its
production technology to meet buyer interest than competitors. In addition, company should
also develop effective well-designed web, email, social media, etc. to makes business process

47
easy. In other words, company must use the best alternative tool and system to share update and
complete information to the buying customers, thereby enhance buyer satisfaction.

Table 4.6: Innovation Practice

Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation
The company’s particleboard production technology is 2.51 .890
more sophisticated than the competitors in the industry
The company provides improved new particleboard to 2.43 .852
satisfies its customers need
The company’s particleboard quality more improved than 2.25 .771
the past
The company offer various sophisticated particleboard to 2.37 .842
satisfied its customers preference than the past
The company has implemented website, email, social 2.35 .846
media, etc to access timely and complete information for
its customers
Grand Mean = 2.3831
Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.5.5 Product Availability

Product availability is the fifth construct. A series of three items the respondents were asked to
rank. The first ranked item is “able to supply adequate particleboard” with mean score 2.40, the
next statement is “getting particleboard from the company store at any time with required
quantity” with mean score 2.36, and third item is “no supply gab” with mean score 2.21. Thus,
the finding of the descriptive statistics from table 4.7 indicates that majority of respondents
show disagree level with grand mean of 2.3211 on product availability. Most of the respondents
agree that as there is supply gab. So if company cannot change this situation or provides
sufficient product to the buyers, the buyers in the long run may be dissatisfied and forced to
leave the company. Hence to keep and satisfies its customers base continuously, the company
should produce volume particleboard and makes product available per buyer need.

48
 Table 4.7: Product Availability
Item Statistics Mean Std.
Deviation
The company could supply adequate particleboard 2.40 .715
product to the buyers
You can get particleboard from the company store 2.36 .712
at a time you needed with required quantity
There is no supply gab 2.21 .709

Grand Mean =2.3211

Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.5.6 Supplier’s Image and Reputation

Under final measurement-supplier’s image and reputation, the respondents have been asked six
items to rates. The finding from descriptive statistics in table 4.8 display that highest mean score
is “willing to buy a particleboard which is produced by well-known producers” indicating mean
difference 3.44, the second items are “company’s particleboard reputation” and “communicates
and treat customers in respectful manner” which have same mean score 3.22, the third item is
“trust on company particleboard and recommend to other buyers” with mean score 3.14, the
fourth item is “likability of company’s particleboard among buyers” with mean score 3.03 and
last statement is “trust on quality of ECAFCO particleboard” with mean score 2.98. The result
of descriptive statistics indicates that most of the respondents have neutral response, with grand
mean score 3.1714 on supplier’s image and reputation. This indicates that customers are
indifferent regarding the company’s image and reputation.

49
 Table 4.8: Supplier’s Image and Reputation
Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation
The company’s particleboard has reputation 3.22 .994
The company’s particleboard would be very good
3.03 .985
quality so that it is likeable product among buyers
I trust the quality of ECAFCO particleboard 2.98 1.008

ECAFCO is the company I trust it most and so that

I recommend it to others particleboard buyers 3.14 1.034
I am willing to buy a particleboard which is
produced by well-known producers like ECAFCO 3.44 .941
The company communicates and treat its customers
in respectful manner 3.22 1.032
Grand Mean = 3.1714

Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.5.7 Summary of Descriptive Statistics

The table 4.9 below indicates the summary of descriptive statistics grand mean value of each six
IV’s designed to measure the satisfaction level of ECAFCO’s customers. As finding shows, the
supplier’s image and reputation takes the highest grand mean score (=3.1714), followed by
price (=3.1570). The rest takes third to six rank respectively i.e., product quality with grand
mean score (=2.4437), complaint handling with grand mean score (=2.4286), innovation with
grand mean score (=2.3831) and the last is product availability with grand mean score
(=2.3211). The grand mean score for buyer satisfaction (=2.5807). Standard deviation ranges
from .59936 to .70864 this indicate that there was low variability in perception on variables
observed, or the respondents has almost similar opinion on observed variables.

In generally, the result of descriptive statistics demonstrates that Ethiopian Chipwood and
Furniture Company customers are dissatisfied, they are dissatisfied in product quality,
complaint handling, innovation and product availability while indifferent in price and supplier
image and reputation of the company.

50
Overall, the customers haven’t changed their consumption behavior towards particleboard as a
material, and therefore, it is advisable to maintain the existing position by implementing new
improved quality particleboard with fair price in order to meets customer expectation. Thus,
ECAFCO must revise it business strategies and to ultimately satisfies the customers and run the
business in profitable manner than the rivals.

Table 4.9: Summary of Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Product Quality 355 2.4437 .64290
Price 355 3.1570 .70572
Complaint Handling 355 2.4286 .62968
Innovation 355 2.3831 .69196
Product Availability 355 2.3211 .59936
Supplier’s Image and Reputation 355 3.1714 .70864
Buyer Satisfaction 355 2.5807 .67535
Valid N (listwise) 355
Source: Own Result (2021)

4.6 Correlation Analysis

Correlations are possibly the most essential and valuable measure of relationship between two
and or more measurements. Correlation coefficients range from –1.0 to + 1.0. The closer it gets
to 1.0 (whether it is negative/inverse relationship or positive/direct relationship), the stronger
the relationship. While correlations of .01 to .30 are considered small, correlations of .30 to .70
are considered moderate, correlations of .70 to .90 are considered large, and correlations of .90
to 1.00 are considered very large (Marczyk, Dematteo and Festinger, 2005). In this study the
Pearson’s coefficient correlation was employed to determine the relationship between the
variables.

The table 4.10 below shows the correlation between independent variables (product quality,
price, complaint handling, innovation, product availability and supplier’s image and reputation)
and the dependent variable (overall buyers of satisfaction).

51
 Table 4.10: Summary of Pearson’s Correlation
Correlations
Product Price Complaint Innovation Product Supplier’s Overall
Quality Handling Availability Image and Buyer
Reputation Satisfaction
Product Pearson 1
Quality Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 355
Price Pearson .385** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 355 355
Complaint Pearson .306** .262** 1
Handling Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 355 355 355
Innovation Pearson .335** .307** .222** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 355 355 355 355
** ** **
Product Pearson .441 .402 .288 .368** 1
Availability Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 355 355 355 355 355
Supplier’s Pearson .320** .237** .352** .295** .296** 1
Image and Correlation
Reputation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 355 355 355 355 355 355
** ** ** ** **
Overall Pearson .652 .544 .436 .612 .571 .494** 1
Buyer Correlation
Satisfaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 355 355 355 355 355 355 355
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: Own survey (2021)

As indicated in table 4.10 above there is moderate correlations and positive significant relationship
found between product quality and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.652, p<0.05), price and overall

52
buyer satisfaction(r=0.544, p<0.05), complaint handling and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.436,
p<0.05), innovation and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.612, p<0.05), product availability and
overall buyer satisfaction(r=0.571, p<0.05), and Supplier’s image and reputation and overall buyer
satisfaction(r=0.494, p<0.05) which are statistically significant at 0.95% level of confidence. As
well as the result indicated there are small to moderate correlation with positive significant
relationship exist between the six independent variables.

4.7 Multiple Linear Regression Assumptions

4.7.1 Linear Regression Assumption Test

The assumption test such as normality and linearity, multi-collinearity; homoscedasticity, auto-
correlation, and outliers should be carried out before running linear regression to maintain data
validity and robustness of the regressed result of the research.

4.7.2 Normality and Linearity

Normality of data distribution assessed using skewness and kurtosis, skewness which measure
the overall lack of symmetry of distribution, and whether it looks the same to the left and right
of the center of the point and its kurtosis which measure whether the data is peaked or flat
relative to a normal distribution (Marczyk, Dematteo and Festinger, 2005). According to
George and Mallery (2010) the absolute value of skewness and kurtosis should be within 2 (+2
to -2). The normal probability plot (p-p) graph also computed to test the normality of data. The
value of the residuals is normally distributed, P-P plot for the model, the closer the dots lie to
the diagonal line, and the closer to normal the residuals are distributed. The p-p plot for the
model suggested that the assumption of normality of the residuals may have been violated.
However, as only extreme deviations from normality are likely to have significant impact on the
finding, the results are probably still valid (www.open.ac.uk). The finding from normal P=P plot
reveals no violation of normality assumption. On the other hand, the linearity indicates the
linear relationship between independent and dependent variables. So it characterized by straight
line. It tasked by producing scatter plots of the relationship between independent variable and
dependent variable (www.open.ac.uk). The study assessed the normality of data distribution
using skewness and kurtosis (numerically) as well normal probability plot (p-p) graph (See on
appendix). The finding justifies that all items that form the variables are normally distributed,
show table 4.11below.

53
 Table 4.11: Normality Test (Skewness and Kurtosis)
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Mean Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Product Quality 355 2.4437 .64290 .707 .129 -.727 .258
Price 355 3.1570 .70572 -.376 .129 -.863 .258
Complaint Handling 355 2.4286 .62968 .930 .129 -.109 .258
Innovation 355 2.3831 .69196 .984 .129 .270 .258
Product Availability 355 2.3211 .59936 .911 .129 .779 .258
Supplier’s Image and 355 3.1714 .70864 -.296 .129 -.985 .258
Reputation
Overall Satisfaction 355 2.5807 .67535 .617 .129 -.902 .258
Valid N (list wise) 355
Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.7.3 Multi-Collinearity
Multi-collinearity is avoiding very high correlations between independent variable’s (IV’s)
(Robert and Richard, 2008). It manipulates using Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).
The VIF measure the impact of collinearity among the IV’s in a multiple regression model on
the precision of estimation. It expresses the degree to which collinearity among the predictors
degrades the precision of an estimate (Robert and Richard, 2008). Typically, a VIF value greater
than 10.0 is of concern (Robert and Richard, 2008; Pallant, 2007). Tolerance is an indicator of
how much of the variability of the specified independent is not explained by the other
independent variables in the model, and less than 0.10 indicated multiple correlation with other
variables (Pallant, 2007). If VIF scores below 10.0, the assumption of multi-collinearity is fine,
while tolerance score must be above 0.2 (www.open.ac.uk). So, the study result indicates that
the regression models are free of collinearity since the maximum VIF and Tolerance value
illustrated in table 4.12 are below the threshold value of 10 and above 0.2.

54
 Table 4.12: Multi-Collinearity
Coefficientsa
Collinearity Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
1 Product Quality .702 1.425
Price .759 1.318
Complaint Handling .809 1.236
Innovation .789 1.268
Product Availability .691 1.447
Supplier’s Image and Reputation .790 1.266

a. Dependent Variable: Overall Buyer Satisfaction

Source: Own Survey (2021)

4.7.4 Homoscedasticity
The variability of scores for one variable should be roughly similar at all values of the other
variable (Robert and Richard, 2008). The authors sated that Different between obtained and
predicted dependent variable values should normally be distributed and variance of residuals the
same for all predicted scores (homoscedasticity). These assumptions can be tested by inspecting
residual scattered graphs and histograms. The finding of this study is acceptable since the
scattered plot graph look like a random array of dots. Show in appendix part.

Another assumption, the value of residuals is independent using Durbin-Watson that is the
individual data points to be independent from one another, or uncorrelated. The statistics can be
varying 0-4 value. Below 1 and above 3 are causes for concern. Thus, as indicated in the model
summary table 4.13 below the finding of the study show that 2.109 value, which is acceptable
(www.open.ac.uk). In general, the data satisfied the assumption of multi-collinearity, normality
of residuals, and homoscedasticity while no outliers were identified.

4.8 Multiple Regression Analysis

A multiple regression was performed between overall buyer satisfaction as the dependent
variable and rating of product quality, price, compliant handling, innovation, product
availability and supplier’s image and reputation as independent variables. So, the result from

55
table 4.13 shows that the adjusted R Square up to 72.5% of the variation in buyer satisfaction is
explained by variation in the six of the predicting variables taken together.

Table 4.13: Model Summary

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .851a .725 .720 .35731 2.109
a. Predictors: (Constant), Supplier’s Image and Reputation , Price, Innovation , Complaint
Handling, Product Quality , Product Availability
b. Dependent Variable: Overall Buyer Satisfaction
Source: Survey Result (2021)

As shown from model summary table 4.13 of the regression analysis, all independent variables
had significantly contributed to the predication of buyer satisfaction. Evidence is the R2 which
revealed that up to 72.5% of buyer satisfaction depends on six IV’s explained in this study; the
rest of the 27.5% depend on other variables or factors that unexplained in this research. Also,
the model indicates that as there is strong relationship between the six IV’s and DV which is
(.851).

Table 4.14: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df. Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 117.031 6 19.505 152.782 .000b
Residual 44.428 348 .128
Total 161.459 354
a. Dependent Variable: Overall Buyer Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), Supplier’s Image and Reputation , Price, Innovation ,
Complaint Handling, Product Quality , Product Availability
Source: Survey Result (2021)

As show in table 4.14 above, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicates that the model is
significant (F= 152.782, p=.000) at the 5% level of significant. So, this implying that there is
statistically significant association between product quality, price, complaint handling,

56
innovation, product availability and supplier’s image and reputation and buyer
satisfaction. Or these six IV’s influenced DV (buyer satisfaction).

Table 4.15: Coefficients

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model β Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -.758 .119 -6.351 .000
Product Quality .330 .035 .314 9.348 .000
Price .185 .031 .193 5.986 .000
Complaint Handling .124 .034 .116 3.703 .000
Innovation .308 .031 .315 9.952 .000
Product Availability .176 .038 .156 4.614 .000
Supplier’s Image and .160 .030 .168 5.300 .000
Reputation
a. Dependent Variable: Overall Buyer Satisfaction
Source: Survey Result (2021)

Unstandardized coefficients (β) have used to indicate magnitude of the unique contributions, and
standardized beta weights can also be used to compare the relative contributions of each predictor
(Robert and Richard, 2008).

As shown from the coefficients table 4.15 above the values of unstandardized coefficients (β)
found as (β =.330, P<.05), (β =.185, P<.05), (β =.124, P<.05), (β = .308, P<.05), (β =.176, P<.05),
and (β =.160, P<.05) for product quality, price, complaint handling, innovation, product
availability & supplier’s image and reputation respectively & all are statistically significant.
These significance levels indicate that all variables contribute significant and positive contribution
to the buyers’ level of satisfaction. All hypothesis are accepted because the result of significance
level is <0.05%.

The primary questions of this study were “To measure to what extent does ECAFCO’s
product/particleboard quality, particleboard price, and product availability affects buyers’ level
of satisfaction”. So, the study revealed that product quality /particleboard quality has the highest

57
degree of influence on buyer satisfaction followed by price, and product availability which is
0.330, .185 and .176 Beta respectively. But according to study result product quality have
relatively the highest degree of impact on buyer level of satisfaction followed by innovation and
price that are 0.330, .308 and .185 respectively, whereas the rest takes fourth to sixth rank that is
product availability (.176), supplier’s image and reputation (.160), and complaint handling
(.124). Thus, the first highest predictor of attributes is product/particleboard quality, second is
innovation while the smallest is complaint handling.

From the above table 4.15 we computed the following regression Equation to Measure
Buyer Satisfaction:

Y=α+ β1X1 + β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ β5X5+ β5X6+ε…………………………………..(1)

OBS= -0.758 + 0.330PQ + 0.185PR+ 0.124CH+ 0.308INN+ 0.176PA+0.160SR+ε……. (2)

Where:

Y= Overall Buyer Satisfaction

α =is a constant (the intercept of the model);

β1, β2, β3, β4, β5, β6 = the regression unstandardized coefficient of each IV’s variables.

PQ=Product Quality

PR=Price

CH= Complaint Handling

PA=Product Availability

INN=Innovation

SR= Supplier’s Image and Reputation

ε=is the error term

58
The second question the study designed to answer were, “How does complaint handling,
innovation practices, and image and reputation of ECAFCO’s affect buyers’ level of
satisfaction?” Based on unstandardized coefficient value (β) of regression model showed in
table 4.15 above, the average amount of change in buyers satisfaction caused by a unit change
in the six IV’s, in other word the unique contribution the six IV’s are analyzed. Hence, keeping
other variable constant, for one unit increase in the innovation, the buyer satisfaction will
increase by 0.308 units; for one unit increase in the complaint handling, the buyer satisfaction
will increase by 0.124 units; and for one unit increase in the supplier’s image and reputation, the
buyer satisfaction will increase by 0.160 units. The rest three variables, for one unit increase in
the product/particleboard quality, the buyer satisfaction will increase by 0.330 units; for one
unit increase in the price fairness, the buyer satisfaction will increase by 0.185 units; and for one
unit increase in the product availability, the buyer satisfaction will increase by .176 units.

Since from the six IV’s, product/particleboard quality and innovation contributes the strongest
unique effect on buyer satisfaction, so ECAFCO must give high attention to improve
particleboard quality; and provide various latest particleboards to satisfy buyers’ need than the
rivalry in the industry. As well, the company must establish the latest particleboard production
machinery and adapt information technology to deliver timely information for its customers.

4.9 Hypotheses Testing

Depending on the finding from regression analysis table 4.15 above, the developed hypotheses
of six IV’s (product quality, price, compliant handling, innovation, product availability,
supplier’s image and reputation) are statistically significant at p -value is less than 0.05. So,
accordingly, all the six hypotheses are accepted and retained in the model. Show summary of
hypotheses finding in table 4.16 below.

59
Table 4.16: Summary of Hypotheses Result
Hypotheses Reason Result Or
Decisions
H1: Product quality affects buyers’ level of satisfaction. β=.330 Accepted
t=9.348
P<0.05
H2: Price affects buyers’ level of satisfaction. β=.185 Accepted
t=5.986
P<0.05
H3: Compliant handling affects buyers’ level of satisfaction. β=.124 Accepted
t=3.703
P<0.05
H4: Innovation affects buyers’ level of satisfaction. β=.308 Accepted
t=9.952
P<0.05
H5: Product availability affects buyers’ level of satisfaction. β=.176 Accepted
t=4.614
P<0.05
H6: Supplier’s image and reputation affects buyers’ level of satisfaction. β=.160 Accepted
t=5.300
P<0.05
Source: Survey Result (2021)

4.10 Discussion of Results

Buyer satisfaction is a key in order to form lucrative relationships with customers to protecting
and developing customers and reaping their customer lifetime value (Kotler and Armstrong,
2012). So, the researcher motivated to assess the main core factors affecting particleboard
buyers’ level of satisfaction using six predictors. Multiple-linear regression implemented based
on the research objective and to answer research questions that were planned to measure the
extent and magnitude the six IV’s has on DV (buyer satisfaction) as discussed in previous part
of the study. The result from multiple-regression in table 4.15 shows that all the six IV’s has a
positive and statistically a significant result. As such the researcher accepted all the six
developed hypotheses. A detailed of the discussion presented as follow:

60
H1 is accepted since β=0.330 at P<0.05 as presented in table 4.16. Product quality is the first
significant factor in influencing buyer satisfaction in this study. Product quality is significantly
different from zero and is important in the model. Regression coefficient of product quality
0.330 indicates that holding other factors constant, if product quality increases by 1% then
buyer satisfaction will increase by 33%. Thus, Product quality contributes a strongest unique
effect on buyers’ level of satisfaction. So, buyers get satisfied if company provides standard and
durable competitive quality particleboard. Consistent with this study a lot of study concluded
that as product quality influence a customer satisfaction. Senthilkumar (2012); Suhendar and
Ruswanti (2019) study result showed that product quality has an effect on buyer satisfaction.
Ismail, Nazief and Boge (2016) also proved that the product quality improvement and the
competitive price could increase customer satisfaction. Anwar and Christan (2016) also
revealed that product quality is among the factors that influence and increase customer
satisfaction. Likewise, Solomon et al. (2006) found that product quality affects customer
satisfaction, which in turn results in augmented profitability among corporations who provide
quality products. The study by Jahanshahi et al. (2011) found that the quality of product
encourages customer satisfaction. Inconsistent with this study, Rahman (2014a) and Rahman,
H. et al. (2014) found in their study finding as quality of the offering has an insignificant
influence on customer satisfaction.

H2 is accepted as price fairness factor is significantly different from zero and is important in the
model (β =.185 at P<0.05). This result indicates that price fairness positively and significantly
affects buyer satisfaction. The regression of coefficient indicated that, holding other factors
constant, a 1% increase of price fairness will lead to increase buyer satisfaction by 18.5%.
Thus, customers get satisfied if the company particleboard price is fair relative to quality it has
and competitors’ in the industry. Making price information clear is also a vital of important in
satisfying buyers. Price is the third most important predictor that has positive and significant
influence on buyer satisfaction. The finding of this study similarly with Hanif, Hafeez and Riaz,
(2010) that proved price fairness had an important influence on buyer satisfaction. Hanif,
Hafeez and Riaz, (2010) stated that price fairness is refers to consumers’ assessments of
whether a seller’s price is reasonable, acceptable or justifiable. Ali et al. (2010) proved that
fairness of price is the strongest determinant of consumer satisfaction and the competitive
advantage to retain consumers for longer period of time. Malik et al. (2012) indicated that price
has significant association with customer satisfaction. Anwar and Christan (2016) concluded in
their study customer satisfaction can affected by many factors such as product quality, price
61
quality and service quality and marketplace. Kotler and Armstrong (2012) stated the study
finding, even in an improved economy, Fifty five percentages of purchasers say they could
instead get the attractive price than the good brand. So according to this study nearly two-thirds
say they will now shop at a different store with lower prices even if it’s less convenient.
Contrary to this study, Rahman, H. et al. (2014) found that as price has an insignificant impact
on getting the customers satisfied.

H3 is accepted as β=.124 at P<0.05. This third construct, complaint handling is the least
significant factor in influencing buyer satisfaction in this study. The complaint handling is
significantly different from zero and is important in the model. This result indicates that
complaint handling is positively and significantly affects buyer satisfaction. Regression
coefficient of complaint handling 0.124 implies that holding other variables constant, when
complaint handling increases by 1% then the buyer satisfaction will increase by 12.4%. So, if a
company establishing a system such as suggestion box, website, e-mail, telephone line etc. to
encourage the complaint customers, response to complaint promptly, adapt flexible policies and
procedures, taking feedback and making corrective action then buyers takes it positively and get
satisfied accordingly they continuously buy company’s product, talk positive about company
product and further recommend to other buyers and vice versa. This study agree with Rahman,
H., et al. (2014) also found that company achievement is related to with responsiveness to
customer; higher responsiveness to customer leads to higher customer satisfaction. Rizwan and
Ganesh, (2011) also found that about 50% of customers are satisfied and 50% are the customers
who do not stand in the category of satisfaction. Similarly, near to Rizwan and Ganesh, in this
study also overall on average about 48.6% customers of ECAFCO are those who are satisfied
with the way company handled complaint while 51.4% are dissatisfied. Even though, a large
percentage of consumers do not complain, it is still in the marketer’s best interests to be
responsive when any consumers do (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2010). According to Hoyer and
MacInnis (2010) clearly, clients could be greater happy and much more likely to shop for once
more in the event that they get a rapid reaction. For instance, the 3M Company claims that over
two-thirds of its product development thoughts come from listening to customer complaints
(Kotler and Keller, 2012). Given the possible downsides of getting an unpleasant consumer, it’s
important that marketers address with negative experiences properly (Kotler and Keller,
2012).Overall, Rahman, H. et.al (2014) indicated that keeping up preferred extent of customer
satisfaction requires company proactive responsiveness in accessing, building & retaining

62
satisfied customers for sustainable competitive advantages in marketplace. Also, Tuli &
Bharadwaj (2009) cited in Thogori and Jane (2014) observes that satisfied customers are
possibly to acclimatize a behavior of enhance in buy as well as a continuous buy from the firm.

H4 is accepted since β=.308 at P<0.05, Innovation is the second significantly contributed to

explain buyer satisfaction in this study. Innovation is significantly different from zero and is
important in the model. The regression coefficient of innovation 0.308 implies that, holding other
factors constant, a 1% increase in innovation will lead to increase buyer satisfaction by 30.8%.
Therefore, innovation contributes the strongest unique effect on buyer satisfaction. Buyer
satisfaction enhanced positively, if company continuously providing improved and latest
various particleboards which meets customer need and preference, and use the
latest particleboard production technology than competitors in the industry as well as access
timely and complete information to the customers by implementing alternative information
technology as website, e-mail, social media etc. This study agrees with Naveed et al. (2012) that
showed innovation affect customer satisfaction positively. They showed that as there is positive
association between innovation and customer satisfaction. Daragahi (2017) also found that
innovation has an effect on customer satisfaction and Daragahi proved that more innovations
improve customer satisfaction. Also, according to Panayides (2006) cited in Diaw and Asare
(2018) in order to survive in current conditions of market, firms within the industry must
enhance their innovation capabilities to satisfy market demands and customer preferences to
maintain a long-term competitive advantage. Diaw and Asare (2018) also found that a significant
positive relationship between innovation and customer satisfaction. Diaw and Asare (2018)
determined that as product and service innovation is believed to be the key in satisfying and
retaining customers.

H5 is accepted as β=.176 at P<0.05. Product availability is the fourth significantly important

factor affecting buyer satisfaction in this study. Product availability is significantly different
from zero and is important in the model. Therefore, Product availability contributes positive
significant effect on buyer satisfaction. The regression coefficient of product availability 0.176
implies that, holding other factors constant, a 1% increases in product availability will lead to
increase buyer satisfaction by 17.6%. This implies that if customer gets product at any time they
need from the company store with required quantity and or company could be able to supply
adequate particleboard then all these leads to buyer satisfaction. Similarly with this study, Oliver
(2012) indicated that the availability of product frequently possibility to boom revenue and

63
consumer satisfaction. Supplier needs to deliver the right quantity at the right time since poor
availability mean dissatisfied customers and poor financial performance over the long run, and
can cost at least 5% of sales (Oliver (2012). For example, according to Akiva (2009) cited in
Thogori and Jane (2014) also confirmed that inadequacy of sufficient stocks imply that business
firms aren’t capable of match supply and demand and this highly impact customer satisfaction
and the company’s bottom line and or revenue.

H6 is accepted because supplier’s image and reputation has coefficient β=0.160 with the
significant level P<0.05 has a positive effect on buyer satisfaction. Supplier’s image and
reputation is significantly different from zero and is important in the model. It is fifth
significantly contributed in creating buyer satisfaction. Regression coefficient of supplier’s
image and reputation 0.160 implies that holding other variables constant, if supplier’s image and
reputation increase by 1% then the buyer satisfaction will increase by 16%. Therefore, supplier’s
image and reputation contributes positive significant effect on buyer satisfaction. This implies
that if company’s particleboard would be very good quality, both company and its particleboard
is trustable and likable among buyers, this leads to buyer satisfaction, thereby buyers willing to
purchase product and further recommend to others too. Additionally, the way company
communicates and treats customer also significantly contributed to explain buyer satisfaction.
The study finding agrees with Mekonnen (2018) that found out corporate image significantly and
positively affect customer satisfaction; also with Bloemer and Ruyter (1998) cited in Stephen et
al. (2007) image does impact satisfaction. In addition, Gupta (2002) cited in Mekonnen (2018)
found that there is evidence between corporate and reputation which helps competitive advantage
for the firms by successfully differentiating it from competitors. The advantages are including,
willing to purchase, willingness to pay a premium price, and lead to customer satisfaction. Diaw
and Asare (2018) cited Anderson et al. (2004) also mentioned satisfaction level established by
purchaser’s eagerness to pay greater and tremendous word of mouth for a specific brand.
Satisfied customer could assist in building good reputation of brand and add value to the brand
name and unfold a superb expression (Hanif, Hafeez and Riaz (2010). According to Hanif,
Hafeez, and Riaz customer makes long term profitable association with brand, if they satisfied.
Zhao and Smith (2006) supplier’s reputation significantly related buyer social satisfaction and to
buyer trust also consistent with this study from this point of view only.

64
 CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMANDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, summary of research finding, conclusion of the findings, recommendations and
area further researched are presented. The conclusions and recommendations drawn focused on
addressing the objective, which was to examine the core factors affecting particleboard buyers’
level of satisfaction of Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Share Company (ECAFCO) and
their effect on buyer level of satisfaction.

5.2 Summary of Major Finding

The main objective of this study was to find out the core factors affect buyers’ level of
satisfaction. So, in order to examine buyer satisfaction influencing factors conceptual
framework which was skeleton on six constructs (product quality, price, complaint handling,
innovation, product availability and supplier’s image and reputation) developed based on
existing literature. Accordingly, the study was conducted to answer research question: “To what
extent product quality, price and product availability, and how does complaint handling,
innovation, supplier’s image and reputation affects buyers’ level of satisfaction in ECAFCO?”.

The study was conducted in Addis Ababa on business customers of ECAFCO S. C, and
355(92.21%) of customers were returned the data. Based on research objective, inferential
statistics of linear regression was used to analyze data and test the developed hypotheses and
make prediction. Also, descriptive statistics used to describe data as it is. Hence, the finding of
descriptive, correlation, and regression are presents as below:

The result of descriptive statistics used to describe respondents demography, purpose of use,
and particleboard thickness buyers purchased and the six IV’s buyer influencing factors with the
use of frequency and the mean value.

Regarding respondent’s demography, among respondents, 81.7% were males and 18.3% were
females. 84% of respondent’s age falling between 31 – 50 years. Educational background of
respondents were secondary school 10.4%, diploma 55.8%, first degree 32.1%, masters and
above 1.7%. With respect to use purpose 73.2% of respondents confirmed that as the company
particleboard most suitable for constriction (interior partition (43.9%) and ceiling (29.3%))
65
while 26.8% of respondents also for furniture. Regarding particleboard thickness: 8 mm 33.2%,
13 mm 21.4%, 10 mm 19.2%, 16 mm 13.2%, 19 mm 9.9% and other 3.1% (customized
particleboards) were among particleboard thickness purchased by buyer.

Summary of descriptive statistics result on buyer influencing factors and overall buyer
satisfaction are as follows:-

▪ The grand mean “product quality” is 2.4437, indicating that the majority of respondents
are reply disagree level with the items listed in the study. This clearly shows that most of
the company customers are unsatisfied with company’s particleboard quality.
▪ The grand mean of “particleboard price” is 3.1570, indicating that the majority of
respondents are reply neutral level with the items listed in the study. So, these shows
that as customers are neither agree nor disagree with the fairness of company price.
▪ The grand mean of “complaint handling” is 2.4286, indicating that the majority of
respondents are reply disagree level with the items listed in the study. This demonstrates
that as ECAFCO’s complaint handling completely poor.
▪ The grand mean of “innovation” is 2.3831, indicating that the majority of respondents
are reply disagree level with the items listed in the study. This shows that as there is
innovation gab on production machinery, information technology, and product
improvement and development. So, based on this evidence, I conclude that company is
incapable to provide various latest quality particleboards that could satisfy both furniture
and constriction sectors, and to deliver timely and complete information.
▪ The grand mean of “product availability” is 2.3211, indicating that majority of
respondents reply disagree level with the items listed in the study. This shows that as
there is particleboard supply gap.
▪ The grand mean of “supplier’s image and reputation” is 3.1714, indicating that majority
of respondents response rate are neutral level with the items listed in the study. This
indicates that respondents are indifferent with company’s image and reputation.
▪ The grand mean for “overall buyer satisfaction on six IVs” is 2.5807, indicating that
majority of respondents reply disagree level with the items listed in the study. These
imply that overall the company’s customers are dissatisfied.

The finding from Pearson’s correlation indicates that all IV’s are significant and positive
moderate correlation with DV, i.e. product quality and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.652,
p<0.05), innovation and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.612, p<0.05), product availability and

66
overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.571, p<0.05), price and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.544,
p<0.05), Supplier’s image and reputation and overall buyer satisfaction(r=0.494, p<0.05) and
complaint handling and overall buyer satisfaction (r=0.436, p<0.05).

The result of regression analysis shows that all IV’s are statistically significant. So, all variables
contribute significant and positive contribution to the buyers’ level of satisfaction.
All hypotheses are accepted because the result of significance level is <0.05%. R2 revealed that
up to 72.5% of buyer satisfaction depends on six IV’s explained in this study; the rest of the
27.5% depend on other variables or factors that unexplained in this research. Also, the model
indicates that as there is strong relationship between the six IV’s and DV which is (R=.851).

The finding from coefficients unstandardized (β) show that the most important factors
influencing buyer satisfaction are product quality (β=.330) and innovation (β =.308) followed
by price (β=.185), product availability (β=.176), the supplier’s image and reputation (β=.160)
and complaint handling (β=.124). Thus, product/particleboard quality and innovation
has relatively the highest degree of impact on buyer satisfaction.

5.3 Conclusions

Sustainability in the market depends on buyer satisfaction, so to attain this, business companies
should audit buyers' needs and wants, and strive to satisfy customer demand. The overall
objective of the study is to assess the core factors that affect particleboard buyers’ level of
satisfaction specific to the Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Share Company. Thus, the study
revealed that the independent variables that are product quality, innovation, price, product
availability, supplier’s image and reputation, and complaint handling contribute a significant
positive contribution in getting buyer satisfied, However product/particleboard quality and
innovation are the most important factors in influencing buyer satisfaction. Buyers get satisfied
if a company provides standard and durable competitive quality particleboard at a fair price than
competitors.

Price is a decisive issue since there is no transaction without the right price, so, if the company
can set the right price or sell the product at a fair price relative to quality and competitors'
offering, the buyer might be satisfied and become loyal to the firm, if not, the buyer could
switched to alternative providers.

67
 On the other hand, innovation is among strategic issues that firms must consider attentively
since it is dynamic in nature, and also a helpful tool to successfully run business, thereby
satisfying customers' demand. The study revealed that innovation is the second most important
factor in determining buyer satisfaction. Thus, if a firm sophisticating its production technology
but also innovating process to access timely and complete information, and continuously
improved and offers various latest quality particleboards with required quantity, customers' need
and preference might be fulfilled significantly. Similarly, if a company’s particleboard is very
good quality, both the company and its particleboard are trustable and likable among buyers,
and thereby buyer satisfaction is positively enhanced.

Furthermore, as building a positive image enhances a company’s reputability and has a

significant contribution to explaining buyer satisfaction, thus treating customers in a respectful
manner is a helpful approach for customer-oriented company. In addition, establishing a system
to encourage complaint customers, adapting flexible policies and procedures, responding to
complaints quickly, taking feedback and making corrective action are advantageous because
buyers take this as positive and get satisfied. Consequently, they continuously buy the
company’s product, talk positive about the company’s product and further recommend to other
buyers.

In general, since a customer is a valuable asset, so to retain their life value and stay long in the
business environment, making an effort to satisfy customers' demand must be a primary goal of
every business organization.

5.4 Recommendations
Based on the finding of the study, the following recommendations are forwarded to the company
under study:

❖ Product quality is the most influencing factor in this study in determining buyer satisfaction
positively. Therefore, ECAFCO has to overcome quality gab to alter the existing condition
with full effort and produce competitive quality particleboards which meet
conformity/standard/criterion set as world and durable particleboard to enhance buyer
satisfaction, especially furniture makers. As the result of the study indicates, Company’s
particleboard is more suitable for construction than furniture; so much exertion is expected
to delight furniture makers. In other words, in order to enhance particleboard performance

68
 quality and change both construction and furniture sector buyer expectations, the
particleboard produced by ECAFCO must have a uniform thickness or homogenous in
structure.
❖ The second significant factor in this study is innovation in explaining buyer satisfaction.
The majority of customers have disagreed with company innovation practices. So, unable
to innovate or inefficiency of production technology dissatisfied buyers, more easily can
switch customers to other capable suppliers. It is clear that in order to satisfy customers’
needs, technological advantage helps the company. So, ECAFCO must reverse this
bottleneck and establish sophisticated production technology; provide improved and
various latest quality particleboards which could satisfy both furniture and constriction
sectors' preference than competitors, and even to survive in industry. The second concern
of this study was process innovation/implementing information technology. Since we are in
the era of the digital age to enhance buyers’ satisfaction, companies should have to adapt
effective well designed web, email, social media, and or use all alternative tools which help
to access complete information to the buying customer timely.
❖ In today's competitive world, as obvious, business buyers search for price alternatives
before making price decision. So, the most advantageous company is the one that provides
fair price. Therefore, ECAFCO has to provide a fair price since it has a positive significant
effect on customer satisfaction.
❖ As the finding indicates, the majority of respondents agree that there is supply gab. Thus, in
order to satisfy and keep customers, companies should produce volume particleboard and
make product available per buyer's need because product availability contributes a positive
significant effect in getting customers satisfied.
❖ The results of the study find that a supplier’s image and reputation contributes to a positive
significant effect on buyer satisfaction. Hence, to enhance buyer satisfaction, a company
should produce likable quality product which is trusted most by buyers, and also improve
the way it communicates and treats its customers.
❖ The result of the study revealed that more than half of customers were dissatisfied with a
company's complaint handling. This demonstrates that ECAFCO’s complaint handling
system is completely poor. Hence, ECAFCO should resolve the issue that prompted the
customer’s disparagement. So, to overcome this, a company has to establish a system such
as suggestion box, website, e-mail, telephone line etc. to encourage complaint customers,

69
 response to complaints promptly, adapt flexible policies and procedures, taking feedback
and making corrective action to get customers satisfied.

In general, the company has to improve product quality, adapt production and process
innovation, handle complaints in a well manner, and make products available to enhance buyer
satisfaction; and thereby maintain the existing position. Above all, ECAFCO, to survive in the
market and run business profitably, should have to improve the quality of particleboard and
provide various particleboards that meet both current and potential buyer expectations to the
utmost.

5.5 Limitations and Directions for Future Researcher

As study specific to Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Company there is a concern whether
the result are generalizeable to other company in and outside Ethiopia, so the proposed model
needs to be validated in different company and countries of same industry. In addition, since the
researcher use nonrandom convenience sampling, future researchers have an opportunity to
validate the model using random sampling design. Also, an interesting area future researcher
assess is the effect of company’s production technology on particleboard quality and or factors
affecting particleboard quality since this study only focused on the effect of innovation on
customer satisfaction.

70
REFERENCE
Abebe, W (2019), ‘Forest Product Import and Export Balance’, Ethiopia Press Agency, [online]
01 December 2020, Available from<http://www.press.et /2019/11/7>, (7th November
2020)
Addis Ababa Chambers of Commerce and Scetorial Association, and DAB-DRT (2014),
Manufacturing Survey Analysis, [Online] Available from: <http://addischamber.com>
(29 October 2020).
Ajang, T., Hamed M., Ahmad J. Latibari and Mehran R. (2011) Analysis of Wood-Based
Panels Import to Iran: Simultaneous Equations Model Approach. African Journal of
Business management, [Online] 5(34), 13169-13175, doi:10.5897/AJBM11.991
Alan Zimmerman and Jim Blythe, (2013).Business to Business marketing Management: A
Global Perspective. 2nd ed. London: Routledge publication.
Ali, J. F.; Ali, I.; Rehman, K.; Yilmaz, A. K.; Safwan, N.; Afzal, H. (2010), Determinants of
consumer retention in cellular industry in Pakistan, African Journal of Business
Management, 4(12), 2402–2408.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. & Mazvancheryl, S.K. (2004), “Customer Satisfaction and
Shareholder Value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp 172–185.
Anwar, A., & Christan, B. (2016), Factors that affect and enhanced customer satisfaction,
Journal of Business and management, [Online] 4(9), 80-88.Available from <http://
www.questijournals.org> (16 December 2020)
Andrew Whalley (2010), Strategic Marketing, [Online] First Edition, Available from:
<http://www.etd.aau.edu.et> (20 November 2020)
Atila, Y. and Fisun Y. (2008), Tourist Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior: Measurement
and Management Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry (Customer satisfaction
Theories: A Critical Review), Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Azeb Assefa (2010), Factors Affecting Internet Customers Satisfaction, the case of Ethiopian
Telecommunication Corporation Business Customers, Master Thesis, Viewed July 2020,
Addis Ababa University Theses Database.
Azeb Kedir (2020), Factors Influencing Customer Satisfaction of E-banking Services, the case
of Buna International Bank S.C, Master Thesis, Viewed 7 July 2021, Addis Ababa
University Theses Database.

71
Berhanu Misker (2016), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction in Banking Services, a case of
Dashen, Master Thesis, Viewed 28 October 2020, Addis Ababa University Theses
Database.
Benjamin Diaw and Gideon Asare (2018), Effect of Innovation on Customer Satisfaction and
Customer Retention in the Telecommunication Industry in Ghana: Customers’
Perspectives, European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences
[Online] 6(4): 2056-5992). Available from: <http://www.researchgate.com>
Carrie Williams (2007), Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research,
[Online] 5 (3), Available from: <www. Clutejourbals.com>
Chemical and Construction Input Industry Development Institute (n.d), The Ethiopian Wood
Processing Industry, Wood profile PDF. [Online] viewed 22 November 2020, Available
from: <http://www.cciidi.gov.et>.
Cochran, W. G. (1963), Sampling Techniques. 2nd Ed, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods
approaches’. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publications.
Dagne Abetie (2018) ‘Particleboard Production from Maize Cob’ Master Thesis, University of
Addis Ababa, Viewed 24 November 2020, Addis Ababa University Theses Database.
Daniella Ryding (2010), the Impact of New Technologies on Customer Satisfaction and
Business to Business Customer Relationships: Evidence from the Soft Drinks Industry.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,[Online] 17(2010), 224-228. Available
from: <http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser>
Dennick, R., Tavakol, (2011). M. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, ISSN: 2042-6372.
Drilon, P. and Gabriel V. (2017), Improving Product Availability: The case study at IKEA
Kitchen and Dining, [Online] Master Thesis, LUND University. Viewed 12 December
2020, Available from <http://www.lup.lub.lu.se>.
Ehsani, Z and Ehsani, M. H., (2015), Effect of Quality and Price on Customer Satisfaction and
Commitment in Iran Auto Industry, International Journal of Service Sciences,
Management and Engineering.No.1.Vol 5.pp.52-56
Erol Sözen and Ufuk Güven (2019).The effect of Online Assessments on Students’ Attitudes
towards Undergraduate-Level Geography Courses.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n10p1
Ethiopia Chipwood and Furniture Company (2012), Annual Reports, ECAFCO
Ethiopian Chip Wood and Furniture Company (n. d), [Brochure]. ECAFCO

72
Eugene W. Anderson, Claes Fornell, and Donald R. Lehmann (1994), Customer Satisfaction,
Market Share, and Profitability: Finding From Sweden. Journal of Marketing, [Online]
58: 53-66. Available from: <www.jstor.org.> [12 December 2020].
Fasika Tatek (2018), Assessment of Factors Affecting Customers Satisfaction of Motor
Insurance Customer, in Selected Insurance Companies, Addis Ababa, Master Thesis,
Viewed July 2020, Addis Ababa University Theses Database.
Fatemeh S., Majid A., and Amin A. (2013), a multiple criteria analyses of factors affecting
markets of engineered wood products with respect to customer preference: a case study
of particleboard and MD, For. Sci. Pract.15: 61-69. DOI: 10.1007/s11632-013-0110-4
Firouze H.Abkari and Lida Radmand (2016) ‘Investigation of effect of buyer’s post-purchase
remorse in products with high levels of rumination’, International Business management
[Online] 10(7): 1183-1191, Available From: <http://www.medwelljournal.com> [15
December 2020]
Gebi Shuka (2015), The Value Chin Analysis of Chip wood and Furniture Company, the case
Ethiopian Chip wood and Furniture Company, [Online] Master Thesis, University of St.
Mary, Addis Ababa, Viewed 5th October 2020, <http://www.repository.smuc.edu.et>.
Gene Wengert (2020), Panel principles: Particleboard. [Online] Available from
<http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com> [5th November 2020]
George, D. and Mallery, M. (2010), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, 17.0 updated (10a edition), Boston, Pearson publication.
Getachew Tesfaye (2018), Factors Affecting Customers Satisfaction of Customers Services of
Bonded Warehouse Operation, the Case of Addis Ababa Kality Customer Branch
Office, Master Thesis, Viewed July 2021, Addis Ababa University Theses Database.
Gholamreza Askarpour Daragahi (2017). The Impact of Innovation on Customer Satisfaction: A
Study of the Cosmetics Producer in Tehran (International Review Article). Professional
Paper, [Online] 2017, (1-2), Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship,
Available from<http://www.researchgate.net> (November 15 2020)
Graeme, D., John E (2001) Strategic Marketing: Planning and Control, Second Edition.
London: Reed Elsevier plc group.
Hanif, M., Hafeez, S., Riaz, A., (2010), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction, International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 60 (2010).Available
from<http://www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm>

73
Heikkilä T., (2001) Tilastollinen tutkimus (Statistical Research), Third Edition. Helsinki, Edita.
pp.30 &187; pp.29 &186
Herrmann, A.; Xia, L.; Monroe, K. B.; Huber, F. (2007), the influence of price fairness on
customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 49–58
Ismail Razak, Nazief, N. and Boge, T. (2016), ‘Study on The impact of product quality and
price on customer satisfaction with the mediator of customer value’, Journal of
Marketing and Consumer Research [Online] 30: 2422-8451, Available from: <http://
www.iiste.org> (17 December 2020).
Jahanshahi, A.A, Gashti, M.A.H, Mirdamadi, S.A, Nawaser, K, and Khaksar, S.M.S.
2011.Study of Effects of Customer Service and Product Quality on Customer
Satisfaction and Loyalty, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science.Vol.1
No.7.pp.253-260
Jayanthi Ranjan and Sandeep Puri (2012), Out of Stock Conditions Affecting Customer
Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty, Journal of Business and Retail Management
Research Online, 6 (2). Available from: <http://www.jbrmr.com> (20 December 2020).
Jonathan, G. (2005), Foundation of Marketing. DOI 10.1007/978-0-230-21227-5
Joseph P. Cannon and William D. Perreault Jr. (2010) ‘Buyer-Seller Relationships in Business
Markets’, Journal of Marketing Research, [Online] 36(4), 439-460. Available from:
http://www. jstoe.org/stable/3151999/ (12 December 2020)
Kent, R. (2007), Marketing Research: Approach, methods, and application in Europe. Italy:
Rotolito.
Kevin Lane Keller (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing
Brand Equity. Fourth Edition, London: Pearson Education Limited.
Khartit K. 2021, Definition of Customer. www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cusomer.asp
Komah Berhe (2018), ‘Study on Production and Economic Analysis of Particleboard from
Sugarcane Bagasse’, Master Thesis, Viewed 28 October 2020, Addis Ababa University
Theses Database.
Kotler, Ph. and Armstrong, G., (2012), Principal of Marketing [Online], 14th edition, Available
from: <http:// www.etd.aau.edu.et> (20 November 2020).
Kotler, Ph. and Keller, K., (2012) Marketing Management. 14th edition, New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.

74
Kronospan (2021) Particleboard (chipboard) panels: Multi-purpose materials [Online]
Available from <http://www.kronospanworldwide.com> (January 2021)
McCoy Mart Team (2020) what is a particleboard and what is its different type [Online].
Available from: <http://www.mccoymart.com> (17 December 2020).
Malik, M. E, Ghafoor, M. M. and Igbal, H. K. (2012), Impact of Brand Image, Service Quality
and Price on Customer Satisfaction in Pakistan Telecommutation Sector, International
Journal of Business and Social Science. Vol.3.No.23. pp.123-129
Management Study Guide (2020) Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction.[Online] Available
from: <http://www.managmentguide.com> (12 December 2020).
Marczyk, G., Dematteo, D., and Festinger, D. (2005), Essential of Research Design &
Methodology: A Practical overview of proven methods for research design. Canada:
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Martin luenendonk (2019) Marketing environment: explanation, components and
importance.[Online].Available from <http://www.cleverism.com>(01 December 2020).
Mekonnen D. Gebremariam (2019), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction: the case of Debre
Berhan Hotels, [Online] Master Thesis. University of Debre Berhan, Viewed 12
December 2020, Available from: <http://www.etd.dbu.edu.et>.
Mersha Fikirte (2016), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction, the case of Commercial Bank
of Ethiopia Customers in Addis Ababa.
METHODSPACE (2019), Criteria for selecting a research approach. Available From:
<http://www.methodspace.com>.
Mihret Kiros (2019), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction on Tap Water Services Delivery
in Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority, the case of Guard Shola Branch,
Master Thesis, Viewed July 2021, Addis Ababa University Theses Database.
Million Insights (2018), Particleboard Market Size Analysis, Segmentation, Industry Outlook
and Forecasts, 2011-2022. [Online] Available from: <http://www.millioninsight.com>
(3rd November 2020).
Million Tekeste (2013), ‘Determinant of Customer Based Equity: The Case of Ethiopian Beer
Industry’ Master Thesis, University of Addis Ababa, School of Commerce, Library.
Musa M. 2018, Ethiopia: ‘Pioneers in Particleboard Work Ethiopia’. The Ethiopian Herald,
Addis Ababa, June. Viewed 5th November 2020, <http://www.all African.com>.
Naveed, Tahir and Akhtar, Irum and Cheema, Khaliq Ur Rehman (2012), ‘the impact of
Innovation on Customer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty: A study on the student of

75
 Faisalabad’, [Online], Available from :<https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53197/>
(December 2020).
Nikita Thattamparambil (2020), How to choose the research method best suit for your study
Available From: <http://www.editage.com>
Oliver Wyman (2012), Getting Availability Right, Bringing Out of Stock under Control
[Online], Available from :< http://www.oliverwyman.com> (December 15 2020)
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS
for Windows (3rd ed.), England: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
Petr Suchánek, Jiří Richter, and Maria Králová2 (2014), Customer satisfaction, Product Quality
and Performance of Companies (Review of Economic Perspective Article), [Online]
14(4), 329-344, Available from: doi: 10.1515 revecp-2015-0003
Public Administration Higher Study (2020), internal environment factors analysis. Available
from: <http://www.higherstudy.com> (Viewed November 27 2020).
Rahman, M. H. (2014a), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction in Mobile Telecommunication
Industry in Bangladesh, Business Management and Education, 12 (1), 74–93. Doi
10.3846/bme.2014.06
Rahman H.., Redwanuzzaman, Masud-Ul-Hasan and Asfaqur Rahman (2014), Factors affecting
customer satisfaction on Grameenphone users in Bangladesh, Global Journal of
Marketing and Business Research, [Online] 14:2249-4888. Available from: <http://
www.globaljournal,org>
Ranjit Kumar (2011), Research Methodology, a step-by step guide for beginners. Third Edition,
Available from <www.sociology.kpi.ua/>
Rediat Afework and Genet Gebre Tirfe (2019), Assessing the effect of marketing mix element
on customer satisfaction, the case of Hawassa Chipwood Factory, Business and
Management, 21: 01-12. DOI: 10.9790/487X-2104050112/j. businessman. 2019.04.18
Rizwan Khan &Ganesh Narawane (2011), Examining Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction
thesis, A Case Study of a Swedish Firm,[Online] Master Thesis, University of SKÖVDE,
Viewed 12 December 2020, Available from <http://www. divaportal.org>
Robert, B. Burns, and Richard, A. Burns (2008), Business Research Methods and Statics Using
SPSS, Los Angeles: Sage publication
Rosanna Garcia (2014), Creating and Marketing New products and Services. London: CRC
press.

76
Seble Woldemariam (2016), ‘Effect of Service Recovery on Customer Satisfaction and
Behavioral Intention: the case of Ethiopian Airlines Cargo’ Master Thesis, University of
Addis Ababa, School of Commerce, Library.
Senthilkumar, V. 2012.A study on the effects of customer service and product quality on
customer satisfaction and loyalty, Namex International Journal of Management
Research, 2(2): 123-129.
Sisay Mengesha (2016), ‘The Effect of Brand Image on Customer Purchase Decision, the case
of Zenebe Ferew Real Estate’, Master Thesis, University of Addis Ababa, School of
Commerce, Library
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., and Hogg, M. K. (2006), Consumer Behaviour: A
European Perspective, Third Edition, Pearson Education Limited, England.
Stephen L. Sondoh, Maznah W. Omar, Nabsiah Abdul Wahid, Ishak I., and Amran H., (2007)
The effect Brand Image on Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty Intention in the Context of
Color Cosmetic. Asian Academy of management Journal, Online, 12(1), 83-107,
Available from: http://www.researchgate.net (December 11, 2020).
Suhendar, U. and Ruswanti, E. (2019).Effect of product quality, perception of price and
Satisfaction to Customer Loyalty (study on Agroindustrial Company
Indonesia).International Journal of Economic, Commerce and Management.[Online]
Vol. VII, Issue 3. Available from<http://ijecm.co.uk>[March, 2021].
Thogori M. and Jane Gathenya (2014), Role of Inventory Management on Customer
Satisfaction among the Manufacturing Firms in Kenya: A case Study of Delmonte
Kenya. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science,
Online] 4(1): 2222-6990, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i1/517
Umit Kucuk ed. (2017), Visualizing Marketing from Abstract to Intuitive: DOI 10.1007/978-3-
319-48027-5
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (1990), Together for Sustainable Future,
UNIDO publication, [Online] Available from <http://www.unido.org > (26 November
2020)
Wayne, D. Hoyer and Deborah J. MacInnis (2010).Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition.USA:
South Western Cengage Learning
Wood solutions (2020) Particleboard also knows as Chipboard, [Online], Available from
<http://www. woodsolutions.com.au>(3rd November 2020).
www.open.uk.co. Assumptions of Multiple Regression pdf

77
Yimer Yonathan (2014), Assessment of Factors Affecting Customers’’ Satisfaction in
Automated Teller Machine Services, the case of United Bank S.C in Addis Ababa,
Master Thesis, Viewed July 2021, Addis Ababa University Theses Database.
Yodit Bakele (2019), Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction of Application Based Tax
Services, the Case of RIDE, Master Thesis, Viewed July 2021 Addis Ababa University
Theses Database.
Yushan Zhao and Lois Smith (2006) ‘How Supplier Involvement Influence Buyer Satisfaction
and Trust: Study of Industrial Markets’, Journal of Innovative Marketing [Online] 2(2),
Available from <http://www.businessperspectives.org> (13 December 2020).
Zikmund, W .G. (2003), Business Research Methods, Seventh edition, Ohio: Thompson South-
Western.
Zikmund et al, (2010), Business Research Methods.8th Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western
Cengage Learning, United States.

78
APPENDIX

Appendix I: Survey (English Version)

Addis Ababa University School of Commerce

Department of Marketing Management
Post Graduate Program

Buyer’s Levels’ of Satisfaction Questionnaires

Dear Respondents,
I am a student at Addis Ababa University School of Commerce. My name is Zahra Abdulwahid.
I am conducting a research on a topic, “Factors Affecting Particleboard Buyers’ Level of
Satisfaction (the case of ECAFCO)” in a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
MA degree. I kindly request you to spend some minutes of your time in answering the
questionnaire designed to assess the satisfaction level of particleboard buyer. Your responses
will be used only for academic research and any information which you provide will be kept
confidential. Your genuine response will have significant effect on the result of the study.
Writing your name on the questionnaire is not mandatory. Please tick one in appropriate box
that best suits your perspective for each statement. I thank you very much for your kind
cooperation.

Zahra Abdulwahid
Mobile: - 251 9 40 19 30 85
E-mail Address: zahraabdulwahid@yahoo.com

79
Part I: General Information

1. Gander: A. Male B. Female

2. Age:________________________
3. Level of education:

1. Illiterate 2. Primary (≤ Grade 8) 3. Secondary (9 – 12th Grade)

4. Diploma 5.First Degree 6.Second degree or above

4. For what purpose the company particleboard suitable to use?

1. For interior partition
2. Ceiling
3. Furniture
4. Other (please specify _____________)
5. Could you indicated which particleboard thickness you buy: 8mm 10mm
13mm 16mm 19mm Other please specifies______)

80
 Part II: Factors Affecting Buyers’ Level of Satisfaction
Instruction:
Please respond to each item by putting a tick (“√”) mark in the box relating to the opinion that
identifies your level of agreement:

(1=Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree)

Questionnaire Items Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree Agree
I Product Quality
1. The company particleboard meets quality standard and
it thickness have uniformity
2. The company particleboard durability is good
3. ECAFCO provides quality Particleboard which fulfills
buyers need
4. The company particleboard quality is good relative to
competitors offering
5. Your are delighted with company’s particleboard
quality
6. Overall the quality of company’s particleboard is very
good
II Price Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree
7. ECAFCO Particleboard price is fair
8. The company particleboard price is good relative to the
quality it has
9. The company particleboard price is fair and good than
competitors
10. Price information is clear and understandable to
customers

81
III Complaint Handling Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree
11. The company established system such as suggestion
form/box, web site, e-mail, telephone line etc to
encourage the complaint customers
12. The company response to the complaint quickly
13. The company policies and procedures considered the
situation
14. The company takes feedback from its customer and
makes corrective action to delight its customers
15. I will buy the company’s product continuously and
recommend ECAFCO particleboard to other buyers
16. I will talk positively about the product of the company
every chance I get
IV Innovation Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree
17. The company particleboard production technology is
more sophisticated than the competitors in the industry
18. The company provides improved new particleboard to
satisfies its customers need
19. The company particleboard quality more improved than
the past
20 The company offer various sophisticated particleboard
to satisfied its customers preference than the past
21. The company has implemented website, email, social
media, etc to access timely and complete information
for its customers
V Product Availability Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree
22. The company could supply adequate particleboard
product to the buyers
23. You can get particleboard from the company store at a

82
 time you needed with required quantity
24. There is no supply gap
VI Image and Reputation Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree Agree
25. The company’s particleboard has reputation
26. The company’s particleboard would be very good
quality so that it is likeable product among buyers
27. I trust the quality of ECAFCO’s particleboard
28 ECAFCO is the company I trust it most and so that I
recommend it to others particleboard buyers
29 I am willing to buy a particleboard which is produced
by well-known producers like ECAFCO
30 The company communicates and treats its customers in
respectful manner
**
31 I am satisfied with overall the company’s particleboard
product quality
32 I am satisfied with overall the company’s
particleboard price
33. I am satisfied with overall the way the company
handled complain
34. I am satisfied overall becouse when I needed to buy
the company particleboard product is always available
35 Overall I am satisfied with company technology
becouse I am getting improved quality particleboard
products as per my interest
36. I am satisfies with the overall manner in which I am
treated by this company
37 Overall I am satisfied with this company particleboard
product

83
Appendix II: Survey (Amharic version)

በአዲስ አበባ ዩኒቨርሲቲ

የንግድ ስራ ኮሌጅ
መርኬቲንግ ማናጅመንት ትምህርት ክፍል

የጽሑፍ መጠይቅ

ይህ መጠይቅ የተዘጋጀው እኔ ዘህራ አብዱልዋህድ በአዲስ አበባ ዩኒቨርሲቲ ንግድ ስራ ኮሌጅ

የመርኬቲንግ ዲፓርትመንት ለማደርገዉ ለሁለተኛ ዲግሪ ትምህርት ማሟያ ጥናት ይሆን
ዘንድ ነው፡፡ በዚህ መሠራት የመመረቂያ ፅሑፍ በኢትዩጵያ ቺፕውድ ና ፈርንቸር ካምፖኒ
የቺፕውድ ዳንበኞች እርካታ ተግዳሮት ‘Factors affecting Particleboard Buyers’ Level
of Satisfaction the case of Ethiopia Chipwood and Furniture Company’ በሚል
ርዕስ እየሰራሁ እገኛለሁ፡፡

ውድ የኢትዩጵያ ቺፕውድ ና ፈርንቸር ከንፓን (ኢከፍኮ) ዳንበኞች የዚህ መጠይቅ ዋና አላማ

የተቃኘው የኢትዩጵያ ቺፕውድ ና ፈርንቸር ካምፖኒ የቺፕዉድ ዳንበኞች እርካታ ተግዳሮት
የተመለከቱ መረጃ ከዋና ዳንበኞች ማግኘት ነው፡፡ በመሆኑም የምትሰጡት መረጃ ለትምህረት
ተግባር ብቻ የሚውልና ሚስጥሩም የተጠበቀ መሆኑን ላረጋግጥላቹ እወዳለሁ፡፡ የእርስዎ
መልስ በጣም አስፈላጊ በመሆኑ ለመልካም ትብብርዎና ውድ ሰዓትዎን ሰውተው ስለተባበሩኝ
አመሰግናለው፡፡

ዘህራ አብዱልዋህድ
ስልክ፡- 09 40 19 30 85

84
ማሳሰቢያ፡-
- በመጠይቁ ላይ ስም መፃፍ አያስፋልግም፡፡
- ትክክለኛ መልስ የያዘዉ አማራጭ ሳጥን ውስጥ የ √ ምልክት በማድረግ ይመልሱ፡፡
ክፍል 1፡ የግል መረጃ
1. ፆታ: ሀ. ወንድ ለ. ሴት

2. እድሜ:________________

3. የትምህርት ደረጃዎ ምን ይመስላል?

1. አልተማርኩም 2. የመጀመሪያ ደረጃ አጠናቅቄያለሁ

3. ሁለተኛ ደረጃ አጠናቅቄያለሁ 4. ኮሌጅ ዲፕሎማ
5. ዲግሪ6. ማስተርስ ዲግሪና ከዘ በለይ

4. የድርጅቱ ምርት ለያትኛው አግልግሎት ምቹ እዳሆነ ይግለጹ

1) ለቤት ውስጥ ክፍፍል
2) ለኮርንስ
3) ለቤት እና ብሮ ዕቃ መስሪያ
4) ሌላ (እባክዎን ይግለጹ)_____________)

5. የትኛውን የችፕዉድ ውፍረት እንደሚገዙ ይግለጹ

1. በለ8 2. በለ10 ` 3. በለ13 4. በለ16

5.19 6. ሌላ እባክዎን ይግለጹ____________________)

85
 ክፍል 2፡ በድርጅቱ ደንበኞች እርካታ ለማለከት የተዘጋጀ ማጠይቅ ነው፡፡ ከዚህ በታች
በተሰጠው ሰንጠረዠ እያንዳነዱ ጥያቄ አምስት አማራጮች አሉት እነሱም እባክዎ
ለሚከተሉት ጥያቄዎች በተሰጡትን መለኪያ መጠን በመጠቀም የ√ ምልክት በማስቀመጥ
ያመልክቱ፡፡

1=በጣም አልስማማም 2=አልስማማም 3=ሀሳብ የለኝም

4=እስማማለሁ 5=በጣም እስማማለሁ
በጣም አልስማማም ሀሳብ እስማማለሁ በጣም
ተ.ቁ
አልስማማም የለኝም እስማማለሁ
iየምርት ጥራት በተመለከተ
/ Product Quality/
1. የድርጅቱ ቺፕውድ ደረጃውን የጠበቀ
እና ወጥ ውፍረት አለው፡፡
2. ድርጅቱ የምያማረታቸው ቺፕውድ ጥሩ
ጥንካሬ አለው፡፡
3. ድርጅቱ የገዢዎችን ፍላጎት የሚያሟላ
ጥራት ያለዉ ቺፕውድ ያቀርባል፡፡
4. የድርጅቱ ቺፕውድ ጥራት ከሌሎች
ገበያ ውስጥ ከሉት ምሪቶች ጋር
ስናፀፃር ጥሩ ነው፡፡
5. በድርጅቱ ቺፕውድ ጥራት ተደስተዋል፡፡
6. በአጠቃላይየድርጅቱ ቺፕውድ ጥራት
በጣም ጥሩ ነው፡፡
በጣም አልስማማም ሀሳብ እስማማለሁ በጣም
ዋጋን በተመለከተ /Price /
አልስማማም የለኝም እስማማለሁ

7. የኢካፍኮ የቺፕውድ መሸጫ ዋጋ

ተመጣጣኝ ነው፡፡
8. የድርጅቱ ቺፕውድ መሸጫ ዋጋ
ከለዉ ጥራት አንፃር ስተይ ጥሩ ነው፡፡
9. የድርጅቱ ቺፕውድ ዋጋ ከተፎካካሪዎች

86
 አንፃር ስተይ ተመጣጣኝ እና ጥሩ
ነው፡፡
10. ድርጅቱ ለምርቱ የሚያስከፍለው ዋጋ
ለደንበኞቹ ግልጽ፤ የተማላ ና በቀላሉ
ለመረዳት የሚያስችል ነው፡፡
በጣም አልስማማም ሀሳብ እስማማለሁ በጣም
የዳንበኞች ቅሬታ አያየዝን በተመለከተ
አልስማማም የለኝም እስማማለሁ
/Complaint handling/
11. ቅሬታ አቅራቢውን ደንበኞች
ለማበረታታት ኩባንያው የአስተያየት
መስጫ ቅጽ/ሳጥን፤ ድር ጣቢያ፤ ኢ-
ሜል እና የስልክ መስመርን የመሳሰሉ
ስርዓትን ዘርግተል፡፡
12. ድርጅቱ ከደንበኞቹ ለምቀሪቡት
ቅሬታዎች አፋጣኝ ምላሽ ይሰጣል፡፡
13. የድርጅቱ መመሪያዎች ና አሰራሮች
ሁኔታዎችን የገናዘቡ ናቸው፡፡
14. ድርጅቱ ከደንበኛው ግብረመልስ
በመዉሰድ ደንበኞቹን ለማስደሰት
የእርምት እርምጃዎችን ይወስዳል፡፡
15. የድርጅቱ ምርት ወደፊትም የሚገዛና
ለሌሎች ገዢዎችም ምርቱን እንዲገዙ
እመክራለው፡፡
16. በገኘሁት አጋጣሚ ሁሉ ስለድርጅቱ
ምርት በአወንታዊነት እናገራለሁ፡፡
በጣም አልስማማም ሀሳብ እስማማለሁ በጣም
የምርት እና ቴክኖሎጅ መሻሻል ና
አልስማማም የለኝም እስማማለሁ
ዝማናን ተግባራዊ ማድረግን
በተመለከተ /Innovation/
17. የኩባንያው የቺፕዉድ ማምረቻ
ቴክኖሎጂ በኢንዱስትሪው ውስጥ ካሉ
ተፎካካሪዎች የበለጠ ዘመናዊ ነው፡፡

87
18. ኩባንያው የደንበኞችን ፍላጎት ለማርካት
የተሻሻለ አዳዲስ ቺፕዉድ ያቀርበል፡፡
19. የድርጅቱ ቺፕዉድ ምርት ጥራት
ከበፊቱ በተሻለ ተሻሽሏል፡፡
20. ድርጅቱ ከበፊቱ ይልቅ የደንበኞቹን
ፍላጎት ለማርካት የተለያዩ ዘመናዊ
ቺፕዉድ ምርቶችን ያቀርበል፡፡
21. ድርጅቱ ወቅታዊ እና የተሟላ መረጃን
ለደንበኞቹ ለመድረስ ድር ጣቢያ፤
ኢሜል፤ ማህበራዊ ሚዲያ ወዘተ
ተግባራዊ አድርጓል፡፡
በጣም አልስማማም ሀሳብ እስማማለሁ በጣም
የምርት መገኛትን/ተገኝነትን በተመለከተ
አልስማማም የለኝም እስማማለሁ
/Product Availability/
22 ድርጅቱ በቂ ቺፕዉድ ምርት ለገዢው
ሊያቀርብ ይችላል፡፡
23. በሚፈለገው ብዛት በሚፈልጉት ጊዜ
ከኩባንያው መደብር ቺፕዉድ ምርትን
ማግኘት ይችላሉ፡፡
24. የአቅርቦት ክፍተት የለም፡፡
በጣም አልስማማም ሀሳብ እስማማለሁ በጣም
ለድርጅቱ የሚሰጡት ግምት
አልስማማም የለኝም እስማማለሁ
/Supplier Image/
25. የድርጅቱ የቺፕዉድ ምርት በደንበኞቹ
ዘንድ ጥሩ ዝና አለው፡፡
26. የድርጅቱ ቺፕዉድ በጣም ጥሩ ጥራት
አለው፡ በመሆኑ በገዢው ዘንድ ተዋዳጅ
ምርት ነው፡፡
27 የድርጅቱ ቺፕዉድ ጥራት ለይ እምነት
አለኝ፡፡
28 በኢካፍኮ ቺፕዉድ ከፍተኛ እምነት
ያለኝ በመሆኑ ለሌሎች ገዢዎች

88
 የምጠቁመዉ ድርጅት ነው፡፡
29 እንዳ ኢካፍኮ አይነት በሚገባ ታዋቂ
ከሆኑ አሚራቾች የሚመረት ቺፕዉድን
ለመግዛት ፍቃደኛ ነኝ፡፡
30 ድርጅቱ ደንበኞቹን በጥሩ ሁኔታ
ያስተናግዳል፡፡
***
31. በአጠቃላይ በድርጅቱ የቺፕዉድ ምርት
ጥራት ረክቻለሁ፡፡
32. በአጠቃላይ በድርጅቱ የቺፕዉድ ምርት
ዋጋ ረክቻለሁ፡፡
33. በአጠቃላይ በድርጅቱ ቅሬታ አያየዝ
መንገድ ረክቻለሁ፡፡
34. የምርት አቅርቦትን በተመለከተ
በአጠቃላይ ረክቻለሁ ምክንያቱም
የድርጅቱ ቺፕዉድ ምርት ለመግዛት
ሲፈልግ ሁል ጊዜ ይገኛል፡፡
35 በአጠቃለይ እንደ ፍላጎቴ የተሻሻለ
ጥራት ያላቸው የቺፕዉድ ምርቶችን
እያገኘሁ ስለሆነ በድርጅቱ ቴክኖሎጂ
በጣም ረክቻለሁ፡፡
36 በዚህ ድርጅት በተደረገልኝ የመስተንግዶ
ሥነ ምግባር በአጠቃለይ ረክቻለሁ፡፡
37 በአጠቃለይ በዚህ ድርጅት የቺፕዉድ
ምርት ረክቻለሁ፡፡

89
Appendix III: Assumption Test of Normality

Figure-2 Histogram

90
Figure-3 P-P plot

91
Figure-4 Scatter plot

92
Appendix: IV Mean score Range and Interpretation

Table 4:17 Scoring Range of Liker Scale

Liker Scale Value Range
Description
Strongly Disagree 1 1-1.80
Disagree 2 1.81-2.60
Neither/nor Agree 3 2.61-3.40
Agree 4 3.41-4.20
Strongly Agree 5 4.21-5.0

Source: Erol Sözen and Ufuk Güven (2019)

93
Appendix: V Company’s (ECAFCO) Brochure

94
95