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

net/publication/257798447

Consumer satisfaction with wooden furniture: An empirical study of

household products produced by small and medium scale enterprises in
Uganda

Article  in  Journal of the Indian Academy of Wood Science · June 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s13196-012-0068-1

CITATIONS READS

3 3,137

7 authors, including:

Simon Kizito Abwoli Banana

Makerere University Makerere University
24 PUBLICATIONS   507 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   438 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mukadasi Buyinza Robert KYEYUNE Kambugu

Makerere University Makerere University
32 PUBLICATIONS   353 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Improving the efficiency of forestry utilization and value addition View project

Evaluation of batch anaerobic co-digestion of palm pressed fiber and cattle manure under mesophilic conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Kizito on 22 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13
DOI 10.1007/s13196-012-0068-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Consumer satisfaction with wooden furniture: an empirical study
of household products produced by small and medium scale
enterprises in Uganda
S. Kizito • A. Y. Banana • M. Buyinza •
J. R. S. Kabogozza • R. K. Kambugu •
A. Zziwa • O. E. Sseremba
Received: 11 August 2011 / Accepted: 27 June 2012 / Published online: 14 July 2012
Ó Indian Academy of Wood Science 2012
Abstract The aim of this study was to generate empirical
information on consumer’s level of satisfaction with
household furniture produced by Small and Medium
Furniture Enterprises (SMFEs) in Uganda. Specifically, the
study investigates the product attributes that consumers
consider important when choosing wooden furniture for
household use and how these affect their overall satisfac-
tion. Using a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews,
data were collected from 350 respondents who had bought
household furniture from SMFEs in the last 1–5 years. The
results using logistic regression indicate that furniture
design, finish and durability are the strongest predictors of
overall satisfaction for furniture. In addition, the level of
satisfaction much depends on education, income and age of
a consumer. The study concludes that consumer centered
production can be a good strategy to improve market
competitiveness of SMFEs through development of spe-
cialty furniture that can favorably compete with imported
furniture.
S. Kizito (&)  A. Y. Banana  J. R. S. Kabogozza 
R. K. Kambugu  A. Zziwa  O. E. Sseremba
Department of Forest Products Engineering,
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation,
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
e-mail: skizito@forest.mak.ac.ug
M. Buyinza
Department of Community Forestry, Faculty of Forestry
and Nature Conservation, Makerere University,
Kampala, Uganda
Keywords Consumer satisfaction  Furniture  Consumer
preferences  Small and medium enterprises  Uganda
Introduction
For the past 40 years after Uganda’s independence the
furniture industry has largely been dominated by Small and
Medium Furniture producing Enterprises (SMFEs). For all
this time high quality furniture production was not been
very pronounced because of the low incomes and the
underdeveloped service sector. Consequently, the furniture
market was mainly targeting the majority low income and
low quality consumer segments in urban and peri-urban
areas with relatively low competition mainly occurring
within local enterprises (Upton 1996; Zziwa et al. 2006).
However, today, the steady growth in the economy (6–7 %
annually) has resulted into growth in per capita incomes
(MFPED 2006) and this has stimulated the demand for
quality furniture transmitted through an ever-growing
demand for modern housing and cottage construction.
Likewise, the furniture business and market are greatly
expanding too, attracting big masses of producers including
many foreign companies from Malaysia, South Africa, and
China who are now doing furniture business in the country.
The entry of large scale foreign producers is progres-
sively making the market very competitive especially for
the domestic small and medium enterprise producers. The
most recent report on furniture trade indicates that furniture
worth between 8 and 10 million United States Dollars is
imported (UBOS 2008). Most of the furniture made by the
SMFEs is consumed locally with very little exports made
to neighbourhood Sudan and the Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC). The potential for furniture export is still
limited for the larger part of the domestic industry. This is
123
2 J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13
because domestic furniture production is still characterized
by semi-skilled labour, use of low to medium technologies
and inappropriate use1 of timber resources and all these
factors compromise the quality of products produced
(Upton 1996; Kityo and Plumptre 1996; Auren and Kra-
ssowska 2004).
On the other hand, there is also a heightening scarcity of
high quality hardwood species for furniture production such
as mahogany species (Khaya anthotheca and Entandro-
phragma species) and Mvule (Milicia excelsa) which in the
past were the most preferred species for furniture manufac-
ture. Presently, the species are in short supply due to over-
exploitation and hence, massive production of wooden fur-
niture is now based on the previously lesser utilized species
such as Artocarpus heterophyllus (Ffene), Celtis sp., Maes-
opsis eminii (Musizi), Albizia sp. (Mugavu) and Pinus Car-
ibaea (Pine) (Zziwa et al. 2006). The massive use of these
lesser known species raises two major challenges or eco-
nomic questions; (i) how suitable are they for furniture
making considering their physical and mechanical charac-
terises? (ii) Are they preferred species by the consumers?
These two questions prompted the study into consumer sat-
isfaction with furniture in the market.
Why consumer satisfaction?
The interest in studying consumer satisfaction in this paper is
stimulated by first, the recognition that satisfaction is closely
related to industry sustainable development because it is a
measure of the service delivered (Cronin et al. 2000). Sec-
ondly, satisfaction can be used as a barometer to measure or
estimate the market share of a given product and thus the
relative competition position of the enterprise or firm
(Homburg and Rudolph 2001; Kristensen et al. 2000).
Why SMFEs? To start with, small and medium firms
make up 80 % the wooden furniture industry in Uganda
(Zziwa et al. 2006) and contribute to the economy per capita
income through employment and tax revenues. Secondly,
they form the largest group of down stream wood resource
users and so they need special attention because wood is one
of the major natural resource among those that drive the
Ugandan economic development. Thirdly, the furniture
industry is largely still a neglected sector in terms of devel-
opment and research (R & D). At present, no published
research is available about consumers perception of the
quality of products and services offered and the market share
held within the now liberalized market.
The main purpose of this paper was therefore to investigate
consumer satisfaction with the quality of furniture produced by
1 is because consumers compare their perceptions of per-
Inappropriate use of timber resources is used to mean high wood
wastage during production, use of wet wood in furniture joinery and
poor species matching for furniture works.
123
SMFEs with an aim of providing strategies for improvements in
production and marketing. Specifically, this work concentrates
on understanding what furniture attributes consumers consider
important to their satisfaction formation process. In addition,
the role played by socio-demographic factors on satisfaction
formation is also investigated. This empirical information will
then be used to inform policy makers about what needs to be
done to upscale quality of production within SMFEs especially
now that the Ugandan Government through the National
Bureau of Standards (UNBS) has initiated a process of stan-
dardizing consumable products across all sectors. Corre-
spondingly, the findings of the study will also be disseminated
as feedback to producers so they can improve on their efficiency
through addressing the consumer needs.
Key definitions
Definition of SMFEs
The term Small and Medium Furniture Enterprises (SMFEs)
in the Ugandan context is used to mean all wood based fur-
niture producing enterprises either owned as sole propri-
etorships, family businesses or as a partnerships employing
10–50 people and with an annual turnover of 5,000$–
50,000$ (Upton 1996; Auren and Krassowska 2004).
Definition of furniture
For clarification purposes, the term furniture was used to
mean single furniture units such as tables, beds, chairs and
wall units made from natural solid wood excluding com-
plete ‘‘systems’’ such as kitchen cabins and claddings.
Defining consumer satisfaction
We define consumer satisfaction for furniture as ‘‘the overall
contentment felt by the consumer as a result of a furniture
product fulfilling the consumers’ expectations and needs in
relation to the purpose for which the furniture product was
purchased’’ after Giese and Cote (2000). From this definition,
consumer satisfaction can be conceptualized as the consumer’s
cumulative post-purchase affective evaluation based on the
most recent product consumption experience (Yi and La 2004;
Mittal and Kamakura 2001; Zeithaml and Bitner 2000).
Conceptualization of the study
In assessing consumer satisfaction we use the notion of
consumer expectation as a variable that plays a central role
in mapping consumer satisfaction (Dash et al. 2007). This
formance during the consumption experience with their
pre-purchase expectations to form judgments about the
J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework
used to explain consumer’s
satisfaction formation process
Sociodemographic
factors
level of their satisfaction (Oliver and Desarbo 1988; Teas
1993). From literature this comparison has been termed as
‘‘consumers’ expectation fulfillment’’ or better still
expectation (dis)confirmation measured as the difference
between prior-to-purchase expectations and actual product
performance after use (Teas 1993). Reference in this study
is made in relation to four furniture attributes i.e. design
detail, durability, finish detail and price. Figure 1, repre-
sents the conceptual layout of the hypothesized relation-
ships between the socioeconomic factors, expectations,
attribute satisfaction and overall satisfaction.
To this end, we hypothesize that consumer’s overall
satisfaction with wooden furniture is a function of partial
satisfactions on the individual product attributes perfor-
mance. Furthermore, we hypothesize that furniture attri-
butes desired by consumers are influenced by their socio-
demographic factors such as age, income, level of edu-
cation, gender, home ownership and household size
among others. To test our hypotheses, we model the
predictive effect of product attribute satisfaction and
socio-demographic factors on furniture satisfaction.
Modeling is also intended to determine the critical attri-
butes that need to be addressed by the local furniture
producers, and how the level of preference for each varies
among the different consumer segments based on socio-
demographic variables.
Method and materials
Participants
According to the National Population and Housing Census
(2002), Kampala district has a total resident population of
1,189,100 living in approximately 235,890 households.
Since our study only targeted consumers of locally made
furniture by the SMFEs, a sample size of 350 respondents
(0.03 % of the total) was estimated to be adequate for the
3
Attribute
Satisfaction/performance
Expectations
Fulfillment/disconfirmation
(Dis)Satisfaction
research objectives given the constraints of time and funds.
The participants were taken from a systematic random
sample of 400 households in the four divisions of Kampala
District namely; Nakawa, Makindye, Rubaga and Kaw-
empe. Within the selected households, the respondents
were individuals who had ever purchased wooden furniture
from a SMFE in the last 1–5 years.
Design and procedure
A cross-section household survey design was adopted to
collect the required information. Cross-section surveys are
popular in consumer satisfaction studies (e.g. Haye 1992;
Hoffmeyer-zlotnik and Juergen 2003) however, for the
case of this study; the design provided a quick, robust and
cost effective way of collecting consumer satisfaction data.
Data were collected from respondents from Rubaga,
Kawempe, Makindye and Nakawa from April to June 2008
using a self reported questionnaire supplemented by in-
depth interviews with the selected consumers. Questions
included in both the questionnaire and interviews were
derived from extensive exploratory research and triangu-
lation of reconnaissance data.
Pilot testing was carried out using a small sample of 30
households (42 respondents) and with 10 academics having
knowledge in related disciplines. These pilot studies con-
tributed to improvement in the wording, accuracy of mea-
surement and appropriateness of the measured variables in the
questionnaire and interview guides. In both tools, emphasis
was put on consumer furniture purchase and use patterns,
furniture attribute preference, performance expectations,
expectation fulfillment (disconfirmation) and overall satis-
faction. Socio-demographic information regarding age, sex,
household income, education background, family size and
home ownership was also obtained. Because SMFEs produce
and sell a wide range of wooden furniture products, focus was
mainly put on wooden beds, chairs, dinning tables and coffee
sets.
123
4 J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13
Measurements
Expectations
Respondents were asked to state the level of importance
(used as a proxy for prior expectations) they attach to four
attributes that describe furniture i.e. furniture design detail,
finish, durability and price when making a decision to
purchase furniture. The selection of these items were made
on the basis of in-depth interviews with a broad variety of
consumers, meetings with the furniture producers and
review of literature on the most important consumer choice
criteria for various furniture products (e.g. Buehlmann and
Schuler 2002; Drlikova et al. 1999; Ozanne and Smith
1996) prior to questionnaire administration.
For clarity, explanations were made to respondents on
each of the selected attributes before the respondents gave
their opinions. Design detail was operationally described as
shape, dimensional accuracy and style. Finish was descri-
bed as exterior surface appearance in terms of color, sur-
face texture, and grain arrangement while durability was
described as structural integrity (strong and firm joints),
duration in service; resistance to insect attack and weath-
ering. Price was explained as high or low relative to benefit
of the furniture product. The question used was; ‘Please
mention how important the following attribute(s) are when
making a decision to purchase a furniture item for your
home’ Responses were then collected on a 6 point Likert
scale anchored from 1 = not at all important to
6 = extremely important.
Performance
Respondents were asked to evaluate the same attributes as
used in the measurement of expectations. The question
used to measure performance was ‘Having used the fur-
niture [item] how satisfied are you with its performance in
regard to the design detail, product finish, durability and
price?’ All items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 = very satisfied to 6 = very dissatisfied.
Expectation fulfillment
Expectation fulfillment was measured as a ratio of relative
importance2 attached to a particular attribute at purchase
2
Relative importance attached to a given product feature during
purchase was used as a proxy for ‘‘would be stated expectations’’.
This was because some respondents could not explicitly state what
they expected of the products because of lack of prior experience and
to some because of the timeline between purchase and consumption
could not recall their prior expectations. Therefore, by way of
importance attached to a given product feature relative weights were
123
and the level of performance judged after consumption
(Teas 1993).
Consumer satisfaction
To eliminate errors of subjectivity, we measured consumer
satisfaction using a two item-scale that is, a Likert scale in
combination with a semantic differential scale according to
(Hackl et al. 2000). The Likert-scale measured the
respondents’ level of agreement with the following state-
ment: ‘I am satisfied with the ‘entire product/design detail/
product durability/product finish/product price’, meanwhile
the semantic scale measured the respondent’s reaction to
the following statement: ‘How would you describe your
degree of satisfaction with the design detail/durability/fin-
ish/price/entire product’? The end-points of the semantic
scale were 1 = ‘very unsatisfied’ to 7 = ‘very satisfied’
according to Oliver (1981) and Fornell et al. (1996). The
end-points of the Likert scale were 1 = ‘strongly agree to’
7 = ‘strongly agree’.
Data analysis
The data were managed using Excel and analysed using
SPSS Version 12.0 (SPSS Inc. 2003) for windows.
Descriptive analysis was used to compute the mean
expectation fulfillment score and mean score for
satisfaction.
Expectation fulfillment
In order to calculate scores for expectation fulfillment,
respondents were required to have completed all items
intended to measure this variable. Therefore, expectation
fulfillment was calculated only for those individuals who
completed the 2 test items i.e. the expectation and perfor-
mance evaluation (see section on ‘‘Measurement’’) using
the formula below (derived from Teas 1993);
Pi¼1
n r
Percent Expectation Fulfillment ¼ Pi¼1 =n  100
n k
where r = performance rating on a given product attribute,
k = product attribute importance ranking by a consumer,
n = number of respondents,
If the score was equal to or greater than 80, consumer
expectations were judged as met otherwise, they were not
met (see Table 1).
Footnote 2 continued
attached and used in instead of the stated expectations and this had an
added advantage of minimizing subjectivity.
J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13 5

Table 1 Consumer prior-to-purchase expectation fulfillment (N = Table 2 Association between socio-demographic factors and con-
275) sumer satisfaction (N = 275)
Product Mean Average Expectation Expectation Socio- Satisfaction df v2 value p value
attribute importance satisfactionb index score fulfillment demographic aspect
rankinga (%) reported (%) factor

Durability 5.8 5.1 88.0 69.0 Gender Design 1 0.260 0.992

Finish 5.7 4.2 74.0 36.0 Durability 1.577 0.813
Design 5.6 4.4 78.6 47.0 Finish 7.579 0.108
Price 5.3 4.6 86.8 57.0 Price 3.156 0.045*
a
Based on a Likert scale: 1 = not all important, to 6 = very Overall satisfaction 2.109 0.069
important Age Design 2 6.272* 0.036*
b Durability 10.057 0.864
based on a Likert scale; 1 = very satisfied to 6 = very dissatisfied
Finish 8.171 0.044*
Price 8.019 0.948
Consumer satisfaction
Overall satisfaction 5.641 0.039*
Education Design 3 7.65 0.033*
An overall satisfaction score for the sample was calculated
Durability 39.060 0.08
by summing across the satisfaction scores for each of the 5
Finish 8.796 0.043*
dimensions, then dividing through by the number of valid
Price 26.955 0.307
responses.
Overall satisfaction 7.82* 0.046*
To establish the inter-linking relationships depicted in
the conceptual model in Fig. 1, partial correlation analysis Income Design 3 7.147 0.034*
was used. This also helped in identifying potential errors of Durability 44.765 0.096
co-linearity prior to modeling. To investigate any associ- Finish 7.754 0.045*
ations between satisfaction and sociodemographic factors Price 23.335 0.500
of the consumer, a Chi-square test of association was used Overall satisfaction 8.093* 0.049*
(Johnson and Bhattacharyya 2006). The results of this test * Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
were then used to test the hypothesis (H1) stating that;
consumer satisfaction with furniture is dependent on their
sociodemographic characteristics (see Table 2). Results
The Kruskal–Wallis test of variance was used to investi-
gate differences in satisfaction among the different consumer Sample profile description
groups based on their sociodemographic characteristics
(Siegel and Castellan 1988). In cases where the Kruskal– Out of the 350 target respondents only 275 gave usable
Wallis test was significant, a series of Mann–Whitney U tests responses making the response rate 78.6 %. The rest of the
were run to identify which groups were significantly differ- surveys were discarded due to incompleteness. The final
ent (see Table 3). Logistic Regression was used to model the sample was 58 % men and 42 % women. Sixty-three per
effect of 11 potential predictors (i.e. age, sex, income, edu- cent of the respondents were within the age group of
cation, homeownership, marital status, family size, prior to 36–56 years and 12 % were over the age of 56. The average
purchase expectation fulfillment and partial satisfactions on (median) age was 37.6 years. The average (median) income
design, durability, finish and price) on consumer satisfaction was 374,000 shillings. The detailed demographic profile of
with furniture (Hosmer and Lemeshow 1989). the surveyed consumers is summarized in Table 4.
The regression results were also used in testing the
hypothesis (H2) that consumers’ overall satisfaction is Correlation analysis
dependent on their partial satisfaction with furniture attri-
butes and H1: satisfaction is dependent on sociodemo- The results on partial correlations (Table 5) indicate that
graphic factors of the consumer. Identification of the most except for price (r = -0.59) all satisfactions with indi-
influential predictors of satisfaction with furniture was vidual product attributes were positively correlated with
done by way of calculating the regression coefficients, overall satisfaction as earlier hypothesized. The highest
which were used as a proxy in quantifying the contribution being satisfaction with product finish (r = 0.78) and
of each variable to the overall model (see Table 6). All durability (r = 0.769) respectively. Conversely, fulfillment
statistical evaluations were done based on the conventional of prior-to-purchase expectation was highly correlated to
2-tailed alpha (a) level of 0.05. satisfaction (r = 0.88) while the correlation between

123
6 J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13

Table 3 Summary of a Kruskal–Wallis test for variance in satisfaction (N = 275)

Group Satisfaction dimension v2 Value p values

Gender
Male vs. female Design 33.56 0.047
Durability 29.97 0.063
Finish 37.12 0.040
Overall satisfaction 27.85 0.071
Age
Younga vs. middleb vs. oldc Design 30.86a, 34.07b, 39.04c 0.060ab 0.05bc 0.034ac
a b c ab bc
Durability 28.24 , 31.63 , 33.91 0.064 0.056 0.046ac
Finish 35.04a, 36.26b, 41.66c 0.043ab 0.047bc 0.029ac
a b c a bc
Overall satisfaction 27.41 , 34.01 , 40.22 0.060 0.042 0.033ac
Education
Lowa vs. middleb vs. highc Design 37.06a, 29.97b, 43.32c 0.041ab 0.053bc 0.023ac
a b c ab bc
Durability 31.63 , 31.01 , 34.45 0.056 0.066 0.044ac
a b c ab bc
Finish 34.72 , 35.15 , 39.94 0.050 0.047 0.036ac
Overall satisfaction 26.39a, 32.78b, 41.02b 0.061ab 0.055bc 0.037ac
Income
Lowa vs. middleb vs. Highc Design 34.72a, 33.89b, 44.01c 0.050ab 0.049bc 0.020ac
a b c ab bc
Durability 37.34 , 28.06 , 35.61 0.040 0.062 0.049ac
a b c ab bc
Finish 33.88 , 33.91 , 44.01 0.045 0.047 0.002ac
Overall satisfaction 38.91a, 30.96b, 47.96b 0.039ab 0.055bc 0.018ac
* Age: Younga = 18–35, Middleb = 36–49 and Oldc = [50 years
* Income: Lowa = [500,000, Middleb = 600,000–1,000,000, Highc = [1,000,000 UgX
* Education: Lowa = [Secondary education, Middleb = Secondary education, Highc = Tertially education

predictors was minimal (\0.5) except for price and finish
(0.54).
Satisfaction
An overall score was calculated for each respondent based
on his or her satisfaction with regard to entire product, the
design detail, product finish, durability and price. The
average overall satisfaction across all respondents was
4.63 (SD = 1.08) on a 7-point scale from 1 = Very dis-
satisfied to 7 = very satisfied. Regarding satisfaction with
furniture attributes, majority respondents (67 %) were
satisfied with product durability (mean = 5.49, SD = 1.3)
followed by and price (64 %) with mean = 5.26 (SD =
0.64). Conversely, a large majority of respondents (64 %)
indicated they were less satisfied with the product
finish (mean = 4.28, SD = 1.03) and 61 % indicated
low satisfaction with furniture design (mean = 4.36,
SD = 0.84).
Sociodemographic factors associated with satisfaction
The results (Table 2) indicate there were no significant
associations between consumer satisfactions with sex, ho-
meownership, marital status and family size. Satisfaction
was however, significantly associated with age (v2 = 5.64,
df = 2, p = 0.039), income (v2 = 8.09, df = 3, p = 0.049)
and education (v2 = 7.82, df = 3, p = 0.046) of the con-
sumer. The association of satisfaction with income was
linear and opposite such that as the income level increased
the consumer satisfaction decreased and same for education.
As put by Lesli and Reimer (2003), as income increases, the
consumers switch to higher value (price and quality) pur-
chases and as such they are easily dissatisfied if value is not
reflected in their purchase decisions. The similar trend in
influence by education and income on satisfaction can be
attributed to the close relationship between the two vari-
ables. In the Ugandan economy a big percentage of con-
sumers in the middle income or corporate class are the
educated with specialty qualification that get formal
employment in civil or private services. It is also true that
the majority low income earners are low educated. Further
post hoc analysis of variance revealed significant differences
in level of satisfaction attained based on age, income, level
of education and sex (see Table 3).
Predictors of satisfaction for furniture
The results presented (Table 6) are a summary of the
variables included in the final logistic regression model.

123
J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13 7

Table 4 Demographic profile of consumers (N = 275) Table 6 Logistic regression showing the predictive effect of furni-
ture attributes, consumer expectations and socioeconomic factors on
Variable Percentage (%) consumer satisfaction
Gender Variablesa b SE Wald df Sig. Exp (b)
Male 58.2
Expectation 3.93 1.10 12.30 1 0.000 0.012
Female 41.8
Durability 3.89 1.14 11.630 1 0.005 0.020
Age (years)
Design 3.43 0.687 25.094 1 0.005 0.032
18–35 38.3
Finish 2.93 0.712 16.737 1 0.004 0.054
36–49 49.5
Income -1.25 0.406 0.096 1 0.046 0.084
[50 12.2
Price 1.10 0.643 2.931 1 0.087 0.332
Education background
Constant 15.105 2.040 54.810 1 0.000 3,630,498.97
No formal education 2.9
a
Primary education 15.6 Variable(s) entered: expectation fulfillment, design satisfaction,
price satisfaction, durability satisfaction, finish satisfaction, sex, age,
Secondary education 30.6
education, marital status, education, income and homeownership
Tertiary education 51.4
Marital status
Married 64.0 (b = -1.25, p = 0.046) were statistically significant pre-
Single 36.0 dictors of satisfaction. The regression equation for the final
Family size (persons) model at 95 % confidence level is;
2–5 34.0 Overall Satisfaction ¼ 15:4 þ 3:93x1 þ 3:89x2 þ 3:46x3
5–10 62.5 þ 2:87x4  1:25x5
[10 3.5
The interpretation of the model is based on the regression
Employment
(b) coefficients. The positivity implies that consumer sat-
Employed 87.0
isfaction increases for every unit increase in predictor
Not employed 13.0
variable as it is for expectation fulfillment (x1), satisfaction
Household income
with design detail (x2), product durability (x3) and finish
\300,000 9.8
(x4) while for household incomes (x5) the negative coeffi-
300,000–600,000 44.6
cient depicts an inverse linear relationship i.e. as house
600,000–1,000,000 33.6
income increases satisfaction decreases.
[10,000,000 12.0
We used the ‘absolute fit’ method to assess the overall fit
of the model. The Chi-square statistic was 129.802
(df = 98, p \ 0.07) indicating the final model had a good
Initially 11 variables were entered but in the final model fit. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination, R2 for
but only 5 survived the stepwise procedure. The five satisfaction was 0.76 (see Table 7) indicating a good
variables namely; consumer prior expectation being met or structural model fit. Based on coefficient of determination,
exceeded (b = 3.93, p = 0.000), higher satisfaction with the final model hence supports the hypothesis H2: that
durability (b = 3.89, p = 0.005), design (b = 3.46, p = consumer’s satisfaction with wooden furniture is dependent
0.005), finish (b = 2.87, p = 0.004) and higher income on the product attributes offered.

Table 5 Correlations between modeled variables

Variable Overallsat. Expectations Design Price Durability Finish

Overallsat. 1 0.701* 0.591* 0.769* 0.780*

Expectation 0.881 1 0.53* 0.42 0.68* 0.56*
Design 0.701* 0.53 1 0.554* 0.317* 0.525*
Price - 0.591* 0.42 0.554* 1 0.406* 0.612*
Durability 0.769* 0.58 0.517* 0.406* 1 0.489*
Finish 0.730* 0.56 0.525* 0.582* 0.489* 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
* Overallsat. = consumer’s overall satisfaction with the entire product

123
8 J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13
Table 7 Summary of model fit statistics
Models -2 Log df v 2
Sig.
likelihood
1a 48.549 98 99.816 0.000
2 64.360 98 115.07 0.049
3b 79.650 98 129.802 0.071
a
Eleven variables entered initially
b
Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because parameter
estimates changed by less than 0.001
Discussion and conclusion
From the emergent logistic regression model, furniture
durability, design details and finish are the most important
attributes that determine satisfaction formation. This is in
agreement with prior studies about furniture marketing for
example (Bigsby et al. 2005; Lesli and Reimer 2003;
Bumgardner and Bowe 2002). The implication is that,
other factors constant, Small and Medium Enterprises need
to focus attention on attractive and durable designs and
impart more attractive finishes such that they increase the
percentage of satisfied consumers. Surprisingly, price is not
a strong predictor of satisfaction with furniture. This is in
contradiction with many literatures cases were price has
been reported as a significant predictor of satisfaction (e.g.
Moller 1991; Cronin et al. 2000; Chen-Yu et al. 2002).
However, the marketing implication for our study is that
Ugandan consumers especially the middle income earners
are becoming less price conscious but more quality
minded. From a marketing perspective, this highlights a
willingness to pay for quality in quest to satisfy their needs
and this provides more potential for supply.
Satisfaction for furniture also varied with age, income
and education status of the consumers (see Table 2).
A conclusion can be drawn that the furniture market is
segmented based on these sociodemographic factors. With
respect to age the middle aged, middle income and highly
educated category preferred stylishness and appeal (shape
and finish) to durability and cost durability while the old,
123
low educated and low income earners were more price and
Cox &
durability conscious. The market implication is that pro-
Snell R2 ducers need to be more responsive and sensitive to the
varying needs of consumers within each of these segments.
0.26
For instance, producers can orient product design and
0.62 marketing strategies to capture and satisfy particular small
0.76 but high market potential groups rather than sticking to the
less effective strategy of wide market targeting. In addition,
instead of following the dominant chain which favours the
large scale producers, SMFEs should perhaps consider
chains which better suit the purpose of their competitive
differentiation. Differentiation should be in quality and
functionality (preferred benefits) based on attributes pref-
erences. In this way they can form a unique market niche
and withstand competition.
Recommendations
Due to the limitations of the design i.e. sample size and
scope, we recommend that for purposes of scaling up,
similar studies should be carried out with larger sample and
nation-wide coverage to validate this study’s findings
which to a great extent are limited to an urban setting.
Furthermore, research should be done to; (a) assess the
effect of consumers’ timber species preference for furniture
on satisfaction formation as this was not considered in this
study (b) determine possibilities of improving of value
addition along the furniture production chain with the
SMFEs. For policy implications; there is need to institute
formal quality control measures to standardize quality of
products across the whole furniture industry and market. At
present, the only quality control system for the furniture
industry are timber grades which only specify quality for
timber and not furniture product.
Acknowledgments We extend our sincere gratitude to the Norwe-
gian Government for funding this research through the Norwegian
Development Agency (NORAD) support to Makerere University. In
the same gratitude we appreciate the furniture consumers, producers
and retailers in Nakawa, Makindye, Lubaga and Kawempe divisions
for their active participation and information they provided.
J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13 9

Appendix: Wooden furniture consumer satisfaction

assessment questionnaire

123
10 J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13

123
J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13 11

123
12 J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13

123
J Indian Acad Wood Sci (June 2012) 9(1):1–13
References
Auren R, Krassowska K (2004) Small and medium forest based
enterprise in Uganda; how can they be profitable, sustainable and
poverty reducing? International Institute of Environment and
development (IIED) London and Forest Sector Coordination
Secretariat Republic of Uganda, Kampala
Bigsby HR, Rai C, Ozanne LK (2005) Consumer preference for
furniture timber. J Forest Prod Bus Res 2(2):16
Buehlmann U, Schuler A (2002) Benchmarking the wood household
furniture industry: a basis for identifying competitive business
strategies for today’s global economy. Proceedings of the NHLA
30th annual hardwood symposium, May 30–June, Creek Falls
Tennesse, pp 122–128
Bumgardner MS, Bowe SA (2002) Species selection in secondary
wood products: implications for product design and promotion.
J Wood Fiber Sci 34(3):408–418
Chen-Yu HJ, Williams G, Kincade DH (2002) Determinants of
consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the performance of
apparel products. Family Consumer Sci Res J 28:167–192
Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Hult G (2000) Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral inten-
tions in service environments. J Retail 76(2):193–218
Dash S, Bruning E, Guin KK (2007) Antecedents of longterm buyer-
seller relationships: a cross cultural integration. Acad Market Sci
Rev 11:1–29
Drlikova E, Kusa A, Palus H, Supin M, Zauskova A, Jelacic D (1999)
Research of consumer preferences on furniture market in the
Slovak Republic. J Dev Trends Prod Manag For Wood Process
10:93–96
Fornell C, Johnstone MD, Anderson E, Cha J, Bryant BE (1996) The
American Customer Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and
findings. J Mark 60:7–18
Giese JL, Cote JA (2000) Defining consumer satisfaction. Acad Mark Sci
Rev [Online]. 00/01. Available from: http://www.amsreview.org/
amsrev/theory/giese01-00.html
Hackl P, Scharitzer D, Zuba R (2000) Customer satisfaction in the
Australian food retail market. Total Qual Manag 11(7):999–1006
Haye BE (1992) Measuring consumer satisfaction; survey design, use
and statistical analysis methods, 2nd edn. American Society of
Quality (ASQ), Quality Press, Milwaukee
Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP (2003) New sampling designs and the quality
of data. Metodološki zvezki, 19, Ljubljana
Homburg C, Rudolph B (2001) Customer satisfaction in industrial
markets: dimensional and multiple roles issues. J Bus Res
52(2001):15–33
View publication stats
13
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley,
New York
Johnson RA, Bhattacharyya GK (2006) Statistics: principles and
methods, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, NY
Kityo PW, Plumptre RA (1996) The Uganda timber user’s hand book;
a guide to better timber use. Commonwealth Secretariats,
Marlborough House
Kristensen K, Martensen A, Gronholdt L (2000) Measuring customer
satisfaction: a key dimension of business performance. Int J Bus
Perform Manage 2(3):157–170
Lesli D, Reimer S (2003) Fashioning furniture: restructuring the
furniture commodity chain. Area J 35(4):427–437
Mittal V, Kamakura WA (2001) Satisfaction, repurchase intent and
repurchases behaviour: investigating the moderating effect of
customer characteristics. J Mark Res 38(1):131–142
Moller W (1991) Gaining competitive advantage through customer
satisfaction. Eur Manag J 9(2):201–211
Oliver RL (1981) Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process
in retail setting. J Retail 57:25–48
Oliver RL, Desarbo WS (1988) Response determinants in satisfaction
judgments. J Consumer Res 14:495–507
Ozanne LK, Smith PM (1996) Consumer segments for environmen-
tally marketed wooden household furniture. J Wood Fiber Sci
28(4):461–477
Siegel S, Castellan JN Jr (1988) Non parametric statistics for the
behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Teas K (1993) Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’
perception of quality. J Mark 53:18–34
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) (2008) Statistical abstract 2007.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Kampala
Upton DA (1996) Integrated marketing program for wood furniture
from Uganda: Commonwealth Secretariat report project no.
EIDD/E/UGA/2, May 1996, Fintrac Overseas Limited. Com-
monwealth Secretariat, UK
Yi YJ, La SN (2004) What influences the relationship between
customer satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the
effect of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty. Psychol
Market 21(5):351–373
Zeithaml VA, Bitner MJ (2000) Service marketing: integrating
customer focus across the firm, 2nd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, New York
Zziwa A, Bukenya M, Sseremba OE, Kyeyune RK (2006) Non-
traditional tree species used in the furniture industry in Masaka
District, Central Uganda. Uganda J Agric Sci 12(1):57–66
123