Williams As Hill Naumann Jackson

JPMA-01796; No of Pages 15
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx – xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Relationship quality and satisfaction: Customer-perceived

success factors for on-time projects
Paul Williams 1 , Nicholas J. Ashill ⁎, Earl Naumann 2 , Eric Jackson 3
School of Business and Management, American University of Sharjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Received 10 November 2014; received in revised form 12 June 2015; accepted 22 July 2015
Abstract
Project managers have traditionally evaluated project success using the “iron triangle” of time, costs, and quality. In recent years, however,
customer satisfaction and other client relationship attitudes have emerged as additional criteria in assessing project success. This paper explores the
comparatively under-researched areas of customer satisfaction and client relationship quality in project management. Specifically, we differentiated
between projects that were completed on-time and those that were not on-time. We then explored the drivers of customer satisfaction and
relationship quality at different stages in the project for each respective group. Data was collected from 588 customers who had installed large-scale
building service systems from a multi-national Fortune 100 firm. The results indicate that the drivers of customer satisfaction and relationship
quality changed significantly, in both order and magnitude, during the course of a project depending on whether projects were delivered on-time or
late. The changes in these drivers have important implications for project managers in keeping clients satisfied during the course of the project, and
also in maintaining on-going relationships with the client in the future.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Customer satisfaction; Relationship quality; On-time performance; Project management
1. Introduction project success (Davis, 2014; Dvir et al., 2003; Ireland, 1992;
Serrador and Turner, 2015).
The approach to evaluating project success has evolved The iron triangle is still important, but the triple constraints are
substantially over the past thirty years (Davis, 2014; Ika, 2009). considered as measures of project efficiency, such as setting
The early focus was predominantly on the “iron triangle” of cost, priorities during the course of the project (Ebbesen and Hope,
time, and scope/quality (Pinto and Prescott, 1988; Pinto and 2013). Recent literature distinguishes between project efficiency
Slevin, 1988; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). Now, there is clear and overall project success (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Serrador and
recognition that project success must also be evaluated from the Turner, 2015; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). Project efficiency
perspective of various stakeholders (Atkinson, 1999; Gemunden, includes the things that must be done to complete a project
2015; Turner and Zolin, 2012). Perhaps the most important of (Muller and Jugdev, 2012; Serrador and Turner, 2015). On the
these stakeholders is the customer. As a result, some experts have other hand, project success is more focused on business-oriented
suggested that customer satisfaction is a critical dimension of results, sustainability and customer satisfaction (Ebbesen and
Hope, 2013; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). It is further argued that
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 6 5152526; fax: +971 6 5585065. project efficiency (on-time; on budget; on scope) should only be
E-mail addresses: awilliams@aus.edu (P. Williams), nashill@aus.edu measured as one of a package of five drivers of overall project
(N.J. Ashill), rnaumann@aus.edu (E. Naumann), ejackson@aus.edu success (project efficiency; team satisfaction; impact on the
(E. Jackson).
1
Tel.: +971 6 5152734; fax: +971 6 5585065.
customer; business success; preparing for the future) thus
2
Tel.: +971 6 5152472; fax: +971 6 5585065. providing a more holistic look at project success (Mir and
3
Tel.: +971 6 5154179; fax: +971 6 5585065. Pinnington, 2014; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.009
0263-7863/00/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: P. Williams, et al., 2015. Relationship quality and satisfaction: Customer-perceived success factors for on-time projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2 P. Williams et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx
The goal of this paper is to examine the linkage between Second, our study included one of the traditional metrics of
project management success factors and two dimensions of project success, on-time performance, as a moderating variable.
project success: on-time completion of projects and customer We examined how the project performance drivers of customer
satisfaction. Specifically, we examined customer perceptions of satisfaction and relationship quality for the project varied
a supplier's project performance across three phases of the between projects that were delivered on-time and those that
project lifecycle: planning, execution, and delivery. We were late. The project management literature emphasizes the
compared these perceptions for projects completed on-time importance of on-time delivery (Atkinson, 1999; Chan and
versus those that were completed late. Serrador and Turner Chan, 2004), and we expected it would play a significant role in
(2015, p. 39) called for researchers to investigate “if there are our study. Certainly, on-time completion of projects has long
any moderators or contingency factors in the relationship been identified as an important project performance metric
between efficiency and success”. We respond to this call by (Atkinson, 1999; Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow, 2003; Lim
introducing a mediator, relationship quality that has been and Mohamed, 1999; Loo, 2002; Shenhar et al., 2001). If a
relatively neglected in the project management literature. Based project is completed late, the delay can cause a variety of
on network and social exchange theory in marketing channels, financial and operational problems for clients, resulting in the
relationship quality has emerged as a critical aspect of business conclusion that the project was not successful (Heydari and
to business (B2B) exchange (Palmatier et al., 2007). For Sikari, 2012; Pinker et al., 2014; Verner et al., 2014; Wateridge,
example, customer relationship management (CRM) has been 1998). Because of the importance of on-time completion
identified as the fourth most used tool in marketing (Ahearne et historically, we developed a split sample approach to compare
al., 2012). projects finished on-time versus those that were completed late.
Some authors contend that a project ends with project Third, we included the variable of relationship quality as
delivery (Ika, 2009). We believe that this contention is both both an antecedent of customer satisfaction, and also as a
correct and incorrect. While a specific project may end, the mediator between project management performance and
relationship between the supplier and customer organizations customer satisfaction. There is a wealth of literature that
usually does not end. In our study, the respondents had a highlights the importance of relationship quality and customer
median of 15 years of experience dealing with the supplier on a satisfaction in B2B situations (Molinari et al., 2008; Rauyruen
personal level. The specific projects would have lasted about a and Miller, 2007). To date, however, the application of
year. The implication is that in many B2B situations, a specific relationship quality and customer satisfaction has not been
project is simply one part of a more enduring, long-term common in the project management literature (Chakrabarty et
relationship. In our study in the heating, ventilation, and air al., 2007).
conditioning (HVAC) industry, the supplier installed new A fourth contribution of this research is to demonstrate how
systems, did major retrofits, and provided on-going mainte- project management theory can benefit from the theoretical
nance and service of the systems. Because of the nature of these foundations of relationship marketing. Ahlemann et al. (2013)
complex, long-term supplier–customer interactions, we expect- have noted that the vast majority of the project management
ed relationship quality would play an important role by literature consists of descriptive or prescriptive discussion of
influencing the project success criteria of customer satisfaction. tools, techniques, and problem solving. They found that very
Against this background, our study focused on feedback few project management articles were theoretically based and
from customers who recently completed large system installa- suggested that project management research could benefit by
tion projects. We measured the drivers of both the customer building on theoretical foundations in related disciplines. We
satisfaction with the project, and the relationship quality, during demonstrate how project management can be examined by
the course of the project. We also contrasted these drivers using the inter-organization exchange theories and channel
between projects that were completed on-time, versus those that governance theories from relationship marketing. Specifically,
were late. The study makes several important contributions in the value exchange in project management falls within the
advancing our theoretical understanding of project success from domain of marketing channels as exchange between channel
the viewpoint of the customer. First, we measured the members, a supplier and customer in the project management
customer's perceptions of a supplier's project management context. These four contributions to the literature enable a more
performance across the phases of the project lifecycle. We then holistic look at project management success and project success
empirically examined the relative impact of project manage- in large-scale B2B projects, beyond the traditional trifecta of
ment performance in the various phases of the project on time, cost, and quality.
customer satisfaction and relationship quality. To our knowl- Our paper is organized as follows. First, we explore the role
edge there are few studies that have explored these relation- and importance of customer satisfaction and relationship
ships in a large project management context (Turner and Zolin, marketing theory to better understand project success. We
2012). We should note that we use the term “project then present a conceptual framework exploring linkages
performance” broadly to include a team-based view that between different project management phases and relationship
included a project manager and various actors from the supplier quality and customer satisfaction, depending on whether a
organization. The composition of this team was fluid over time, project was finished on-time or not. Third, we report the results
as the different project phases created a need for different of an empirical study involving 588 customers from a
knowledge and skill sets from different people. multi-national Fortune 100 firm, who had recently installed
P. Williams et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2015) xxx–xxx 3
large-scale building services. Finally, we present our results examined exactly how projects should be managed to achieve
and discuss implications for researchers and practitioners. it. In fact, it was suggested by Ika (2009) that project success
includes a “virtuous square” where customer satisfaction is
2. Literature review added to the iron triangle criteria thus reinforcing the
importance of our customer perspective of project management.
2.1. Customer satisfaction and project management
2.2. Relationship quality and project management
Becoming more customer-centered has been recognized as
an important component of corporate strategy for many years. There is a large body of literature in marketing that has
A worldwide Conference Board study of Chief Executive identified the importance of the quality of relationships
Officers (CEOs) of multinational corporations found that between suppliers and customers in B2B situations (Fruchter
improving customer satisfaction and loyalty were among the and Simon, 2005; Gronroos, 2011; Gronroos and Helle, 2012;
top challenges facing their organizations (Briscoe, 2002). The Harker and Egan, 2006; Lusch and Vargo, 2011; Vargo and
reason for this is primarily financial, as firms that achieve high Lusch, 2004, 2008). The service dominant logic (SDL)
levels of customer satisfaction generally out-perform their paradigm suggests that close collaborative relationships be-
competitors on a number of financial metrics. Research has tween suppliers and customers are necessary for the co-creation
found that higher satisfaction leads to increased cash flow, of value in B2B exchanges (Lusch and Vargo, 2011; Vargo and
revenue growth, profitability, market share, and stock price Lusch, 2004, 2008). The quality of the supplier–customer
(Anderson et al., 2004; Gruca and Rego, 2005; Homburg et al., relationship has recently been addressed in the project
2005; Morgan and Rego, 2006; Williams and Naumann, 2011). management literature (Ahola et al., 2008; Zou et al., 2014),
Customer satisfaction has emerged as a dominant driver of highlighting its importance to our study.
customer loyalty in B2B markets (Bolton, 1988; Capraro et al., Shenhar (2008) noted that most modern projects are
2003). The concepts of relationship quality, product quality, complex and uncertain, requiring adaptation and change as
service quality, and customer value are considered the major the project progresses. Svejvig and Andersen (2015) also noted
drivers of satisfaction in B2B exchange (Anderson and Mittal, that projects are often dynamic systems that require agile
2000; Cooil et al., 2007; Lam et al., 2004). Despite the relationships between the supplier and customer. Davis (2014)
importance of customer satisfaction to business performance in and Muller and Jugdev (2012) suggested that these relation-
general, there have been relatively few studies in the project ships were reciprocal where the customer could influence
management literature that have empirically assessed the project success. Serrador and Turner (2015) stated that effective
drivers of satisfaction, and their inter-relationships with project agile project management is based on high levels of interaction,
success (Yang and Peng, 2008). collaboration, responsiveness, and joint problem solving. Davis
Customer or client satisfaction may be the most studied (2014) empirically found that cooperation, collaboration,
topic in the business literature because it is a universal concept consultation, and communication all loaded together as a
that can be applied to virtually all types of products and success factor. The implication of this body of research is that
services (Zeithaml et al., 2006). Accordingly, a large body of many researchers now recognize that dimensions of inter-firm
research has examined the antecedents of customer satisfaction relationships are important within the context of project
in a wide variety of contexts. Of particular relevance to project management. However, there is little research that has
management are the studies that have addressed on-going explicitly examined the influence of relationship quality on
business-to-business (B2B) relationships. Homburg and Garbe project success criteria.
(1999) noted that B2B supplier–customer relationships typi- In this paper we contend that client relationship quality is
cally have structural quality (quality of the core product and/or important for development of relational norms for dynamic
service), process quality (project management performance in problem solving, communication, and trust building throughout
our study), and outcome quality (the completed system) that a project. By definition, project management is a process of
emerge as drivers of customer satisfaction. They felt that inter-organizational value creation and exchange within a
process quality is often the key driver of satisfaction among marketing channel. Channel governance theory contends that
business customers. These findings from the B2B marketing exchanges are guided predominantly by two governance
literature align well with the project management literature. mechanisms that are intended to reduce uncertainty and risk,
Ireland (1992) identified nine different customer groups, leading to more efficient exchanges (Heide, 1994; Heide and
with different expectations, that project managers needed to John, 1992). These two governance mechanisms are contracts
respond to. He also suggested that customer satisfaction must and relational norms. Contractual governance can exist along a
be included as project success criteria. While there is a long continuum from rigid, strict contracts to flexible, adaptive
history of the role of customer satisfaction as project success contracts that allow for change and evolution (Mooi and Ghosh,
criteria, relatively few studies examine the relationship between 2010; Wathne and Heide, 2004; Yang et al., 2012). In a project
project management success factors, or project efficiency, and management context, the contract would address time, cost, and
customer satisfaction (Serrador and Turner, 2015). In other quality issues, but would also include incentives, monitoring
words, customer satisfaction is widely acknowledged to be an procedures, and means of enforcement to align expectations in
important high level project outcome, but little research has the exchange relationship between the supplier and customer
(Heide, 1994). Since projects are complex, unique exchanges, and Spreng, 1997; Schellhase et al., 2000). The project
specifying all aspects of a project in detail in the project manager acts as a key bridge between the customer and the
contract is difficult (Shenhar, 2008). Söderlund (2010) noted supplier, and manages the service interaction of the relationship
that project management needs to explicitly address changes between the two parties. However, the supplier's project team
throughout a project. Some have addressed the need for change has numerous points of interaction with the customer.
as an aspect of “agile project management” (Hornstein, 2015; The project management team's service performance is
Serrador and Pinto, 2015; Sheffield and Lemétayer, 2013). This therefore a significant influence on the customer's attitudes
agility and adaptation reinforces the need for a high quality towards the project success, and is likely to influence both
client relationship throughout a project. customer satisfaction and relationship quality. The nature of
As contractual governance becomes more adaptive and project management team's service performance is often
flexible, relational governance norms become more important complicated due to the different phases of a project. In the
(Dwyer et al., 1987). Relational norms are “soft”, or literature, there is general acceptance that projects have distinct
“behavioral”, contracts that guide inter-organizational exchange lifecycle and sequential phases, with some disagreement about
(Brown et al., 1991) Of the ten relational norms proposed by the actual number of phases (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000; Munns and
MacNeil (1980), subsequent research has identified role Bjeirmi, 1996). A project team does not typically have a static
integrity, solidarity, and reciprocity to be the most important composition as different skills may be needed at different
(Blois and Ivens, 2007). Related to these norms are the phases.
behaviors of trust, communication, shared expectations, and The traditional measures of time, cost, and quality are seen
goal congruity (Heide and John, 1992). Wuyts and Geyskens to be more important in the early stages of the project, while
(2005) found that these behaviors were directly influenced by a project success factors such as overall customer benefit and
firm's corporate culture. We propose that such relational norms customer satisfaction are more important at later stages (Lim
and behaviors are developed more strongly when there is a and Mohamed, 1999; Lipovetsky et al., 1997). We incorporated
higher quality client relationship. the different stages of the project lifecycle in our research
The importance of client relationship quality, through norms design, as the influence of the project management team is
and behaviors, has also received attention in the project likely to vary at different phases of completion. The Project
management literature. Cserháti and Szabó (2014) found that Management Institute typically identifies four stages of project
relationship success factors included communication, cooper- management PMI (2008). However, there is a good deal of
ation, and project leadership. Mir and Pinnington (2014) found diversity in the number of phases used by different researchers.
that inter-organizational teamwork was an important project Some have used six phases (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000), some have
success factor. Similarly, Zou et al. (2014) found that active used five phases (Hodgson, 2002), some have used four phases
client relationship management leads to better project perfor- (Ahuja et al., 1994), and some have used three phases (Haverila
mance as the relationship changed across project phases. The et al., 2013). For simplicity, we used three phases used by
same authors found that customer satisfaction was a key Haverila et al. (2013) and Chou and Zolkiewski (2010), which
measure of project success. In support of high quality client were project planning, execution, and delivery.
relationship management during projects, Suprapto et al. (2014) A project begins with the initial supplier and customer
found that relational-based contracting was particularly impor- contact and extends through to the delivery and warranty
tant in project partnering and project alliances. phases. The first phase typically involves the initiation and
In summary, we propose that relationship-marketing theory planning for the project. From a project management perspec-
can help explain project success through effective client tive, this involves a high degree of interaction between the
relationship management and channel governance through customer and project teams as the financial parameters, scope
relational norms. Under the traditional means-end philosophy of work, project timeline, and customer needs and expectations
of relationship marketing, better quality client relationship are clarified (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000; Pellegrinelli, 1997). These
processes should lead to more satisfied clients, which in turn initial interactions provide the supplier the opportunity to
should lead to a longer-term outcome of repeat business in the leverage their knowledge to bring innovation and enhanced
future (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). value creation to the project (Kolltveit and Grønhaug, 2004).
The culmination of the initial phase is typically a formal
2.3. Project management performance and project phases proposal and project contract that formalizes the project details.
After the project planning has been completed, the second
The delivery of complex systems requires that the customer phase begins with the execution of the project. For the project
needs and supplier's business processes are well integrated, and manager, the majority of the cost and scope issues occur during
that knowledge flows fluently between the customers and the execution and installation phase (Ahola et al., 2008). The
suppliers (Gann and Salter, 2000). We expected that the effective management of the project and the development of
dynamics of the service interface between the project supplier–customer relationships are critical performance di-
management team and the customer team would influence mensions in this phase (Pellegrinelli, 1997). Particularly
customer attitudes towards the overall relationship quality and important in this phase is establishing open communication
subsequent satisfaction levels (Homburg and Rudolph, 2001; and trust between the supplier team and customer team (Pinto
Jackson and Cooper, 1988; Mukherjee et al., 2009; Patterson and Slevin, 1987).
Following execution and installation, the next project phase relationship quality and client satisfaction. Additionally, we
typically involves the commissioning, start-up, and delivery of expected relationship quality to be positively associated with
the system. Research has emphasized that preparing for client satisfaction. We also expected the magnitude and relative
commissioning is important to the customer so that operational order of the path coefficients in our structural models to be
performance is enhanced (Dvir, 2005). This ensures that the significantly different for projects completed late compared to
technical functionality of the system meets the customer's projects completed on-time. Although not tested as formal
expectations. This is also when a system is “debugged” before propositions, we also examined relationships between the three
it is released to the customer for use. The supplier usually project management performance constructs since we expected
provides the customer with final documentation, schematics, planning to be positively associated with execution and
and design specifications. This usually requires that the execution to be positively associated with delivery.
customer “sign off” that the project is completed correctly.
Many projects also have a warranty phase that extends for some 3.2. Expected impacts on client relationship quality
period of time after the project is completed.
Based on the three phases, we expected the customer Project-based suppliers often deliver complex systems and
perceptions of the supplier's performance across the planning, integrated solutions to serve their customers' project needs
execution, and delivery phases to be different for projects (Ahola et al., 2008; Brady et al., 2005; Davies et al., 2007). It is
completed late compared to projects completed on-time. widely recognized that many B2B supplier–customer relation-
Specifically, we expected customers to have more negative ships involve a blend of product and service components
views of project performance if their project was completed (Eggert et al., 2014; Hutchinson et al., 2011; Tuli et al., 2007;
late. We also expected the respective customer relationship Ulaga and Eggert, 2006). Suppliers interact constantly with
attitudes and path coefficients to change significantly through- customers throughout a project installation and customize their
out the process depending on whether the project was integrated product and service solution, in order to fit to
completed or not. In effect the nature of the client–supplier customers' exact needs (Rajamma et al., 2011; Tuli et al.,
relationship would be affected by the strength of the 2007). This combination of services has been sometimes
moderating variable of on-time completion. described as “hybrid services” to reflect the integration of
product and services into a customer solution (Ulaga and
3. Conceptual framework and propositions Reinartz, 2011).
In the B2B service literature, there is general consensus that
3.1. Proposed model and expected relationships the nature of supplier–customer interaction is complex,
heterogeneous, and diverse (Mukherjee et al., 2009; Palmatier
By integrating the discussion and theoretical concepts et al., 2007). In large-scale projects, like those in our study,
discussed to this point, we propose a conceptual model of the there are multiple points of contact in the supplier–client
expected relationships between the key variables (see Fig. 1). relationship, and there is often a network of participants
To summarize, we expected the three different project (Ganesan et al., 2009). As noted earlier, during the installation
management phases to be positively associated with both client of any large B2B HVAC system, which is often highly
customized, there must be a detailed understanding of the
client's needs through relational exchange, and these are
balanced against the supplier's capabilities and constraints
(Palmatier et al., 2007; Rajamma et al., 2011). We thus
expected all the different project management phases to impact
directly on client relationship quality but differ significantly if
the project was completed late. Our proposed propositions were
as follows:
Proposition 1. The path coefficient between project manage-
ment performance at the planning stage and client relationship
quality will be significantly different between projects complet-
ed on-time and those completed late.

ment performance at the execution stage and client relationship
quality will be significantly different between projects complet-
ed on-time and those completed late.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of expected relationships. Note: Solid arrows signify ment performance at the delivery stage and client relationship
direct paths which constitute formal propositions. Dotted arrows signify quality will be significantly different between projects complet-
relationships between the three project management performance constructs. ed on-time and those completed late.
3.3. Expected impacts on client satisfaction 4. Methodology
As noted earlier, project success is often measured by the 4.1. The firm
project meeting time, cost, and quality considerations. This
“iron triangle” of success factors is an important measure of The specific projects in this study were from the building
success for a project (Atkinson, 1999; Chou and Zolkiewski, service industry, involving the installation of heating, ventila-
2010). However, it is contended that project success should tion, control, and security (HVAC) systems in large facilities.
also include the project's impact on the customer satisfaction We collected customer data from a large multinational
and client relationship quality, as additional metrics. While the corporation that manufactures and installs these large-scale
project compliance to time, cost, and quality is important, other systems for clients in over 100 countries around the world.
dimensions of success like customer satisfaction and relation- Since it has a threshold revenue level for projects, all of the
ship quality should be evaluated after the project completion projects had a significant dollar cost. Most of the clients were
(Toor and Ogunlana, 2010). other large organizations. The projects typically had duration of
Recent research has also investigated several different two months to over a year. The projects also required close
contributing factors for project success including social coordination with other contractors and system providers such
responsibility (Yang et al., 2010), change management as architectural, structural, electrical, and information technol-
(Levasseur, 2010), and the importance of completion before ogy contractors. All of the data for this study came from the
a competitor becomes aware of the project (Pinker et al., United States and Canada.
2014). The immediate measure of customer satisfaction and
relationship quality rapidly after project completion has not 4.2. The sample
received the attention that traditional project management
success factors in the literature (Toor and Ogunlana, 2010). The firm in this study completed thousands of system
Given the importance of customer satisfaction to the installation projects each year. The client firms were typically
development of ongoing long-term business relationships very large organization. About half of the sample was
(Rauyruen and Miller, 2007), we argue that the satisfaction comprised of multinational corporations. The remaining portion
of customers should be included in assessing the success of a of the sample consisted of government, healthcare, and
project. educational organizations. There were no small projects as the
A large body of recent research also found that various firm had a dollar value minimum. From a single year of data,
dimensions of relationship quality were important for effective we randomly extracted a sample of 484 surveys from clients
B2B value creation and customer satisfaction (Gronroos, who had their projects completed on-time. We also extracted a
2011; Gummesson, 2010; Gummesson and Polese, 2009; sample of 104 surveys from clients in the same year of data that
Ramaswamy, 2011; Terho et al., 2012; Toytari et al., 2011). had their projects completed late, for a total sample size of 588.
We thus expected all the different project management phases The individual client respondents were typically facilities
to impact directly on client satisfaction but differ significantly managers or engineers in the client firm who held senior
if the project was completed late. We also expected client management positions, and who had significant influence
relationship quality to be an important driver of satisfaction, in vendor selection and on-going project supervision. The
and a partial mediator of the different project management questionnaire introduction directed the respondent to answer
phases on satisfaction. Our next set of propositions was as questions based on their recently completed installation project.
follows: Specifically, they were asked about their perceptions of project
management performance (planning, execution and delivery),
relationship quality, and satisfaction specific to this project.
ment performance at planning stage and client satisfaction will
All client organizations had a long history with the supplier
be significantly different between projects completed on-time
with an average relationship duration of 18 years (67.4%
and those completed late.
having a relationship duration of 11 years or longer). All
Proposition 5. The path coefficient between project manage- customer organizations were also large, with a median number
ment performance at execution stage and client satisfaction will of employees of 500 at the project location. We used the
be significantly different between projects completed on-time number of employees at a location as a surrogate for project
and those completed late. size. Individual respondents had an average of fifteen years of
experience dealing with the supplier.
Each project had a formal performance contract associated
ment performance at delivery stage and client satisfaction will
with it. At the end of the project, the customer, usually the key
be significantly different between projects completed on-time
contact individual, signed off on the project as complete. The
and those completed late.
customer and project information was then transferred to a
Proposition 7. The path coefficient between client relation- market research firm for telephone surveying. Surveying was
ship quality and customer satisfaction will be significantly typically completed in the second or third week after the project
different between projects completed on-time and those completion. The intent of surveying soon after completion was
completed late. to ensure that the supplier's project performance was still fresh
in the customer's mind. The cooperation rate for the surveying results revealed that no single factor accounted for more than
(people contacted vs. completed surveys) was usually in the fifty per cent of the variance. Therefore method bias, per se,
60–65% range. This high response rate was due to the fact that cannot explain our study results.
the client had agreed to complete a satisfaction survey at project
completion in the project contract. This high response rate also 4.4. Analytical techniques
meant that non-response bias was not likely to be a problem.
Prior to testing the propositions, we examined the mean
4.3. Questionnaire development and measures scores to identify differences in the model constructs between
projects completed on-time and those that were not. We then
The questionnaire was developed through a multi-stage used structural equation modeling (SEM) Partial Least Squares
process. First, individual telephone depth interviews were (PLS Graph version 3.00) (Chin, 1998), to test our propositions
conducted with several groups of 20 customers each. The goal and examine differences between the two groups: completed on
of the interviews was to identify the key drivers of project time group or not completed on time group. Although a
management satisfaction, from the customer's viewpoint. The combination of regression analysis and factor analysis could
results of the depth interviews were aligned with the firm's have been used, they share a common limitation in that each
internal processes. Then a questionnaire was developed by a technique can examine only a single relationship at a time. Our
marketing research firm, by using a combination of scales from conceptual model (Fig. 1) involved the examination of a series
academic literature and other recognized business research of dependence relationships simultaneously. For example,
metrics. The draft questionnaire was then circulated to an higher project planning performance creates higher levels of
executive steering committee overseeing the project business relationship quality and then relationship quality creates higher
unit. After several iterations, the questionnaire was pre-tested, levels of client satisfaction. Relationship quality was therefore
revised, and finalized. both a dependent and an independent variable in the same
The questionnaire had sections that asked the customer theory.
about overall satisfaction (2 items), relationship quality (3 Partial Least Squares (PLS), a powerful multivariate analysis
items), project planning performance (4 items), project technique with roots in path analysis (Wold, 1982), is ideal for
execution performance (6 items), and project delivery perfor- testing structural models involving multiple constructs with
mance (6 items). There was a single dichotomous yes/no multiple latent variables. PLS was considered to be an
question regarding on-time completion that was used to appropriate technique for a number of reasons. First, unlike
partition the data. Customer satisfaction was a linear composite covariance structural analysis, such as LISREL, which seeks to
of two items to improve reliability and validity. One question explain relationships, the objective of PLS is to explain
was “overall satisfaction” and the other was “met expectations”. variance in the endogenous variables in a model that has
This combination has commonly been used in other academic managerial relevance (such as relationship quality and client
research (Barry et al., 2008; Tokman et al., 2007; Zeithaml, satisfaction). PLS is particularly well suited to operationalizing
1988; Zolkiewski et al., 2007). Measures of relationship quality satisfaction models in an applied setting (Edvardsson et al.,
and the three project performance constructs were adapted from 2000) and exploratory research settings (Hair et al., 2013). The
Haverila et al. (2013). goal of our current study was to identify key project
All constructs and their respective items are shown in management performance constructs as drivers of client
Appendix A. Questions had a five-point response scale. The relationship quality and client satisfaction. Second, PLS can
reason for this is that the data was gathered through the use of deal with small sample sizes (as is the case with the “project not
telephone interviews, and five point scales are concise and clear completed on time” sample) because the iterative algorithm
to respondents. The overall satisfaction scale had response behind PLS estimates parameters in only small subsets of a
choices of “very satisfied–satisfied–neither….–dissatisfied– model during any given iteration (Whittaker et al., 2007). PLS
very dissatisfied”. Most of the project management perfor- can produce reliable results despite sample size inequity
mance questions used an “excellent–very good–good–fair– (Whittaker et al., 2007). Third, PLS can be used for both
poor” scale. These scales are among the most commonly used confirmatory and exploratory applications, since, unlike
in academic research (Gruca and Rego, 2005). covariance-based approaches, it does not try to go beyond the
In designing the questionnaire, items comprising the data (Wold, 1982). Consequently, PLS made it easier to explore
dependent and independent variables were separated and the differences between projects that were completed on time
items within each set were intermixed in an effort to reduce and those that were not by comparing their path coefficients
single-source method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Common (Chin, 2009).
method bias was assessed using a CFA approach to Harman's The test of the measurement model for both groups
(1967) one factor test (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). included the estimation of internal consistency, plus conver-
According to this test, if a single factor emerges from the gent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006). In order to
exploratory factor analysis or one factor accounts for more than evaluate the structural model, the R2 values for the endoge-
fifty per cent of the variance in the items, methods bias is nous constructs and the size, t statistics, and significance level
present (Mattila and Enz, 2002). All of the items were entered of the structural path coefficients were computed using the
into a common factor analysis with OBLIM rotation. The bootstrap re-sampling procedure. Bootstrapping with 1000
bootstrap samples and sample sizes that are equal to the Table 1
original sample sizes is fundamental for the significance of Model validation results.
path coefficients (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993). Construct name and items Project completed on Project not
The differences between the two groups were analyzed time (N = 484) completed on time
(N = 104)
using path coefficients' comparison. Testing differences in path
coefficients across groups requires that the latent variables are Loading IC AVE Loading IC AVE
created in the same way for all groups (Carte and Russell, Project planning performance 0.92 0.74 0.91 0.71
2003). We addressed the measurement model invariance and Advice and suggestions 0.82 0.81
Attending meetings/site visits 0.88 0.85
variability between the two groups (difference in sample size)
Knowledge and expertise 0.90 0.89
by using the bootstrapping technique in PLS. We then Company's specifications 0.84 0.82
compared the path coefficients between the two groups by Project execution performance 0.95 0.76 0.93 0.67
using a parametric procedure from (Chin, 2009), as originally Reliable project schedule 0.88 0.80
described by (Keil et al., 2000). This procedure is shown below Meeting milestones 0.90 0.86
Resources 0.91 0.85
and shows a t-distribution with m + n − 2 degrees of freedom
Communicating effectively 0.88 0.86
(see Fig. 2 below). Coordinating 0.86 0.82
Quality 0.78 0.74
Project delivery performance 0.93 0.68 0.90 0.60
5. Results Checkout and demonstration 0.83 0.87
Start-up problems 0.85 0.83
Warranty process 0.81 0.64
5.1. Preliminary analysis Resolving warranty issues 0.84 0.78
Final documentation 0.77 0.68
Prior to assessing differences between the two groups, we Building control problems 0.85 0.83
conducted some preliminary tests of the data and the a priori Relationship quality 0.86 0.68 0.86 0.68
measurement model. Firstly, we assessed whether the same Quality of business 0.84 0.84
relationship
measurement model held for each sample by analyzing the Resolution of issues 0.75 0.77
measurement model invariance between the project ‘completed Communication 0.88 0.86
on time’ sample and the ‘project not completed on time’ Customer satisfaction 0.87 0.77 0.92 0.85
sample. Using the bootstrapping technique and the Fisher's z Satisfied in doing business 0.88 0.92
transformation, item loadings (as shown in Table 1) did not Met expectations 0.87 0.92
differ significantly across both samples. All individual item Notes: Loading: represents how much a factor explains a variable. Convergent
loadings were close to or above 0.70 (Chin, 1998) and highly validity is demonstrated when items load highly (loading N0.70) on their
associated factors (Chin, 1998).
significant using the bootstrap results of PLS. Two items with
IC: internal consistency is a measure of how well the items measure the same
loadings between 0.60 and 0.70 measuring the project delivery construct in repeated tests. PLS uses an alternative measure to Cronbach's
performance in the ‘project not completed on-time’ group were alpha. Rather than weighting the items equally, this measure uses the item
retained because they were theoretically grounded and there loadings obtained within the nomological network or model.
were other measures in the block for comparison purposes AVE: average variance extracted refers to how much variance captured by the
latent variable is shared among other variables.
(Hair et al., 2013).
Table 1 shows that the factor pattern is similar across the
two groups. That is, the five-factor model fits the data well for
both groups. Tenenhaus et al. (2005) report a goodness-of-fit constructs. The GoF measures were 0.64 for the ‘project
(GoF) measure for PLS based on taking the square root of completed on-time’ group and 0.63 for the ‘project not
the product of the variance extracted with all constructs with completed on-time’ group. Moreover, values for blockwise
multiple indicators and the average R2 value of the endogenous average communalities greater than 0.6 are reasonable (ours is
0.72 for the ‘project completed on-time’ group and 0.68 for the
‘project not completed on-time’ group). These results indicate
very good fit suggesting that the model has good explanatory
power in both groups. The Stone–Geisser test of predictive
relevance was also performed to further assess model fit in PLS
analysis (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1974). Both customer satisfac-
tion and relationship quality had positive redundancy Q-square
values suggesting that the proposed research model had good
predictive ability.
All reliability measures for both samples were above the
recommended level of 0.70 (see Table 1), thus indicating
adequate internal consistency (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982;
Nunnally, 1978). The average variance extracted scores (AVE)
Fig. 2. Formula for path coefficient comparisons. were also above the minimum threshold of 0.5 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981) and ranged from 0.68 to 0.81 in the ‘project Table 3
completed on-time’ group and from 0.60 to 0.85 in the ‘project Descriptive results.
not completed on-time’ group. Table 2 shows that none of the On time Not completed t test
inter-correlations of the constructs exceed the square root of the N = 484 on time significance
N = 104
AVE of the constructs, thus demonstrating adequate discrim-
inant validity. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
We also assessed the data distribution for non-normality. Customer satisfaction 3.90 0.63 3.34 0.83 Yes
The frequency distribution of the 21 items indicated no (p b 0.01)
Relationship quality 4.08 0.69 3.53 0.84 Yes
problems of floor or ceiling effects in the measurements. In
(p b 0.01)
addition, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests also Project planning performance 3.92 0.78 3.33 0.96 Yes
showed that each indicator of the model constructs was (p b 0.01)
normally distributed. All of these preliminary tests held no Project execution performance 3.70 0.83 2.84 0.96 Yes
breaches of key assumptions, and we were thus confident of the (p b 0.01)
Project delivery performance 3.77 0.82 2.94 0.83 Yes
data being high quality and accurate for our subsequent PLS
(p b 0.01)
analysis and proposition testing.
Note: Scale 1–5.
For descriptive purposes, we also included a comparison of
means between the two different groups for all the main
independent and dependent variables. By examining the
structural means for the model constructs in both groups (see not-completed-on-time group. A number of path coefficients
Table 3), we found statistically significant differences. In the changed significantly in weighting and relative order of
‘not completed on time’ group, respondents reported signifi- influence depending on whether the project was completed
cantly lower levels of performance across all three project on-time or not (see Fig. 3). All three project phases were
management lifecycle phases, lower levels of customer significantly related to relationship quality for projects
satisfaction, and lower levels of relationship quality. completed on-time. There were significant differences in the
magnitude of the path coefficients for planning, execution, and
5.2. PLS analysis and testing of propositions delivery between the two groups. While the most influential
factor was project execution in both groups, it became the only
Table 4 shows the results of the PLS analysis, including the significant factor that influenced client relationship quality
path coefficients, as well as the bootstrapped t-values (based on when the project was completed late, reinforcing its impor-
1000 bootstrapping runs) for the two groups. The explained tance. As such, Propositions 1, 2 and 3 were supported in that
variances and the t-values for group differences (t-value there were significant differences between the two groups for
differences) using Chin's (2009) procedure are also shown. the influence of project planning, project execution, and project
The results highlight the complex nature of the factors delivery on client relationship quality.
influencing the client relationship and satisfaction. The relative For the factors influencing customer satisfaction, collective-
importance of the different antecedents in both groups can be ly these independent variables explained 54% of the variance
seen in the standardized beta coefficients, and these indicated for the on-time group, but 57% of the variance for the
some similarities and differences. The t-value difference scores not-completed-on-time group. There was one significant
in Table 4 showed some significant differences in the path difference in the path coefficient of project delivery between
coefficients between the three project management phases and the two groups. As such, Proposition 6 was accepted in that
relationship quality in both groups. The factors influencing project delivery was not a significant influence on satisfaction
client relationship quality, collectively, explained 62% of the when the project is on-time. However, it had a significant
variance for the on-time group, but 59% of the variance for the influence on satisfaction when the project is late. The other
propositions were rejected (Propositions 4, 5, and 7), as there
Table 2 were no significant differences in the path coefficients between
Assessing discriminant validity. the two groups for the factors of project planning and project
1 2 3 4 5 execution and their client satisfaction.
The most influential factor predicting satisfaction was
1. Project planning 0.86 (0.84)
performance relationship quality for the on-time group (β = 0.38) and also
2. Project 0.82 (0.82) 0.87 (0.82) for the not-completed-on-time group (β = 0.29), but this
execution difference was not statistically significant. In addition, project
performance execution performance had both a direct effect on customer
3. Project delivery 0.76 (0.75) 0.81 (0.71) 0.82 (0.77)
satisfaction and an indirect effect on satisfaction through
performance
4. Relationship 0.71 (0.66) 0.76 (0.76) 0.71 (0.63) 0.82 (0.82) relationship quality for both the on-time and late groups.
quality Based on the Sobel test (Baron and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon
5. Customer 0.60 (0.62) 0.69 (0.71) 0.61 (0.68) 0.69 (0.66) 0.88 et al., 2007), the indirect effect of project execution perfor-
satisfaction (0.92) mance on satisfaction (β = 0.16, t = 2.02) was significant. The
Note: ‘Project not completed on-time’ group in parenthesis. indirect effect was also significant in the late group (β = 0.19,
Table 4
PLS analysis.
Project completed on time Project not completed on Difference in path coefficient t value
(N = 484) time (N = 104)
Path t value Path t value
Coefficient Coefficient
Effects on relationship quality R2 = 0.62 R2 = 0.59
Project planning performance (Proposition 1) + 0.21 3.41 ⁎⁎⁎ +0.07 0.53n.s. 0.14 1.95 ⁎
Project execution performance (Proposition 2) + 0.41 6.10 ⁎⁎⁎ +0.67 5.03 ⁎⁎⁎ − 0.26 − 1.67 ⁎
Project delivery performance (Proposition 3) + 0.22 3.85 ⁎⁎⁎ +0.04 0.31n.s. 0.18 1.69 ⁎
Effects on client satisfaction R2 = 0.54 R2 = 0.57
Project planning performance (Proposition 4) + 0.01 0.11n.s. − 0.03 0.02n.s. 0.04 0.26
Project execution performance (Proposition 5) + 0.34 4.15 ⁎⁎⁎ +0.26 1.71 ⁎ 0.08 0.41
Project delivery performance (Proposition 6) + 0.06 0.93n.s. +0.29 2.14 ⁎ − 0.23 − 1.79 ⁎
Relationship quality (Proposition 7) + 0.38 6.93 ⁎⁎⁎ +0.29 2.38 ⁎⁎ 0.09 0.69
n.s. not significant.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎ p b 0.05.
t = 2.17). The total effect of project execution performance management, this study explored the impact that different
on customer satisfaction in the on-time group was 0.34 dimensions of the supplier's project performance had on
(direct) + 0.16 (indirect, 0.41 × 0.38) = 0.50 total effect. In customer satisfaction and relationship quality when projects
the late group, the total effect was 0.26 (direct) + 0.19 (indirect, were completed on-time or was completed late. Ahlemann et al.
0.67 × 0.29) = 0.45 total effect. Following the guidelines of (2013) noted that, in general, the project management literature
Iacobucci and Duhachek (2004) we calculated the VAF is lacking in theoretical development. They suggested that
(variance Accounted For) value which represents the ratio of theoretical foundations be drawn from other related disciplines
the indirect effect to the total effect. In the on-time group, a and applied to project management. We followed this
VAF value of 32% indicated that just under a third of the total suggestion by basing our study on channel governance theory
effect of project execution performance on satisfaction was in relationship marketing to examine relational issues in project
explained by its indirect effect through relationship quality. In management, since projects can be conceptualized as a type of
the late group, the VAF value was 42.2%. exchange between channel members.
The first observation from our results is that several project
6. Discussion and implications management performance drivers have a significant influence
on both relationship quality and customer satisfaction. In turn,
Acknowledging the paucity of research examining the role relationship quality partially mediates the relationship between
of customer satisfaction and relationship quality in project these drivers and customer satisfaction. The identification of
these drivers confirms the existing theory of the importance of
inter-personal relationships (process quality) in B2B contexts to
achieve customer satisfaction (Cserháti and Szabó, 2014;
Homburg and Garbe, 1999). Specifically in our project
management context, these performance drivers play a
significant role at different stages of the project, by directly
influencing customer satisfaction in different ways. This need
for flexibility at different stages of the project reinforces recent
work calling for more agile project management to respond to
customers' needs more directly (Hornstein, 2015; Serrador and
Pinto, 2015; Sheffield and Lemétayer, 2013).
In addition, relationship quality has been shown in our study
to be an important driver of satisfaction which reinforces the
work of other researchers in the project management domain
(Davis, 2014; Muller and Jugdev, 2012). In short, these results
confirm that project performance factors are major drivers of
Fig. 3. Summary of structural model results. Notes: Path coefficients for ‘not relationship quality and satisfaction in our project management
completed on time’ group in parenthesis. n.s. not significant. All others
significant p b 0.05. Dotted arrows signify relationships between the three context. As noted by Zou et al. (2014), active client
project management performance constructs. They were not formally tested as management is important for project success, especially at
research propositions. different phases of the project. Our results confirm that
relationship management is a key driver of the project success may be a hygiene factor that once completed, the customer
criteria of customer satisfaction as proposed by other researchers simply takes for granted. Second, the lack of a significant
(Suprapto et al., 2014). relationship may be a methodological artifact. By definition,
On-time completion is a central element of the “iron project planning occurred at the beginning of a project. Since
triangle” of project success factors, along with cost and quality. these were large HVAC systems installed in large facilities, the
Our results show that completing a project late had a pervasive project duration could easily be over a year. Customers may not
effect on customer perceptions of the project management recall in detail the initial experience, instead paying more
performance dimensions. Late completion of a project de- attention to the execution and delivery phases. Confounding
creased the means scores for all aspects of the project, not just this is the fact that project planning was significantly related to
on project aspects related to time. In other words, being late relationship quality for projects completed on-time. Project
leads to much more negative views of all aspects of the planning is the initial stage of interaction between the supplier's
supplier's performance. Late completion also changed the way project manager and project team and the customer organiza-
that customers conceptualized the project performance. In tion. Completing a project on-time may reinforce these early
general, the path coefficients between the independent variables interactions, while completing a project late erodes customer
(project phases) and the dependent variables (customer satis- perceptions of project planning performance.
faction and relationship quality) became weaker for projects The project execution phase was significantly related to both
completed late compared to the on-time model. This means customer satisfaction and relationship quality, whether the
that being late had an impact on the way a customer perceives project was completed late or was on-time. While project
performance levels, and also on how they evaluated what was execution was significantly related to customer satisfaction for
important in a project. While this certainly demonstrated the on-time completion (p b .0001), the significance level dropped
importance of on-time completion of projects, it also illustrated substantially (p b .05) with late completion. Project execution
that time, as a project success factor, may be a hygiene factor. was strongly related to relationship quality for both on-time and
In a project management context, hygiene factors are late project completion. This is logical since this is where the
performance dimensions that the customer simply expects to most of the inter-personal interaction between the supplier and
be part of the project. Performing well on hygiene factors may customer teams take place. While project planning is of short
just meet basic customer expectations, but not lead to high duration, the majority of the project's life is spent in the
satisfaction. In our study, late project completion lead to execution phase. Other researchers have identified that
dissatisfaction, which is exactly what would be expected of a relationship quality is a long-term orientation that leads to
hygiene factor. Delighters are performance dimensions that go more collaboration and coordination (Ahola et al., 2008;
beyond what the customer expects. These are usually aspects of Holmlund, 2008). This collaboration and coordination is a
inter-personal interaction between a supplier and customer central aspect of project execution.
where the supplier “goes the extra mile” or “above and beyond” Project delivery performance was not related to customer
to create a “Wow!” factor (Zeithaml et al., 1988, 1996). It satisfaction when a project was completed on-time, but was
appears that the “iron triangle” of time, cost, and quality are weakly related when a project was late. Completing a project
primarily hygiene factors. Completing a project on-time and late may sensitize a customer to the final activities in a project.
on-budget are likely to be basic expectations of customers as As with other phases, project delivery was strongly related to
that is what the supplier said they would do. If the term quality relationship quality when a project was completed on-time. It
denotes primarily product quality, it too would be a hygiene may be that completing a project on-time creates a halo effect
factor. If the term quality includes a service component, it could of positive perceptions of all aspects of project performance.
be a delighter, as delighters are typically relational behaviors However, when a project is completed late, there is no halo
(Tuli et al., 2007; Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011). effect as project delivery is not related to relationship quality.
In our study, aspects of the supplier–customer relationship In summary, we have demonstrated that dimensions of
would be where delighters are found. Consistent with this project performance throughout the project lifecycle are more
theory, relationship quality was the strongest predictor of a strongly related to relationship quality than to customer
customer's satisfaction, by far, particularly for projects com- satisfaction when a project is completed on-time. We have
pleted on-time. For projects completed late, relationship qual- also demonstrated that relationship quality mediates the
ity was still strongly related to satisfaction, but the predictive relationship between project performance phases and customer
power was lower. Our results, and those of other studies, satisfaction. However, when a project is completed late, many
suggest that the “iron triangle” needs to be expanded to include of the paths in the structural model change.
both customer satisfaction and relationship quality as dimen- The results of this study have a number of important
sions of project success (Hornstein, 2015; Mir and Pinnington, implications for project management practice. For the projects
2014; Suprapto et al., 2014). completed on time sample, our findings demonstrated the im-
The project planning phase was not related to customer portance of project management performance across all three
satisfaction for both on-time and late project completion. There phases as drivers of relationship quality, with project execution
are two possible explanations for this. Project planning performance being the most important driver. Project man-
involves the development of a proposal and project contract agement execution was the only phase that has a direct impact
that specifies project parameters. Accordingly, project planning on client satisfaction as well as an indirect impact through
relationship quality. Therefore it behoves project managers to solidarity, reciprocity, and integrity may be particularly worthy
ensure that all aspects of project planning, execution, and of inclusion in future project management research.
delivery are carefully considered, but greater importance should
be placed on execution activities such as the creation and
Conflict of interest
communication of reliable project schedules to clients and en-
suring that communication policies and processes are followed
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
so that the client is regularly and systematically updated.
interest associated with this publication and there has been so
In the ‘project completed late’ sample, project execution
significant financial support for this work that could have
performance was the only important driver of both relationship
influenced its outcome.
quality and client satisfaction. Project completion performance
was also a significant predictor of client satisfaction. Project
managers, therefore, need to be sensitive to these changing Appendix A. Constructs and measurement items
client perspectives when the project is late and manage clients
accordingly. Monitoring the performance of projects during the Project planning performance adapted from Haverila et al.
execution phase on a continuous basis becomes even more (2013).
critical in fostering higher levels of relationship quality and How would you rate X for providing advice and suggestions
client satisfaction when projects are late. In addition to project regarding the development and specifications for your project?
management execution activities, it is crucially important that How would you rate X for attending meetings/site visit —
project management teams ensure that the newly installed doing everything necessary to understand the project requirements?
system is adequately demonstrated and start-up problems are How would you rate X in demonstrating knowledge and
correctly diagnosed and corrected. Project management deliv- expertise to show understanding of the customer's business?
ery becomes an important driver of client satisfaction when How would you rate X for delivering a proposal that meets
projects are completed late. the intent of your company's specifications?
7. Limitations and directions for future research Project execution performance adapted from Haverila et al.
(2013).
Given the cross-sectional nature of our study, we can only How would you rate X for creating and communicating a
identify possible relationships between the variables, so reliable project schedule?
causality in direction and influence of these relationships How would you rate X for meeting milestones as specified
cannot be inferred. To reveal causal direction of these by the project schedule?
relationships would require a more quasi-experimental design How would you rate X for committing the appropriate
or longitudinal study which should prove fruitful in better resources to complete the project as scheduled?
understanding the drivers of client satisfaction and relationship How would you rate X personnel for communicating
quality in a project management context. Our study also effectively throughout the execution of the project?
focused on one supplier firm and one individual respondent in How would you rate X personnel for coordinating their work
the client firm responsible for the project. Future research with other contractors (or the owner's staff)?
should validate the research results with another sample and How would you rate the quality of the installed systems?
consider the use of multiple sources to address problems
associated with common method variance. There is also a Project delivery performance adapted from Haverila et al.
pervasive belief in social science research that PLS has special (2013).
abilities that make it more appropriate than other techniques How would you rate X for conducting proper checkout and
such as LISREL when analyzing small sample sizes. Goodhue demonstration of the system?
et al. (2007), however, provide evidence that PLS does not have How would you rate X for efficiently diagnosing and
greater ability to detect a path relationship as statistically correcting start-up problems?
significant. The belief that PLS has more power than other How would you rate X for informing you of the warranty
techniques at small sample size requires further empirical process for this project?
investigation. How would you rate X for resolving warranty issues as
In project management, project success has typically been defined by the warranty process?
evaluated using the “iron triangle” of time, costs and quality. In How would you rate X for providing complete, final
future research, it would be interesting to examine the direct documentation — including ‘as built’ drawings, as per the
and moderating influence of these variables in models of project schedule?
project success that involve relationship quality and client How would you rate X for working with all parties to
satisfaction. Finally, we base our study on channel governance resolve building control problems including deficiency items?
theory in marketing to examine relational issues in project
management since projects are simply a type of exchange Customer satisfaction adapted from Barry et al. (2008),
between channel members. Other related issues from channel Tokman et al. (2007), Zeithaml (1988) and Zolkiewski et al.
governance theory such as inter-firm dependency, relational (2007).
Thinking about your overall experience with X during the Chin, W., 2009. Frequently Asked Questions—Partial Leas Squares and PLS-
past 12 months, how satisfied are you in doing business with X? graph. http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm.
Chou, H.H., Zolkiewski, J., 2010. The arrival of technological changes at the
Considering X's overall performance, would you say that X business net: a learning process. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 25, 443–453.
has met your expectations? Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L., Hsu, M., 2007. A longitudinal analysis
of customer satisfaction and share of wallet: investigating the moderating
Relationship quality adapted from Haverila et al. (2013). effects of customer characteristics. J. Mark. 31, 67–83.
Cooke-Davies, T.J., 2002. The real success factors of projects. Int. J. Proj.
Overall how do you rate the quality of the business
Manag. 20, 185–190.
relationship you have with X? Cooke-Davies, T.J., Arzymanow, A., 2003. The maturity of project manage-
How would you rate X for following up with you to ensure ment in different industries: an investigation into variations between project
resolution of issues you have brought to their attention? management models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 471–478.
How would you rate X's performance in establishing fast, Cserháti, G., Szabó, L., 2014. The relationship between success criteria and
accurate two-way communication with its customers? success factors in organisational event projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32,
613–624.
Davies, A., Brady, T., Hobday, M., 2007. Organizing for solutions: systems
seller vs. systems integrator. Ind. Mark. Manag. 36, 183–193.
References
Davis, K., 2014. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project
success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 189–201.
Ahearne, M., Rapp, A., Mariadoss, B.J., Ganesan, S., 2012. Challenges of CRM Dvir, D., 2005. Transferring projects to their final users: the effect of planning
implementation in business-to-business markets: a contingency perspective. and preparations for commissioning on project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 32, 117–129. 23, 257–265.
Ahlemann, F., El Arbi, F., Kaiser, M.G., Heck, A., 2013. A process framework Dvir, D., Raz, T., Shenhar, A., 2003. An empirical analysis of the relationship
for theoretically grounded prescriptive research in the project management between project planning and project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (2),
field. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 43–56. 89–95.
Ahola, T., Laitinen, E., Kujala, J., Wikström, K., 2008. Purchasing strategies Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer–seller relationships.
and value creation in industrial turnkey projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 87. J. Mark. 51, 11–27.
Ahuja, H.N., Dozzi, S.P., &amp, Abourizk, S.M., 1994. Project management: Ebbesen, J.B., Hope, A.J., 2013. Re-imagining the iron triangle: embedding
techniques in planning and controlling construction projects. John Wiley sustainability into project constraints. PM World J. 2 (3), 1–13.
& Sons. Edvardsson, B., Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Strandvik, T., 2000. The
Anderson, E.W., Mittal, V., 2000. Strengthening the satisfaction profit chain. effects of satisfaction and loyalty on profits and growth: products versus
J. Serv. Res. 3, 107–120. services. Total Qual. Manag. 11, S917–S927.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Mazvancheryl, S.K., 2004. Customer satisfaction Efron, B., Tibshirani, R., 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and
and shareholder value. J. Mark. 68, 172–185. Hall, New York.
Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best Eggert, A., Hogreve, J., Ulaga, W., Muenkhoff, E., 2014. Revenue and profit
guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int. implications of industrial service strategies. J. Serv. Res. 17, 23–39.
J. Proj. Manag. 17, 337–342. Fornell, C., Bookstein, F.L., 1982. 2 structural equation models—LISREL and
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J. Mark. Res. 19, 440–452.
in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable
considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. variables and measurement errors: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18,
Barry, J.M., Dion, P., Johnson, W., 2008. A cross-cultural examination of 382–388.
relationship strength in B2B services. J. Serv. Mark. 22, 114–135. Fruchter, G.E., Simon, P.S., 2005. Transactions vs. relationships: what should
Blois, K.J., Ivens, B.S., 2007. Method issues in the measurement of relational the company emphasize? J. Serv. Res. 8, 18–36.
norms. J. Bus. Res. 60, 556–565. Ganesan, S., George, M., Jap, S., Palmatier, R.W., Weitz, B., 2009. Supply
Bolton, R., 1988. A dynamic model of the customer's relationship with a chain management and retailer performance: emerging trends, issues, and
continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction. Mark. Sci. 17, 45–65. implications for research and practice. J. Retail. 85, 84–94.
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1991. A multistage model of customers' assessments Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J., 2000. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced
of service quality and value. J. Consum. Res. 17, 375–384. firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29,
Brady, T., Davies, A., Gann, D.M., 2005. Creating value by delivering 955–972.
integrated solutions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 360–365. Geisser, S., 1975. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Am.
Briscoe, D., 2002. The Evolution of Customer Loyalty: Bringing the Customer Stat. Assoc. 70, 320–328.
Inside. Conference Board of Canada. Gemunden, H.G., 2015. Success factors of global new product development
Brown, J.R., Lusch, R.F., Smith, L.P., 1991. Conflict and satisfaction in an industrial programs, the definition of project success, knowledge sharing, and special
channel of distribution. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 21, 15–26. issues of project management journal. Proj. Manag. J. 46, 2–11.
Capraro, A.J., Broniarczyk, S., Srivastava, R.K., 2003. Factors influencing the Goodhue, D., Lewis, W., Thompson, R., 2007. Statistical power in analyzing
likelihood of customer defection: the role of customer knowledge. Acad. interaction effects: questioning the advantage of PLS with product
Market. Sci. J. 31, 164–184. indicators. Inf. Syst. Res. 18, 211–227.
Carte, T.A., Russell, C.J., 2003. In pursuit of moderation: nine common errors Gronroos, C., 2011. A service perspective on business relationships: the value
and their solutions. MIS Q. 27, 479–501. creation, interaction and marketing interface. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 240–247.
Chakrabarty, S., Whitten, D., Green, K., 2007. Understanding service quality Gronroos, C., Helle, P., 2012. Return on relationships: conceptual understand-
and relationship quality in outsourcing: client orientation and promotion, ing and measurement of mutual gains from relational business engagements.
project management effectiveness, and the task technology-structure fit. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 27, 344–359.
J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 48, 1–15. Gruca, T.S., Rego, L.L., 2005. Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, A.P.L., 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring shareholder value. J. Mark. 69, 115–130.
construction success. Benchmarking: Int. J. 11, 203–221. Gummesson, E., 2010. Business in networks. J. Business-to-Business Mark. 17,
Chin, W., 1998. The partial lease squares for structural equations modeling. In: 308–316.
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Gummesson, E., Polese, F., 2009. B2B is not an island! J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 24,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295–336. 337–350.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Black, W., 2006. Multivariate Data Mattila, A.S., Enz, C.A., 2002. The role of emotions in service encounters.
Analysis. 6th ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. J. Serv. Res. 4, 268–277.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2013. Partial least squares structural McFarlin, D.B., Sweeney, P.D., 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as
equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Acad.
acceptance. Long Range Plan. 46, 1–12. Manag. J. 35, 626–637.
Harker, M.J., Egan, J., 2006. The past, present and future of relationship Mir, F.A., Pinnington, A.H., 2014. Exploring the value of project management:
marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 22, 215–242. linking project management performance and project success. Int. J. Proj.
Harman, H.H., 1967. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Manag. 32, 202–217.
Chicago. Molinari, L.K., Abratt, R., Dion, P., 2008. Satisfaction, quality and value and
Haverila, M.J., Martinsuo, M., Naumann, E., 2013. Drivers of customer effects on repurchase and positive word‐of‐mouth behavioral intentions in a
satisfaction and relationship quality in system delivery projects. J. Strateg. B2B services context. J. Serv. Mark. 22, 363–373.
Mark. 21, 613–636. Mooi, E.A., Ghosh, M., 2010. Contract specificity and its performance
Heide, J.B., 1994. Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. implications. J. Mark. 74, 105–129.
J. Mark. 58, 71–85. Morgan, N.A., Rego, L.L., 2006. The value of different customer satisfaction
Heide, J.B., John, G., 1992. Do norms matter in marketing relationships? and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Mark. Sci. 25,
J. Mark. 56, 32–44. 426–439.
Heydari, M.H., Sikari, S.S., 2012. Project scheduling in supply chain Mukherjee, A., Malhotra, N., Whiting, A., Donthu, N., 2009. Closing the gap
environment. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 6, 3065–3075. between perceived and actual waiting times in a call center: results from a
Hodgson, D., 2002. Disciplining the professional: the case of project field study. J. Serv. Mark. 23, 279–288.
management. J. Manag. Stud. 39, 803–821. Muller, R., Jugdev, K., 2012. Critical success factors in projects. Int.
Holmlund, M., 2008. A definition, model, and empirical analysis of business- J. Managing Projects Bus. 5, 757–775.
to-business relationship quality. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 19, 32–62. Munns, A.K., Bjeirmi, B.F., 1996. The role of project management in achieving
Homburg, C., Garbe, B., 1999. Towards an improved understanding of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 14, 81–87.
industrial services: quality dimensions and their impact on buyer–seller Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
relationships. J. Business to Business Mark. 6, 39–71. Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., Houston, M.B., Evans, K.R., Gopalakrishna, S.,
Homburg, C., Rudolph, B., 2001. Customer satisfaction in industrial markets: 2007. Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer–
dimensional and multiple role issues. J. Bus. Res. 52, 15–33. salesperson and customer–firm relationships: differential influences on
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., Hoyer, W., 2005. Do satisfied customers really pay financial outcomes. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24, 210–223.
more? A study of the relationship between satisfaction and the willingness Patterson, P.G., Spreng, R.A., 1997. Modelling the relationship between
to pay. J. Mark. 69, 84–96. perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business‐to‐
Hornstein, H.A., 2015. The integration of project management and organiza- business, services context: an empirical examination. Int. J. Serv. Ind.
tional change management is now a necessity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, Manag. 8, 414–434.
291–298. Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. Programme management: organising project-based
Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W.J., Saad, M., Cox, P., 2011. Refining value- change. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15, 141–149.
based differentiation in business relationships: a study of the higher order Pinker, E., Szmerekovsky, J., Tilson, V., 2014. On the complexity of project
relationship building blocks that influence behavioural intentions. Ind. scheduling to minimize exposed time. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237, 448.
Mark. Manag. 40, 465–478. Pinto, J., Prescott, J., 1988. Variations in critical success factors over the stages
Iacobucci, D., Duhachek, A., 2004. Mediation analysis. Adv. Consum. Res. 31, 395. of the project life cycle. J. Manag. 14, 5–18.
Ika, L.A., 2009. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Proj. Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., 1987. Critical factors in successful project
Manag. J. 40, 6–19. implementation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 34, 22–27.
Ireland, L.R., 1992. Customer satisfaction: the project manager's role. Int. Pinto, J., Slevin, D.P., 1988. Project success: definitions and measurement
J. Proj. Manag. 10, 123–127. techniques. Proj. Manag. J. 19, 67–72.
Jackson, R.W., Cooper, P.D., 1988. Unique aspects of marketing industrial Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common
services. Ind. Mark. Manag. 17, 111–118. method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
Keil, M., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., Wassenaar, A., recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903.
2000. A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in Project Management Institute, Inc, 2008. A Guide to the Project Management
software projects. MIS Q. 24, 299–325. Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide. 4th ed. Project Management Institute,
Kolltveit, B.J., Grønhaug, K., 2004. The importance of the early phase: the case Inc., Newtown Square, PA, pp. 11–16.
of construction and building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 545–551. Rajamma, R.K., Mohammad Ali, Z., Pelton, L.E., 2011. Dimensions and
Kwak, Y.H., Ibbs, C.W., 2000. Calculating project management's return on outcomes of B2B relational exchange: a meta-analysis. J. Bus. Ind. Mark.
investment. Proj. Manag. J. 31, 38–47. 26, 104–114.
Lam, S.Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M.K., Murthy, B., 2004. Customer value, Ramaswamy, V., 2011. Its about human experiences … and beyond, to co-
satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to- creation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 195–196.
business service context. Acad. Mark. Sci. J. 32, 293–311. Rauyruen, P., Miller, K.E., 2007. Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B
Levasseur, R.E., 2010. People skills: ensuring project success — a change customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 60, 21–31.
management perspective. Interfaces 40, 159–162. Schellhase, R., Hardock, P., Ohlwein, M., 2000. Customer satisfaction in
Lim, C.S., Mohamed, M.Z., 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory re- business-to-business marketing: the case of retail organizations and their
examination. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17, 243–248. suppliers. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 15, 106–121.
Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A., 1997. The relative Serrador, P., Pinto, J.K., 2015. Does agile work? — a quantitative analysis of
importance of project success dimensions. R&D Manag. 27, 97–106. agile project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 1040–1051.
Loo, R., 2002. Working towards best practices in project management: a Serrador, P., Turner, J.R., 2015. The relationship between project success and
Canadian study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 93–98. project efficiency. Procedia- Soc. Beh. Sci. 119, 75–84.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., 2011. Service-dominant logic: a necessary step. Eur. Sheffield, J., Lemétayer, J., 2013. Factors associated with the software
J. Mark. 45, 1298–1309. development agility of successful projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 459–472.
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., Fritz, M.S., 2007. Mediation analysis. Annu. Shenhar, A.J., 2008. Unleashing the power of project management. Ind. Manag.
Rev. Psychol. 58, 593–614. 50, 14–18.
MacNeil, I.R., 1980. Power, contract, and the economic model. J. Econ. Iss. 14, Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 2007. Project management research: the challenge and
909 (pre-1986). opportunity. Proj. Manag. J. 3, 93–99.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C., 2001. Project success: a Verner, J.M., Babar, M.A., Cerpa, N., Hall, T., Beecham, S., 2014. Factors that
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plan. 34, 699–725. motivate software engineering teams: a four country empirical study.
Söderlund, J., 2010. Knowledge entrainment and project management: the case J. Syst. Softw. 92, 115–127.
of large-scale transformation projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 130–141. Wateridge, J., 1998. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? Int.
Stone, M., 1974. Cross-validation choice and assessment of statistical J. Proj. Manag. 16, 59–63.
predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 36, 111–147. Wathne, K.H., Heide, J.B., 2004. Relationship governance in a supply chain
Suprapto, M., Bakker, H.L.M., Mooi, H.G., Moree, W., 2014. Sorting out the network. J. Mark. 68, 73–89.
essence of owner–contractor collaboration in capital project delivery. Int. Whittaker, G., Ledden, L., Kalafatis, S.P., 2007. A re-examination of the
J. Proj. Manag. 3, 664–683. relationship between value, satisfaction and intention in business services.
Svejvig, P., Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: A structured J. Serv. Mark. 21, 345–357.
literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. Int. J. Proj. Williams, P., Naumann, E., 2011. Customer satisfaction and business
Manag. 33 (2), 278–290. performance: a firm level analysis. J. Serv. Mark. 25, 20–32.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M., Lauro, C., 2005. PLS path Wold, H., 1982. Systems under indirect observation using PLS. In: Fornell, C.
modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48, 159–205. (Ed.), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis. Praeger, New York,
Terho, H., Haas, A., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., 2012. ‘It's almost like taking the pp. 325–347.
sales out of selling’—towards a conceptualization of value-based selling in Wuyts, S., Geyskens, I., 2005. The formation of buyer–supplier relationships:
business markets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 41, 174–185. detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. J. Mark. 69, 103–117.
Tokman, M., Davis, L.A., Lemon, K.N., 2007. The WOW factor: creating value Yang, J., Peng, S., 2008. Development of a customer satisfaction evaluation
through win-back offers to reacquire lost customers. J. Retail. 83, 47–64. model for construction management. Build. Environ. 43, 458–468.
Toor, S.U.R., Ogunlana, S.O., 2010. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: stakeholder Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Drew, D.S., Ho, M., 2010. Critical success factors for
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public stakeholder management: construction practitioners' perspectives. J. Constr.
sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 228–236. Eng. Manag. 136, 778–786.
Toytari, P., Alejandro, T.B., Parvinen, P., Ollila, I., Rosendahl, N., 2011. Yang, Z., Su, C., Fam, K.S., 2012. Dealing with institutional distances in
Bridging the theory to application gap in value-based selling. J. Bus. Ind. international marketing channels: governance strategies that engender
Mark. 26, 493–502. legitimacy and efficiency. J. Mark. 76, 41–55.
Tuli, K.R., Kohli, A.K., Bharadwaj, S.G., 2007. Rethinking customer solutions: Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer preceptions of price, quality and value — a
from product bundles to relational processes. J. Mark. 71, 1–17. means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52, 2–22.
Turner, R., Zolin, R., 2012. Forecasting success on large projects: developing Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1988. Communication and
reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over control processes in the delivery of service quality. J. Mark. 52, 35–48.
multiple time frames. Proj. Manag. J. 43, 87–99. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral
Ulaga, W., Eggert, A., 2006. Relationship value and relationship quality — consequences of service quality. J. Mark. 60, 31–46.
broadening the nomological network of business-to-business relationships. Zeithaml, V.A., Bolton, R.N., Deighton, J., Keiningham, T.L., et al., 2006.
Eur. J. Mark. 40, 311–327. Forward-looking focus: can firms have adaptive foresight? J. Serv. Res. 9,
Ulaga, W., Reinartz, W.J., 2011. Hybrid offerings: how manufacturing firms 168–183.
combine goods and services successfully. J. Mark. 75, 5–23. Zolkiewski, J., Lewis, B., Yuan, F., Yuan, J., 2007. An assessment of customer
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for service in business-to-business relationships. J. Serv. Mark. 21, 313–325.
marketing. J. Mark. 68, 1–17. Zou, W., Kumaraswamy, M., Chung, J., Wong, J., 2014. Identifying the critical
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the success factors for relationship management in PPP projects. Int. J. Proj.
evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 1–10. Manag. 32, 265–274.

Williams As Hill Naumann Jackson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Williams As Hill Naumann Jackson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Williams As Hill Naumann Jackson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JPMA-01796; No of Pages 15

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Relationship quality and satisfaction: Customer-perceived

Keywords: Customer satisfaction; Relationship quality; On-time performance; Project management

Proposition 2. The path coefficient between project manage-

3.3. Expected impacts on client satisfaction 4. Methodology

You might also like