Anm JRNL

Kualitas Hubungan dan kepuasan: faktor keberhasilan Pelanggan
yang dirasakan untuk proyek tepat waktu

Paul Williams 1, Nicholas J. Ashill
,
Earl Naumann 2, Eric Jackson 3

Sekolah Bisnis dan Manajemen, American University of Sharjah, PO Box 26666, Sharjah, Uni Emirat Arab
Diterima 10 November 2014; menerima dalam bentuk revisi 12 Juni 2015; diterima 22 Juli 2015 Tersedia 16Agustus
2015secara online
Abstrak
Manajer proyek secara tradisional dievaluasi keberhasilan proyek menggunakan "besi segitiga" waktu, biaya, dan
kualitas. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, bagaimanapun, kepuasan pelanggan dan sikap hubungan klien lainnya telah muncul
sebagai kriteria tambahan dalam menilai keberhasilan proyek. Makalah ini membahas daerah yang relatif kurang diteliti
kepuasan pelanggan dan klien kualitas hubungan dalam manajemen proyek. Secara khusus, kami dibedakan antara proyek
yang diselesaikan tepat waktu dan orang-orang yang tidak tepat waktu. Kami kemudian menjelajahi driver kepuasan
pelanggan dan kualitas hubungan pada tahap yang berbeda dalam proyek untuk setiap kelompok masing-masing. Data
dikumpulkan dari 588 pelanggan yang telah diinstal sistem pelayanan bangunan skala besar dari Fortune 100 perusahaan
multi-nasional. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa driver kepuasan pelanggan dan kualitas hubungan berubah secara signifikan, baik
dalam rangka dan besarnya, selama proyek tergantung pada apakah proyek yang disampaikan pada waktu atau terlambat.
Perubahan driver ini memiliki implikasi penting bagi manajer proyek dalam menjaga klien puas selama proyek, dan juga
dalam menjaga on-akan hubungan dengan klien di masa depan.
Kata kunci: Kepuasan pelanggan; Kualitas hubungan; Pada waktu kinerja; Manajemen proyek
1. Pengantar
Pendekatan untuk mengevaluasi keberhasilan proyek telah berkembang secara substansial selama tiga
puluh tahun terakhir (Davis, 2014; Ika, 2009). Fokus awal adalah terutama pada "besi segitiga" biaya, waktu,
dan ruang lingkup / kualitas (Pinto dan Prescott, 1988; Pinto dan Slevin, 1988; Shenhar dan Dvir, 2007).
Sekarang, ada pengakuan jelas bahwa keberhasilan proyek juga harus dievaluasi dari perspektif berbagai
pemangku kepentingan (Atkinson, 1999; Gemnden 2015; Turner dan Zolin, 2012). Mungkin yang paling
penting dari stakeholder ini adalah pelanggan. Akibatnya, beberapa ahli telah menyarankan bahwa kepuasan
pelanggan adalah dimensi penting dari
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.009 0263-7863 / 00 / 2015 Elsevier Ltd APM dan IPMA. Semua hak
dilindungi2015)..
keberhasilan proyek (Davis, 2014; Dvir et al, 2003;. Irlandia, 1992; Serrador dan Turner,
Segitiga besi masih penting, tapi tiga kendala dianggap sebagai langkah efisiensi proyek, seperti
menetapkan prioritas selama proyek (Ebbesen dan Harapan, 2013). Literatur terbaru membedakan antara
efisiensi proyek dan keberhasilan proyek secara keseluruhan (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Serrador dan Turner, 2015;
Shenhar dan Dvir, 2007). Efisiensi proyek meliputi hal-hal yang harus dilakukan untuk menyelesaikan proyek
(Muller dan Jugdev, 2012; Serrador dan Turner, 2015). Di sisi lain, keberhasilan proyek lebih fokus pada hasil
berorientasi bisnis, keberlanjutan dan kepuasan pelanggan (Ebbesen dan Harapan, 2013; Shenhar dan Dvir,
2007). Lebih lanjut dikatakan bahwa sukses (efisiensi proyek; kepuasan tim; berdampak pada pelanggan;
keberhasilan bisnis; mempersiapkan untuk masa depan) sehingga memberikan tampilan yang lebih holistik pada
kesuksesan proyek (Mir dan Pinnington, 2014; Shenhar dan Dvir, 2007) .
Tujuan dari makalah ini adalah untuk menguji hubungan antara faktor keberhasilan manajemen proyek
dan dua dimensi keberhasilan proyek: pada waktu penyelesaian proyek dan kepuasan pelanggan. Secara khusus,
kami menguji persepsi pelanggan kinerja proyek pemasok di seluruh tiga fase dari siklus hidup proyek:
perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan pengiriman. Kami membandingkan persepsi ini untuk proyek yang diselesaikan
tepat waktu dibandingkan dengan mereka yang diselesaikan akhir. Serrador dan Turner (2015, p. 39)
menyerukan para peneliti untuk menyelidiki "jika ada moderator atau faktor kontingensi dalam hubungan antara
efisiensi dan keberhasilan". Kita menanggapi panggilan ini dengan memperkenalkan mediator, kualitas
hubungan yang telah relatif diabaikan dalam literatur manajemen proyek. Berdasarkan jaringan dan teori
pertukaran sosial dalam saluran pemasaran, kualitas hubungan telah muncul sebagai aspek penting dari bisnis ke
bisnis (B2B) exchange (Palmatier et al., 2007). Misalnya, manajemen hubungan pelanggan (CRM) telah
diidentifikasi sebagai alat yang paling banyak digunakan keempat dalam pemasaran (Ahearne et al., 2012).
Beberapa penulis berpendapat bahwa proyek berakhir dengan pengiriman proyek (Ika, 2009). Kami percaya
bahwa pertentangan ini baik benar dan salah. Sementara proyek tertentu mungkin berakhir, hubungan antara
organisasi pemasok dan pelanggan biasanya tidak berakhir. Dalam penelitian kami, responden memiliki rata-rata
15 tahun pengalaman berurusan dengan pemasok pada tingkat pribadi. Proyek-proyek tertentu akan berlangsung
sekitar satu tahun. Implikasinya adalah bahwa dalam banyak situasi B2B, proyek tertentu adalah hanya salah
satu bagian dari lebih kekal, hubungan jangka panjang. Dalam penelitian kami di industri pemanas, ventilasi,
dan pendingin udara (HVAC), pemasok diinstal sistem baru, melakukan retrofits utama, dan memberikan onakan pemeliharaan, dan layanan dari sistem. Karena sifat ini kompleks, jangka panjang interaksi pemasokpelanggan, yang kita harapkan ed kualitas hubungan akan memainkan peran penting dengan mempengaruhi
kriteria keberhasilan proyek kepuasan pelanggan. Terhadap latar belakang ini, penelitian kami berfokus pada
umpan balik dari pelanggan yang baru saja menyelesaikan sistem besar pemasangan tion proyek. Kami
mengukur driver dari kedua kepuasan pelanggan dengan proyek, dan kualitas hubungan, selama proyek. Kami
juga kontras driver ini antara proyek yang diselesaikan tepat waktu, dibandingkan dengan mereka yang
terlambat. Studi ini membuat beberapa kontribusi penting dalam memajukan pemahaman teoritis kami
keberhasilan proyek dari sudut pandang pelanggan. Pertama, kami mengukur persepsi pelanggan kinerja
manajemen proyek pemasok di seluruh fase dari siklus hidup proyek. Kami kemudian diperiksa secara empiris
dampak relatif dari proyek kinerja pengelolaan dalam berbagai tahapan proyek pada kepuasan pelanggan dan
kualitas hubungan. Untuk pengetahuan kami ada beberapa studi yang telah dieksplorasi hubungan ini dalam
konteks manajemen proyek besar (Turner dan Zolin, 2012). Kita harus mencatat bahwa kita menggunakan
istilah "kinerja proyek" secara luas untuk memasukkan pandangan berbasis tim yang termasuk manajer proyek
dan berbagai aktor dari organisasi pemasok. Komposisi tim ini adalah cairan dari waktu ke waktu, sebagai
tahapan proyek yang berbeda menciptakan kebutuhan pengetahuan dan keterampilan yang berbeda set dari
orang yang berbeda.
1837 P. Williams et al. / Jurnal Manajemen Proyek 33 (2015) 1836-1850
Kedua, studi kami termasuk salah satu metrik tradisional keberhasilan proyek, kinerja tepat waktu,
sebagai variabel moderasi. Kami meneliti bagaimana driver kinerja proyek dari kepuasan pelanggan dan kualitas
hubungan untuk proyek bervariasi antara proyek-proyek yang disampaikan pada waktu dan orang-orang yang
terlambat. Literatur manajemen proyek menekankan pentingnya tepat waktu pengiriman (Atkinson, 1999; Chan
dan Chan, 2004), dan kami harapkan itu akan memainkan peran penting dalam penelitian kami. Tentu saja, pada
waktu penyelesaian proyek telah lama diidentifikasi sebagai kinerja proyek metrik penting (Atkinson, 1999;
Cooke-Davies dan Arzymanow, 2003; Lim dan Mohamed, 1999; Loo, 2002; Shenhar et al, 2001.). Jika proyek
selesai akhir, penundaan itu dapat menyebabkan berbagai masalah keuangan dan operasional untuk klien,
sehingga kesimpulan bahwa proyek itu tidak berhasil (Heydari dan Sikari, 2012; Pinker et al, 2014;.. Verner et
al, 2014; Wateridge, 1998). Karena pentingnya penyelesaian tepat waktu historis, kami mengembangkan
pendekatan sampel split untuk membandingkan proyek selesai tepat waktu dibandingkan dengan mereka yang
diselesaikan akhir. Ketiga, kita termasuk variabel kualitas hubungan baik sebagai anteseden kepuasan
pelanggan, dan juga sebagai mediator antara kinerja manajemen proyek dan kepuasan pelanggan. Ada banyak
literatur yang menyoroti pentingnya kualitas hubungan dan kepuasan pelanggan dalam situasi B2B (Molinari et
al, 2008;. Rauyruen dan Miller, 2007). Untuk saat ini, bagaimanapun, penerapan kualitas hubungan dan
kepuasan pelanggan belum umum dalam literatur manajemen proyek (Chakrabarty et al., 2007).
Sumbangan keempat dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menunjukkan bagaimana teori manajemen proyek
bisa mendapatkan keuntungan dari dasar-dasar teoritis pemasaran hubungan. Ahlemann et al. (2013) telah
mencatat bahwa sebagian besar literatur manajemen proyek terdiri dari diskusi deskriptif atau preskriptif alat,
teknik, dan pemecahan masalah. Mereka menemukan bahwa sangat sedikit artikel manajemen proyek yang
secara teoritis berdasarkan dan menyarankan bahwa penelitian manajemen proyek bisa mendapatkan
keuntungan dengan membangun fondasi teoritis dalam disiplin terkait. Kami menunjukkan bagaimana
manajemen proyek dapat diperiksa dengan menggunakan teori pertukaran antar-organisasi dan teori tata saluran
dari hubungan pemasaran. Secara khusus, pertukaran nilai dalam manajemen proyek termasuk dalam domain
saluran pemasaran sebagai pertukaran antara anggota saluran, pemasok dan pelanggan dalam konteks
manajemen proyek. Keempat kontribusi untuk literatur memungkinkan tampilan yang lebih holistik di
keberhasilan manajemen proyek dan keberhasilan proyek dalam proyek-proyek B2B berskala besar, di luar
trifecta tradisional waktu, biaya, dan kualitas.
Kertas kami disusun sebagai berikut. Pertama, kita mengeksplorasi peran dan pentingnya kepuasan
pelanggan dan teori hubungan pemasaran untuk lebih memahami keberhasilan proyek. Kami kemudian
menyajikan kerangka konseptual menjelajahi hubungan antara fase yang berbeda manajemen proyek dan
kualitas hubungan dan kepuasan pelanggan, tergantung pada apakah proyek selesai tepat waktu atau tidak.
Ketiga, kami melaporkan hasil studi empiris yang melibatkan 588 pelanggan dari Fortune 100 perusahaan multinasional, yang baru saja dipasang jasa bangunan skala besar. Akhirnya, kami menyajikan hasil kami dan
membahas implikasi bagi para peneliti dan praktisi.
2. Sastra ulasan
2.1. Kepuasan pelanggan dan manajemen proyek
Menjadi lebih berpusat pada pelanggan telah diakui sebagai komponen penting dari strategi perusahaan
selama bertahun-tahun. Sebuah dunia yang studi Conference Board Pejabat Kepala Eksekutif (CEO) dari
perusahaanmultinasional menemukan bahwa meningkatkan kepuasan dan loyalitas pelanggan adalah salah satu
tantanganatas menghadapi organisasi mereka (Briscoe, 2002). Alasan untuk ini adalah terutama keuangan,
sebagai perusahaan yang mencapai tingkat tinggi kepuasan pelanggan umumnya keluar-melakukan pesaing
mereka pada sejumlah metrik keuangan. Penelitian telah menemukan bahwa kepuasan yang lebih tinggi
menyebabkan arus peningkatan kas, pertumbuhan pendapatan, profitabilitas, pangsa pasar, dan harga saham
(Anderson et al, 2004;. Gruca dan Rego, 2005; Homburg et al, 2005;. Morgan dan Rego, 2006; Williams dan
Naumann, 2011). Kepuasan pelanggan telah muncul sebagai pendorong dominan dari loyalitas pelanggan di
pasar B2B (Bolton, 1988; Capraro et al, 2003.). Konsep kualitas hubungan, kualitas produk, kualitas layanan,
dan nilai pelanggan dianggap sebagai driver utama kepuasan dalam pertukaran B2B (Anderson dan Mittal,
2000; Cooil et al, 2007;. Lam et al, 2004.). Meskipun pentingnya kepuasan pelanggan terhadap kinerja bisnis
pada umumnya, telah ada relatif sedikit penelitian dalam literatur manajemen proyek yang telah secara empiris
menilai driver kepuasan, dan hubungan antar mereka dengan keberhasilan proyek (Yang dan Peng, 2008).
Pelanggan atau kepuasan klien mungkin topik yang paling banyak dipelajari dalam literatur bisnis
karena merupakan konsep universal yang dapat diterapkan untuk hampir semua jenis produk dan jasa (Zeithaml
et al., 2006). Dengan demikian, tubuh besar penelitian telah meneliti faktor kepuasan konsumen dalam berbagai
konteks. Relevansi khusus untuk manajemen proyek adalah studi yang telah membahas berlangsung business-
to-business (B2B) hubungan. Homburg dan Garbe (1999) mencatat bahwa B2B hubungan pemasok-pelanggan
typi- Cally memiliki kualitas struktural (kualitas produk inti dan / atau jasa), kualitas proses (proyek kinerja
manajemen dalam penelitian kami), dan kualitas hasil (sistem selesai) yang muncul sebagai driver kepuasan
pelanggan. Mereka merasa bahwa kualitas proses sering pendorong utama kepuasan antara pelanggan bisnis.
Temuan ini dari literatur B2B pemasaran menyelaraskan dengan baik dengan literatur manajemen proyek.
Ireland (1992) mengidentifikasi sembilan kelompok pelanggan yang berbeda, dengan harapan yang
berbeda, bahwa manajer proyek yang diperlukan untuk menanggapi. Dia juga menyarankan bahwa kepuasan
pelanggan harus dimasukkan sebagai kriteria keberhasilan proyek. Sementara ada sejarah panjang peran
kepuasan pelanggan sebagai kriteria keberhasilan proyek, relatif sedikit studi meneliti hubungan antara faktor
keberhasilan manajemen proyek, atau efisiensi proyek, dan kepuasan pelanggan (Serrador dan Turner, 2015).
Dengan kata lain, kepuasan pelanggan secara luas diakui sebagai hasil proyek tingkat tinggi penting, tetapi
penelitian kecil memiliki diperiksa persis bagaimana proyek harus berhasil mencapainya. Bahkan, ia disarankan
oleh Ika (2009) bahwa keberhasilan proyek mencakup "berbudi luhur persegi" di mana kepuasan pelanggan
ditambahkan ke kriteria segitiga besi sehingga memperkuat pentingnya perspektif pelanggan kami manajemen
proyek.
2.2. Kualitas hubungan dan manajemen proyek
Ada tubuh besar literatur dalam pemasaran yang telah mengidentifikasi pentingnya kualitas hubungan
antara pemasok dan pelanggan dalam situasi B2B (Fruchter dan Simon, 2005; Gronroos, 2011; Gronroos dan
Helle, 2012; Harker dan Egan, 2006; Lusch dan Varga, 2011; Varga dan Lusch 2004, 2008). Dominan logika
(SDL) paradigma layanan menunjukkan bahwa hubungan kolaboratif dekat menjadi-pemasok tween dan
pelanggan yang diperlukan untuk co-penciptaan nilai di bursa B2B (Lusch dan Varga, 2011; Varga dan Lusch
2004, 2008). Kualitas hubungan pemasok-pelanggan baru-baru ini dibahas dalam literatur manajemen proyek
(Ahola et al, 2008;. Zou et al, 2014.), Menyoroti pentingnya untuk penelitian kamimodern.
Shenhar (2008) mencatat bahwa sebagian besar proyek kompleks dan tidak pasti, membutuhkan
adaptasi dan perubahan sebagai proyek berlangsung. Svejvig dan Andersen (2015) juga mencatat bahwa proyek
seringkali sistem dinamis yang memerlukan hubungan tangkas antara pemasok dan pelanggan. Davis (2014) dan
Muller dan Jugdev (2012) menyatakan bahwa hubungan ini adalah timbal balik di mana pelanggan dapat
mempengaruhi keberhasilan proyek. Serrador dan Turner (2015) menyatakan bahwa manajemen proyek tangkas
efektif didasarkan pada tingginya tingkat interaksi, kolaborasi, responsif, dan pemecahan masalah bersama.
Davis (2014) secara empiris menemukan bahwa kerjasama, kolaborasi, konsultasi, dan komunikasi semua
diambil bersama sebagai faktor keberhasilan. Implikasi dari tubuh penelitian ini adalah bahwa banyak peneliti
sekarang mengakui bahwa dimensi hubungan antar-perusahaan yang penting dalam konteks manajemen proyek.
Namun, ada sedikit penelitian yang telah secara eksplisit meneliti pengaruh kualitas hubungan kriteria
keberhasilan proyek.
Dalam tulisan ini kami berpendapat bahwa kualitas hubungan klien penting bagi pengembangan
norma-norma relasional untuk pemecahan dinamis masalah, komunikasi, dan membangun kepercayaan seluruh
proyek. Menurut definisi, manajemen proyek adalah proses penciptaan nilai antar organisasi dan pertukaran
dalam saluran pemasaran. Teori tata saluran berpendapat bahwa pertukaran dipandu didominasi oleh dua
mekanisme tata kelola yang dimaksudkan untuk mengurangi ketidakpastian dan risiko, yang mengarah ke bursa
lebih efisien (Heide, 1994; Heide dan John, 1992). Dua mekanisme governance tersebut adalah kontrak dan
norma-norma relasional. Governance kontrak bisa eksis sepanjang kontinum dari yang kaku, kontrak yang ketat
untuk fleksibel, kontrak adaptif yang memungkinkan untuk perubahan dan evolusi (Mooi dan Ghosh, 2010;
Wathne dan Heide, 2004; Yang et al, 2012.). Dalam konteks manajemen proyek, kontrak akan membahas waktu,
biaya, dan masalah kualitas, tetapi juga akan mencakup insentif, prosedur pemantauan, dan sarana penegakan
hukum untuk menyelaraskan harapan dalam hubungan pertukaran antara pemasok dan pelanggan (Heide, 1994).
Sejak proyek yang kompleks, pertukaran unik, menentukan semua aspek dari proyek secara rinci dalam kontrak
proyek sulit (Shenhar, 2008). Sderlund (2010) mencatat bahwa manajemen proyek perlu eksplisit mengatasi
perubahan seluruh proyek. Beberapa telah membahas perlunya perubahan sebagai aspek "manajemen proyek
tangkas" (Hornstein 2015; Serrador dan Pinto 2015; Sheffield dan Lemtayer, 2013). Kelincahan dan adaptasi
ini memperkuat kebutuhan untuk hubungan klien berkualitas tinggi di seluruh proyek.
Sebagai pemerintahan kontrak menjadi lebih adaptif dan fleksibel, norma tata relasional menjadi lebih
penting (Dwyer et al., 1987). Norma relasional yang "lunak", atau "perilaku", kontrak yang memandu
pertukaran antar-organisasi (Brown et al., 1991) Dari sepuluh norma relasional diusulkan oleh MacNeil (1980),
penelitian berikutnya telah mengidentifikasi integritas peran, solidaritas, dan timbal balik untuk menjadi yang
paling penting (Blois dan Ivens, 2007). Terkait dengan norma-norma ini adalah perilaku kepercayaan,
komunikasi, harapan bersama, dan tujuan congruity (Heide dan John, 1992). Wuyts dan Geyskens (2005)
menemukan bahwa perilaku ini secara langsung dipengaruhi oleh budaya perusahaan perusahaan. Kami
mengusulkan bahwa norma-norma dan perilaku relasional tersebut dikembangkan lebih kuat ketika ada
hubungan yang berkualitas klien yang lebih tinggi.
Pentingnya kualitas hubungan klien, melalui norma-norma dan perilaku, juga mendapat perhatian
dalam literatur manajemen proyek. Cserhti dan Szab (2014) menemukan bahwa faktor keberhasilan hubungan
termasuk komunikasi, asi kerjasama de, dan kepemimpinan proyek. Mir dan Pinnington (2014) menemukan
bahwa kerja sama tim antar-organisasi merupakan faktor keberhasilan proyek penting. Demikian pula, Zou et al.
(2014) menemukan bahwa manajemen hubungan klien aktif mengarah ke proyek yang lebih baik
performanceperformance sports sebagai hubungan berubah di fase proyek. Penulis yang sama menemukan
bahwa kepuasan pelanggan adalah ukuran kunci keberhasilan proyek. Untuk mendukung kualitas tinggi
manajemen hubungan klien selama proyek, Suprapto et al. (2014) menemukan bahwa kontraktor berbasis
relasional-itu tant terutama impor- di kemitraan proyek dan aliansi proyek.
Singkatnya, kami mengusulkan bahwa teori hubungan-marketing dapat membantu menjelaskan
keberhasilan proyek melalui manajemen hubungan klien yang efektif dan tata saluran melalui norma-norma
relasional. Dalam filosofi cara-akhir tradisional hubungan pemasaran, proses hubungan klien kualitas yang lebih
baik harus mengarah kepada klien lebih puas, yang pada gilirannya akan menyebabkan hasil jangka panjang dari
bisnis yang berulang di masa depan (Bolton dan Drew, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988 ).
2.3. Kinerja manajemen proyek dan proyek fase
Penyerahan sistem yang kompleks mensyaratkan bahwa kebutuhan pelanggan dan proses bisnis
pemasok terintegrasi dengan baik, dan pengetahuan yang mengalir lancar antara pelanggan dan pemasok (Gann
dan Salter, 2000). Kami berharap bahwa dinamika antarmuka layanan antara tim manajemen proyek dan tim
pelanggan akan mempengaruhi sikap konsumen terhadap kualitas hubungan secara keseluruhan dan tingkat
kepuasan berikutnya (Homburg dan Rudolph, 2001; Jackson dan Cooper, 1988;. Mukherjee et al, 2009
Patterson dan Spreng, 1997;. Schellhase et al, 2000). Manajer proyek bertindak sebagai jembatan utama antara
pelanggan dan pemasok, dan mengelola interaksi layanan hubungan antara kedua pihak. Namun, tim proyek
pemasok memiliki banyak poin dari interaksi dengan pelanggan.
Oleh karena itu kinerja pelayanan Tim manajemen proyek adalah pengaruh yang signifikan pada sikap
pelanggan terhadap keberhasilan proyek, dan kemungkinan akan mempengaruhi kepuasan dan kualitas
hubungan. Sifat kinerja pelayanan tim manajemen proyek seringkali rumit karena fase yang berbeda dari
proyek. Dalam literatur, ada penerimaan umum bahwa proyek memiliki siklus hidup yang berbeda dan fase
yang berurutan, dengan beberapa perbedaan pendapat tentang jumlah sebenarnya fase (Kwak dan STBP 2000;
Munns dan Bjeirmi, 1996). Sebuah tim proyek tidak biasanya memiliki komposisi statis keterampilan yang
berbeda mungkin diperlukan pada fase yang berbeda.
Langkah-langkah tradisional waktu, biaya, dan kualitas yang dipandang lebih penting pada tahap awal
proyek, sedangkan faktor keberhasilan proyek seperti manfaat pelanggan secara keseluruhan dan kepuasan
pelanggan adalah lebih penting pada tahap akhir (Lim dan Mohamed, 1999;. Lipovetsky et al, 1997). Kami yang
tergabung berbagai tahap siklus hidup proyek dalam desain penelitian kami, sebagai pengaruh dari tim
manajemen proyek cenderung bervariasi pada berbagai tahapan penyelesaian. Project Management Institute
biasanya mengidentifikasi empat tahap PMI manajemen proyek (2008). Namun, ada banyak keragaman dalam
jumlah fase yang digunakan oleh peneliti yang berbeda. Beberapa telah menggunakan enam fase (Kwak dan
STBP 2000), beberapa telah menggunakan lima fase (Hodgson, 2002), beberapa telah menggunakan empat fase
(Ahuja et al., 1994), dan beberapa telah menggunakan tiga tahap (Haverila et al., 2013). Untuk mempermudah,
kami menggunakan tiga fase yang digunakan oleh Haverila et al. (2013) dan Chou dan Zolkiewski (2010), yang
perencanaan proyek, pelaksanaan, dan pengiriman.
Sebuah proyek dimulai dengan pemasok dan pelanggan kontak awal dan meluas melalui pengiriman
dan garansi fase. Tahap pertama biasanya melibatkan inisiasi dan perencanaan untuk proyek tersebut. Dari
manajemen proyek perspective, ini melibatkan tingkat tinggi interaksi antara pelanggan dan tim proyek
sebagai parameter keuangan, lingkup pekerjaan, jadwal proyek, dan kebutuhan dan harapan pelanggan
diklarifikasi (Kwak dan STBP 2000; Pellegrinelli 1997 ). Interaksi awal memberikan pemasok kesempatan
untuk memanfaatkan pengetahuan mereka untuk membawa inovasi dan ditingkatkan penciptaan nilai proyek
(Kolltveit dan Gronhaug, 2004). Puncak dari tahap awal biasanya proposal resmi dan kontrak proyek yang
meresmikan rincian proyek. Setelah perencanaan proyek telah selesai, tahap kedua dimulai dengan pelaksanaan
proyek. Untuk manajer proyek, sebagian besar biaya dan ruang lingkup masalah terjadi selama tahap
pelaksanaan dan instalasi (Ahola et al., 2008). Manajemen yang efektif dari proyek dan pengembangan
hubungan pemasok-pelanggan adalah penting mensions kinerja di- dalam fase ini (Pellegrinelli, 1997). Sangat
penting dalam fase ini adalah membangun komunikasi yang terbuka dan kepercayaan antara tim pemasok dan
tim customer (Pinto dan Slevin, 1987).
Setelah pelaksanaan dan instalasi, tahap proyek berikutnya biasanya melibatkan commissioning, start-up, dan
pengiriman sistem. Penelitian telah menekankan bahwa mempersiapkan commissioning penting untuk
pelanggan sehingga kinerja operasional ditingkatkan (Dvir, 2005). Hal ini memastikan bahwa fungsi teknis
sistem tersebut memenuhi harapan pelanggan. Hal ini juga ketika sebuah sistem "debugged" sebelum dirilis ke
pelanggan untuk digunakan. Pemasok biasanya menyediakan pelanggan dengan dokumentasi akhir, skema, dan
spesifikasi desain. Hal ini biasanya mengharuskan pelanggan "sign off" yang proyek selesai dengan benar.
Banyak proyek juga memiliki fase garansi yang memanjang untuk beberapa jangka waktu setelah proyek
selesai.
Berdasarkan tiga fase, kita diharapkan persepsi pelanggan kinerja pemasok di seluruh perencanaan,
pelaksanaan, dan tahap pengiriman ke berbeda untuk proyek yang diselesaikan terlambat dibandingkan dengan
proyek yang diselesaikan tepat waktu. Secara khusus, kita diharapkan pelanggan untuk memiliki pandangan
yang lebih negatif dari kinerja proyek jika proyek mereka selesai akhir. Kami juga mengharapkan sikap
hubungan pelanggan masing-masing dan koefisien jalur berubah secara signifikan melalui-out proses tergantung
pada apakah proyek ini selesai atau tidak. Akibatnya sifat hubungan klien-pemasok akan terpengaruh oleh
kekuatan variabel moderasi penyelesaian tepat waktu.
3. Kerangka konseptual dan proposisi
3.1. Usulan Model dan hubungan diharapkan
Dengan mengintegrasikan diskusi dan konsep teoritis dibahas untuk saat ini, kami mengusulkan sebuah
model konseptual dari hubungan yang diharapkan antara variabel kunci (lihat Gambar. 1). Untuk meringkas,
kami harapkan tiga tahapan manajemen proyek yang berbeda untuk dihubungkan secara positif dengan kedua
klien
1840 P. Williams et al. / Jurnal Manajemen Proyek 33 (2015) 1836-1850
kualitas hubungan dan kepuasan klien. Selain itu, kami harapkan kualitas hubungan akan positif terkait dengan
kepuasan klien. Kami juga diharapkan besarnya dan ketertiban relatif koefisien jalur dalam model struktural
kami secara signifikan berbeda untuk proyek yang diselesaikan terlambat dibandingkan dengan proyek yang
diselesaikan tepat waktu. Meskipun tidak diuji sebagai proposisi formal, kami juga meneliti hubungan antara
tiga proyek konstruksi kinerja manajemen karena kita diharapkan berencana untuk positif terkait dengan
eksekusi dan eksekusi untuk positif terkait dengan pengiriman.
3.2. Dampak yang diharapkan padakualitas hubungan klien
pemasok berbasis Projectsering memberikan sistem yang kompleks dan solusi terintegrasi untuk melayani
kebutuhan proyek pelanggan mereka (Ahola et al, 2008;. Brady et al, 2005;. Davies et al, 2007.). Hal ini secara
luas diakui bahwa banyak B2B pemasok-pelanggan kapal hubungan melibatkan campuran produk dan layanan
komponen (Eggert et al, 2014;.. Hutchinson et al, 2011;. Tuli et al, 2007; Ulaga dan Eggert, 2006). Pemasok
berinteraksi terus-menerus dengan pelanggan di seluruh instalasi proyek dan menyesuaikan solusi produk dan
layanan terintegrasi mereka, agar sesuai dengan kebutuhan yang tepat pelanggan (Rajamma et al, 2011;.. Tuli et
al, 2007). Kombinasi ini layanan telah kadang-kadang digambarkan sebagai "layanan hybrid" untuk
mencerminkan integrasi produk dan jasa menjadi solusi pelanggan (Ulaga dan Reinartz, 2011).
Dalam literatur layanan B2B, ada konsensus umum bahwa sifat pemasok-pelanggan interaksi yang
kompleks, heterogen, dan beragam (Mukherjee et al, 2009;. Palmatier et al, 2007.). Dalam proyek-proyek
berskala besar, seperti yang dalam penelitian kami, ada beberapa titik kontak dalam hubungan pemasok-klien,
dan sering ada jaringan peserta (Ganesan et al., 2009). Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, selama instalasi sistem
B2B HVAC besar, yang sering sangat disesuaikan, harus ada pemahaman rinci tentang kebutuhan klien melalui
pertukaran relasional, dan ini adalah yang seimbang terhadap kemampuan pemasok dan kendala (Palmatier et
al., 2007;. Rajamma et al, 2011). Kami demikian diharapkan semua tahapan manajemen proyek yang berbeda
berdampak langsung pada kualitas hubungan klien tetapi berbeda secara signifikan jika proyek selesai akhir.
Proposisi yang diusulkan kami adalah sebagai berikut:
Proposisi 1. Koefisien jalur antara proyek kinerja pengelolaan pada tahap perencanaan dan kualitas hubungan
klien akan berbeda secara signifikan antara proyek completed on-waktu dan mereka selesai akhirjalur.
Proposisi 2. Koefisien antara proyek manajemen kinerja pemerintah pada tahap pelaksanaan dan kualitas
hubungan klien akan berbeda secara signifikan antara proyek completed on-waktu dan mereka selesai akhir.
Proposisi 3. koefisien jalur antara proyek manajemen kinerja pemerintah pada tahap pengiriman dan hubungan
klien kualitas akan berbeda secara signifikan antara proyek completed on-waktu dan mereka selesai akhir.
Gambar. 1. Model konseptual dari hubungan yang diharapkan. Catatan: panah padat menandakan jalur langsung yang
merupakan proposisi formal. Panah putus-putus menandakan hubungan antara tiga proyek konstruksi kinerja manajemen.
3.3. Dampak yang diharapkan pada kepuasan klien

Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, keberhasilan proyek sering diukur dengan pertimbangan proyek waktu
pertemuan, biaya, dan kualitas. Ini "segitiga besi" dari faktor keberhasilan adalah ukuran penting keberhasilan
untuk proyek (Atkinson, 1999; Chou dan Zolkiewski, 2010). Namun, berpendapat bahwa keberhasilan proyek
juga harus mencakup dampak proyek pada kepuasan pelanggan dan kualitas hubungan klien, seperti metrik
tambahan. Sementara kepatuhan proyek ke waktu, biaya, dan kualitas penting, dimensi lain dari kesuksesan
seperti kepuasan pelanggan dan kualitas hubungan yang harus dievaluasi setelah penyelesaian proyek (Toor dan
Ogunlana, 2010).
Penelitian terbaru juga telah menyelidiki beberapa faktor yang berkontribusi berbeda untuk keberhasilan
proyek termasuk tanggung jawab sosial (yang et al., 2010), manajemen perubahan (Levasseur, 2010), dan
pentingnya penyelesaian sebelum pesaing menjadi sadar proyek (Pinker et al., 2014). Ukuran segera kepuasan
pelanggan dan kualitas hubungan dengan cepat setelah penyelesaian proyek belum mendapat perhatian bahwa
manajemen proyek tradisional faktor keberhasilan dalam literatur (Toor dan Ogunlana, 2010). Given the
importance of customer satisfaction to the development of ongoing long-term business relationships (Rauyruen
and Miller, 2007), we argue that the satisfaction of customers should be included in assessing the success of a
project.
A large body of recent research also found that various dimensions of relationship quality were important for
effective B2B value creation and customer satisfaction (Gronroos, 2011; Gummesson, 2010; Gummesson and
Polese, 2009; Ramaswamy, 2011; Terho et al., 2012; Toytari et al., 2011). We thus expected all the different
project management phases to impact directly on client satisfaction but differ significantly if the project was
completed late. We also expected client relationship quality to be an important driver of satisfaction, and a
partial mediator of the different project management phases on satisfaction. Our next set of propositions was as
follows:
Proposition 4. The path coefficient between project management performance at planning stage and client
satisfaction will be significantly different between projects completed on-time and those completed late.
Proposition 5. The path coefficient between project management performance at execution stage and client
Proposition 6. The path coefficient between project management performance at delivery stage and client
Proposition 7. The path coefficient between client relationship quality and customer satisfaction will be
significantly different between projects completed on-time and those completed late.
1841 P. Williams et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 18361850
4. Methodology
4.1. The firm
The specific projects in this study were from the building service industry, involving the installation of
heating, ventila- tion, control, and security (HVAC) systems in large facilities. We collected customer data from
a large multinational corporation that manufactures and installs these large-scale systems for clients in over 100
countries around the world. Since it has a threshold revenue level for projects, all of the projects had a
significant dollar cost. Most of the clients were other large organizations. The projects typically had duration of
two months to over a year. The projects also required close coordination with other contractors and system
providers such as architectural, structural, electrical, and information technology contractors. All of the data for
this study came from the United States and Canada.
4.2. The sample
The firm in this study completed thousands of system installation projects each year. The client firms were
typically very large organization. About half of the sample was comprised of multinational corporations. The
remaining portion of the sample consisted of government, healthcare, and educational organizations. There were
no small projects as the firm had a dollar value minimum. From a single year of data, we randomly extracted a
sample of 484 surveys from clients who had their projects completed on-time. We also extracted a sample of
104 surveys from clients in the same year of data that had their projects completed late, for a total sample size of
588. The individual client respondents were typically facilities managers or engineers in the client firm who held
senior management positions, and who had significant influence in vendor selection and on-going project
supervision. The questionnaire introduction directed the respondent to answer questions based on their recently
completed installation project. Specifically, they were asked about their perceptions of project management
performance (planning, execution and delivery), relationship quality, and satisfaction specific to this project.
All client organizations had a long history with the supplier with an average relationship duration of 18 years
(67.4% having a relationship duration of 11 years or longer). All customer organizations were also large, with a
median number of employees of 500 at the project location. We used the number of employees at a location as a
surrogate for project size. Individual respondents had an average of fifteen years of experience dealing with the
supplier.
Each project had a formal performance contract associated with it. At the end of the project, the customer,
usually the key contact individual, signed off on the project as complete. The customer and project information
was then transferred to a market research firm for telephone surveying. Surveying was typically completed in
the second or third week after the project completion. The intent of surveying soon after completion was to
ensure that the supplier's project performance was still fresh
in the customer's mind. The cooperation rate for the surveying (people contacted vs. completed surveys) was
usually in the 6065% range. This high response rate was due to the fact that the client had agreed to complete a
satisfaction survey at project completion in the project contract. This high response rate also meant that nonresponse bias was not likely to be a problem.
4.3. Questionnaire development and measures
The questionnaire was developed through a multi-stage process. First, individual telephone depth interviews
were conducted with several groups of 20 customers each. The goal of the interviews was to identify the key
drivers of project management satisfaction, from the customer's viewpoint. The results of the depth interviews
were aligned with the firm's internal processes. Then a questionnaire was developed by a marketing research
firm, by using a combination of scales from academic literature and other recognized business research metrics.
The draft questionnaire was then circulated to an executive steering committee overseeing the project business
unit. After several iterations, the questionnaire was pre-tested, revised, and finalized.
The questionnaire had sections that asked the customer about overall satisfaction (2 items), relationship
quality (3 items), project planning performance (4 items), project execution performance (6 items), and project
delivery performance (6 items). There was a single dichotomous yes/no question regarding on-time completion
that was used to partition the data. Customer satisfaction was a linear composite of two items to improve
reliability and validity. One question was overall satisfaction and the other was met expectations. This
combination has commonly been used in other academic research (Barry et al., 2008; Tokman et al., 2007;
Zeithaml, 1988; Zolkiewski et al., 2007). Measures of relationship quality and the three project performance
constructs were adapted from Haverila et al. (2013).
All constructs and their respective items are shown in Appendix A. Questions had a five-point response scale.
The reason for this is that the data was gathered through the use of telephone interviews, and five point scales
are concise and clear to respondents. The overall satisfaction scale had response choices of very satisfied
satisfiedneither....dissatisfied very dissatisfied. Most of the project management performance questions
used an excellentvery goodgoodfair poor scale. These scales are among the most commonly used in
academic research (Gruca and Rego, 2005).
In designing the questionnaire, items comprising the dependent and independent variables were separated
and items within each set were intermixed in an effort to reduce single-source method bias (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Common method bias was assessed using a CFA approach to Harman's (1967) one factor test (McFarlin
and Sweeney, 1992). According to this test, if a single factor emerges from the exploratory factor analysis or one
factor accounts for more than fifty per cent of the variance in the items, methods bias is present (Mattila and
Enz, 2002). All of the items were entered into a common factor analysis with OBLIM rotation. The
results revealed that no single factor accounted for more than fifty per cent of the variance. Therefore method
bias, per se, cannot explain our study results.
4.4. Analytical techniques
Prior to testing the propositions, we examined the mean scores to identify differences in the model constructs
between projects completed on-time and those that were not. We then used structural equation modeling (SEM)
Partial Least Squares (PLS Graph version 3.00) (Chin, 1998), to test our propositions and examine differences
between the two groups: completed on time group or not completed on time group. Although a combination of
regression analysis and factor analysis could have been used, they share a common limitation in that each
technique can examine only a single relationship at a time. Our conceptual model (Fig. 1) involved the
examination of a series of dependence relationships simultaneously. For example, higher project planning
performance creates higher levels of relationship quality and then relationship quality creates higher levels of
client satisfaction. Relationship quality was therefore both a dependent and an independent variable in the same
theory.
Partial Least Squares (PLS), a powerful multivariate analysis technique with roots in path analysis (Wold,
1982), is ideal for testing structural models involving multiple constructs with multiple latent variables. PLS was
considered to be an appropriate technique for a number of reasons. First, unlike covariance structural analysis,
such as LISREL, which seeks to explain relationships, the objective of PLS is to explain variance in the
endogenous variables in a model that has managerial relevance (such as relationship quality and client
satisfaction). PLS is particularly well suited to operationalizing satisfaction models in an applied setting
(Edvardsson et al., 2000) and exploratory research settings (Hair et al., 2013). The goal of our current study was
to identify key project management performance constructs as drivers of client relationship quality and client
satisfaction. Second, PLS can deal with small sample sizes (as is the case with the project not completed on
time sample) because the iterative algorithm behind PLS estimates parameters in only small subsets of a model
during any given iteration (Whittaker et al., 2007). PLS can produce reliable results despite sample size inequity
(Whittaker et al., 2007). Third, PLS can be used for both confirmatory and exploratory applications, since,
unlike covariance-based approaches, it does not try to go beyond the data (Wold, 1982). Consequently, PLS
made it easier to explore the differences between projects that were completed on time and those that were not
by comparing their path coefficients (Chin, 2009).
The test of the measurement model for both groups included the estimation of internal consistency, plus
convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006). In order to evaluate the structural model, the R2
values for the endogenous constructs and the size, t statistics, and significance level of the structural path
coefficients were computed using the bootstrap re-sampling procedure. Bootstrapping with 1000
bootstrap samples and sample sizes that are equal to the original sample sizes is fundamental for the significance
of path coefficients (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993).
The differences between the two groups were analyzed using path coefficients' comparison. Testing
differences in path coefficients across groups requires that the latent variables are created in the same way for all
groups (Carte and Russell, 2003). We addressed the measurement model invariance and variability between the
two groups (difference in sample size) by using the bootstrapping technique in PLS. We then compared the path
coefficients between the two groups by using a parametric procedure from (Chin, 2009), as originally described
by (Keil et al., 2000). This procedure is shown below and shows a t-distribution with m + n 2 degrees of
freedom (see Fig. 2 below).
5. Results
5.1. Preliminary analysis
Prior to assessing differences between the two groups, we conducted some preliminary tests of the data and
the a priori measurement model. Firstly, we assessed whether the same measurement model held for each
sample by analyzing the measurement model invariance between the project 'completed on time' sample and the
'project not completed on time' sample. Using the bootstrapping technique and the Fisher's z transformation,
item loadings (as shown in Table 1) did not differ significantly across both samples. All individual item loadings
were close to or above 0.70 (Chin, 1998) and highly significant using the bootstrap results of PLS. Two items
with loadings between 0.60 and 0.70 measuring the project delivery performance in the 'project not completed
on-time' group were retained because they were theoretically grounded and there were other measures in the
block for comparison purposes (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 (GoF) measure for PLS based on
taking the square root of the product of the variance extracted with all constructs with multiple indicators and
the average R2 value of the endogenous
Fig. 2. Formula for path coefficient comparisons.
Project not completed on time (N = 104)
Loading IC AVE Loading IC AVE
Projectplanningperformance 0.92 0.74 0.91 0.71
Advice and suggestions 0.82 0.81 Attending meetings/site visits 0.88 0.85 Knowledge and expertise 0.90 0.89 Company's
specifications 0.84 0.82 Projectexecutionperformance 0.95 0.76 0.93 0.67
Reliable project schedule 0.88 0.80 Meeting milestones 0.90 0.86 Resources 0.91 0.85 Communicating effectively 0.88 0.86
Coordinating 0.86 0.82 Quality 0.78 0.74 Projectdeliveryperformance 0.93 0.68 0.90 0.60
Checkout and demonstration 0.83 0.87 Start-up problems 0.85 0.83 Warranty process 0.81 0.64 Resolving warranty issues
0.84 0.78 Final documentation 0.77 0.68 Building control problems 0.85 0.83 Relationshipquality 0.86 0.68 0.86 0.68
Quality of business relationship
0.84 0.84
Resolution of issues 0.75 0.77 Communication 0.88 0.86 Customersatisfaction 0.87 0.77 0.92 0.85
Satisfied in doing business 0.88 0.92 Met expectations 0.87 0.92
Notes: Loading: represents how much a factor explains a variable. Convergent validity is demonstrated when items load
highly (loading N0.70) on their associated factors (Chin, 1998). IC: internal consistency is a measure of how well the items
measure the same construct in repeated tests. PLS uses an alternative measure to Cronbach's alpha. Rather than weighting
the items equally, this measure uses the item loadings obtained within the nomological network or model. AVE: average
variance extracted refers to how much variance captured by the latent variable is shared among other variables.
constructs. The GoF measures were 0.64 for the 'project completed on-time' group and 0.63 for the 'project not
completed on-time' group. Moreover, values for blockwise 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 ontime' group). These results indicate very good fit suggesting that the model has good explanatory power in both
groups. The StoneGeisser test of predictive relevance was also performed to further assess model fit in PLS
analysis (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1974). Both customer satisfaction 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) were also above the minimum threshold of 0.5 (Fornell and
Table 1 Model validation results.
Construct name and items Project completed on
time (N = 484)
Larcker, 1981) and ranged from 0.68 to 0.81 in the 'project completed on-time' group and from 0.60 to 0.85 in
the 'project not completed on-time' group. Table 2 shows that none of the inter-correlations of the constructs
exceed the square root of the AVE of the constructs, thus demonstrating adequate discriminant validity.
We also assessed the data distribution for non-normality. The frequency distribution of the 21 items indicated
no problems of floor or ceiling effects in the measurements. In addition, KolmogorovSmirnov and Shapiro
Wilk tests also showed that each indicator of the model constructs was normally distributed. All of these
preliminary tests held no breaches of key assumptions, and we were thus confident of the data being high
quality and accurate for our subsequent PLS analysis and proposition testing.
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 Table 3), we found statistically significant differences. In the 'not completed on time' group,
respondents reported significantly lower levels of performance across all three project management lifecycle
phases, lower levels of customer satisfaction, and lower levels of relationship quality.
5.2. PLS analysis and testing of propositions
Table 4 shows the results of the PLS analysis, including the path coefficients, as well as the bootstrapped tvalues (based on 1000 bootstrapping runs) for the two groups. The explained variances and the t-values for
group differences (t-value differences) using Chin's (2009) procedure are also shown.
The results highlight the complex nature of the factors influencing the client relationship and satisfaction.
The relative importance of the different antecedents in both groups can be seen in the standardized beta
coefficients, and these indicated some similarities and differences. The t-value difference scores in Table 4
showed some significant differences in the path coefficients between the three project management phases and
relationship quality in both groups. The factors influencing client relationship quality, collectively, explained
62% of the variance for the on-time group, but 59% of the variance for the
Table 2 Assessing discriminant validity.
12345
1. Project planning
performance
0.86 (0.84)
2. Project
execution performance
0.82 (0.82) 0.87 (0.82)
3. Project delivery
performance
0.76(0.75) 0.81(0.71) 0.82(0.77)
4. Relationship
quality
0.71(0.66) 0.76(0.76) 0.71(0.63) 0.82(0.82)
5. Customer
satisfaction
0.60(0.62) 0.69(0.71) 0.61(0.68) 0.69(0.66) 0.88
(0.92)
Note: 'Project not completed on-time' group in parenthesis.
not-completed-on-time group. A number of path coefficients changed significantly in weighting and relative
order of influence depending on whether the project was completed on-time or not (see Fig. 3). All three project
phases were significantly related to relationship quality for projects completed on-time. There were significant
differences in the magnitude of the path coefficients for planning, execution, and delivery between the two
groups. While the most influential factor was project execution in both groups, it became the only significant
factor that influenced client relationship quality when the project was completed late, reinforcing its importance. As such, Propositions 1, 2 and 3 were supported in that there were significant differences between the two
groups for the influence of project planning, project execution, and project delivery on client relationship
quality.
For the factors influencing customer satisfaction, collectively these independent variables explained 54% of
the variance for the on-time group, but 57% of the variance for the not-completed-on-time group. There was one
significant difference in the path coefficient of project delivery between the two groups. As such, Proposition 6
was accepted in that project delivery was not a significant influence on satisfaction when the project is on-time.
However, it had a significant influence on satisfaction when the project is late. The other propositions were
rejected (Propositions 4, 5, and 7), as there were no significant differences in the path coefficients between the
two groups for the factors of project planning and project execution and their client satisfaction.
The most influential factor predicting satisfaction was relationship quality for the on-time group ( = 0.38)
and also for the not-completed-on-time group ( = 0.29), but this difference was not statistically significant. In
addition, project execution performance had both a direct effect on customer satisfaction and an indirect effect
on satisfaction through relationship quality for both the on-time and late groups. Based on the Sobel test (Baron
and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon et al., 2007), the indirect effect of project execution performance on satisfaction
( = 0.16, t = 2.02) was significant. The indirect effect was also significant in the late group ( = 0.19,
Table 3 Descriptive results.
On time N = 484
Not completed on time N = 104
t test significance
Mean SD Mean SD
Customer satisfaction 3.90 0.63 3.34 0.83 Yes
(pb 0.01) Relationship quality 4.08 0.69 3.53 0.84 Yes
(pb 0.01) Project planning performance 3.92 0.78 3.33 0.96 Yes
(pb 0.01) Project execution performance 3.70 0.83 2.84 0.96 Yes
(pb 0.01) Project delivery performance 3.77 0.82 2.94 0.83 Yes
(pb 0.01)
Note: Scale 15.
Table 4 PLS analysis.
Project completed on time (N = 484)
Difference in path coefficient t value
Path Coefficient
t value Path
t value Coefficient
Effects on relationship quality R2 = 0.62 R2 = 0.59
Project planning performance (Proposition 1) +0.21 3.41
Project execution performance (Proposition 2) +0.41 6.10
+0.07 0.53ns 0.14 1.95

Project delivery performance (Proposition 3) +0.22 3.85
+0.67 5.03
0.26 1.67
Effects on client satisfaction R2 = 0.54 R2 = 0.57

Project planning performance (Proposition 4) +0.01 0.11ns 0.03 0.02ns 0.04 0.26 Project execution performance
(Proposition 5) +0.34 4.15
+0.04 0.31ns 0.18 1.69
+0.26 1.71
0.08 0.41 Project

delivery performance (Proposition 6) +0.06 0.93ns +0.29 2.14
Relationship quality (Proposition 7) +0.38 6.93
0.23 1.79
0.09 0.69
ns not significant. pb 0.001. pb 0.01. pb 0.05.
Fig. 3. Summary of structural model results. Notes: Path coefficients for 'not completed on time' group in parenthesis. ns not
significant. All others significant pb 0.05. Dotted arrows signify relationships between the three project management
performance constructs. They were not formally tested as research propositions.
+0.29 2.38
t = 2.17). The total effect of project execution performance on customer satisfaction in the on-time group was
0.34 (direct) + 0.16 (indirect, 0.41 0.38) = 0.50 total effect. In the late group, the total effect was 0.26 (direct)
+ 0.19 (indirect, 0.67 0.29) = 0.45 total effect. Following the guidelines of Iacobucci and Duhachek (2004) we
calculated the VAF (variance Accounted For) value which represents the ratio of the indirect effect to the total
effect. In the on-time group, a VAF value of 32% indicated that just under a third of the total effect of project
execution performance on satisfaction was explained by its indirect effect through relationship quality. In the
late group, the VAF value was 42.2%.
6. Discussion and implications
Acknowledging the paucity of research examining the role of customer satisfaction and relationship quality
in project
management, this study explored the impact that different dimensions of the supplier's project performance had
on customer satisfaction and relationship quality when projects were completed on-time or was completed late.
Ahlemann et al. (2013) noted that, in general, the project management literature is lacking in theoretical
development. They suggested that theoretical foundations be drawn from other related disciplines and applied to
project management. We followed this suggestion by basing our study on channel governance theory in
relationship marketing to examine relational issues in project management, since projects can be conceptualized
as a type of exchange between channel members.
The first observation from our results is that several project management performance drivers have a
significant influence on both relationship quality and customer satisfaction. In turn, relationship quality partially
mediates the relationship between 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 (Cserhti and Szab, 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 Lemtayer, 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 relationship quality
and satisfaction in our project management context. As noted by Zou et al. (2014), active client management is
important for project success, especially at different phases of the project. Our results confirm that
Project not completed on time (N = 104)
relationship management is a key driver of the project success criteria of customer satisfaction as proposed by
other researchers (Suprapto et al., 2014).
On-time completion is a central element of the iron triangle of project success factors, along with cost and
quality. Our results show that completing a project late had a pervasive effect on customer perceptions of the
project management performance dimensions. Late completion of a project de- creased the means scores for all
aspects of the project, not just on project aspects related to time. In other words, being late leads to much more
negative views of all aspects of the supplier's performance. Late completion also changed the way that
customers conceptualized the project performance. In general, the path coefficients between the independent
variables (project phases) and the dependent variables (customer satisfaction and relationship quality) became
weaker for projects completed late compared to the on-time model. This means that being late had an impact on
the way a customer perceives performance levels, and also on how they evaluated what was important in a
project. While this certainly demonstrated the importance of on-time completion of projects, it also illustrated
that time, as a project success factor, may be a hygiene factor. In a project management context, hygiene factors
are performance dimensions that the customer simply expects to be part of the project. Performing well on
hygiene factors may just meet basic customer expectations, but not lead to high satisfaction. In our study, late
project completion lead to dissatisfaction, which is exactly what would be expected of a hygiene factor.
Delighters are performance dimensions that go beyond what the customer expects. These are usually aspects of
inter-personal interaction between a supplier and customer where the supplier goes the extra mile or above
and beyond to create a Wow! factor (Zeithaml et al., 1988, 1996). It appears that the iron triangle of time,
cost, and quality are primarily hygiene factors. Completing a project on-time and on-budget are likely to be
basic expectations of customers as that is what the supplier said they would do. If the term quality denotes
primarily product quality, it too would be a hygiene factor. If the term quality includes a service component, it
could be a delighter, as delighters are typically relational behaviors (Tuli et al., 2007; Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011).
In our study, aspects of the suppliercustomer relationship would be where delighters are found. Consistent
with this theory, relationship quality was the strongest predictor of a customer's satisfaction, by far, particularly
for projects completed on-time. For projects completed late, relationship quality was still strongly related to
satisfaction, but the predictive power was lower. Our results, and those of other studies, suggest that the iron
triangle needs to be expanded to include both customer satisfaction and relationship quality as dimensions of
project success (Hornstein, 2015; Mir and Pinnington, 2014; Suprapto et al., 2014).
The project planning phase was not related to customer satisfaction for both on-time and late project
completion. There are two possible explanations for this. Project planning involves the development of a
proposal and project contract that specifies project parameters. Accordingly, project planning
may be a hygiene factor that once completed, the customer simply takes for granted. Second, the lack of a
significant relationship may be a methodological artifact. By definition, project planning occurred at the
beginning of a project. Since these were large HVAC systems installed in large facilities, the project duration
could easily be over a year. Customers may not recall in detail the initial experience, instead paying more
attention to the execution and delivery phases. Confounding this is the fact that project planning was
significantly related to relationship quality for projects completed on-time. Project planning is the initial stage of
interaction between the supplier's project manager and project team and the customer organization. Completing
a project on-time may reinforce these early interactions, while completing a project late erodes customer
perceptions of project planning performance.
The project execution phase was significantly related to both customer satisfaction and relationship quality,
whether the project was completed late or was on-time. While project execution was significantly related to
customer satisfaction for on-time completion (pb .0001), the significance level dropped substantially (pb .05)
with late completion. Project execution was strongly related to relationship quality for both on-time and late
project completion. This is logical since this is where the most of the inter-personal interaction between the
supplier and customer teams take place. While project planning is of short duration, the majority of the project's
life is spent in the execution phase. Other researchers have identified that relationship quality is a long-term
orientation that leads to more collaboration and coordination (Ahola et al., 2008; Holmlund, 2008). This
collaboration and coordination is a central aspect of project execution.
Project delivery performance was not related to customer satisfaction when a project was completed on-time,
but was weakly related when a project was late. Completing a project late may sensitize a customer to the final
activities in a project. As with other phases, project delivery was strongly related to relationship quality when a
project was completed on-time. It may be that completing a project on-time creates a halo effect of positive
perceptions of all aspects of project performance. However, when a project is completed late, there is no halo
effect as project delivery is not related to relationship quality.
In summary, we have demonstrated that dimensions of project performance throughout the project lifecycle
are more strongly related to relationship quality than to customer satisfaction when a project is completed ontime. We have also demonstrated that relationship quality mediates the relationship between project performance
phases and customer satisfaction. However, when a project is completed late, many of the paths in the structural
model change.
The results of this study have a number of important implications for project management practice. For the
projects completed on time sample, our findings demonstrated the importance of project management
performance across all three phases as drivers of relationship quality, with project execution performance being
the most important driver. Project management execution was the only phase that has a direct impact on client
satisfaction as well as an indirect impact through
relationship quality. Therefore it behoves project managers to ensure that all aspects of project planning,
execution, and delivery are carefully considered, but greater importance should be placed on execution activities
such as the creation and communication of reliable project schedules to clients and ensuring that
communication policies and processes are followed so that the client is regularly and systematically updated.
In the 'project completed late' sample, project execution performance was the only important driver of both
relationship 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 client perspectives when
the project is late and manage clients accordingly. Monitoring the performance of projects during the execution
phase on a continuous basis becomes even more critical in fostering higher levels of relationship quality and
client satisfaction when projects are late. In addition to project management execution activities, it is crucially
important that project management teams ensure that the newly installed system is adequately demonstrated and
start-up problems are correctly diagnosed and corrected. Project management delivery becomes an important
driver of client satisfaction when projects are completed late.
7. Limitations and directions for future research
Given the cross-sectional nature of our study, we can only identify possible relationships between the
variables, so causality in direction and influence of these relationships cannot be inferred. To reveal causal
direction of these relationships would require a more quasi-experimental design or longitudinal study which
should prove fruitful in better understanding the drivers of client satisfaction and relationship quality in a project
management context. Our study also focused on one supplier firm and one individual respondent in the client
firm responsible for the project. Future research should validate the research results with another sample and
consider the use of multiple sources to address problems associated with common method variance. There is
also a pervasive belief in social science research that PLS has special abilities that make it more appropriate than
other techniques such as LISREL when analyzing small sample sizes. Goodhue et al. (2007), however, provide
evidence that PLS does not have greater ability to detect a path relationship as statistically significant. The belief
that PLS has more power than other techniques at small sample size requires further empirical investigation.
In project management, project success has typically been evaluated using the iron triangle of time, costs
and quality. In future research, it would be interesting to examine the direct and moderating influence of these
variables in models of project success that involve relationship quality and client satisfaction. Finally, we base
our study on channel governance theory in marketing to examine relational issues in project management since
projects are simply a type of exchange between channel members. Other related issues from channel governance
theory such as inter-firm dependency, relational
solidarity, reciprocity, and integrity may be particularly worthy of inclusion in future project management
research.
Conflict of interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has
been so significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Appendix A. Constructs and measurement items
Project planning performance adapted from Haverila et al. (2013).
How would you rate X for providing advice and suggestions regarding the development and specifications for
your project? How would you rate X for attending meetings/site visit doing everything necessary to
understand the project requirements? How would you rate X in demonstrating knowledge and expertise to show
understanding of the customer's business?
How would you rate X for delivering a proposal that meets the intent of your company's specifications?
Project execution performance adapted from Haverila et al. (2013).
How would you rate X for creating and communicating a reliable project schedule?
How would you rate X for meeting milestones as specified by the project schedule?
How would you rate X for committing the appropriate resources to complete the project as scheduled?
How would you rate X personnel for communicating effectively throughout the execution of the project?
How would you rate X personnel for coordinating their work with other contractors (or the owner's staff)?
How would you rate the quality of the installed systems?
Project delivery performance adapted from Haverila et al. (2013).
How would you rate X for conducting proper checkout and demonstration of the system?
How would you rate X for efficiently diagnosing and correcting start-up problems?
How would you rate X for informing you of the warranty process for this project?
How would you rate X for resolving warranty issues as defined by the warranty process?
How would you rate X for providing complete, final documentation including 'as built' drawings, as per
the project schedule?
How would you rate X for working with all parties to resolve building control problems including deficiency
items?
Customer satisfaction adapted from Barry et al. (2008), Tokman et al. (2007), Zeithaml (1988) and
Zolkiewski et al. (2007).
Thinking about your overall experience with X during the past 12 months, how satisfied are you in doing
business with X? Considering X's overall performance, would you say that X has met your expectations?
Relationship quality adapted from Haverila et al. (2013). Overall how do you rate the quality of the business
relationship you have with X?
How would you rate X for following up with you to ensure resolution of issues you have brought to their
attention?
How would you rate X's performance in establishing fast, accurate two-way communication with its
customers?
References
Ahearne, M., Rapp, A., Mariadoss, BJ, Ganesan, S., 2012. Challenges of CRM implementation in business-to-business
markets: a contingency perspective. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 32, 117129.
Ahlemann, F., El Arbi, F., Kaiser, MG, Heck, A., 2013. A process framework for theoretically grounded prescriptive research
in the project management field. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 4356. Ahola, T., Laitinen, E., Kujala, J., Wikstrm, K., 2008.
Purchasing strategies
and value creation in industrial turnkey projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 87
. Ahuja, HN, Dozzi, SP, &amp, Abourizk, SM, 1994.
Project management: techniques in planning and controlling construction projects. John Wiley & Sons. Anderson, EW,
Mittal, V., 2000. Strengthening the satisfaction profit chain.
J. Serv. Res. 3, 107120. Anderson, EW, Fornell, C., Mazvancheryl, SK, 2004. Customer satisfaction
and shareholder value. J. Mark. 68, 172185 . Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best
guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17, 337342
. Baron, RM, Kenny, DA, 1986. The moderatormediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 11731182
. Barry, JM, Dion, P., Johnson, W., 2008. A cross-cultural examination of
relationship strength in B2B services. J. Serv. Mark. 22, 114135. Blois, KJ, Ivens, BS, 2007. Method issues in the
measurement of relational
norms. J. Bus. Res. 60, 556565 . Bolton, R., 1988. A dynamic model of the customer's relationship with a continuous
service provider: the role of satisfaction. Mark. Sci. 17, 4565. Bolton, RN, Drew, JH, 1991. A multistage model of
customers' assessments
of service quality and value. J. Consum. Res. 17, 375384. Brady, T., Davies, A., Gann, DM, 2005. Creating value by
delivering
integrated solutions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 360365. Briscoe, D., 2002. The Evolution of Customer Loyalty: Bringing
the Customer
Inside. Conference Board of Canada. Brown, JR, Lusch, RF, Smith, LP, 1991. Conflict and satisfaction in an industrial
channel of distribution. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 21, 1526. Capraro, AJ, Broniarczyk, S., Srivastava, RK, 2003.
Factors influencing the likelihood of customer defection: the role of customer knowledge. Acad. Market. Sci. J. 31, 164
184 . Carte, TA, Russell, CJ, 2003. In pursuit of moderation: nine common errors
and their solutions. MIS Q. 27, 479501
. Chakrabarty, S., Whitten, D., Green, K., 2007. Understanding service quality and relationship quality in outsourcing: client
orientation and promotion, project management effectiveness, and the task technology-structure fit. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 48,
115 . Chan, APC, Chan, APL, 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success. Benchmarking: Int. J. 11, 203221 . Chin, W., 1998. The partial lease squares for structural equations
modeling. In: Marcoulides, GA (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 295336.
Chin, W., 2009. Frequently Asked QuestionsPartial Leas Squares and PLSgraph. http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm. Chou, HH, Zolkiewski, J., 2010. The arrival of technological changes at
the
business net: a learning process. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 25, 443453
. Cooil, B., Keiningham, TL, Aksoy, L., Hsu, M., 2007. A
longitudinal analysis of customer satisfaction and share of wallet: investigating the moderating effects of customer
characteristics. J. Mark. 31, 6783. Cooke-Davies, TJ, 2002. The real success factors of projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 20, 185190 . Cooke-Davies, TJ, Arzymanow, A., 2003. The maturity of project management in different
industries: an investigation into variations between project management models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 471478
. Cserhti, G., Szab, L., 2014. The relationship between success criteria
and success factors in organisational event projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 613624. Davies, A., Brady, T., Hobday, M.,
2007. Organizing for solutions: systems
seller vs. systems integrator. Ind. Mark. Manag. 36, 183193. Davis, K., 2014. Different stakeholder groups and their
perceptions of project
success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 189201. Dvir, D., 2005. Transferring projects to their final users: the effect of planning
and preparations for commissioning on project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 257265 . Dvir, D., Raz, T., Shenhar, A.,
2003. An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (2), 89
95. Dwyer, FR, Schurr, PH, Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyerseller relationships.
J. Mark. 51, 1127. Ebbesen, JB, Hope, AJ, 2013. Re-imagining the iron triangle: embedding
sustainability into project constraints. PM World J. 2 (3), 113. Edvardsson, B., Johnson, MD, Gustafsson, A., Strandvik,
T., 2000. The effects of satisfaction and loyalty on profits and growth: products versus services. Total Qual. Manag. 11,
S917S927
. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R., 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and
Hall, New York. Eggert, A., Hogreve, J., Ulaga, W., Muenkhoff, E., 2014. Revenue and profit
implications of industrial service strategies. J. Serv. Res. 17, 2339 . Fornell, C., Bookstein, FL, 1982. 2 structural equation
modelsLISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J. Mark. Res. 19, 440452 . Fornell, C., Larcker, DF,
1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res.
18, 382388
. Fruchter, GE, Simon, PS, 2005. Transactions vs. relationships: what should
the company emphasize? J. Serv. Res. 8, 1836
. Ganesan, S., George, M., Jap, S., Palmatier, RW, Weitz, B., 2009. Supply chain management and retailer performance:
emerging trends, issues, and implications for research and practice. J. Retail. 85, 8494 . Gann, DM, Salter, AJ, 2000.
Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29, 955
972
. Geisser, S., 1975. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Am.
Stat. Assoc. 70, 320328
. Gemunden, HG, 2015. Success factors of global new product development programs, the definition of project success,
knowledge sharing, and special issues of project management journal. Proj. Manag. J. 46, 211. Goodhue, D., Lewis, W.,
Thompson, R., 2007. Statistical power in analyzing interaction effects: questioning the advantage of PLS with product
indicators. Inf. Syst. Res. 18, 211227 . Gronroos, C., 2011. A service perspective on business relationships: the value
creation, interaction and marketing interface. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 240247 . Gronroos, C., Helle, P., 2012. Return on
relationships: conceptual understanding and measurement of mutual gains from relational business engagements. J. Bus.
Ind. Mark. 27, 344359. Gruca, TS, Rego, LL, 2005. Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and
shareholder value. J. Mark. 69, 115130. Gummesson, E., 2010. Business in networks. J. Business-to-Business Mark. 17,
308316. Gummesson, E., Polese, F., 2009. B2B is not an island! J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 24,
337350.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Black, W., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis. 6th ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hair, JF, Ringle, CM, Sarstedt, M., 2013. Partial least squares
structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 46, 112
. Harker, MJ, Egan, J., 2006. The past, present and future of relationship
marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 22, 215242. Harman, HH, 1967. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago. Haverila, MJ, Martinsuo, M., Naumann, E., 2013. Drivers of customer satisfaction and relationship quality in
system delivery projects. J. Strateg. Mark. 21, 613636
. Heide, JB, 1994. Interorganizational governance in marketing channels.
J. Mark. 58, 7185 . Heide, JB, John, G., 1992. Do norms matter in marketing relationships?
J. Mark. 56, 3244 . Heydari, MH, Sikari, SS, 2012. Project scheduling in supply chain
environment. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 6, 30653075
. Hodgson, D., 2002. Disciplining the professional: the case of project
management. J. Manag. Stud. 39, 803821 . Holmlund, M., 2008. A definition, model, and empirical analysis of businessto-business relationship quality. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 19, 3262 . Homburg, C., Garbe, B., 1999. Towards an improved
understanding of industrial services: quality dimensions and their impact on buyerseller relationships. J. Business to
Business Mark. 6, 3971. Homburg, C., Rudolph, B., 2001. Customer satisfaction in industrial markets:
dimensional and multiple role issues. J. Bus. Res. 52, 1533. Homburg, C., Koschate, N., Hoyer, W., 2005. Do satisfied
customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between satisfaction and the willingness to pay. J. Mark. 69, 8496
. Hornstein, HA, 2015. The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 291298. Hutchinson, D., Wellington, WJ, Saad, M., Cox, P., 2011. Refining value- based
differentiation in business relationships: a study of the higher order relationship building blocks that influence behavioural
intentions. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 465478 . Iacobucci, D., Duhachek, A., 2004. Mediation analysis. Adv. Consum. Res. 31,
395 . Ika, LA, 2009. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Proj.
Manag. J. 40, 619 . Ireland, LR, 1992. Customer satisfaction: the project manager's role. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 10, 123127
. Jackson, RW, Cooper, PD, 1988. Unique aspects of marketing industrial
services. Ind. Mark. Manag. 17, 111118
. Keil, M., Tan, BCY, Wei, KK, Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., Wassenaar, A., 2000. A
cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Q. 24, 299325
. Kolltveit, BJ, Grnhaug, K., 2004. The importance of the early phase: the case of construction and building projects. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 22, 545551 . Kwak, YH, Ibbs, CW, 2000. Calculating project management's return on
investment. Proj. Manag. J. 31, 3847
. Lam, SY, Shankar, V., Erramilli, MK, Murthy, B., 2004. Customer value, satisfaction,
loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to- business service context. Acad. Mark. Sci. J. 32, 293311.
Levasseur, RE, 2010. People skills: ensuring project success a change
management perspective. Interfaces 40, 159162 . Lim, CS, Mohamed, MZ, 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory
reexamination. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17, 243248. Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A., 1997. The relative
importance of project success dimensions. R&D Manag. 27, 97106 . Loo, R., 2002. Working towards best practices in
project management: a
Canadian study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 9398. Lusch, RF, Vargo, SL, 2011. Service-dominant logic: a necessary step.
Eur.
J. Mark. 45, 12981309. MacKinnon, DP, Fairchild, AJ, Fritz, MS, 2007. Mediation analysis. Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 58, 593614. MacNeil, IR, 1980. Power, contract, and the economic model. J. Econ. Iss. 14,
909 (pre-1986).
Mattila, AS, Enz, CA, 2002. The role of emotions in service encounters.
J. Serv. Res. 4, 268277 . McFarlin, DB, Sweeney, PD, 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction
with personal and organizational outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 35, 626637
. Mir, FA, Pinnington, AH, 2014. Exploring the value of project management: linking project
management performance and project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 202217
. Molinari, LK, Abratt, R., Dion, P., 2008. Satisfaction, quality and value and effects on repurchase and
positive wordofmouth behavioral intentions in a B2B services context. J. Serv. Mark. 22, 363373. Mooi, EA, Ghosh, M.,
2010. Contract specificity and its performance
implications. J. Mark. 74, 105129. Morgan, NA, Rego, LL, 2006. The value of different customer satisfaction and
loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Mark. Sci. 25, 426439
. Mukherjee, A., Malhotra, N., Whiting, A., Donthu, N., 2009. Closing the gap between perceived and actual
waiting times in a call center: results from a field study. J. Serv. Mark. 23, 279288. Muller, R., Jugdev, K., 2012. Critical
success factors in projects. Int.
J. Managing Projects Bus. 5, 757775. Munns, AK, Bjeirmi, BF, 1996. The role of project management in achieving
project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 14, 8187. Nunnally, JC 1978. Psikometri Teori. McGraw-Hill, New York. Palmatier,
RW, Scheer, LK, Houston, MB, Evans, KR, Gopalakrishna, S., 2007. Use of relationship marketing programs in building
customer salesperson and customerfirm relationships: differential influences on financial outcomes. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24,
210223
. Patterson, PG, Spreng, RA, 1997. Modelling the relationship between
perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a businessto business, services context: an empirical
examination. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 8, 414434 . Pellegrinelli, S., 1997. Programme management: organising projectbased
change. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15, 141149 . Pinker, E., Szmerekovsky, J., Tilson, V., 2014. On the complexity of project
scheduling to minimize exposed time. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237, 448
. Pinto, J., Prescott, J., 1988. Variations in critical success
factors over the stages
of the project life cycle. J. Manag. 14, 518 . Pinto, JK, Slevin, DP, 1987. Critical factors in successful project
implementation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 34, 2227 . Pinto, J., Slevin, DP, 1988. Project success: definitions and
measurement
techniques. Proj. Manag. J. 19, 6772
. Podsakoff, PM, MacKenzie, SB, Lee, JY, Podsakoff, NP, 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879903.
Project Management Institute, Inc, 2008. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide. 4th ed.
Project Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA, pp. 1116. Rajamma, RK, Mohammad Ali, Z., Pelton, LE, 2011.
Dimensions and outcomes of B2B relational exchange: a meta-analysis. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 26, 104114 . Ramaswamy, V.,
2011. Its about human experiences ... and beyond, to cocreation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 195196
. Rauyruen, P., Miller, KE, 2007. Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B
customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 60, 2131
. Schellhase, R., Hardock, P., Ohlwein, M., 2000. Customer satisfaction in businessto-business marketing: the case of retail organizations and their suppliers. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 15, 106121. Serrador, P., Pinto,
JK, 2015. Does agile work? a quantitative analysis of
agile project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 10401051
. Serrador, P., Turner, JR, 2015. The relationship between project

success and
project efficiency. Procedia- Soc. Beh. Sci. 119, 7584. Sheffield, J., Lemtayer, J., 2013. Factors associated with the
software development agility of successful projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 459472. Shenhar, AJ, 2008. Unleashing the
power of project management. Ind. Manag.
50, 1418. Shenhar, AJ, Dvir, D., 2007. Project management research: the challenge and
opportunity. Proj. Manag. J. 3, 9399.
Shenhar, AJ, Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, AC, 2001. Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plan. 34, 699725
. Sderlund, J., 2010. Knowledge entrainment and project
management: the case of large-scale transformation projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 130141
. Stone, M., 1974. Cross-validation choice and assessment
of statistical
predictions. JR Stat. Soc. B 36, 111147 . Suprapto, M., Bakker, HLM, Mooi, HG, Moree, W., 2014. Sorting out the essence
of ownercontractor collaboration in capital project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 3, 664683 . Svejvig, P., Andersen, P.,
2015. Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (2), 278290 . Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, VE, Chatelin, YM, Lauro, C., 2005. PLS path
modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48, 159205 . Terho, H., Haas, A., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., 2012. 'It's almost like taking
the sales out of selling'towards a conceptualization of value-based selling in business markets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 41,
174185. Tokman, M., Davis, LA, Lemon, KN, 2007. The WOW factor: creating value
through win-back offers to reacquire lost customers. J. Retail. 83, 4764. Toor, SUR, Ogunlana, SO, 2010. Beyond the 'iron
triangle': stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 28, 228236
. Toytari, P., Alejandro, TB, Parvinen, P., Ollila, I., Rosendahl, N.,
2011. Bridging the theory to application gap in value-based selling. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 26, 493502. Tuli, KR, Kohli, AK,
Bharadwaj, SG, 2007. Rethinking customer solutions:
from product bundles to relational processes. J. Mark. 71, 117. Turner, R., Zolin, R., 2012. Forecasting success on large
projects: developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Proj.
Manag. J. 43, 8799
. Ulaga, W., Eggert, A., 2006. Relationship value and relationship quality
broadening the nomological network of business-to-business relationships. Eur. J. Mark. 40, 311327. Ulaga, W., Reinartz,
WJ, 2011. Hybrid offerings: how manufacturing firms
combine goods and services successfully. J. Mark. 75, 523. Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF, 2004. Evolving to a new dominant
logic for
marketing. J. Mark. 68, 117 . Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF, 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the
evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 110.
Verner, JM, Babar, MA, Cerpa, N., Hall, T., Beecham, S., 2014. Factors that motivate software engineering teams: a four
country empirical study. J. Syst. Softw. 92, 115127
. Wateridge, J., 1998. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 16, 5963
. Wathne, KH, Heide, JB, 2004. Relationship governance in a supply chain
network. J. Mark. 68, 7389. Whittaker, G., Ledden, L., Kalafatis, SP, 2007. A re-examination of the relationship between
value, satisfaction and intention in business services. J. Serv. Mark. 21, 345357
. Williams, P., Naumann, E., 2011. Customer satisfaction and business
performance: a firm level analysis. J. Serv. Mark. 25, 2032 . Wold, H., 1982. Systems under indirect observation using PLS.
In: Fornell, C. (Ed.), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis. Praeger, New York, pp. 325347. Wuyts, S., Geyskens,
I., 2005. The formation of buyersupplier relationships: detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. J. Mark. 69,
103117. Yang, J., Peng, S., 2008. Development of a customer satisfaction evaluation
model for construction management. Membangun. Mengepung. 43, 458468. Yang, J., Shen, GQ, Drew, DS, Ho, M.,
2010. Critical success factors for stakeholder management: construction practitioners' perspectives. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
136, 778786
. Yang, Z., Su, C., Fam, KS, 2012. Dealing with institutional distances in international marketing
channels: governance strategies that engender legitimacy and efficiency. J. Mark. 76, 4155. Zeithaml, VA, 1988. Consumer
preceptions of price, quality and value a
means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52, 222. Zeithaml, VA, Berry, LL, Parasuraman, A., 1988.
Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. J. Mark. 52, 3548. Zeithaml, VA, Berry, LL,
Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral
consequences of service quality. J. Mark. 60, 3146. Zeithaml, VA, Bolton, RN, Deighton, J., Keiningham, TL, et al.,
2006. Forward-looking focus: can firms have adaptive foresight? J. Serv. Res. 9, 168183
. Zolkiewski, J., Lewis, B., Yuan, F., Yuan, J., 2007. An assessment of customer
service in business-to-business relationships. J. Serv. Mark. 21, 313325
. Zou, W., Kumaraswamy, M., Chung, J., Wong, J., 2014. Identifying the critical success factors for relationship management
in PPP projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 265274.

Anm JRNL

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Anm JRNL

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kualitas Hubungan dan kepuasan: faktor keberhasilan Pelanggan

yang dirasakan untuk proyek tepat waktu

Earl Naumann 2, Eric Jackson 3

3.3. Dampak yang diharapkan pada kepuasan klien

Project execution performance (Proposition 2) +0.41 6.10

+0.07 0.53ns 0.14 1.95

Effects on client satisfaction R2 = 0.54 R2 = 0.57

+0.04 0.31ns 0.18 1.69

0.08 0.41 Project

Relationship quality (Proposition 7) +0.38 6.93

. Serrador, P., Turner, JR, 2015. The relationship between project

Anda mungkin juga menyukai