Waiting Line Management free essay sample

However, being satisfied with the service seems to be insufficient for customers to remain loyal. Creating customer loyalty is even more crucial than just satisfying them. The paper aims to investigate how customers weigh up their service satisfaction and waiting time satisfaction in order to determine whether they will remain loyal or not. Design/methodology/approach – A survey was conducted in the Belgian health care industry. The final sample includes 946 respondents. Regression analyses were performed and the Baron and Kenny method used to test moderator and mediator impacts of variables. Findings – The results confirm that waiting time satisfaction is not only a service satisfaction determinant, but it also moderates the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. Moreover, determinants of customer waiting time satisfaction include the perceived waiting time, the satisfaction with information provided in case of delays, and the satisfaction with the waiting environment. In addition, it is shown that waiting time satisfaction is a complete mediating variable in the perceived waiting time and service satisfaction link. Originality/value – The paper suggests several implications about the waiting time impacts on service satisfaction and customer loyalty. They show the importance of this variable in the service process and explain how to improve it. Keywords Customer loyalty, Customer satisfaction, Service levels Paper type Research paper Introduction Many service companies worry about the length of their queues because customer waiting time is considered as having a negative influence on consumer service perception. Time is valued by both partners. On the one hand, service companies may lose transactions if waiting time is too long; and on the other, consumers consider waiting time as a sacrifice to get the service. It is one of the reasons that more and more service customer-oriented companies position their offer on time advantage for consumers. Lovelock and Gummesson (2004) insist on the central role played by time in most services and recommend paying more attention to improving the understanding of how customers perceive, budget, consume and value time. Several research studies focus on the relationship between waiting time and satisfaction (Hui and Tse, 1996; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Many other studies The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. emeraldinsight. com/0960-4529. htm MSQ 17,2 174 Managing Service Quality Vol. 17 No. 2, 2007 pp. 174-193 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-4529 DOI 10. 1108/09604520710735182 emphasize the link between customer satisfaction and their loyalty (e. g. , Anderson, 1994; Dick and Basu, 1994; Fornell et al. 1996; Selnes, 2001; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001; Olsen, 2002). Very few studies focus on the influence of waiting time satisfaction on loyalty and that is confined to the fast food industry (Law et al. , 2004). To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet evaluated the influence of waiting time or waiting time satisfaction on the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. The objective of this research is threefold. We look into the determinants of waiting time s atisfaction and examine the mediating role of the latter variable between these determinants and the service satisfaction. We also investigate the influence of customer waiting time satisfaction on the existing relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. A major contribution to this research is the consideration of waiting time satisfaction as a factor that, in addition to being a determinant of customer satisfaction, may also moderate the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. Conceptual background Waiting time Service perishability gives rise to many problems for service providers and these intensify when service demand fluctuates. To tackle this major problem, firms adopt strategies to match capacity and demand (Bateson and Hoffman, 1999; Lovelock and Lapert, 1999; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2002). One of the first strategies adopted is to flex capacity to meet demand. During periods of peak demand, the organization expands its capacity by adding new resources such as people, facilities and equipment. Second, companies may try to smooth demand. Companies can motivate consumers by making their offer more attractive during low demand periods. Companies may also choose to use reservation in order to spread the demand evenly. However, even with booking, service providers experience difficulties in minimizing delay in service delivery. When demand and capacity cannot be aligned, waiting line strategies can still be found. Among waiting line strategies, we find making wait more fun or tolerable, differentiating waiting customers and choosing an appropriate waiting line configuration (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2002). Despite the implementation of all these strategies, when customer waiting time is too long, companies may indeed make consumers dissatisfied. Service providers may even miss one or several sale occasions; and even worse lose a loyal customer, despite an effective service recovery strategy. But what characterizes a long waiting time? The waiting time has four aspects: objective, subjective, cognitive and affective: (1) The objective waiting time is the elapsed time as measured by a stopwatch by customers before being served (Davis and Vollman, 1990; Katz et al. , 1991; Taylor, 1994). (2) The subjective waiting time is the customers’ estimation of time waited. In previous research studies, the subjective aspect is measured by means of the perceived waiting time (Hui and Tse, 1996; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Unsurprisingly, the estimated time depends on objectively measured elapsed time (Hornick, 1984; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998; Antonides et al. , 2002). (3) The cognitive aspect of the wait is the consumers’ evaluation of the wait as being (or not being) acceptable, reasonable, tolerable (Durrande-Moreau, 1999) as well as considered to be short versus long (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Waiting time influence 175 4) The affective aspect of the wait consists of emotional responses to waiting such as irritation, boredom, frustration, stress, pleasure, happiness, etc . . . (Taylor, 1994; Hui and Tse, 1996; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). According to Pruyn and Smidts (1998), these affective and cognitive aspects form the appraisal of the wait. In this study, we use waiting time satisfaction as being the main variable measuring customer evaluation of the wait. According to Maister (1985), the gap between the perception and expectation for waiting experience determines the customer satisfaction with waiting. Davis and Heineke (1994) specify Maister’s definition, replacing â€Å"perception† by â€Å"performance interpretation†, noting that perception depends on both the customer’s interpretation of the service encounter and the actual service performance. During the last decade, many definitions of overall satisfaction have been proposed, underlining the cognitive and/or affective constituents of the concept (Oliver, 1993). Regarding waiting time, both aspects seem to be appropriate (Durrande-Moreau, 1999). Consequently, we consider waiting time satisfaction as a post-experience, judgmental evaluation including both cognitive and affective aspects of waiting; and measuring the extent to which the perceived waiting period matches the customer’s expectations for a specific transaction. Determinants of waiting time satisfaction Several factors are considered as leading to evaluation of wait (Maister, 1985). Past results show evidence that the objective and subjective waiting time have negative effects on affective and cognitive responses to waiting. Indeed, Taylor (1994) shows that delay (measured by a combination of objective and subjective aspects) significantly influences the feelings of anger. Moreover, Pruyn and Smidts (1998) find that the perceived waiting time affects the cognitive dimension of the wait appraisal. Consequently, we do consider perceived waiting time as a determinant of waiting time satisfaction. On the other hand, we do not take into account the objective waiting time for two reasons. First, previous research studies in the psychophysics and marketing literature show a significant correlation between perceived and objective measures of time. Second, customer reactions to waiting are more strongly influenced by the subjective component of waiting time than by the objective one (Hornick, 1984; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Indeed, real waiting time is an antecedent of perceived waiting time rather than an antecedent of waiting time satisfaction (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Therefore as presented in our conceptual model shown in Figure 1, we expect that: H1. The perceived waiting time will negatively affect the customer waiting time satisfaction. Others variables determine waiting time satisfaction. These factors are the information provided in case of delay (Hui and Tse, 1996; Antonides et al. , 2002) and the characteristics of the waiting environment (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). In addition to being considered as an economic cost, waiting has an adverse psychological effect; consumers facing uncertainty about the wait length, experience significant stress. Studies have suggested that any information on the waiting duration can reduce the uncertainty of the wait and lower the overall level of stress experienced by consumers (Maister, 1985). Previous research highlights the impact of queuing information and waiting duration information on the cognitive and affective aspect of the wait when the wait is long (Hui and Tse, 1996) and during busy periods (Clemmer and Schneider, MSQ 17,2 176 1989). Moreover, the uncertainty influences service evaluation through consumers’ affective responses to the wait (Taylor, 1994). Consequently, we suggest that reducing the uncertainty by providing satisfying information about the delay will positively influence customer waiting time satisfaction: H2. Customer satisfaction with information provided in case of delay will positively influence their waiting time satisfaction. The attractiveness of the waiting environment is related to its physical design in terms of comfort, space and decor. Service environment influences the affective aspects of waiting time (Baker and Cameron, 1996). A pleasant environment promotes positive feelings within consumers. Pruyn and Smidts (1998) show that perceived attractiveness positively influences the affective response to the wait, a known component of waiting time satisfaction. So, we anticipate that satisfaction with the environment will positively affect the customer satisfaction with waiting time: H3. The greater the satisfaction with the environment, the more waiting time satisfaction. In our conceptual framework, we consider the waiting time satisfaction as a key variable. No other studies explicitly used this specific construct. Pruyn and Smidts (1998) used the appraisal of the wait as a central concept in their theoretical framework. The appraisal of the wait included two components: the cognitive and the affective aspects of wait. In their operationalization of the construct, they used these two components separately. To our knowledge, no other research has included the three determinants in the same model. Waiting time satisfaction and services satisfaction Along with income and price, time can be considered as a constraint in consumer purchasing choice (Becker, 1965; Umesh et al. , 1989). In choosing a service provider, Figure 1. Waiting time satisfaction: its hypothetical determinants and effects on the satisfaction-loyalty relationship Waiting time influence 177 onsumers weigh up a number of benefits against the money, effort, and psychic costs of buying and using the service; time spent in obtaining the service is just such a cost. The authors consider waiting time satisfaction and service satisfaction as being two constructs related to a specific transaction. Service satisfaction is the overall evaluation of the service transaction and waiting time satisfaction is a determinant of the latter. Several stu dies show that delays have negative effects on the overall service evaluation (Katz et al. , 1991; Taylor, 1994; Hui and Tse, 1996; Kumar et al. , 1997; Dube? Rioux et al. , 1989); and, more precisely, on satisfaction with the service (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Furthermore, customers’ anger and their evaluation of punctuality affect the overall service performance (Taylor, 1994). Similarly, Hui and Tse (1996) find that the affective response to the wait influences the service evaluation. Moreover, Pruyn and Smidts (1998) demonstrate that the appraisal of wait, i. e. both cognitive and affective dimensions, positively influence the service satisfaction. Therefore we hypothesize that: H4. Waiting time satisfaction will positively influence the satisfaction with the service. Authors do not agree on the role of the perceived waiting time – whether it directly or indirectly influences (through the cognitive and/or the affective component of waiting time satisfaction) the service evaluation. Hui and Tse’s (1996) results indicate that the perceived waiting duration and the affective response to the wait separately have an impact on the service evaluation. On the other hand, Pruyn and Smidts (1998) demonstrate that perceived waiting time influences the service satisfaction through the appraisal of wait (i. e. both cognitive and affective dimensions). Consistent with Pruyn and Smidts (1998), we expect that waiting time satisfaction will have a complete mediating role in the relationship between the perceived waiting time and the service satisfaction. Indeed, once waiting time satisfaction is considered as being a determinant of the service satisfaction, the perceived waiting time effect on the service satisfaction will disappear: H5. The perceived waiting time will have no direct impact on the service satisfaction but will have an indirect impact through its influence on waiting time satisfaction. Information provided in case of delay is not expected to have a direct effect on the service satisfaction. Indeed, according to Hui and Tse’s (1996) information about delay influences the service evaluation through the effect on the acceptability of the wait and on the affective response to delays. Therefore, we expect that: H6. The satisfaction with the information provided in case of delay will have no direct impact on the service satisfaction but will have an impact through its influence on waiting time satisfaction. On the other hand, the environment is expected to have a direct effect on service satisfaction in addition to its indirect effect mentioned in H3. In service literature, tangibility is considered to be a dimension of perceived service quality (Parasuraman et al. , 1988). This tangible dimension refers, inter alia, to the service facilities, decors, brochures, signage and employees’ appearance. Rust and Oliver (1993) treat the service environment as a particular component of quality. They focus on the structure of the internal and external environments to provide quality service. Pruyn and Smidts (1998) show that the perceived attractiveness of the environment influences the service satisfaction in addition to the appraisal of the wait. Thus, we propose that: MSQ 17,2 178 H7. The satisfaction with the waiting environment will have a direct impact on service satisfaction. From service satisfaction to service loyalty The weight of evidence from previous studies suggests that customers’ evaluation of waiting time negatively affects the customer satisfaction. Law et al. (2004) focus on the effect of waiting time and service dimensions on repurchasing behavior and customer satisfaction. Their results indicate that difference in waiting time and wait satisfaction respectively influences customer satisfaction and repurchasing frequency, dependently on the timing of the visit. They demonstrate the interest of evaluating the effect waiting time satisfaction has on the behavioral dimension of loyalty. However, no author has investigated how waiting time impacts on the customer’s satisfaction-loyalty relationship with the service provider. Building the link between customers’ satisfaction and loyalty is a priority for companies who have allocated many resources to evaluate their customers’ satisfaction. Indeed, customer retention is of prime importance. The cost of retaining an existing customer is less than the cost of acquiring a new one, or maintaining a newly acquired customer (Reichheld, 1996). Several studies show evidence that there is a direct and strongly positive link between customer satisfaction and loyalty (Fornell, 1992; Anderson, 1994). Customer satisfaction is recognized as being an antecedent of customer loyalty (Anderson, 1994; Dick and Basu, 1994; Fornell et al. , 1996; Bolton, 1998; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). Moreover, prior research questioned the linear relationship between satisfaction and customer loyalty (Anderson and Mittal, 2000; Bowman and Narayandas, 2001). The form of the relationship varies according to the industry, the competitiveness and the customers’ willingness/constraint to pursue the relationship (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Mittal and Baldasare, 1996). Nevertheless, customer satisfaction is not the only predictor of customer loyalty (Reichheld, 1996). Other factors such as switching barriers (Patterson and Smith, 2003) and customer characteristics (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001) affect customer loyalty. The complexity of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty has lead several authors (Bloemer and De Ruyter, 1999; Homburg and Giering, 2001) to study moderator effects. Among moderating variables, we find personal characteristics such as demographic and psychological variables (e. g. variety seeking, age and income) (Homburg and Giering, 2001). In this research, we investigate the effect of waiting time satisfaction on the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Waiting time satisfaction can also be considered as a personal variable resulting from an evaluation of the interaction between the service provider and the client. This interaction concerns not only the wait, but also the waiting condition (see H1-H3). We expect that waiting time satisfaction will have a moderating effect on the link between service satisfaction and loyalty. A moderator effect implies that the moderator variable (the waiting time satisfaction) modifies the form of the relationship (i. e. the slope of the regression line) between the independent variable (the service satisfaction) and the dependent variable (the loyalty). In other words, the effect of the service satisfaction on loyalty varies according to the satisfaction with the waiting time. Indeed, the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty will be stronger when customers are dissatisfied with waiting time than the contrary. More precisely, when customers are not satisfied with waiting time, the service satisfaction should be higher to ensure customer loyalty. Customers are prepared to wait longer when the service satisfaction is high than when it is low. Waiting time influence 179 They may consider the waiting time as a sacrifice required to obtain a high level of service quality. If customer satisfaction with the service is low, they may not accept to put up with a long wait. Therefore, they may be disloyal with the service provider on the next purchasing occasion. Thus, we hypothesize that: H8. Waiting time satisfaction will moderate the effect of service satisfaction on loyalty. Method Survey procedure The data collected concern the waiting experiences of radiological outpatients in six hospitals in Belgium. Each of these hospital sites are different in size and are situated in various regions, all of an urban or semi-urban character. The Belgian health care industry, and particularly this type of service, is characterized as being competitive. Patients have the freedom to choose their hospital. Services studied include all types of radiological examination such as X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, scan, Doppler, mammography and similar services . . . The study was conducted from Monday to Friday over three consecutive weeks. In spring 2003, each adult patient having an appointment in one of the radiological units received a self-administrated satisfaction questionnaire completed by patients before leaving the hospital. The final sample was composed of 946 adults. A total of 64 percent of the respondents were female and their ages covered the whole range from 18 to 92 (mean 54). Measures To measure the perceived waiting time, respondents were invited to classify the delay of their scheduled appointment into one of predefined categories: less than 30 minutes (79 percent of respondents), between 30 minutes and one hour (18 percent), and more than one hour (3 percent). Consistent with Pruyn and Smidts (1998), who find that the maximum acceptable waiting time for the majority of patients does not exceed 30 minutes, we consider two principal categories: more or less than 30 minutes. Waiting time satisfaction, the satisfaction with information provided in case of delay and the satisfaction with the waiting environment were measured on five-point scales (ranging from highly unsatisfactory to highly satisfactory). One item was used for each concept except for the satisfaction with the waiting environment for which three items were used. These three items were: (1) comfort in the waiting room; (2) seating availability in the waiting room; and (3) the appearance and de? cor of the premises. These items reveal to be one-dimensional (a factor analysis indicates that the three items load on the same factor and explain 80 percent of the total variance) with a good reliability (Cronbach alpha ? 0:87). A composite scale representing satisfaction with the waiting environment was formed by averaging these items. Then, the overall satisfaction of the patients’ visit to the radiological unit was measured by asking subjects to give their global evaluation of the service experience (on five-point semantic scale ranging from highly dissatisfied to highly satisfied). Outpatients’ loyalty was assessed by asking respondents if they intended to recommend this service unit to relatives and their intention to choose the same hospital in case of necessity to undergo MSQ 17,2 180 another radiological examination (on five-point semantic scale from certainly not to certainly). These variables represent the behavioral-intention dimension of loyalty (Zeithaml et al. , 1996; Chauduri and Holbrook, 2001). This scale appears to be one-dimensional (a factor analysis reveals that the two items load on the same factor and explain 89. 75 percent of the total variance) with a high reliability (Cronbach alpha ? :88). A composite scaled was formed with these two items. Finally, two questions enabled to distinguish patients in terms of their age and sex. Results Determinants of waiting time satisfaction In order to study the determinants of waiting time satisfaction, we performed a regression analysis. The results are presented in Table I. The dependent variabl e is waiting time satisfaction and the independent variables[1] are the perceived waiting time, the satisfaction with the information provided in case of delay and the satisfaction with the waiting environment.