In Search of Apprehending Customers’ Value Perception

Abstract

The article clarifies the concept of value for customer, demonstrates challenges related to the concept itself and its measurement and sheds new light on the consequences of conceptual and metric choices. The analysis focuses on three points: first, it shows, how the definition and delineation of customer perceived value (CVP) implies the choice of certain measurement tools, but does not necessarily reveal the essence of the measured construct. Second, it provides a quantitative measure of CVP components showing the functional interconnections between them without presenting their causal relations. Third, it suggests the priority of a theoretical conceptualization over any technical craft considerations in CVP measurement.The article begins with mapping and deconstructing the value concept, which is followed by a critical discussion of its measurement challenges. Mixed methodology for empirical exploration of CVP construct is recommended here, being as the approach that blends quantitative methods with a deeper understanding of CVP provided by qualitative tools.

An analysis of configurations of relationship quality dimensions to explain sources of behavioral outcomes in globalized manufacturing

“…Our cross-sectional approach suffers also from its implicit assumption that the underlying constructs are static, which goes counter to some evidence that conceptualizing and measuring customer-perceived value is individually, subjectively and socially constructed and evolves dynamically (Payne and Holt, 2001; Stępień, 2017; Zietsman et al , 2020). Recent works on the service-profit chain building upon longitudinal data point to such interesting potential dynamic relationships, taking into account customer perceptions of service performance (Strydom et al , 2020).…”

“…Future work may, therefore, more extensively focus on feedback mechanisms related to customer innovation perceptions, distinguishing specific types of user-producer interaction that have been identified by Nahuis et al (2012), while also taking into account the types of Behavioral outcomes technologies that differ in the degree to which they are customizable to user demands (Nahuis et al, 2012;Wijekoon and Salunke, 2018). Our cross-sectional approach suffers also from its implicit assumption that the underlying constructs are static, which goes counter to some evidence that conceptualizing and measuring customer-perceived value is individually, subjectively and socially constructed and evolves dynamically (Payne and Holt, 2001;Stępie n, 2017;Zietsman et al, 2020). Recent works on the service-profit chain building upon longitudinal data point to such interesting potential dynamic relationships, taking into account customer perceptions of service performance (Strydom et al, 2020).…”

“…The overall empirical evidence for a positive relationship between customer orientation and firm performance can be motivated by Anderson and Mittal’s (2000) framework underlying the satisfaction-repurchase-profitability sequence (Keiningham et al , 2005; Cooil et al , 2007) and its projections of increasing returns to higher levels of satisfaction (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). In light of our particular interest in perceived customer orientation of the supplier from the perspective of the buyer, the literature has highlighted varying definitions and measurement methods of customer orientation as a function of the firm perspective (Woodruff, 1997) and the customer perspective (Eggert and Ulaga, 2002; Stępień, 2017), highlighting the complexities underlying these antecedents of performance outcomes (Mittal et al , 2018).…”

“…Analyzes focusing on a supplier’s innovativeness as perceived by its customers have received far less attention compared to analyzes focusing on the role of supplier perceptions of innovation related to financial performance in supplier-buyer relationships (Ellis et al (2012) and Jean et al (2014) for evidence from the automobile sector; Wang et al (2016a) for evidence from Chinese enterprises). This is somewhat surprising in the face of a growing literature on the measurement of customer-perceived value (Ulaga and Chacour, 2001; Ulaga, 2003; Ritter and Walter, 2012; Stępień, 2017). It is also surprising, since the conceptual analysis by Sampson and Spring (2012) has put forward an extended-capabilities view of customers as a basis for supplier-customer innovation in supply chains.…”