Linking Customer Satisfaction
Attributes with Process Metrics
in Service Industries
CAMILLE F. DEYONG, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
KENNETH E. CASE, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
Organizations are under increasing pressure to satis-
fy customers, while continuously improving process-
es. Process improvement methodologies emphasize the
importance of selecting performance measures that
are related to customers. There is, however, the need
for a methodology to progress backward from identi-
fying customer needs to identifying key performance
measures within a process. This article describes such
a methodology. It progresses in a logical sequence
from identifying and operationalizing customer
needs to identifying process metrics that are linked to
customer needs. Application of the methodology in a
service industry is detailed.
Key words: process improvement, service quality
76 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ
© 1998, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
Organizations are under increasing pressure to
improve performance, while simultaneously “listening
to the customer.” How does an organization go about
controlling quality and performance in a way that
meets customer needs? It must identify key process
metrics that are linked to customer requirements. This
article details a methodology that accomplishes that goal.
Process improvement is a tool used to enhance the
quality, performance, and outcomes of a process. It is
widely applied, in various forms. While multiple
models exist for following a process improvement format,
none offers a methodology to explicitly identify the
relationship, or link, between customer requirements
and process metrics used for guidance and control.
Particularly in service industries, this linkage is critical.
Service industries are not identical to goods indus-
tries. Some service industries have been described as
having no tangible product (Berry 1980; Farsad and
Elshennawy 1989; and Lovelock 1981, 5 – 9). The
process of delivering the service is their product
(McLuhan 1964). Unlike manufacturing entities that
can improve customer satisfaction by improving either
the product or the manufacturing process, service
industries whose process is their product must rely
upon process improvement as their primary avenue for
improving customer satisfaction.
The customer is intimately involved in the service
process. This trait of service encounters is known as
“inseparability” (Regan 1963; Gronroos 1978). In
addition, the customer defines quality and customer
satisfaction (Juran 1974). If process improvement
offers the primary method to improve the service
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
process, and the customer evaluates the results of the
improvement, it is critical that customer requirements
be linked with the process metrics used. After all, what is
measured in the process is what gets done (Drucker 1954).
This article presents a methodology to establish a
logical linkage between customer requirements and
process metrics. A review of the literature regarding
service industries, process improvement, and customer
requirements is discussed. Definitions and terms used
in the methodology are presented, and finally the
methodology is detailed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Service Industries
Evaluation of quality and customer satisfaction in
services is complex, at best. Not only must customers
determine how satisfied they are with the physical out-
put of the service, if any, but they must also evaluate
the process by which the service was delivered. Often,
the only output of a service is a feeling or experience
for customers.
Tenner (1991), states that manufacturing is unique
in that (1) its customers are isolated from production;
(2) its outputs are tangible; and (3) its operations are
highly repetitive. In contrast, services are characterized
as possessing three unique characteristics: (1) intangi-
bility; (2) heterogeneity; and (3) inseparability of
production and consumption (Farsad and Elshennawy
1989; Gronroos 1978; Lovelock 1981, 5–9; Shostack
1987; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1990).
Intangibility refers to the fact that services are perfor-
mances, not objects. Therefore, precise specifications
can rarely be set (Berry 1980; Shostack 1977).
Process improvement can serve a dual purpose
for service organizations; that is, simultaneously
improving the process and product.
Services, especially those with a high labor content,
are heterogeneous: their performance often varies from
producer to producer, customer to customer, and day to
day (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1988).
Uniform quality and consistency of behavior from
service personnel are difficult to assure (Booms and
Bitner 1981, 47–56), because what the firm intends to
deliver may be different from what the customer
receives. In labor-intensive services, quality occurs
during service delivery, usually in an interaction
between clients and contact persons from the firm
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988).
Services are acts or performances, not things alone
(Booms and Nyquist 1981, 172–177). McLuhan (1964)
succinctly states that the process of delivering the
service is the product. For example, customers typically
say “airline” when they mean “air transportation.” They
say “movie,” but mean “entertainment” (Shostack
1987). Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 42)
state that “quality evaluations are not made solely on
the outcome of the service; they also involve evaluation
of the process of service delivery.” Therefore, process
improvement can serve a dual purpose for service orga-
nizations; that is, simultaneously improving the
process and product.
Process Improvement
Many good process improvement models have been
proposed (API 1992; AT&T 1988; Bhote 1991; Chua 1992;
Goh 1989; Juran 1988; Kelbaugh 1991; Rummler and
Brache 1990; Yoshizawa 1991). Most follow the same
general format proposed by AT&T (1988, 1).
1. Establish process management responsibilities.
2. Define the process and identify customer require-
ments.
3. Define and establish measures.
4. Assess conformance to customer requirements.
5. Investigate the process to identify improvement
opportunities.
6. Rank improvement opportunities and set objectives.
7. Improve process quality.
Steps 2 and 3 are both important, since the cus-
tomer is the ultimate judge of quality and satisfaction,
and the process cannot be controlled if there are no
measures. There is a need for an organized structure,
or methodology, to identify customer requirements and
to link these requirements with internal metrics. It is
C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 77
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
important that these internal metrics be well linked to
customer satisfaction attributes.
Customer Requirements
Assessing customer requirements is a complex task. If
customer requirements are not identified, however, the
organization has no way to assess customer satisfac-
tion. The terminology is not standardized, which
makes precise definitions difficult. This article uses the
term customer satisfaction attributes (CSAs) to
describe customer requirements, or distinguishable
characteristics that contribute to overall customer
satisfaction (DeYong 1994). Several authors have
attempted to organize and define these characteristics.
Nelson’s (1970 and 1974) early work distinguishes
between two characteristics of consumer goods —
search properties and experience properties. Search
properties are ways consumers evaluate options.
Examples of search properties are color, style, or fit.
Experience properties are evaluated only after purchase
or during consumption. Examples would be taste and
wearability.
Darby and Karni (1973) add a third category to
Nelson’s two-way classification system — credence
qualities. These are characteristics that consumers find
impossible to evaluate in normal use. An example
would be the surgical removal of an appendix. The
consumer has no way to judge whether the removed
organ was diseased. The consumer must rely upon the
doctor’s judgment.
Gronroos (1981, 108–110) notes that service quality
is a function of two attributes—technical quality and
functional quality. Technical quality refers to what the
customer gets as the result of the buyer/seller interac-
tion, while functional quality refers to how the service
is rendered. Gronroos notes that, in most cases, func-
tional quality is more important to perceived quality, as
long as the tangible quality is satisfactory. In other
words, the process of delivering the service has a
greater impact on customer satisfaction than the
receipt of the tangible product, if there is one.
Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1991) state that quality is
produced in the interaction between a customer and
elements of the service organization. They list three
78 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ
attributes of service quality: (1) physical quality;
(2) corporate quality; and (3) interactive quality.
Physical quality relates to physical, tangible aspects of
the service. Corporate quality is the company image or
profile, while interactive quality results from the inter-
action between contact personnel and customers, as
well as between customers. Lehtinen and Lehtinen also
differentiate between quality associated with the
process of service delivery and quality associated with
the outcome of the service.
Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978) list three attributes
of service performance: (1) levels of material; (2) facilities;
and (3) personnel. They also note that service quality
involves more than outcomes, it also includes the
manner in which the service was delivered.
Garvin (1988) lists eight attributes of quality, as follows:
1. Performance—Primary operating characteristics
2. Feature — “Bells and whistles” of products that
supplement the basic functioning
3. Reliability—Probability of a product malfunctioning
or failing within a specified time
4. Conformance—Degree to which a product’s design
and operating characteristics meet pre-established
standards
5. Durability—Measure of product life
6. Serviceability—Speed, courtesy, competence, and
ease of repair
7. Aesthetics — How a product looks, feels, sounds,
tastes, or smells
8. Perceived quality—Cues or other signaling devices
used to draw inferences about quality
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) offer 10
determinants of service quality, as follows:
1. Reliability — Consistency of performance and
dependability
2. Responsiveness—Readiness of employee to provide
service; timeliness of service
3. Competence—Having the required knowledge and
skills to perform the service
4. Access—Approachability and ease of contact
5. Courtesy—Politeness, respect, consideration, and
friendliness
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
6. Communication — Keeping the customers
informed in language they understand; listening to
the customers
7. Credibility—Trustworthiness, believability, honesty
8. Security—Avoiding danger, risk, and doubt
9. Understanding/knowing the customer—Making
efforts to understand customer needs
10. Tangibles—Physical characteristics of service
Following additional research, Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, and Berry (1990, 25) later renamed and
revised this list to include the following five attributes
of service quality.
1. Tangibles
2. Reliability
3. Responsiveness
4. Assurance (including competence, courtesy,
credibility, and security)
5. Empathy (including access, communication, and
understanding customers)
Bhote (1991) and Boehm et al. (1978) define similar
customer satisfaction attributes.
Each of these models offers a unique perspective,
but it is stated in general terms. Only the models
proposed by Garvin (1988) and Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) emerge following extensive
contact directly with customers, while the other models
are more theoretical in nature. Finally, the cited
research dealt with inputs and outputs of the service
system, and did not attempt to model the system. The
methodology detailed in this article models the service
system, and proposes standardized terms that will help
promote clear communication about critical issues.
DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
The language in the areas of quality, service quality,
customer satisfaction, and customer requirements is
not standardized. Definitions for each of these terms
vary. This research uses the following definitions.
• Customer — Anyone impacted by a product or
process (Juran 1988).
• Customer satisfaction — Meeting or exceeding
customer expectations (Brown and Swartz 1989).
• Customer satisfaction attributes (CSAs)—
Distinguishable characteristics that contribute to
overall customer satisfaction (DeYong 1994).
• Link—Establish a relationship.
• Measure—A scale, test, or instrument used to evaluate
a metric. How the metric is evaluated.
• Measurement—The result of applying the measure
to the metric.
• Metric—Distinguishable elements that are subject
to measure. A metric is “what” is measured.
• Outcome metric (OM) — Characteristics of the
process outcome. The OMs measure some aspect of
the performance of the process after the service
delivery is completed (DeYong 1994).
• Process — A series of causes and conditions that
repeatedly come together to transform inputs into
outcomes (API 1992).
• Process metric (PM)—Characteristics of a step in
the process. The PMs measure some aspect of
performance while the service delivery process is
progressing (DeYong 1994).
• Quality—Fitness for use (Juran 1974).
• Satisfaction metric (SM) — Characteristics of the
customer satisfaction attributes that are subject to
measure. The SMs measure how well the customer
perceives the organization is performing with respect
to the CSAs (DeYong 1994).
• Service quality—Gap between customer expecta-
tions and customer perceptions (Gronroos 1978;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985).
The distinction between metric, measure, and
measurement is particularly important. A metric is
“what” should be measured. A measure is “how” to
measure, while a measurement is the result, often
numerical, of applying the measure to the metric. This
separation enables an organization to focus on the
more important concept of “what “ to measure before
becoming concerned with how the measurement will
be obtained. In service industries, in particular, the
C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 79
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries

attribute that needs to be measured may be intangible, metrics used internally to control the process, and use
making it more difficult to apply traditional measure- internal process data.
ment techniques. The PMs, SMs, and OMs are linked to the customer
through the CSAs. The service firm must be measuring

PROCESS/CUSTOMER SYSTEM
Figure 1 is a model of a service process/customer
system. The service process is shown on the left side of
the figure. The customer is shown on the figure as
interacting multiple times within the process, illustrating
the inseparability characteristic of service processes.
Four key elements of the methodology are shown on
the figure: (1) customer satisfaction attributes (CSAs):
(2) satisfaction metrics (SMs); (3) outcome metrics
(OMs); and (4) process metrics (PMs). The CSAs are
categories customers use to determine their satisfac-
tion, and help the organization structure the elusive
concept of customer satisfaction. SMs and OMs are
post-process metrics used to gauge the organization’s
performance with respect to the CSAs. SMs use data
obtained directly from customers. OMs use end-of-
process data as an indirect metric of customer
satisfaction. Both are end-of-process metrics, and only
differ in the source of measurement data. PMs are
elements of the service delivery that impact, and that
are important to, customers. Metrics send a clear
message to a firm’s employees about what is impor-
tant. If a service firm makes the claim that courtesy is
important, but measures employee performance based
on timeliness, the conflict is clear.
THE METHODOLOGY
The methodology progresses in four phases, shown in
Figure 2. Phase I includes important preliminary activ-
ities, which are necessary for successful implementa-
tion of the methodology. Phase II operationalizes the
CSAs. Phase III develops the SMs and OMs. Phase IV
develops the internal PMs.
Some of the critical and unique elements of this
methodology are as follows :
• Information is obtained from three primary sources:
(1) customers; (2) process “experts” who perform
the work; and (3) established research in the field.

Figure 1 Service process customer system.

Internal process data

Process
Start Outcome metrics
Process metrics
OM1 CSAs
Component 1 PM1
OM2 CSA1
PM2 OM3
Component 2 CSA2
PM3 CSA3
Component 3
Satisfaction metrics CSA4
PM4
SM1
Condition CSA5
SM2
CSA6
End of process data SM3
End

Direct customer data

Customer
© 1998, ASQ

Data stream Link Interaction

80 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ

 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
Figure 2 Phases of the methodology.
Phase I. Preliminary activities
Step 1. Write a mission statement.
Step 2. Identify a process for study.
Step 3. Select the team.
Step 4. Identify the primary customer.
Phase II. Operationalizing the customer satisfaction attributes
Step 1. Brainstorm CSAs for primary customer.
Step 2. Customer identifies CSAs.
Step 3. Study list of dimensions identified by other authors.
Step 4. Combine lists from Steps 1, 2, and 3.
Step 5. Constitutively define resulting CSAs.
Step 6. Test definitions.
Step 7. Customer prioritizes CSAs.
Step 8. Team of experts prioritizes CSAs for the customer.
Step 9. Combine the results from Steps 7 and 8.
Phase III. Developing satisfaction metrics and outcome metrics
Step 1. Identify metrics for CSAs.
Step 2. Identify direct metrics (SMs) and indirect metrics (OMs).
Step 3. Operationally define metrics.
Step 4. Evaluate metrics.
Phase IV. Developing process metrics
Step 1. Identify major components of the process.
Step 2. Link CSAs to process components.
Step 3. Identify potential PMs for each component.
Step 4. Link SMs/OMs with PMs.
© 1998, ASQ
Step 5. Operationally define PMs.
Step 6. Evaluate PMs.
• Confidence that those individuals providing service
know their customers, and can act as surrogate cus-
tomers, helping predict their wants and desires,
sometimes better than the actual customers.
• Information obtained from the customer is specific,
usable, and expressed in the customer’s language.
• The methodology systematically links the customer
wants, needs, and desires with metrics used to
control the process.
An application of the methodology is presented as
the phases are introduced. This application is with an
office of admissions at a comprehensive state university.
Phase I
The first phase asks the organization to conduct
important preliminary, or foundation, activities. These
are not new ideas, yet their importance cannot be over-
stated. Step 1 asks the organization to write a mission
statement, if one does not exist. The mission statement
ensures that the organization has agreement on its
purpose for existence (Mize 1993).
Step 2 identifies a process for study and improve-
ment. The initial process selected for study should be
one in which the customer is easily identified and
preferably external. The process of selecting new freshmen
for admissions is chosen for study in the application.
Step 3 selects the team that will be involved in the
improvement activity. It is important that at least some of
the team members be individuals who have direct contact
with customers. The team members will be asked to act
as “surrogate customers,” as well as process experts,
and later identify customer requirements.
The team for the admissions office application is
comprised of the associate director, two supervisors,
and the three individuals who actually process the
freshmen applications. The entire staff of 14 is, however,
involved at various points. This has three benefits:
(1) it keeps everyone in the office informed; (2) valuable
input is obtained from multiple sources; and (3) “buy-in”
is obtained.
The final step in phase I, step 4, identifies the primary
customer of the selected process. This is accomplished
by first defining the term customer and then using a
structured group process with the improvement team,
such as the nominal group technique (NGT), to ask
“Who is the primary customer of the freshman admis-
sions process?” The prospective student and family are
identified as the primary customer(s) of the admis-
sions process.
Phase II
Phase II operationalizes the CSAs. This critical phase
identifies, defines, tests, and prioritizes the CSAs. This
phase is the heart of the methodology. If the process is
to be linked to the customer through the CSAs, the list
of attributes must be as complete and as well-defined
as possible. In order to obtain such a list, input for the
attributes is obtained from three sources: (1) customers;
(2) process experts; and (3) prior research in the field.
Multiple viewpoints are critical. It is theoretically
impossible to obtain an exhaustive list unless every
customer is spoken to, although even this would not be
C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 81
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries

sufficient in many situations. Often, there are regulato- Figure 3 Customer satisfaction attributes.
ry, safety, or legal issues, which customers may either
Customer Team CSA
be unaware of, or profess to not be concerned with.
Don’t make mistakes Correct information Accuracy
Surrogate customers, or staff personnel, certainly will
Make a quick decision Fast service Timeliness
be aware of these issues. Therefore, surrogate customers
Let me in Admission decision Reliability
provide a unique and invaluable perspective that cannot
Forms that Clear and concise Tangibles
be obtained elsewhere. Finally, by using a list of attributes make sense documents
obtained through prior research activity, the general Don’t give me One person to talk to
perspective of additional customers is included. It is the run-around
important to note that using just one of the three Be nice Caring/polite service Impressions
perspectives would not be sufficient. It is the combination Listen to me Empathy Impressions
of all three that brings a particular and unique Keep confidences Professional/ Impressions/
tactful service credibility
strength to the methodology.
Know what you Knowledgeable staff Knowledge
Step 1 asks the team of experts to put themselves in are doing
their customer’s place and determine what the customer Don’t embarrass me if Impressions
expects from the service provided. A structured group my scores aren’t good
process, such as the NGT, is recommended for this effort. Compliance with Credibility/
Step 2 obtains customer input regarding the CSAs. policies accuracy

This effort can be conducted in several ways, including Assistance with Attentiveness
extraneous issues
customer surveys, focus groups, large NGT sessions, or
Alternative Attentiveness
Delphi sessions. The focus group and large NGT sessions counseling/advice

are preferred because of the face-to-face contact that is
inherent in both methods.
Step 3 consults a list of attributes identified by other
authors. The lists discussed earlier, by Garvin (1988)
and Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985), are
recommended.
Step 4 combines the lists obtained in steps 1, 2, and
3. This iterative process requires the team of experts to
compare, contrast, and combine the three source lists.
Emphasis is placed on the information obtained directly
from the customer. The other two views are used to
confirm and complete the list. There is often consider-
able overlap between the lists. Results from the appli-
cation are shown in Figure 3.
Step 5 asks the team to constitutively define the list
of CSAs obtained in step 4. Constitutive definitions are
descriptive in nature, similar to dictionary definitions.
The definitions of the terms must be clear to those who
will assess them. The definitions are tested in step 6, by
asking a selected group of customers and other experts
if their meanings are complete, clear, and unambiguous.
For example, the CSA reliability is defined as “the
degree to which the admissions office [staff members]
do what they say they will do.”
© 1998, ASQ
Understand the Impressions
customer’s situation
Steps 7 and 8 ask the customers and the team of
experts to prioritize the CSAs. This is an attempt to
ascertain if any of the attributes are significantly more
important to customers than others. It is recommended
that a survey of a random sample of customers be used
for step 7.
In addition to being asked to prioritize the attributes,
customers are also asked if there are any elements of
the service that they expect to receive, which are not
contained on the list. In this way, additional input is
obtained from a larger population, continuing the
effort to obtain an exhaustive list of attributes.
The application used a customer survey, with a pop-
ulation size of 4126, a sample size of 150, and obtained
a response rate of 24 percent, consistent with mail surveys.
The survey was pre-tested with a subgroup of the target
population. Content validity issues, including clarity of
directions, clarity of questions, and content overlap
were addressed. The survey used a five-point Likert
scale. A survey was sent for both students and parents.
Thus, data were obtained from both primary customers.

82 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ

 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries

The team of experts also prioritizes the attributes. Customers recognize that these standards exist, but
This effort can be conducted in a group, or using a survey they are not important to them.
similar to the customer survey, as occurred in the Seven of the attributes are used in the succeeding
application. The team members are asked to again steps in the methodology, omitting tangibles. Accuracy
place themselves in the customer’s position and prioritize is included, even though it does not seem to be impor-
the attributes from the customer’s perspective. Results tant to customers, since the definition may have biased
from the surveys are shown in Figure 4. the results, and the office of admissions must conform
to the standards, regardless of what customers want.
Figure 4 Prioritization survey results. The output of phase II is a list of customer satisfaction
Student Parent Staff attributes that are unique to a particular organization
CSA (n =35) (n =32) (n =14)
and have been constitutively defined and prioritized.
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Reliability 4.77 0.49 4.56 0.80 4.64 0.50
Attentiveness 4.71 0.57 4.53 0.62 4.14 0.53 Phase III
Knowledge 4.69 0.58 4.66 0.55 4.71 0.61 Phase III develops metrics that measure the perfor-
Credibility 4.51 0.74 4.63 0.66 4.07 1.00 mance of the organization with respect to the CSAs.
Impressions 4.49 0.70 4.22 0.71 4.21 0.70 This performance is measured both directly and indi-
Timeliness 4.34 0.68 4.44 0.62 4.21 0.89 rectly. The direct metrics use information obtained
Accuracy 3.94 0.94 4.13 0.91 3.79 1.05 directly from customers, and are termed satisfaction
© 1998, ASQ

Tangibles 3.63 0.94 3.59 0.91 3.21
1 = Unimportant 3 = Important 5 = Extremely important
This information alone is valuable for the organi-
zation. It indicates which attributes are important to
the sample of customers and which are not. In addi-
tion, the information helps the organization assess
how well it knows its customers. The results indicate
that reliability is an important attribute for all three
groups who responded to the survey. Knowledge and
credibility are both important to the student/parent
groups. Attentiveness is important to the student group,
yet was judged as being less important by the staff
group. This gap is valuable information for staff and
management.
Two of the attributes, accuracy and tangibles, are
consistently less important to the three groups. This
may indicate the two attributes are not important
unless they are absent. Another factor that may have
biased the results is the inclusion of the statement
referring to “conformance to the standards set by the
State Regents for Higher Education” in the descriptive
definition. Informal conversations following the survey
indicate that customers were not interested in the office
of admissions conforming to regents’ standards.
0.70 metrics (SMs). The indirect metrics use end-of-process
data, and are termed outcome metrics (OMs). Both of
these metrics occur after the service has been delivered.
A third metric, which measures performance as the
process is progressing, is developed in phase IV.
An example of direct and indirect indicators is easily
given using weights of fish. The direct indicator of
weight is obtained by weighing the fish on a scale. If,
however, there is no scale available, then a ruler is used
to measure the length of the fish, which is then converted
to an estimate of the weight. Length is thus an indirect,
or surrogate, metric for weight.
Step 1 asks the team to identify metrics for each
CSA from phase I. There is no attempt at this point to
separate direct from indirect metrics. In fact, the team
is encouraged not to limit itself in any way, but to
think of “what could be measured to indicate how our
organization is performing with respect to this CSA.” A
brainstorming session, or a modified NGT, is useful for
this step. The outcome of step 1 is a list of potential
SMs/OMs that are associated with the CSAs.
After the list of potential metrics has been generated,
step 2 asks the team to separate the list into two groups.
The first group contains SMs, and requires data
obtained directly from customers. The second group

C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 83

 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries

contains OMs, and requires data from the process. It
should be noted that each CSA could be measured by
either an OM or SM.
Step 3 operationally defines the metrics. Deming
(1986) states that an operational definition puts
communicable meaning into a concept. API (1990)
continues with this thought, and adds that an opera-
tional definition puts communicable meaning into a
concept by specifying how the concept is applied within
a particular set of circumstances. API notes that criteria
for judgment are necessary in some situations to
distinguish between good and bad performance.
Since metrics are “what is measured,” it is appro-
priate that the definitions specify how the metric is to
be measured. In the context of metric, measure, and
measurement, discussed earlier, the operational defini-
tion identifies the measure, or how the metric is to
be measured.
SMs are addressed first. Since data for the SMs are
obtained directly from customers, some form of cus-
tomer input (survey, focus group, interview) will be the
data-gathering instrument for several of the SMs. The
team is essentially building elements of the survey as it
specifies definitions for the metrics. Other methods for
obtaining data for SMs are: focus groups, counts and
nature of customer complaints, and counts and nature
of customer compliments.
OMs are addressed last. Since they occur at the end
of the process, the organization has greater control and
flexibility over obtaining the data. In addition, organi-
zations are more familiar with techniques to measure
most OMs. Some OMs will be tracked currently, while
others are new, and must have a measurement system
created. The team may have to be creative and innova-
tive while operationally defining a metric that has
never been tracked before.
The outcome of step 3 is a list of operationally
defined SMs and OMs associated with each CSA. An
example is the operational definition identified for one
of the SMs associated with the CSA of reliability: Do
students believe the admissions office staff members do
what they say they will do? This is measured by a
survey or focus group.
Step 4 evaluates the metrics. Four evaluation criteria
are suggested (DeYong 1994). They are
1. Ease of measurement
2. Ease of analysis and interpretation
3. Relevance
4. Direct from the customer
Other criteria may be useful in different organizations.
Before evaluating the metrics, it is helpful to know
which of the criteria are most important. This infor-
mation is obtained using a priority grid. This tool
ranks the criteria, and obtains weights by making pair-
wise comparisons of the criteria.
Figure 5 illustrates a portion of the metric evaluation
worksheet. The weights for each criterion, obtained
earlier from the priority grid, are placed in the top half
of each cell. Thus, the top number in each cell is the
same throughout a column. The evaluation scores for
each metric are placed in the bottom half of the cell.
The metrics are evaluated against the four criteria
according to a five-point scale.
After all the evaluation scores have been recorded,
the product is taken of the two numbers within each
cell and summed across each row. This results in a
final evaluation score for the metrics, which can be
used to determine which metrics should be chosen.
The outcome of phase III is a list of SMs and OMs
for each CSA, complete with operational definitions
and evaluation scores. The metrics are defined in terms

Figure 5 Metric evaluation worksheet SMs/OMs for reliability.

Ease of Ease of Direct from
CSA SM/OM Metric measuring analysis Relevance customer Score

SM Student perception 1 2 4 4 50
2 4 5 5

Reliability OM Consistency with policies 1 2 4 4 31

© 1998, ASQ

3 2 5 1

SM Input from student 1 2 4 4 51

3 4 5 5

84 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ

 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
of the operations required to measure them. The SMs
and OMs provide the basis for the team to identify
process metrics (PMs), which are linked with the SMs,
OMs, and CSAs.
Phase IV
Phase IV identifies and defines the PMs, which com-
pletes the link between the customer and the internal
process. These metrics are indicators of performance
within the process that are explicitly linked to either an
SM or an OM, and thus to the CSAs.
Measurement within a process is vital for control of
the process. In addition, measurement serves the pur-
poses of prediction, estimation, decision making, and
problem solving (of a reactive type) (Sink and Tuttle
1989). Measures occupy a powerful position in organi-
zations. It has been said that “what is measured is
what gets done” (Drucker 1954). Therefore, measuring
the “right” things is critical. The right things would be
those that provide an indication of how well the
process is performing with respect to customer expecta-
tions. Process metrics will accomplish that.
Phase IV requires the team to follow six steps. In
step 1 the team studies the process and identifies the
major components, or subprocesses, of the process. A
component of a process is defined as a part of the
process that has to be planned, designed, supervised,
and appraised (Rosander 1989).
For several reasons, a list of major components is
used in this step instead of a flowchart. First, the
methodology does not require the level of detail a flow-
chart produces. Second, it is more difficult to show
components that permeate the entire process, such as
contact with the customer, with a flowchart. Figure 6
shows the components for the office of admissions.
Step 2 links the CSAs to the process components.
The CSAs are defined as distinguishable characteristics
that contribute to overall customer satisfaction. These
are categories customers are using to determine how
satisfied they are. These attributes are varied in nature.
Thus, they are impacted at different points in the
process. Step 2 determines the points in the process
where each of the attributes is impacted.
Figure 6 Major components of the process.
Receive correspondence
Review
Add on computer
Evaluate transcript
Curricular
Performance
Customer Contact
Update computer Counter
Phone
Letter
Decide admissions
Update computer
Contact student
© 1998, ASQ
Close file
The linkage between the CSAs and the process com-
ponents is identified by viewing, from two directions,
the relationship between the attributes and the com-
ponents. First, each component is studied individually,
and then each CSA is compared to the component one
at a time. Pair-wise comparisons are more effective than
trying to make multiple comparisons simultaneously.
Initially, team members may feel every process
component affects every CSA. As the analysis progresses,
team members become more discriminating. If the
team can establish a rationale for a CSA to be linked
with a component, it is included.
Next, the relationship is approached from a different
perspective. The CSAs are studied individually, and the
process components that impact them are identified.
Once again, it is easier to compare the concepts pair-
wise, make a decision regarding the linkage, and move
to the next component. The outcome is a list of com-
ponents that impact each attribute.
Finally, the results are combined. In many cases,
the results will indicate the same relationship between
C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 85
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
the process components and the CSAs. There may, how-
ever, be cases where the relationships are not identical.
The team discusses these situations and reaches con-
sensus regarding the relationship between the CSAs and
the process components. The outcome is a list of process
components and the CSAs they impact. This begins
building the link between the process and the customer.
Step 3 identifies potential PMs for each process
component. The team is reminded that a PM is an out-
come of a step in the process that is subject to measure.
There are many such outcomes. The team is encour-
aged not to limit its ideas for PMs because of practical
matters, such as how the PM could be measured, or
what is currently being measured. Metrics merely iden-
tify what is measured. The operational definition will
specify how the metric will be measured.
Each process component is studied individually.
The results of the previous step, CSAs that are impacted
by each component, are reviewed. The CSAs provide a
focus for the team, while identifying ideas about what
to measure for each component. The question is asked:
“What should be measured to indicate how well we
performed within the component in relation to the
CSAs?” Therefore, the PMs that are identified are
generated in response to a CSA. Results from the appli-
cation for the process component “review file” are
shown in Figure 7.
The outcome of step 3 is a list of potential PMs for
Figure 7 Process component “review file,” CSAs,
and PMs.
Component CSA impacted Process metric
Review file Accuracy Is the coding correct?
Knowledge Are the $ verified and
deposited correctly?
Reliability Are special situations/
© 1998, ASQ
circumstances identified?
Timeliness Length of time have file.
each component. These PMs will be linked to the
SMs/OMs in step 4, further establishing the link
between the process and the customer.
Step 4 completes the linkage between the process
and the customer. Step 2 identified a link between the
conceptual CSA, the process component, and the
process metric. Step 4 links the internal process metric
86 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ
with the satisfaction metrics/outcome metrics, which
were linked earlier to the customer satisfaction attributes.
SMs/OMs are direct and indirect indicators of how
well the process performed in the customer’s eyes after
completion of the process, and were obtained from the
CSAs. PMs are internal metrics that indicate how well
the process is performing as it progresses. If a linkage
is established between these metrics, the result is a
direct relationship from the process to the customer.
The SMs/OMs and PMs are linked by making pair-wise
comparisons between each set of metrics, and deter-
mining the strength of the relationship, if any, that
exists. There are a significant number of comparisons
that must be made for this step. Therefore, the procedure
is best approached in an organized method that makes
it easy to record the strength of the linkages. The linkage
matrix obtained in the application is shown in Figure 8.
The process components and their associated PMs
from step 3 are listed along the top of the matrix. The
CSAs and their associated SMs/OMs are listed along the
side. The symbols for the strength of the relationships
are shown on the matrix. Relationships between the
metrics are judged to be strong, medium, weak, or
none. These are indicated on the matrix, using the
appropriate symbol.
The SMs/OMs are linked to the PMs in a similar
fashion that the components and CSAs were linked in
step 2, by making pair-wise comparisons. First, the
team studies each PM and identifies SMs/OMs impacted
by the PM. Then, the team takes another perspective
and identifies PMs that impact the SMs/OMs.
The team is looking for two things during this step:
first, the linkages between the metrics; and second,
whether the lists of SMs/OMs and PMs are complete.
PMs were associated with CSAs in step 2. The SMs/OMs
are also associated with CSAs. Step 4 provides a final
check for the consistency and logic of the linkages. The
matrix forces the team to look at the entire system—
from CSA to process component to PM; and from CSA
to SM/OM to PM. The linkages should be consistent. If
not, the earlier linkages must be reviewed. There may
be PMs that seem important to the team that do not
appear to be linked to any SM/OM and vice versa. In
this case, either another metric is developed, or the first
metric is deleted.
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries

Figure 8 Linkage matrix.

Receive Add on Evaluate

Components correspondence Review computer transcript

State and institutional pol.

Logs maintained correctly

Length of time have file

Length of time have file

Correspondence routed

Data entered correctly

Special circumstances
$ verified correctly/
deposited correctly
PM

applied correctly
Coding correct

Daily error list

identified
properly
CSA SM/OM

Student

perception

Consistency
Reliability 
— 
— 
—

with policies

Calls/complaints      

Student 
—  
perception
Impressions Admission’s
judgment after
interaction

Student  
perception

Time between
Timeliness 
—  

— 

applic./response

Time waiting  
at counter

Student 
— 
perception

Integrity of
Credibility 
— 
— 
—  
—

documents

State audit 
— 
— 
—

results

Student 
perception

Attentiveness Time staff

spends with
non-Admissions
concerns

How well staff 

— 
—


—



—
knows everything
Knowledge
Review of files

—

Computer error 

—
list

Accuracy Review of files 
 

—

Analysis of calls  
and complaints

= Strong (3) Linkage

© 1998, ASQ

 = Medium (2)
— scores 8 5 17 5 17 7 6 21 27 7
 = Weak (1)

C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 87

 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
Next, the team addresses each SM/OM and deter-
mines which PMs impact them. In other words, the
team approaches the linkage from a different perspective.
Another linkage matrix is developed. Pair-wise compar-
isons are made, and the strength of the linkage is
determined. Although these comparisons will have
been made before, the alternative viewpoint helps
make certain the lists are complete and the compar-
isons are valid.
Finally, the two matrices are combined. Consensus
is reached about linkages between the metrics that are
not the same. Each SM/OM is linked with at least one
PM. If no linkage is identified, the team brainstorms
for additional PMs. The outcome of step 4 is a list of
PMs along with a linkage matrix that shows the rela-
tionship between the PMs and the SMs/OMs, and,
therefore, the CSAs. The PMs that result are opera-
tionally defined in step 5 and evaluated in step 6.
The linkage matrix serves three main purposes.
First, it organizes and clearly communicates the link-
ages between metrics. Second, the matrix identifies
critical PMs, those that impact several CSAs or
SMs/OMs. If internal metrics are limited, the matrix
helps determine where resources will be used most
effectively. Finally, the matrix serves as a self-
coordinating device, forcing the team to review linkages
identified earlier and verify their validity.
This information … indicates which attributes
are important to … customers and which are
not. In addition, [it] helps the organization
assess how well it knows its customers.
In the same way the earlier metrics were defined,
step 5 operationally defines the PMs. The operational
definition again states how the PM is to be measured.
Finally, the PMs are evaluated in step 6. The criteria
used to evaluate the PMs are very similar to those used
in phase II to evaluate the SMs/OMs, with one exception.
An “objective” criterion is included, rather than “direct
from the customer.” The four criteria are (1) ease of
measurement; (2) ease of analysis and interpretation;
(3) relevance; and (4) objectivity. Objectivity evaluates
how objective, or subjective, the metric is. The
88 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ
definitions for the other three criteria remain the same.
Another priority grid is used to determine which criteria
are important. Another metric evaluation worksheet is
used to record the evaluation results.
The outcome of step 6 is a list of process metrics
that are operationally defined and evaluated. They are
linked to the customer through the SMs/OMs and thus
the CSAs.
DISCUSSION
Organizations using the methodology have a clear idea
of what process metrics should be tracked. The next
step would be implementation of the measurement system,
and continual review of the CSAs, OMs, SMs, and PMs.
Today’s organizations exist in a dynamic environment,
with constantly changing customers, business processes,
and pressures. Some form of continuous improvement
will necessarily be a way of life.
The attributes and metrics developed with this
application were tested and accepted by both customers
and owners of the test process. Strengths of the
methodology noted by users include the increased
knowledge and understanding of the customer, the
richness of data obtained regarding customer satisfac-
tion attributes, and the efficiency and structure offered
by the methodology. The organization has historically
used ad-hoc measures of process performance, so the
process metrics provide a measurement system that is
accepted by process owners and focused on customers.
CONCLUSION
The methodology detailed in this article provides an
efficient and effective mechanism for organizations
interested in identifying process metrics that are linked
to their customers. Although many tools exist for making
linkages, no methodology has been proposed that leads
organizations step-by-step from assessing customer
attributes to identifying process metrics linked to the attrib-
utes. Benefits of the methodology include the following:
• A clear understanding of customer wants, needs,
and desires
• A process measurement system linked to the
customers’ wants, needs, and desires
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
• A higher degree of acceptance for the measurement
system since it was developed by process owners
• Knowledge of critical steps in the process, and which
customer satisfaction attribute is impacted at each step
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful comments
expressed by reviewers of this paper. Their insight strengthened
the paper in a significant way. Also, sincere appreciation goes to
Devesh Sharad Dahale, who contributed to construction of the figures.
REFERENCES
Associates in Process Improvement (API). 1990. Model to
improve quality. Unpublished working paper. Austin, Tex.:
Associates in Process Improvement.
———. 1992. Linkage of processes. Unpublished working
paper. Austin, Tex.: Associates in Process Improvement.
AT&T. 1988. Process quality management and improvement
guidelines, issue 1.1. New York: AT&T.
Berry, L. L. 1980. Services marketing is different. Business
(May – June): 24 – 28.
Bhote, K. R. 1991. Next operation as customer (NOAC). New
York: American Management Association.
Boehm, B. W., J. R. Brown, H. Kaspar, M. Lipow, G. J. MacLeod,
and M. J. Merritt. 1978. Characteristics of software quality. New
York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Booms, B. H., and M. J. Bitner. 1981. Marketing strategies and
organization structures for service firms. In Marketing of services,
edited by J. H. Donnelly, and W. R. George. Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Booms, B. H., and J. L. Nyquist. 1981. Analyzing the customer/
firm communication component of the services marketing mix. In
Marketing of Services, edited by J. H. Donnelly, and W. R.
George. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Brown, S. W., and T. A. Swartz. 1989. A gap analysis of pro-
fessional service quality. Journal of Marketing (April): 92 – 98.
Chua, R. C. H. 1992. A customer-driven approach for measuring
service quality. ASQC Quality Congress Transactions.
Milwaukee: ASQ.
Darby, M. R., and E. Karni. 1973. Free competition and the
optimal amount of fraud. The Journal of Law and Economics 16,
no. 1: 67– 88.
Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
DeYong, C. F. 1994. A methodology for linking customer satis-
faction dimensions with process performance metrics. Ph.D. diss.,
Oklahoma State University.
Drucker, P. F. 1954. The practice of management. New York:
Harper and Row.
Farsad, B., and A. K. Elshennawy. 1989. Defining service quali-
ty is difficult for service and manufacturing. Industrial
Engineering 21, no. 3:17–19.
Garvin, D. A. 1988. Managing quality. New York: The Free Press.
Goh, T. N. 1989. An efficient empirical approach to process
improvement. The International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management 6, no. 1:7–18.
Gronroos, C. 1978. A service-oriented approach to marketing of
services. European Journal of Marketing 12, no 8:588 – 601.
———. 1981. Seven key areas of research according to the
Nordic school of service marketing. In Emerging perspectives on
service marketing, edited by L. L. Berry, G. L. Shostack, and G.
D. Upah. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Juran, J. M., ed. 1974. Quality control handbook. 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J.M. 1988. Juran on planning for quality. New York: The
Free Press.
Kelbaugh, R. 1991. Customer focused process improvement.
Journal for Quality and Participation 14, no. 6:84 – 90.
Lehtinen, U., and J. R. Lehtinen. 1991. Two approaches to ser-
vice quality. The Service Industries Journal 11, no. 3:287– 303.
Lovelock, C. H. 1981. Why marketing management needs to be
different for services. In Marketing of Services, edited by J. H.
Donnelly, and W. R. George. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mize, J. H. 1993. Crafting mission statements. Unpublished
working paper. Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma State University.
Nelson, P. 1970. Information and consumer behavior. Journal of
Political Economy 78, no 2:311– 329.
———. 1974. Advertising as information. Journal of Political
Economy 82, no 4:729–754.
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. 1985. A con-
ceptual model of service quality and its implications for future
research. Journal of Marketing (fall): 41– 50.
———. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64,
no. 1:12 – 37.
Regan, W. J. 1963. The service revolution. Journal of Marketing
(July): 57– 62.
Rosander, A. C. 1989. The quest for quality in services.
Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press.
Rummler, G. A., and A. P. Brache. 1990. Improving performance.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
C. F. DEYONG AND K. E. CASE/© 1998, ASQ 89
 Linking Customer Satisfaction Attributes with Process Metrics in Service Industries
Sasser, W. E., Jr., R. P. Olsen, and D. D. Wyckoff, eds. 1978.
Management of service operations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shostack, G. L. 1977. Breaking free from product marketing.
Journal of Marketing (April): 73 – 80.
———. 1987. Service positioning through structural change.
Journal of Marketing (January): 35 – 43.
Sink, D. S., and T. C. Tuttle. 1989. Planning and measurement in
your organization of the future. Norcross, Ga.: Industrial
Engineering and Management Press.
Tenner, A. R. 1991. Quality management beyond manufactur-
ing. Research-Technology Management 34, no. 5:27– 32.
Yoshizawa, M. 1991. Leadership through quality: New employ-
ee quality training participant workbook. New York: Xerox.
Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman, and L. L. Berry. 1988.
Communication and control processes in the delivery of service
quality. Journal of Marketing (April): 35 – 58.
———. 1990. Delivering quality service. New York: The Free Press.
BIOGRAPHIES
Camille Frye DeYong is an assistant professor of industrial engi-
neering and management at Oklahoma State University. She has
taught at the University of Central Oklahoma, and has two years
of industrial experience in the transportation services industry.
She is an ASQ Certified Quality Engineer, and served as an
examiner for the Oklahoma Quality Award in 1994.
DeYong’s research interests are in the areas of total quality
management, economic analysis, and service quality. She has
consulted and performed research in performance metrics and
customer satisfaction measurements. Client service organizations
90 QMJ 98 5, NO. 2/© 1998, ASQ
include the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, the U.S.
Army Matériel Systems Analysis Activity, and the city of
Stillwater. She has presented numerous seminars on the topics of
identifying performance metrics, strategic planning, and life
cycle costing.
DeYong is the author of several technical papers and one book
chapter. She earned a doctorate in industrial engineering and
management at Oklahoma State University. She may be contacted
via E-mail: deyong@okway.okstate.edu .
Kenneth E. Case is a regents professor of industrial engineering
and management at Oklahoma State University. He has taught at
both OSU and Virginia Tech. He is a Fellow of ASQ and the
Institute of Industrial Engineers. He is also an ASQ Certified
Quality Engineer, Certified Quality Manager, Certified Reliability
Engineer, and Certified Quality Auditor. He is a member of the
National Academy for Engineering and an academician and
board member in the International Academy of Engineering.
Case has published over 100 articles and has coauthored three
books, one of which won the Joint Publishers – IIE Book of the
Year Award. He has received multiple teaching awards, both at
the university and the national levels, and has presented numer-
ous ASQ seminars on topics that include, statistical process con-
trol, quality engineering, and quality costs. His research interests
are in quality and reliability engineering, economic analysis, and
production planning and control.
Case earned a doctorate in industrial engineering and manage-
ment at Oklahoma State University. He may be contacted via
E-mail: kcase@okway.okstate.edu .
Both DeYong and Case may also be contacted at the School of
Industrial Engineering and Management, 322 Engineering
North, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078;
405-744-6055, Fax: 405-744-6187.