Skip to main content
Journal of Wood Science

Official Journal of the Japan Wood Research Society

Download PDF
  • Original Article
  • Published:

Increasing the competitiveness of wood in material substitution: A method for assessing and prioritizing customer needs

Journal of Wood Science volume 52, pages 154–162 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

To increase the competitiveness of wood as a building material requires knowledge of which customer needs require attention in terms of quality improvement and/or product development to best satisfy customers. Hence, information as to the impact on customer satisfaction of the fulfillment of different customer needs, as well as the performance of wood and substitutes in providing for these needs, is needed. This article suggests the use of customer satisfaction modeling (CSM) for assessing customer needs. The methodology is evaluated in the context of floorcovering. The results suggest that CSM is well suited for extracting the information necessary for prioritizing customer needs: importance/impact and performance data for attributes as well as for customer benefits. The study indicates the necessity of considering substitute materials not only for performance comparisons; substitutes may also reveal otherwise latent customer needs. Practical, functional, benefits exert the greatest impact on customer satisfaction for wooden flooring as well as its closest substitutes, laminate and carpet. Hygiene and a low cost over the life cycle are apparently the customer benefits that require attention from wooden flooring manufacturers, because importance is high and performance relatively low.

References

  1. Eastin IL, Shook SR, Fleishman SJ (2001) Material substitution in the US residential construction industry, 1994 versus 1998. Forest Prod J 51:30–37

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wagner ER, Hansen EN (2004) A method for identifying and assessing key customer group needs. Ind Market Manag 33:643–655

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anon (1998) Wood as a building material. A qualitative study-Denmark. Job no. 980901. Research International Norway, Oslo

  4. Broman NO (1996) Two methods for measuring people’s preferences for Scots pine wood surfaces: a comparative multivariate analysis. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 42:130–139

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ahlmark D (1977) Substitute and competition — a study of product differentiation based on material properties (Swedish). Research report 6069. Ekonomiska forskningsinstitutet vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, EFI, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jonsson R (2005) The end-consumers choice of floorcovering in the Netherlands and the UK: a comparative pilot study of substitute competition. J Wood Sci 51:154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shocker AD, Bayus BL, Kim N (2004) Product complements and substitutes in the real world: the relevance of “other products”. J Marketing 68:28–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Graonic MD, Shocker AD (1993) On the transferability of features/level preferences across competing products serving the same purposes. Adv Consum Res 20:389–394

    Google Scholar 

  9. Warlop L, Ratneshwar S (1993) The role of usage context in consumer choice: a problem solving perspective. Adv Consum Res 20:377–382

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corfman KP (1991) Comparability and comparison levels used in choices among consumer products. J Marketing Res 28:368–374

    Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson MD (1988) Comparability and hierarchical processing in multialternative choice. J Consum Res 15:303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ratneshwar S, Shocker AD (1991) Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structures. J Marketing Res 28:281–295

    Google Scholar 

  13. Herrmann A, Gustafsson A, Elg M (1997) An integrative framework for product development and satisfaction measurement. In: Gustafsson A, Bergman B, Ekdahl F (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International QFD Symposium, vol 2. Linköping University, Linköping, pp 143–158

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson MD, Fornell C (1991) A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. J Econ Psychol 12:267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gustafsson A, Johnson MD (1997) Bridging the quality — satisfaction gap. Qual Manag J 4:27–43

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson MD (1998) Customer orientation and market action. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 183

    Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson MD, Gustafsson A (1997) Bridging the quality-satisfaction gap II: measuring and prioritizing customer needs. In: Gustafsson A, Bergman B, Ekdahl F (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International QFD Symposium, vol 2. Linköping University, Linköping, pp 21–34

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fornell C, Cha J (1994) Partial least squares. In: Bagozzi RP (ed) Advanced methods of marketing research. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 52–78

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 278

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson CJ, Locander WB, Pollio HR (1989) Putting consumer experience back into consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. J Consum Res 16:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories for case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14:532–550

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yin K (1984) Case study research. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 160

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wold S, Esbensen K, Geladi P (1987) Principal component analysis — a tutorial. Chemometr Intell Lab 2:37–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine De Gruyter, New York, pp 271

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fornell C (1987) A second generation of multivariate analysis: classification of methods and implications for marketing research. In: Houston MJ (ed) Review of marketing. American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp 407–450

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wold H (1982) Systems under indirect observation using PLS. In: Fornell C (ed) A second generation of multivariate analysis: methods. Praeger, New York, pp 325–347

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gustafsson A, Johnson MD (2002) Measuring and managing the satisfaction-loyalty-performance links at Volvo. J Target Meas Anal Market 10:249–258

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 730

    Google Scholar 

  29. Anderson JC, Fornell C, Lehman DR (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability — findings from Sweden. J Marketing 58:53–66

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bergman B, Klefsjö B (1994) Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 478

    Google Scholar 

  31. Akao Y (1992) Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity, Cambridge, pp 369

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moussatche H, Languell J (2001) Flooring materials — life cycle costing for educational facilities. J Facil 19:333–343

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Technology and Design, Växjö University, SE-351 95, Växjö, Sweden

    Ragnar Jonsson

Authors
  1. Ragnar Jonsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ragnar Jonsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonsson, R. Increasing the competitiveness of wood in material substitution: A method for assessing and prioritizing customer needs. J Wood Sci 52, 154–162 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-005-0741-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-005-0741-8

Key words