MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984537339 · doi:10.1108/09544780510603198

Effects of reengineering on the employee satisfaction‐customer satisfaction relationship

2005· article· en· W1984537339 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald J. Burke, Jim Graham, Frank Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe TQM Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness process reengineeringCustomer satisfactionBusinessGeneralizability theoryMarketingService qualityCustomer retentionCustomer advocacyJob satisfactionService (business)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper seeks to examine the correlations between measures of employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction before and after a major process reengineering initiative. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected in 130 branches of a large financial services organization using employee and customer surveys. Findings Scores on some employee satisfaction factors were predictive of customer satisfaction at both time periods. Other employee satisfaction factors were found to have a stronger relationship with customer satisfaction in one period but not both. Research limitations/implications This study needs to be replicated to determine the generalizability of the findings. Practical implications Work demands which probably increased due to the reengineering initiative were predictive of customer satisfaction following the reengineering effort. Originality/value Organizations need to consider the effects of organizational changes in their efforts to provide high quality customer service.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe TQM JournalSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207