Hartmann, A and Hietbrink, M (2013) An exploratory study on the relationship between stakeholder expectations, experiences and satisfaction in road maintenance. Construction Management and Economics, 31(4), pp. 345-358. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Despite the increased attention paid by road agencies to the needs of infrastructure stakeholders, little is known about how the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of infrastructure stakeholders with the agencies' service provision is formed. From the perspective of public agencies the relationship between expectations, experiences and satisfaction of infrastructure stakeholders affected by road maintenance is explored. Drawing upon data collected during a road maintenance project in the Netherlands it is shown that expectations only played a minor role in the formation of satisfaction. Moreover, depending on the contextual setting of the maintenance project, the importance of highway performance impacts for the formation of satisfaction through expectations and experiences changed. The results suggest that the value-in-use experience and the time dependence of expectations account for the switch in importance and the limited role of expectations. A main conclusion is that road agencies should redirect their effort from trying to determine and meet stakeholder expectations to allowing stakeholders to experience the improvements of a maintenance project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | expectation-disconfirmation theory; road maintenance; stakeholder management |
| Index terms: | satisfaction, agency, stakeholder management, value-in-use, exploratory study, drawing, Netherlands |
| Subjects: | sociology, research methods, Geography, technical documentation, participation process, project delivery, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here