Summary:
In this work, the practical demonstration is carried out by conducting studies in 51 entities, of the level of correlation between internal and external customer satisfaction.
Keywords: Internal Customer, External Customer, Satisfaction.
Even though it is already a recognized truth that the objective of any for-profit organization is to make a profit, so is the fact that the way to achieve it and maintain it in the future is through the satisfaction of external customers. However, the idea that every worker within an entity is a customer to satisfy and that both types of customer are inextricably linked is not equally accepted. These are linked by at least two fundamental elements:
• Although workers are the source of profit generation for entities, this does not materialize except through exchange with external clients.
• While the maintenance and increase in the acquisition of the entities' products or services by external clients depends on their satisfaction, this is directly linked to the satisfaction of the internal client (worker).
This second aspect constitutes the hypothesis that is intended to be analyzed and demonstrated through the development of this work, for this it was started from the fact of making measurements of the satisfaction of both types of clients and assessing their level of correlation in entities of the field of production or services.
To measure customer satisfaction, the method described below was used.
It starts from the fact of considering satisfaction under an additive approach, that is, contemplating satisfaction as the result of the sum of satisfaction with each of the attributes through which customers value the quality of the product received, but this sum is not It is done so simply but also takes into account the degree of importance given to the respective attributes.
The assessment that customers make on the different attributes is obtained through surveys applied to them once the products are purchased, the surveys present the list of attributes and an evaluative scale, which, expressed in numerical terms, generally ranges between 1 and 5, with unity being the critical state and 5 being the optimum.
The relative importance of the attributes is determined using expert methods such as Delphi or Kendall, the attributes are given values, in correspondence with the importance granted, lower than the unit, assigning lower values to the less important ones and increasing these in the extent that the importance increases. The sum of all the values obtained must reach unity.
Once the relative importance of each attribute and the customer ratings of their status are known, the customer indicator is calculated as shown below.
S = ∑ Ir * Ea.
Where:
S: Customer Satisfaction Indicator.
Go: Relative importance of attributes.
Ea: Current status of attributes.
For the analysis of the satisfaction levels of internal clients, the following indicators were used:
• Job content: referring to the attractiveness of the job content, the level of feedback on the results that it enables, the social meaning conferred, the level of autonomy that the position allows.
• Group work: relative to the degree to which the work allowed group work to be carried out, encouraging participation and satisfaction of the affiliation needs of this type of clients.
• Stimulation: concerning the degree to which the existing remuneration system satisfies the needs of sufficiency, justice, equity and is linked to the results of the work and the efforts developed.
• Working conditions: referring to the degree to which the prevailing conditions in the work area are safe, hygienic, comfortable and aesthetic.
• Welfare Conditions: related to the group of conditions that the entity establishes with a view to facilitating a better working environment such as transportation, food, working hours, etc.
The study of the satisfaction levels of external clients was carried out through the use of three types or groups of attributes:
• Linked to the Person such as bearing and appearance, treatment, language proficiency, diligence, etc.
• Linked to the Product such as temperature, presence, variety, quantity, price, size, etc.
• Linked to the premises such as hygiene, order, technical condition, comfort, temperature, aesthetic appeal, etc.
These three types of attributes are considered the fundamental ones that determine the level of customer satisfaction.
Using the method described above, customer satisfaction measurements were made in 51 entities as shown in the following table, values from which the degree of correlation between both indicators is calculated.
| Nr Entity |
Internal Customer Satisfaction |
External Customer Satisfaction |
Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | External Customer Satisfaction | Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | External Customer Satisfaction |
| one |
4.56 |
4.04 |
18 |
4.12 |
3.15 |
35 |
4.56 |
4.12 |
| two |
3.89 |
4.23 |
19 |
3.72 |
3.21 |
36 |
4.77 |
4.14 |
| 3 |
3.06 |
2.05 |
twenty |
3.78 |
3.68 |
37 |
4.31 |
4.01 |
| 4 |
4.11 |
3.34 |
twenty-one |
4.52 |
3.32 |
38 |
3.37 |
3.91 |
| 5 |
4.67 |
4.03 |
22 |
3.97 |
3.59 |
39 |
3.69 |
3.3 |
| 6 |
3.11 |
2.25 |
2. 3 |
4.06 |
3.88 |
40 |
3.89 |
3.45 |
| 7 |
3.56 |
2.87 |
24 |
4.34 |
4.03 |
41 |
4.42 |
3.89 |
| 8 |
3.01 |
3.32 |
25 |
4.57 |
3.51 |
42 |
3.78 |
3.42 |
| 9 |
4.77 |
4.21 |
26 |
3.83 |
3.13 |
43 |
3.71 |
3.35 |
| 10 |
3.76 |
4.03 |
27 |
3.49 |
3.66 |
44 |
4.63 |
4.15 |
| eleven |
3.84 |
4.07 |
28 |
4.44 |
3.21 |
Four. Five |
4.48 |
4.03 |
| 12 |
3.92 |
3.45 |
29 |
3.78 |
4.12 |
46 |
3.33 |
3.01 |
| 13 |
3.53 |
3.01 |
30 |
4.67 |
4.02 |
47 |
4.78 |
4.27 |
| 14 |
4.37 |
3.88 |
31 |
4.88 |
2.94 |
48 |
4.32 |
4.41 |
| fifteen |
3.29 |
3.03 |
32 |
3.32 |
3.66 |
49 |
3.88 |
3.49 |
| 16 |
4.45 |
3.44 |
33 |
3.95 |
3.85 |
fifty |
4.81 |
4.36 |
| 17 |
4.69 |
3.99 |
3. 4 |
4.13 |
3.15 |
51 |
4.32 |
3.89 |
As can be seen in the table, in most of the measurements the results of the evaluation of the internal client were superior to those of the external client, and although the satisfaction of the internal client does not depend on the degree to which the external client is satisfied, it is not can say the same in the other sense, every time a worker is satisfied he is in better conditions to provide a quality service not only because he presents better treatment and kindness, he is more agile and diligent, he has a high self-esteem due to which shows a better bearing and appearance.The satisfaction of the internal client not only influences the satisfaction of the external for the aforementioned but also that every time a worker feels satisfied he is in better conditions not to be conditioned by the lack of resources and technological or organizational failures, not only does he not it allows itself to be conditioned but has the capacity to produce solutions or palliative to each deficiency that arises.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the measurements carried out, occasions were observed where the satisfaction of the external client was higher than that of the internal (in entities 2, 8, 10, 11, 27, 29, 32, 38, 48), this could be due to errors inherent in the sampling (filling in the questionnaires or exploitation of the results) or, on the contrary, could be caused by the existence of a high influence of failures in supplies or technology that could not be reassessed or by the best intentions and staff effort.
Starting from the measures shown in the table, the correlation coefficient was calculated, obtaining a value of 0.58, which is considered high considering the fact that there are other factors that justify the remaining 0.42, including technology, supplies and even the reciprocal influence that these two elements exert on the internal customer's own satisfaction.
Attending to the above reasons, an attempt was made to reduce the influences that the two previously mentioned factors could introduce on the satisfaction of the internal client, for which the maximum evaluation (5 points) was awarded to all those attributes that were not directly linked to the internal customer satisfaction such as (variety, quantity, price, etc.) maintaining the same behavior of the relative importance of the attributes.
The procedure followed could be illustrated in a simplified way by the following hypothetical example. Suppose that, as stated at the beginning, customer satisfaction had been measured by using only three attributes, the three groups mentioned above:
to. Attributes linked to personnel. (Ap)
b. Attributes linked to the service or purchase area. (Aa)
c. Attributes linked to the product. (Apr)
It should also be understood that these three attributes were subjected to the evaluation and weighting process described and that the results obtained are those shown in the following table.
| Attributes | Importance | Evaluation. |
| Ap | 0.4 | 4.2 |
| Aa | 0.3 | 4.3 |
| Apr | 0.3 | 3.9 |
With this behavior, the customer satisfaction indicator would obtain a value of 4.14, however, if the value of 5 were given to the evaluation of the attributes not directly related to the staff and the value of its importance was maintained, the satisfaction indicator of the client would amount to 4.68 and it could then be argued that the 0.32 that is missing to reach the maximum score is due to the influence of the staff.
Following a procedure similar to the one exemplified, the results shown in the following table were obtained.
| Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | External Customer Satisfaction | Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | External Customer Satisfaction | Nr Entity | Internal Customer Satisfaction | External Customer Satisfaction |
| one |
4.56 |
4.37 |
18 |
4.12 |
3.88 |
35 |
4.56 |
4.71 |
| two |
3.89 |
4.01 |
19 |
3.72 |
3.56 |
36 |
4.77 |
4.45 |
| 3 |
3.06 |
2.89 |
twenty |
3.78 |
3.68 |
37 |
4.31 |
4.12 |
| 4 |
4.11 |
3.81 |
twenty-one |
4.52 |
3.32 |
38 |
3.37 |
3.58 |
| 5 |
4.67 |
4.47 |
22 |
3.97 |
3.59 |
39 |
3.69 |
3.67 |
| 6 |
3.11 |
3 |
2. 3 |
4.06 |
3.88 |
40 |
3.89 |
4.16 |
| 7 |
3.56 |
3.24 |
24 |
4.34 |
4.03 |
41 |
4.42 |
4.21 |
| 8 |
3.01 |
3.17 |
25 |
4.57 |
3.51 |
42 |
3.78 |
3.59 |
| 9 |
4.77 |
4.63 |
26 |
3.83 |
3.13 |
43 |
3.71 |
4.07 |
| 10 |
3.76 |
3.45 |
27 |
3.49 |
3.66 |
44 |
4.63 |
4.36 |
| eleven |
3.84 |
4.31 |
28 |
4.44 |
3.21 |
Four. Five |
4.48 |
3.91 |
| 12 |
3.92 |
3.9 |
29 |
3.78 |
4.12 |
46 |
3.33 |
3.76 |
| 13 |
3.53 |
3.48 |
30 |
4.67 |
4.02 |
47 |
4.78 |
4.58 |
| 14 |
4.37 |
4.36 |
31 |
4.88 |
4.09 |
48 |
4.32 |
4.11 |
| fifteen |
3.29 |
3.24 |
32 |
3.32 |
3.66 |
49 |
3.88 |
4.21 |
| 16 |
4.45 |
4.23 |
33 |
3.95 |
3.85 |
fifty |
4.81 |
4.56 |
| 17 |
4.69 |
4.45 |
3. 4 |
4.13 |
3.78 |
51 |
4.32 |
4.44 |
As evidenced, a similar behavior was maintained in all aspects, only that the difference between both levels of satisfaction decreased while the correlation coefficient increased to 0.70, it is to be assumed that the remaining 0.30 continues to be conditioned by causes that are impossible to establish with precision. such as sampling errors or the reciprocal influence between all the elements that condition customer satisfaction.
All the analysis carried out allows us to reach the following conclusions:
• There is a direct relationship between the satisfaction of both types of customers.
• The manifestation of this relationship creates a stronger bond between both types of customers.
• Even when the aforementioned relationship exists, there are also other elements that also influence the satisfaction of the external client and whose incidence is not so simple to identify and much less define.
Bibliography:
1. Customer satisfaction an indicator of productivity. Noda, Marcia. 1997, Holguín, Cuba
Download the original file
