Advertisement

Complaint-Management Controlling

  • Bernd Stauss
  • Wolfgang Seidel
Chapter
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)

Abstract

Complaint management controlling consists of three areas: evidence controlling, task controlling and cost-benefit controlling.

Evidence controlling determines the extent to which customer dissatisfaction is expressed in complaints. It reveals the extent of non-articulated (“unvoiced”) and non-registered (“hidden”) complaints, and thus makes the real size of the ‘annoyance iceberg’ visible.

The focus of task controlling is the specification and monitoring of quality and productivity standards. In the course of subjective task controlling the quality of task fulfillment is monitored from the complainants’ point of view. For this purpose the satisfaction of complainants with all aspects of complaint handling is measured and satisfaction and loyalty standards are set.

Objective task controlling defines objective quality and productivity standards for all task modules of complaint management. The operational control of complaint management tasks can be carried out using the Complaint Management Index (BMI) which provides a quick overview of to what degree the defined quality and productivity targets have been reached.

Cost-benefit-controlling serves to assess the profitability of complaint management.

The costs of complaint management are recorded and analyzed in cost controlling either according to traditional cost accounting or by means of activity-based costing.

The purpose of benefit controlling is the monetary evaluation of the information benefit, the retention benefit and the communication benefit of complaint management. The information benefit can be estimated primarily on the basis of the reduction of warranty and guarantee costs resulting from the use of complaint information. The retention benefit consists of the revenues and profits generated by those customers who could be retained by complaint management. The communication benefit lies in the revenues and profits generated by those customers who could be won by positive word-of-mouth communication of satisfied complainants. The Return on Complaint Management (RoCM) can be used as a measure of the economic efficiency of complaint management.

References

  1. Anderson EW et al (1997) Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Mark Sci 16(2):129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anton J (2007) Call center management by the numbers. Perdue University Press, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  3. Goodman JA et al (2000) Turning CFOs into quality champions. Qual Prog 33(3):47–54Google Scholar
  4. Heskett JL et al (1997) The service profit chain. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Keiningham TL et al (2007) A longitudinal examination of net promoter and firm revenue growth. J Mark 71(3):39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kristensen K, Eskildsen J (2014) Is the NPS a trustworthy performance measure? TQM J 26(2):202–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kumar V (2008) A customer lifetime value. Now Publishers, HanoverGoogle Scholar
  8. Kumar V, Pansari A (2015) Aggregate and individual-level customer lifetime value. In: Kumar V, Shah D (eds) Handbook on research on customer equity in marketing. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 44–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malthouse CE (2013) Segmentation and lifetime value models using SAS. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  10. Reichheld FF (2003) The one number you need to grow. Harv Bus Rev 81(12):46–54Google Scholar
  11. Reichheld FF (2006) The ultimate question: driving good profits and true growth. Harvard Business, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Reichheld FF (2011) The ultimate question 2.0: how net promoter companies thrive in a customer-driven world. Harvard Business, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruf S (2007) Würden Sie diese Methode einem Freund empfehlen? In: Verband Schweizer Markt- und Sozialforscher (ed) Jahrbuch 2007. vsms Alpnach, Switzerland, pp 38–40Google Scholar
  14. Servicebarometer (2017) Kundenmonitor 2017. Servicebarometer, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  15. Singh J (2000) Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations. J Mark 64(2):15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stauss B, Hentschel B (1992) Messung von Kundenzufriedenheit. Marktforschung and Management 36(3):115–122Google Scholar
  17. Stauss B, Seidel W (2008) Discovering the “customer annoyance iceberg” through evidence controlling. Serv Bus 2(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stauss B, Seidel W (2013) Zur Notwendigkeit eines Follow Up-Beschwerdemanagements. Mark Rev St Gallen 30(3):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. TARP (1979) Consumer complaint handling in America: final report. U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Stauss
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Seidel
    • 2
  1. 1.Catholic University of Eichstätt-IngolstadtIngolstadtGermany
  2. 2.servmark consultancyIngolstadt and MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations