- The document is a thesis analyzing poor customer relationship quality at Company A that has led to signing long-term contracts below targets. - Interviews with customers revealed dissatisfaction with A's service when issues arose, damaging trust and commitment. This was identified as the main problem. - Potential causes were explored, with poor service quality and reputation validated as the main cause through additional interviews. - Training employees in customer service skills and redesigning performance metrics were proposed as solutions to improve relationships and performance.

1. -1-
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School of Business
------------------------------
Phan Thi Thanh Hieu
POOR CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
QUALITY AT COMPANY A.
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2019

2. -2-
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School of Business
------------------------------
Phan Thi Thanh Hieu
POOR CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
QUALITY AT COMPANY A.
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
SUPERVISOR: Assoc. Prof. Tran Ha Minh Quan
Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2019

3. -3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Company background ............................................................................................... 7
2 Symptom ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 A’s LTCs signed below the target in 2016, 2017 and 2018 ......................................... 8
2.2 The importance of the symptom ................................................................................ 10
3 Problem identification ............................................................................................. 10
3.1 Potential problems ...................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Customers diversify suppliers to reduce risks ........................................................ 12
3.1.2 Multiple strong competitors with good service ...................................................... 13
3.1.3 Customers feel not satisfied in business relationship with A ................................. 13
3.1.4 Constraint of state-owned company’s policy ......................................................... 14
3.1.5 Customers do not trust in A, no commitment for future shipment ......................... 14
4 Problem validation ................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Main problem ............................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Problem definition ...................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Problem existence ...................................................................................................... 20
4.4 Problem importance ................................................................................................... 20
5 Possible Causes ......................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Poor service quality .................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Poor company’s reputation ........................................................................................ 21
5.3 Not long enough relationship ..................................................................................... 22
6 Cause Validation ...................................................................................................... 22
6.1.1 Main cause .............................................................................................................. 25
6.1.2 Main cause definition ............................................................................................. 25
6.1.3 Sub cause ................................................................................................................ 27
7 SOLUTION ............................................................................................................... 28
7.1 Alternative solutions .................................................................................................. 29
7.1.1 Train employees to strengthen customer-service perception and skills ................. 29
7.1.2 Redesign A’s employee performance scale ............................................................ 30
7.1.3 Combine employees training and adjustment of the performance appraisal
system. ................................................................................................................................. 30
7.2 Solution selection ....................................................................................................... 32
8 Action plan in organization ..................................................................................... 33
9 Supporting information ........................................................................................... 36
9.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 36
9.2 Interview transcript .................................................................................................... 37
10 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 51
Reference

4. -4-
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: A’s report about LTCs signed in 2016......................................................8
Table 2: A’s report about LTCs signed in 2017......................................................8
Table 3: A’s report about LTCs signed in 2018......................................................9
Table 4: Participants in first interview in March 2019..........................................11
Table 5: Participants in the second interview in March 2019 ...............................17
Table 6: Participants in the third interview in April 2019.....................................22
Table 7: Participants in the fourth interview in March 2019.................................26
Table 8: Participants in the fifth interview in May 2019.......................................32

5. -5-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A’s total tons of LTCs over exploitation volume from 2016 to 2018 .....9
Figure 2: COGS over revenue of A from 2016 to 2018........................................10
Figure 3: Initial cause-effect map..........................................................................12
Figure 4: Topship following timeline....................................................................15
Figure 5: Namazie following timeline...................................................................15
Figure 6: Updated cause-effect map......................................................................16

6. -6-
Executive Summary
Nowadays, the business environment has become more competitive and dynamic
that requires every firm needs to create their own competitive advantage to win over
their rivals, otherwise they are losers in the market. One of the indispensable factors
that they need to pay attention is the product and services. The product serves
customers’ needs and the service presented during the exchange facilitates the product
to be delivered promptly and conveniently. While there have been companies having
deep awareness of the very complex marketplace and take actions, the others are
struggling with their performance due to some reasons. Specifically, to Vietnam
natural rubber market, Company A ’s performance has encountered some issues during
three recent years. A’s results at signing long-term contracts (LTC) below the target of
the parent company with the consequences of the increasingly growing percentage
between cost of goods sold (COGS) and revenue. Realizing that this symptom existed
is an urgent warning to A, the author decided to discover whether A has made
mistakes towards its usual practice. Through interviews as well as the guideline of
scholar theories, A’s problem is identified as poor customer relationship quality with
the main cause is due to A’s poor service quality to customers. Although they have
been loyal customers of A due to long working time, A has treated them without any
support and enthusiasm when having troubles. To be more specific, A’s employees are
not good at customer-service skills to satisfy customers, especially when they are most
difficult. Moreover, the company’s performance scale is not realistic and imperfect
enough for employees to become motivated and engaged in taking care of customers.
Therefore, it is suggested that the company should provide employees training sessions
to perceive the important role of service quality and customers. That’s also a good
chance for employees to learn how to demonstrate professional customer-service skills
to customers. Moreover, the performance appraisal system is also recommended to be
updated for employees to feel that they are highly recognized for supporting customers
in any case. The detail action plan finalizing the thesis contains what A should do step
by step to recover its performance and regain customers’ trusts.

7. -7-
1 Company background
Company A. specializes in planting, tapping, processing and trading natural rubber. A
is located in Highlands region with the total area of natural rubber is over 9,000 ha. The
company is structured by shareholders assembly, board of directors, board of supervisors
and functional departments/units, in which Import-Export department plays an important
role to bring main source of revenue for the company. The department is in charge of
ensuring the annual stable consumption by maintaining existing customers and seeking for
potentials to sell natural rubber. Besides, there is also sub-divisions handling documents
and logistics supports for shipments delivered. Instead of producing all grades, Company
A. gains its competitive advantage over other rubber companies in Vietnam by
concentrating on only specific grades including SVR 3L, SVR 10, SVR CV50/60 and SVR
L with high quality to offer mostly international tire manufacturers and traders.

8. -8-
2 Symptom
2.1 A’s LTCs signed below the target in 2016, 2017 and 2018
To stabilize annual consumption, the parent company set target that every subsidiary
has to achieve the total consumption output from long-term contracts (LTCs) by at least
50% of exploitation volume. To comply with the parent company’s regulation, company
A.’s goal in three recent years is to reach 70% tapping volume for LTCs signed. However,
in the period of 2016-2018, Import-Export department did not fulfil their responsibility
when A. fell short of that target. Specifically, in the period of 2016-2018, the total amount
of natural rubber that customers signed with A. in the three years did not reach half of
tapping output as shown in below tables:
Table 1: A’s report about LTCs signed in 2016
Source: A’s Business report 2016
Table 2: A’s report about LTCs signed in 2017
Source: A’s Business report 2017

9. -9-
Table 3: A’s report about LTCs signed in 2018
Source: A’s Business report 2018
As the data given, it can be seen that the amount of natural rubber for LTCs
below the target in 2016, 2017, 2018 which are 48.90%, 41.17% and 38.49%
respectively and decreased when compared with the total tapping volume.
Figure 1: A’s total tons of LTCs over exploitation volume from 2016 to 2018
Source: A’s Business report in 2016, 2017, 2018

10. -10-
2.2 The importance of the symptom
From company report, the ratio between COGS and revenue increase year by year as
illustrated below:
Figure 2: COGS over revenue of A from 2016 to 2018
Source: A’s Business report 2016, 2017, 2018
The COGS over revenue of A has increased in 3 years from 81.25% in 2016 to
87.75% in 2018. When discovering deeply, the issue is that A’s inventory volume is
high due to unable to sell all finished goods or did not meet the target of signing long-
term contract with existing customers and developing new sales. That the remaining
inventory turns low quality in next year, is counted in COGS in that next year as well
as decrease in sales price in that next year. Therefore, the company’s ratio of COGS
over revenue increase in the three recent years. The existing symptom is an urgent
warning to A that forces A take further steps to remedy its performance. Otherwise, A
may suffer from loss in the near future.
3 Problem identification
From the symptom identified as above, I decided to take interviews with Import-
Export department and customers to clarify whether there exist mistakes causing to the
symptom. Participants for the interview is illustrated as below:

11. -11-
Table 4: Participants in first interview in March 2019
According to Mrs. TNT- Head of Import-Export department:
“A’s strategy is that 30% for spot contracts and 70% for LTCs. To spot contracts,
customers sources are various, random and no commitment. When customers have needs
anytime of the year, they contact us for further discussion. Therefore, with substantial
exploitation volume, A sets main goals for LTCs to meet the parent company’s
requirements and actively control the customers’ consumption. For LTCs, A maintain
existing customers and also develop new sales”. Therefore, to the extent of this thesis, I
will discuss only on LTCs which A mainly focuses on as well as A has troubled with to
find causes and fix them so that A can handle this main part well and actively control its
customer sources.
Through interviewing Import-Export Executives, three existing customers and two
potential customers that A is following, the Initial cause-effect map is shown as below:

12. -12-
Figure 3: Initial cause-effect map
Source: Author’s synthesis
3.1 Potential problems
From the initial cause-effect map, it can be seen that there are five potential problems
related to A’s symptom.
3.1.1 Customers diversify suppliers to reduce risks
According to the interview from A’s executives and existing customers, all three
existing customers have ordered natural rubber not only from A but also from other
producers. Specifically, Good year shared that “Actually, in Vietnam market, we purchase
natural rubber from multiple subsidiaries and other outside suppliers that meet our
standard requirements. We have variety of choices and also our back up plan in case any
supplier cannot deliver the goods as scheduled. In reality, we had trouble with several
shipments due to delayed schedule from suppliers, making us incur much loss. It’s not A,
but other subsidiaries. From our own experiences, we want to purchase from multiple
suppliers to ensure having products in all cases”. Actually, there were cases like that

13. -13-
making them suffer lots of costs. Therefore, they actively control their purchasing volume
by that way so A may not negotiate to increase existing sales, leading A’s LTCs below the
target.
3.1.2 Multiple strong competitors with good service
Previously, Vietnam natural rubber market was mostly run by the group that A
belongs to. The subsidiaries’ products which were made under highly technical processes
and advanced machineries present standard quality meeting customer requirements.
However, nowadays, besides the subsidiaries of the group, customers also have choices
from private companies who can offer good products with good service. Therefore,
competitive natural rubber market has possibly been a reason that makes A hard to increase
existing sales or achieve LTCs targets.
3.1.3 Customers feel not satisfied in business relationship with A
Interviews of three existing customers show that they are not satisfied with A.
Specifically, Good year, Tong Teik and Sintex purchasing representatives all shared that
despite long time working with A, when having troubles, A caused them lots of difficulties
making them suffer large costs even though the company can help. Therefore, they are not
satisfied in business relationship with A. Because A cannot be trusted due to those trouble
cases, customers are not sure for future cooperation. Some customers even think of other
suppliers. Therefore, that may explain for decreased current purchasing volume from A of
these customers. Here are some quotations from the three representatives:
Good year “To us, satisfaction is so important. However, despite long time of working, we
have not been satisfied when working with A so we are thinking of other suppliers,
especially during the last 3 years. We feel that we are not appreciated by A. The supplier
cannot treat long-term customers like A. Therefore, our relationship is not better in recent
years. Our trust in A is losing gradually.”
Sintex opined that “Despite working with A quite long time and A products are
reliable to our customers, we feel not satisfied with A. While other suppliers are becoming
stronger by enhancing their products, services and establishing strong relationship with us,
we think our relationship with A is not good as other suppliers. Therefore, we are not sure
to sign LTC with A, no commitment in future.”

14. -14-
Tong Teik indicated that “We think that due to A’s working style makes our
relationship have been worse in recent years despite working together quite long. To be
honest, we are not satisfied with the way A do business”
3.1.4 Constraint of state-owned company’s policy
As shared from the interview, Sintex is not comfortable when working with A due to
strict business policy. They stated that “Policy of private company is more flexible, not
strict as the subsidiaries of the group. For example, they offer us deferred L/C payment
while the members apply L/C at sight. Deferred L/C gives us a period of time to prepare
money for payment, so more comfortable to us. It can be conveyed that strict policy of
state-owned company is one of reasons making Sintex decrease purchasing volume from
A.
3.1.5 Customers do not trust in A, no commitment for future shipment

15. -15-
Figure 4: Topship following timeline
Source: A’s Import-Export department report
Source: A’s Import-Export department report
From the company data, A has followed two customers including Topship and
Namazie. However, the company still could not sign LTCs with them despite long time
chasing. As shared from the interview, the two customers opined that they were not
satisfied when working with A. Therefore, they are not willing to sign official LTCs with
A. Therefore, one of reasons making A fail to achieve LTCs target is that the company
could not develop new sales due to dissatisfying potential customers.
After the interviews and data from the company, among potential problems listed
above, the first potential problem that is “customers diversify suppliers to reduce risks” is
originated from customers. As the in-depth interview, customers, by their own experiences,
actively choose to buy from many suppliers to reduce risks of not delivering goods as
scheduled. That’s customer choices so it may not have influence if A puts its effort to fix
this external factor. The second and fourth potential problems including competitors and
state-owned company’s policy are also from external factors while the potential problem of
“customer feel not satisfied in the business relationship with A” and “customers do not
Figure 5: Namazie following timeline

16. -16-
trust, no commitment for future shipment” forces A to look back its performance to find
further reasons. Therefore, I consider this is the main problem linking to its existing
symptom that A can improve the current situation if the company finds appropriate causes
and fix them.
4 Problem validation
Some scholar theories have shown multiple discussion around the term “customer
relationship quality”. Customers relationship quality, from literatures, is illustrated through
customer’s satisfaction, trust and commitment toward the supplier (1,4). In which, trust is
built when “one party has confidence in the reliability and integrity of the other” (1).
According to Chou as cited by Barac et al. (1), commitment demonstrates the willingness
to maintain the relationship with the company. As emphasized by Garbarino and Johnson
as cited by Barac et al. (1), satisfaction coveys the fulfilled feeling that partner has from
their own experience with the company. Those researches have shown that satisfaction,
trust and commitment have direct link with the relationship quality between buyer and
seller, which is one of important indicators to company performance.
Therefore, The Updated Cause-Effect map is illustrated as below:
Figure 6: Updated cause-effect map
Source: Author’s synthesis

17. -17-
The further interview is conducted with the aim of checking whether A troubled with
their customer relationships as the literatures indicated above and deeply discussed for
more findings on potential problems.
Table 5: Participants in the second interview in March 2019
Findings from the second interview
A’s products are standardized
As being shared from the interview, both existing customers and potentials have
evaluated that under well-known brand name, A’s products comply with standard quality
based on advanced production line. Hence, the product gains great trust in them. Compared
to Vietnam natural rubber suppliers, the subsidiaries create strong competitive advantages
due to reliable quality throughout the years. Customers recognize these suppliers of the
group lead in Vietnam market considering quality and quantity so they mostly choose the
products of these subsidiaries rather than ones of private companies.
Long time working but recently not satisfied in the relationship with A
As the data collected, existing customers have worked with A nearly or around 10
years. They shared that previously the reliable product quality was the most important
criteria considered from rubber buyers. However, nowadays, these customers have been
dissatisfied with A despite long-term relationships. Specifically, Good year shared that
“Recently, other suppliers in Vietnam are demonstrating their good performance, making
us feel appreciated, so when we work with A, we feel extremely not satisfied with A.
Therefore, we need to look back that whether A’s still suitable and acceptable or not.
That’s why our relationship is not good as it was: No satisfaction in working leads to no
commitment in future”

18. -18-
Policy constraint is not a big deal compared to feeling bad in business
relationship with A
Customer evaluated from the interview that to state-owned company, like A, the
policy is more strict than private companies. To be more specific, Sintex expressed that
they are more comfortable with the payment method of deferred L/C rather that L/C at
sight which A requires. Deferred L/C allows them to have time to prepare money for
payment after the shipment is already delivered. However, due to good quality products in
the market, they accept the payment condition. However, customer tends to become
demotivated from some troubles. They feel that A is not supportive and so not eager to
work with A.
Customers actively diversify suppliers
From the interview, Import-Export executives shared that existing customers not only
purchase natural rubber from only A but also other suppliers. Asked for reasons, customers
told that in Vietnam market, customers purchase natural rubber from multiple suppliers in
order to back up for cases that the key supplier cannot deliver goods as scheduled. They
want to be active in all cases because in reality there were suppliers delaying shipping as
scheduled making them suffer lots of costs.
Customers do want to establish long-term relationship with suppliers who have
not only good quality but also great support
Customers emphasized that Vietnam rubber market becomes more competitive
nowadays. Private companies gradually improve their product quality and are more flexible
in supporting customers while A is not so supportive for customers, especially when
troubles happen. Therefore, existing customers told that they increasingly have more
choices. They want to work in the long term with suppliers who have good quality and
great support. Therefore, the supplier who offers only quality product is less competitive
than the ones who care about quality and do their best to treat customers well, as Tong Teik
shared that “From my perspective, A need to improve the way it treats customers. We feel
that we are not empathized from A despite long time working. As a customer, we want to
work in the long-term with suppliers who offer quality product and especially great support
because troubles are unavoidable. Support makes the relationship strong and sustainable.
We really stress when working with A while the other suppliers try to ease any problems to

19. -19-
keep the relationship grow well. That cannot sustain in the long term if A does not change
its perception.”
4.1 Main problem
According to the literatures and in-depth interviews, it can be drawn that customers
are not satisfied when working with A despite long-time period so they do not trust and
commit A for future shipments. Each of them has reasons to feel that A is not good as their
expectation, leading customers have not increased or more seriously, decrease their
purchasing volume from A. Therefore, the main problem of A is its poor customer
relationship quality. Through those interviews, poor relationship quality is shown through:
- A’s products are standardized
- Long time working but recently not satisfied in the relationship with A
- Customers feel not satisfied in business relationship with A
- Customers do not trust in A, no commitment for future shipment
- Policy constraint is not a big deal compared to feeling bad in business relationship
with A
- Multiple strong competitors with good service
- Customers do want to establish long-term relationship with suppliers who have
not only good quality but also great support
On the other hand, while other potential problems present as external factors which
means the scope for dealing can involve in many sides such as competitors, government,
customers, the poor customer relationship quality with the fact that customers have not
trusted, satisfied and no commitment when working with A can be dealt in the control of A
internally. Therefore, this problem should be primarily focused on due to its scope of
dealing as well as feasibility for A to solve the current situation.
4.2 Problem definition
According to Barac et al. (1), “relationship quality” that from buyer’s viewpoint is
defined as the level of contentment of buyers in the relationship with the seller at a specific
time. Smith (2) viewed relationship quality as a tool to assess how strong the company
relationships with its customers are and the level of meeting customers’ requirements and
expectations (p.78). Levitt (3) stated relationship quality as “a bundle of intangible value
that augments products or services and results in an expected interchange between buyer

20. -20-
and seller”. In the research of Garbarino and Johnson (4), relationship quality is the
combined measurement of trust, satisfaction and commitment of customers to a specific
organization that they work with. The three dimensions play a vital part in reflecting a
quality, long-term customer-supplier relationship, which both sides mutually benefit.
4.3 Problem existence
From the interview, customers show their little satisfaction and trust in A’s working
style, therefore they are not sure to cooperate on future shipments. Customers also shared
that Vietnam natural rubber market becomes more competitive nowadays when not only
the parent company members but also private companies who are enhancing their
competitive advantages by offering good quality and great support present as a good choice
of supplier to customers. For example, some private companies such as Viet Phu Thinh,
Van Xuan, Mai Thao, Thang Thang Loi… currently well serve customers. On the other
hand, when being interviewed, A’s employees thought those troubles are not their mistakes
so these are not prioritized as their current tasks. That’s the reason why in some cases,
customers may not happy with the way A support them.
To conclude, customers are not satisfied and A’s employees seem not appreciated the
relationship with LTC customers by choosing to complete their existing tasks first while
customers really need their support at that time. Besides, the market becomes more
dynamic so customers tend to strictly evaluate which supplier is worth to be cooperated.
Therefore, it can be drawn that A has something wrong with its business relationship with
customers that causes to A’s current symptom of long-term contract below the target.
4.4 Problem importance
According to Vesel and Zabkar as cited by Giovanis et al. (5), a company that
possesses a high level of relationship quality means that it forms great trust, satisfaction
and commitment from its partners. Besides, Mitrega (6) suggested the strong connection
between customer relationship quality and company performance. Specifically, the
customer relationships quality positively influences to the profitability of company.
Reflecting on the real case, it can be seen that A’s LTC below the target causes the
company’s COGS/revenue increases over the 3 recent years which signals A’s poor
performance in these years. The previous year’s inventory due to unable to attract
customers to sign LTC leads to high COGS of the company in the next year. This means

21. -21-
that the profitability has negatively been affected. On the other hand, several researches
also presented the vital link between customer relationship quality in business context and
increased sales (6), future repurchase and customer loyalty (7,8). Therefore, it can be
concluded that relationship quality plays an important role to the development of any
business. A company with high-quality relationships with customers may gain strong
competitive advantages compared to others. Otherwise, it’s really hard to attract customers
to work with in the long run.
5 Possible Causes
Related to the above problem, some scholar literatures have discussed about potential
causes leading to poor customer relationship quality as below:
5.1 Poor service quality
As analyzed by Crosby et al. (8), service quality is an essential condition for the
quality of relationships at business-to-business market. According to Gronroos (7), service
quality is measured based on what customers expected and what customers received from
company’s actual performance. As emphasized by Pepur et al (9), a company can well
perform business relationships by demonstrating great service quality with its partners.
Accordingly, if a company suffers from poor relationship quality, the cause may originate
from its poor service quality that makes customers not satisfied during working time,
leading to not commit for future cooperation as the case of A.
5.2 Poor company’s reputation
As researched by Barac et al. (1), the relationship quality of a company is
demonstrated through customers’ trust, satisfaction and commitment to that company, in
which the three above measurements “should be treated as interrelated rather than separate
variables because it is hard for customers to make fine distinctions between these
conceptually distinct dimensions” in the discussion of Wulf and Thurau as cited by
Giovanis et al. (5). The impact of one factor has direct link to the other two factors. On the
other hand, Donney and Cannon (10) also pointed out a buying firm can gain trust from a
supplier who has great reputation in the market. Therefore, in the case that a corporate
supplier is not well-known in the market, customers may not trust for a business transaction
with them (neither satisfaction nor commitment as the theory indicated above), leading the

22. -22-
relationship between the supplier and customers do not grow well as the case of company
A.
5.3 Not long enough relationship
Donney and Cannon (10) also revealed that besides supplier’s reputation, the length
of relationship between supplier-buyer is also an important factor affecting to the
relationship between supplier and customers. Accordingly, a supplier may have customers’
trust when they have worked with the customers during long period. The length of
relationship forms the basis for both partners to get closer and work better. Otherwise, a
short period of working may prevent customers from trusting their suppliers, producing not
close business relationship and so affecting to supplier’s performance.
To sum up, based on scholar researches, three potential causes which can lead to the
poor relationship quality of A are due to A’s poor service quality, A’s poor reputation and
not long enough relationship between seller-buyer. The third interview will deeply check
whether A makes mistakes from these above-mentioned causes or can generate other
possible causes.
Table 6: Participants in the third interview in April 2019
6 Cause Validation
Interview findings
To existing customers
Long working time
From the interview, three existing customers including Good year, Tong Teik and
Sintex shared that they have been working with A for so long, nearly 10 years or more.

23. -23-
Vietnam natural rubber market has been dominated by the parent company – the one has
long history and stably offers large volume. As shared from the interview, besides the
parent company, there are also private companies doing rubber business in Vietnam.
However, they recently started their business and so not a good partner to these existing
customers due to new company profile.
Good reputation in Vietnam market
As a state-owned group, the parent company possess large rubber areas throughout
the country which allows to offer large volume for LTC customers. the parent company
also manage professional process from the rubber cultivation to possessing and producing
final products to meet required high standards, so the products have satisfied customers and
gain fine reputation in the market. Therefore, the parent company – the largest natural
rubber supplier in Vietnam earn good reputation to customers.
Employees are unsupportive when troubles happen
Three existing customers explained quite same reasons why they have adjusted their
purchasing volume from A, which have been caused by dissatisfaction in A’s support.
Besides high-quality products, the service quality during the process of selling and buying
goods is also important, which helps the shipment become smooth and the two parties’
relationship turns closer. However, as honestly shared from the interview, A did not take
great care to its service, specifically the company did not well support customers when
troubles happen. This leads customers to incur much costs and difficulties several times.
Customers share that previously, when Vietnam rubber market was mostly dominated by
the parent company, customers buying products did not have much choice. However,
nowadays, when the market becomes more competitive, both quality and service have
become determining factors for buyers to evaluate which supplier can be chosen to
cooperate.
To potential customers
Appreciate the parent company’s brand
Topship and Namazie shared that they recognize the parent company is a large player
in Vietnam rubber market. The group has lots of the parent company members whose
products are well known for high quality. Therefore, they plan to purchase sample products

24. -24-
from A to test whether A meets their expectation. When sample shipments satisfy what
they expect, they will ask for signing LTC with A.
Underestimate A’s service
However, Topship and Namazie shared that they are not happy when working with A.
They did not receive much support from A when having troubles. When sample shipments
struggle with trouble at destination, A did not help although they can still help customers to
deal with (it does not matter that the mistakes are caused by A or the customers). In such
cases, customers expect to be supported as soon as possible to limit extra costs. However,
A let them wait too long to have their support. Both potential customers told that they may
not sign LTC with A because they cannot trust A’s service, especially when trouble
happens like the sample shipments. Specifically, Namazie shared that “Considering A as a
subsidiary of a good reputation group in Vietnam, we decided to cooperate with A by
trying the first sample shipment. I can feel that when the shipment is delivered, A’s
employees feel they already complete their works. Due to first cooperation, two sides have
no experience about the way of working from each side. So, my employees send lack of
information for A to prepare documents. When the shipment reaches destination, we realize
that the mistake appears and contact A for helping. However, it’s really difficult for us
because A said that that’s our fault. Despite that’s our fault, A can help and that may take
only little time of A. If some troubles continue to happen in the future, where do we have
help from? A is unsupportive so we do not want to sign LTC with A.”
To current employees
The next interview was conducted between Head of Import-Export Department and
Document staff to clarify the case. As sharing in the interview, Ms. TNT told that “It’s very
regret that customers may leave us despite long time of working. But as a the parent
company member, we think we are a reliable supplier with high quality product and we did
not make mistakes in these cases”. She continued to share her viewpoint that “With
troubles happen, I advise employees to help them as soon as possible. That’s not their
faults so I cannot complain my employees. In some cases, I can see that after completing
their current tasks, they help customers to deal with already. According to Ms. KN and Ms.
LA, because customers send wrong information and that’s their faults. Moreover, as a
document staff, she prioritizes deadlines of current shipments. If she helps these mistakes
Tải bản FULL (55 trang): https://bit.ly/3FUl2e7
Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net

25. -25-
from customers’ side, it may take time and she may not complete her jobs, affecting to her
performance. Therefore, she can only help them to deal with trouble when she already
completed her current tasks. “In my opinion, due to not my faults, I prioritize doing current
tasks to meet deadline. Otherwise, it will affect my performance. Then, I will help
customers for their troubles”
6.1.1 Main cause
From the three interviews with existing customers, potential customers and current
employees in charge of documentation, it is noted that the customers having troubles with
shipments ask for A’s support. Instead of providing prompt service to help customers deal
with their problems, A’s employees prioritize their existing tasks, which is more important
to them and directly affects to their performance measurement, to catch up with deadlines
and let them wait for quite long. Consequently, customers feel not satisfied and after
several times like that, they are not willing to work with A anymore, causing A’s poor
performance in LTC. While A still embraces fine reputation as a subsidiary as well as has
long working time with customers, the company’s service is quite bad. Therefore, the main
cause is identified as poor service quality.
6.1.2 Main cause definition
According to Heskett et al., as researched by Ho et al. (11) service quality plays a
vital role in company success in which “a comprehensive understanding of its antecedents
and outcomes may help firms satisfy their customers and improve their business
performance and profitability”. From the research of Gounaris (12), to measure service
quality in business-to-business (B2B) market, INDSERV scale is suggested to examine
whether a company is well operating its service at four dimensions: potential quality, hard
process quality, soft process quality and output quality. Specifically, potential quality is
defined as the criteria from which customers can expect the firm to present before they
decide to cooperate with the firm. While hard quality evaluates the process of delivering
the service and consider whether that process conveniently offers solution needed for
problem, soft process quality measures the interaction between the two companies’
employees for the process to smoothly present. The soft-process quality especially
employees’ personality is one of important factors in INDSERV scale as discussed by
Gounaris (12) reflecting service quality of a company from buying organization’s
Tải bản FULL (55 trang): https://bit.ly/3FUl2e7
Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net

26. -26-
viewpoint. Output quality measures what level the buying organization satisfies about the
service (both hard process and soft process). Therefore, the fourth interview is deeply
conducted to identify whether what A’s service has struggled with belongs to the above
measurement scale or any other dimensions.
Table 7: Participants in the fourth interview in April 2019
Findings from the interview
Customers’ complaints about not having prompt help when needed
From the interview, customers did not hesitate to share that they feel A is so strict
with the concept of “right and wrong” and ignore their needs at those tough times. The
evidence is that employees did not really listen to their problem and provide suitable
solutions, also failed to offer pleasant personality. These were cases where customers did
wrong and despite long working time together, customers had to suffer A’s poor service
quite long. A more competitive market is really coming soon, so customers nowadays have
more choices. They wish nice support so much besides the product quality. “We expect A’s
employees are sympathetic with our case. Trouble is the one that nobody likes. We highly
appreciate companies whose employees listen to our problems and eager to help as we
suggest. With the fact that the help does not take them long time, if they are happy to help,
we are more satisfied and we think our relationship with compnay will sustain and more
develop in the long run” – Good year representative shared.
Employees’ most care is about their responsibility to solve the problem
The employees who were interviewed answer that because that’s not their faults, they
put most care on getting their current tasks done first. They opined that they work for
6676482