Core service

When sorting the data it was revealed several different factors that could be sorted into Core service, which can be described as a dimension encompassing many different factors all related to the actual service that is purchased. The most substantial reported factors represent the actual service ‘deliveries’ that the consumer has bought, and the consultant’s

‘competence’. ‘Creativity’, ‘sustainability’, and ‘costs’ are other factors reported in relation with the core dimension.

4.2.1.1 Factors of core service Reliable deliveries and solutions.

More than half of the interviewees mentioned several value adding factors regarding the actual deliveries from the service exchange process. This can be exemplified through these three examples:

– If you know that the consulting engineer are good at coming up with good solutions that actually benefits the contractor, the developer and the environment. Then we might choose him, because we know that he will deliver better solutions. Cheaper solutions, so it might be that those 30 – 40 thousand in honorarium in the one direction or another does not matter (K2-3a).

– That the consultants are delivering according to a high professional level. That is absolutely the most valuable (K3-1d).

– Receive a good product, to the right time. Where you don’t need to take several rounds in order to get it approved (K9-5a).

There were five customers reporting elements that can be described as non value-adding in terms of potential negative overproduction and sales efforts of services and deliveries the customer might see as an obvious and do not feel is necessarily. All these elements was

reported on the question 1c), asking specifically of factors that were non-value adding. This element can be exemplified by:

– Not more drawings and projecting then necessarily. Sometimes it may be drawn and project engineered more than necessarily. It is seldom, but we have experienced getting drawings, as the consultants believe we need, which there is no need for.

Things that just are getting solved at the construction site. Things that is obvious for us, as a contractor. But the consultant thinks we are in the need of the drawings, without having asked us. It is quite a few things the contractor can tell, know and solves best, at the site without any need of drawings from the consultant (K1-1c).

Creativity.

Factors representing the ‘creativity’ were reported by seven of the interviewees, one time each, and can be exemplified by the following two examples, where the first is indicating added value in terms of creative solutions, and the other as an interest to work with new things:

– (…) Creative solutions that can give added value, by giving me a cheaper execution (K1-1b).

– It is always exciting with projects that are a bit new, and not the same as you had the last 20 years. More challenging, and more satisfactory (K4i-5a).

Sustainability.

One of the consultants and one of the customers drew attention to the sustainability of the solutions as value adding factors:

– Feel that it is quality in the solution, and that a change will give at least one foot-print benefit (K13-2).

Competence.

The factor headline of competence was reported several times by eleven of the interviewees, can largely be divided in to encompassing elements of regarding the consultant’s experience or the consultant’s competence or the consultant’s access to knowledge. Examples on these three groups are exemplified respectively here:

– Use the broad experience, and the experience from the company (R1-5).

– We need consultants with a high core competence, because we are generalists (K6-1a).

– A broad interdisciplinary spectre. So we can use one provider for all the services (K13-1d).

Three of the interviewed customers enlighten an issue they perceive as negatively value adding, in terms of the use of less experienced, often newly hired consultants. Leading to a situation where the customer perceive he receives a product during the service exchange process that is on a lower level of what they would expect from the expected consultant. This can be further explained through the following two examples:

– When really good things are presented at the offering, and with all kind of respect, we might receive one of the newly hired, there is nothing wrong with that. In situations where the consultant is young and promising, how much help and support is he

receiving throughout the process, of the overall competence in the company? The question is how much follow-up they get in order to deliver a good product to us. That varies from company to company (K3-5a).

– We are contacting the consultant we know from before, and it have happened that he is accepting projects even when he actually have got no time for it. (…) It is the same consultant that is our contact, but we can see that someone else does the work. And sometimes I’ve got the impression that it can be used younger, less experienced consultants. Where we don’t get delivered exactly the material we expected. That has happened, a few times (K1-3b).

Cost.

The different elements on a project’s price and cost efficiency fitted neat and clearly in to the factor, and were reported as value adding factors by seven customers and seven consultants.

– Identification of the best economic solutions, as well as the correct technical solution (K1-1a).

– Accomplish things according to budgets and time. That is the success criteria (K11-1d).

But there was also findings in this material indicating that price of a project and the consultant’s services is less important than the actual delivered project and its progress, as these two examples serve to explain:

– A good project at the description we have given. Not necessarily at the price asked, the price does not matter so much. The most important is that the project becomes what we imagined (K8-3a).

– (And quality and progress.) Progress more than price actually (K9-1d).

4.2.1.2 Discussion of core service.

The findings on the core factors of ‘deliveries’ and ‘competence’ are in line with the earlier literature’s strong focus on core and technical parts of the business-to-business professional

2009 customer survey pointing out ‘reliable deliveries’ as a main evaluation criterion. Also the assumption of the core service being a premise, was confirmed in the data material:

– Top quality, is most likely a premise. And I believe we should deliver that (R5-1a).

In terms of the service delivery there was also a few reports on consumers perceiving

overproduction of deliveries, which could lead to a negative perception of value, but as all of these relatively few reports came from the same question, it is likely not to be a central part of the ‘delivery’. A few of the customers reported negatively value coming from the use of inexperienced consultants. This further proofs the importance of value adding the

‘competence’-factor.

There were five customers reporting elements that can be described as non value-adding in terms of potential negative overproduction and sales efforts of services and deliveries the customer might see as an obvious and do not feel is necessarily. All these elements was reported on the question 1c), asking specifically of factors that were non-value adding. This factor can be exemplified by:

The findings on factors of ‘competence’ are indicating the same importance as the factors on ‘deliveries’. ‘Competence’ including ‘experience’ can be a way to for customers to differentiate service providers since it is a relatively tangible factor that the customer is likely to notice. On the other hand experience are found to have no moderating effect on perceived performance (La et al., 2008). But still the selection seems to place ‘experience’ as a value-adding factor. The importance of ‘competence’ is also supported by the reports form the customer survey from 2009 where level of knowledge is pointed out as one of the most important evaluation factors.

Innovation and creativity have been emphasised in the literature by La et al. (2008) and Patterson and Spreng (1997), and about 65 % of the customers in the 2009 survey, did state that creativity was an important factor. On the other hand the relatively weak findings from the interviews with the few factors fitted into ‘creativity’, might indicate that the

selection include elements of creativity and innovation as a part of the delivered solution, and not as an independent factor.

Costs and economical efficiency in the projects is pointed out by many of the

interviewees, where they would perceive an added value if the projects met or under met the budget. But the overall findings indicate that price and costs of the projects are of less

importance than the delivered service, which is supporting the implication from the literature

that the value delivered from professional services can give much more value than the cost of the service exchange (Lapierre, 1997).

The dimensions of core service, with a highlight on the factors of ‘deliveries’ and

‘competence’ points out to be clearly value adding for the selection, and these factors may also be perceived as necessities, in the way that they work as requisites in the branch.

Creativity in the creating good solutions seem to be vale adding, but are likely to be

interrelated to the delivery. Also a less importance of the actual costs are reported, at the same time, as meeting budgets seem to be perceived as value adding. In total the dimension of core service is clearly supported by findings from the selection.