Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Services innovation impact to customer satisfaction and customer

value enhancement in airport*
James K.C. Chen*, Amrita Batchuluun, Javkhuu Batnasan
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Public transportation service is a crucial issue in every country; especially air transportation. It requires
Received 1 January 2015 convenient, fast, comfortable, and reliable service from air companies. This research paper aims to create
Received in revised form an evaluation model for service innovation impact, customer satisfaction and customer value
15 May 2015
enhancement in an airport. This paper uses means-end theory to investigate service innovation factors
Accepted 19 May 2015
and examines influence to the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer value. 300
Available online 2 July 2015
samples of data were collected through online survey and questionnaire within two months periods. The
result shows that customer value was influenced by customer satisfaction and service innovation. This
Keywords:
Customer satisfaction (CS)
study conducted analysis on innovative services such as self-check-in kiosk, X-ray, social media
Customer value (CV) communication, and micro-hotels in an airport. Result indicates all four services revealed a positive
Airport service moderation effect. The security check was the most important evaluation factor in an airport service.
Service innovation (SI) © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Air transport plays an important role in moving people and/or
the transportation of products from one location to another,
whether domestic or international travel. Additionally, air trans-
port can be crucial when the origin and final destination are
separated by difficult landscape. A country's economy gains large
amount of incomparable benefits from airport industry. The airport
and air transport promote an improved quality of life and help
improve living standards. The most important contribution of the
air transport industry is its impact on business growth in the global
and national economy.
The worldwide market for airport services exceeded $102 billion
in 2012, as recorded 3% annual growth during four preceding years
according to market line reports. Market volume increases almost
2% over the same four-year period. Entry and exit costs are high in
this market, and at the national level, only a few large companies
dominate and concentrate to the airport industry. According to the
* customer value?
The authors thank the peer-reviewers, Arch G. Woodside, Boston College, and
two Technology in Society reviewers, for their valuable comments of an early
version of this manuscript.
* Corresponding author. Department of Business Administration, Asia University,
Taichung 41354, Taiwan.
E-mail addresses: kcchen@asia.edu.tw (J.K.C. Chen), amrita_mn@yahoo.com
(A. Batchuluun), javhuu@gmail.com (J. Batnasan).
Xerfi report, the United States of America leads the global airport
industry with the highest number of airports. Most airports in the
world are located in European countries, North America and Asia
[7]. According to the World Factbook [8], there are a total of 43,794
airports in the world. The top 10 airports by passenger volume are
stated in Table 1:
The air transport industry efficiently improves the economic
activity of other businesses that enables a catalyst for world trade;
positively influencing domestic and international tourism, and
contributes to global productivity. Moreover, it increases the effi-
ciency of the supply chain, facilitates access to international and
domestic markets and investments, and stimulates innovation by
providing consumer welfare benefits.
Many scholars highlight customer value and its management,
which is the next source of competitive advantage for modern
companies [1e3]. In accordance to, this paper focuses on the
following research questions (1) what are the most influential
factors to gain customer satisfaction? (2) what is the relationship
between customer satisfaction and customer value? (3) what is the
moderating effect of service innovation impact to enhance
Highlighting the customer perception in the airport industry
provides competitive advantages for airports to increase service
innovation. Zeithaml [4] stated that the means-end model and
synthesis of evidence examine consumer perceptions of price
quality and value. This paper uses means-end theory to investigate

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.010
0160-791X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
220 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
Table 1
TOP 10 airport by passenger volume.
Airports Passengers
1. Atlanta (ATL) 95,672,104
2. Beijing (PEK) 81,908,740
3. London (LHR) 70,051,902
4. Tokyo (HND) 67,824,747
5. Chicago (ORD) 67,124,607
6. Los Angeles (LAX) 63,849,335
7. Paris (GDG) 61,478,475
8. Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 58,887,570
9. Dubai (DXB) 58,392.171
10. Jakarta (CGK) 57,839,056
Source: The World Factbook [8].
suitable products and services innovation to achieve the customer
satisfaction and customer value at the airport. According to the
definition given by Van Der Haart, Kemp, & Omta [5], the customer
value concept assesses the value of a product or service, which is
offered to a customer while taking its tangible and intangible fea-
tures into account. Every airport management requires under-
standing the nature of customer satisfaction and customer value to
improve the quality of service at the airports, which as “what is
received and what is sacrificed by a customer” [6].
A survey-based quantitative research method was used to
collect data. A total of 300 passengers were involved in the survey,
who received served in different airports. This study explores the
relationship between certain factors (airport accessibility, the se-
curity check and terminal facilities), customer satisfaction and the
effect or influence of moderating variable, service innovation, on
the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer
value. The structural equation model (SEM) was employed to
analyze relationships between variables and examine the hypoth-
esis testing.
This article has the following structure. Section 2 provides the
theoretical background for support of this research. Section 3 de-
scribes the research method and process. Section 4 presents data
analysis and discussion. Section 5 concludes and offers recom-
mendations for future research.
2. Theoretical background
Scholars dig deeper into the essence of customer-focus, so that
the obvious questions have emerged as follows: What do we need
to address to increase the number of customers at the airport [7]?
and, How can we win customers in the competitive business
environment [3]? These questions lead to discussion, which results
in the concepts of customer satisfaction and value. Yet, its versa-
tility and diverse interpretations to this day remains a relatively
fragmented topic in management and marketing literatures of
airport services. An airport must increase its customers' trust
through a few distinctive issues, which are airport accessibility, the
security check, and terminal facilities both for arrival and departure
terminals that reflect customer satisfaction and customer value
[10e13]. Moreover, investigation effects of service innovation
concerning suitable products/services at the airport is useful for
customer experience. It is based on a key paper “innovation as the
core competency of a service organization [13]”. These innovation
events include services of self-check-in kiosk, X-ray, social media
communication, and micro-hotels.
2.1. Airport accessibility
Accessibility refers to the ease of reaching goods, services,
activities and destinations, which together are called opportunities.
Opportunities can be defined as the potential for interaction and
exchange. Accessibility can be defined in terms of potential or in
terms of activity (opportunities that are reached). Even people who
don't currently use a particular form of access to the airport may
value having it available for possible future use (called option
value). Access is the goal of the most transport activities, except the
small portion of travel for which mobility is an end in itself (e.g.,
jogging, cruising, leisure train rides). Airport accessibility (AA) in
this paper will be discussed as how passengers rate the ease of
leaving a terminal and dropping off passengers in front of a ter-
minal; overall parking; the direction of traffic flow on airport
grounds and the attractiveness of airport grounds [9].
Airport terminals sometimes have difficult or complicated ac-
cess by public transit, particularly for people carrying heavy loads,
people with children, or even people with disabilities. Also, it is
often difficult to obtain accurate information on alternative modes
for access. However, different countries have different regulations
on transport accessibility. Some countries have their own regula-
tions or norms to encourage disabled people to access particular
destinations easily. Due to this difference, accessibility of the
building by disabled travelers varies.
Airport accessibility can include phone numbers, e-addresses,
bus service, inter-terminal buses, car rentals/courtesy vehicles,
taxicabs/shuttle services, airport parking, elevators in terminals so
on. Within the airport itself, disabled travelers should have ease of
access between check-in counters, the security check points and
the boarding terminals. This is usually accommodated through lift
and ramp access.
2.2. Security check
Gkritza et al. [10] point out that an airport security check (SC)
refers to techniques and methods used in protecting passengers,
staff and the aircraft from accidental or malicious harm, crime and
other threats. Every day, large numbers of people pass through
airports that may cause them to be potential targets for terrorism
and other forms of crime just because of the number of people
gathered in a particular location. Similarly, the high concentration
of people in a large airline may cause a potential high death rate
because of attacks on the aircraft, and/or hijack of an airplane. A
lethal weapon may provide the means for terrorism, regardless of
whether or not they succeed, due to the documentation of their
high profile following various attacks and attempts around the
globe. Airport security can be evaluated by passengers and how
they rate the amount of time required for a security check, the
professionalism of a security staff, and confidence in the security
process to make the passengers feel safe.
Airport security attempts to prevent any threats or potential
dangers from arising or entering the country through the airport. If
airport security screening is high, then chances of any dangerous
situations, illegal items or threats entering into an aircraft, an
airport and country are greatly reduced. Therefore, airport security
serves several purposes: to protect the airport and country from
any threatening events, and to reassure the safety of all traveling
people.
Despite these fact, passengers may still find it hard to accept
delays at the airport security screening checkpoints. There still
remains a clear correlation between customer satisfaction, wait
times and perceived quality in security [10]. Passenger satisfaction
reports were reviewed to identify the crucial issues that passengers
consider when determining whether their service experience by
the airport was satisfactory. The sources of passenger satisfaction
data are airline and airport passenger opinions based on the World
Airport Awards and the North America Airport Satisfaction Study.
“Queues at curbside, check in, and security” are common issues that
 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
had a positive or negative effect from a number of passengers on
their airport experience.
Airport check-in uses service counters at commercial airports
for air travel. The check-in is normally handled by an airline com-
pany or a handling agent working on behalf of an airline company.
Passengers usually first hand over baggage that they do not wish or
are not allowed to carry on an aircraft's cabin and then receive a
boarding pass before they can proceed to board their aircraft.
Check-in is usually the first procedure for a passenger when
arriving at an airport, as airline regulations require passengers to
check-in by certain times prior to the departure of a flight. The time
between check-in and departure spans from 40 min to 4 h,
depending on the destination and the airline. During this process,
the passenger can request seating preference, inquire about flight
or destination information, make changes to their reservations,
accumulate frequent flyer program miles, or pay for upgrades [11].
2.3. Services innovation
There are several definitions for the concept of service innova-
tion (SI) and all of them relate to performance improvement and
capacity strengthening of the firm to compete with other firms. In
many cases, provision of service can be more valuable to the
company than the selling products since products tend to become
commodities at a faster pace [12,13]. Service innovation means
something new and beneficial for targeted groups [14,15] that
create values for current and future customers [16]. The concept
can encompass a variety of areas and different levels of interactivity
in the development of the whole service process [17]. Conse-
quently, to be considered successful in service innovation, all
engaged parties must be efficient, since bottlenecks or barriers in
certain areas of the process can undermine the effectiveness of the
service innovation. Studies related to service innovation were un-
dertaken by Refs. [18], embedding various ways of looking at ser-
vice innovation, such as procedures to manage service innovation
[19], processes for implementing service innovation [20] and
user-involvement in innovating services [21].
Customer orientation is a strategy directly related to the concept
of level of service (LOS) at the airport [22]. Although the use of the
concept is established in the private sector, the researcher believes,
it is necessary that state-owned airports also use it since their
mission is to serve the population well. Customer-focused com-
panies are always looking to create a continuous flow of customer
value [23], without disregarding the user's perspective [24], a
framework that is equally relevant to state-owned airports. There is
service innovation events in the airport as follows:
2.3.1. Kiosk
The adoption of self-service is gaining importance for two main
reasons, which are to increase efficiency and to reduce costs and
labor. Self-service puts control into the hands of customers. It has
been observed that customers are more open to experiment with
kiosks [24,25]. Other industries such as retail, finance, hotels are
considering use self-service kiosks. Even libraries use self-service
technologies to loan books. Customers are ready to handle bigger
transactions with kiosks, thus many self-service models have been
tested [25].
There is a new technology called self-service technology (SST). A
self-service technology is an object which allows customers to
interact with self-service software (SSS). Such kiosks can be found
in various locations, and they typically employ software in a hard,
protective case. A self-service kiosk (SSK) is also a computer placed
at a table or desk in an accessible area for customers to use. Self-
service access that is internet-based must meet specific re-
quirements of information technology as well as the general
221
requirements of the access system architecture. The integration of
different functions, such as electronic payment, digital signature
can enable electronic transactions that allow “one-stop-services or
non-stop-services”.
When consumers used a self-service transaction process [26],
they felt spontaneous and enjoyed being spontaneous. However,
for other consumers, the service technology transfer process
brought their anxiety and doubts; so that consumers consider the
emotional cost of new technologies, and whether it is worthwhile
or not [27]. There are many studies of self-service technology [24],
which mostly focused on the self-service technology attributes of
the service quality performance, the impact of service providers,
and the impact factors of the performance of self-service technol-
ogies (SSTs).
2.3.2. X-ray
X-ray scanners take time, as they need to set up the passenger in
an appropriate position, capture the image, have the image read by
remote security personnel, and then relay results back to personnel
at the security checkpoint. For any given individual, this does not
take long time, but in major airports during peak travel times, it
could lead to major delays. Many airports have already found their
security checkpoints overwhelmed with a concern that additional
delays could increase pressure on security personnel and make
them less effective. Backscatter X-rays used in security checkpoints
are much weaker than medical x-rays. These rays don't go through
flesh and bones. Instead, they penetrate clothing and about an inch
into the body, where the body tissues scatter and ricochet the rays
back toward the sensor.
2.3.3. Use of social media by airports
Airports are increasingly embracing social media as a means of
communication [28] and there are now numerous examples of
airports offering the opportunity to ‘Like’ them on Facebook,
‘Follow’ them on Twitter and ‘View’ videos and photos about them
on YouTube and Flickr. In recent years, a number of airports have
broaden the use of social media. And yet, it still appears to be biased
towards larger airports and airports that are located in North
America or Europe [30]. There may also be differences according to
the way in which an airport is owned and operated because the use
of social media is to some extent a reflection and a driver of the
business transformation [29].
Social media can be defined as “the group of Internet-based
applications that build on the ideological and technological foun-
dations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of
user-generated content” [29,31]. During the last decade, the growth
of social media usage has been remarkable. According to the
respective sites, the number of users in 2013 exceeded 800 million
on Facebook, 200 million on Twitter and 100 million on LinkedIn.
YouTube has 490 million unique users worldwide per month with
about 92 billion page views each month.
Most social media applications are traditionally designed for,
and used by, friends or people with mutual interests, as a means of
connecting, communicating and interacting with each other [32].
However, an increasing number of businesses have a social media
presence, offering direct links from their corporate websites, and
use it to promote their brands and support the creation of brand
communities [31]. Worldwide expenditure of businesses on online
social network advertising, including building and maintaining a
social media presence, is estimated to have reached US$6 billion in
2011. This includes general social networking sites where social
networking is the primary activity. Facebook alone have attracted
US$4 billion [33].
Academic literature increasingly calls for a need to investigate
how best to manage the social media mix and whether it provides a
222 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
return on investment [34]. There have also been a number of high
profile examples of misuse by businesses and/or their employees.
For instance, Belkin was caught offering money to anybody who
posted a 100% positive review of their products on Amazon. Hon-
da's manager of product planning was caught secretly posting
positive reviews about one of their new cars on Facebook stating
that he would “get this car in a heartbeat”.
2.3.4. Airport micro hotels
Airports are no place to sleep, as any weary traveler who has
tried to grab a few minutes shut eye during a layover can attest [35].
However, it may be changing, thanks to a new breed of short-stay,
pay by the hour micro-hotels popping up in airport terminals
around the world. Based loosely on the concept of the Japanese
“capsule hotel,” these cabins and boxes allow sleepy travelers to
seal themselves off from the surrounding commotion for a 30 min
power nap or a solid night's sleep without having to leave the
terminal for a hotel. Some even contain toilets and showers.
Moreover, they are spreading beyond the airport terminal. Yotel,
which operates short-stay “cabins” in airports in London and
Amsterdam, has also opened a hotel in Manhattan based on a
similar concept, while Sleep-box, which has a demonstration
model in Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, will open 60 of its units
in downtown Moscow in a matter of weeks. Here are five of the best
micro-hotels proving that size is not everything.
(a) Yotel
Yotel has operated its pod hotels in London's Heathrow and
Gatwick airports since 2007 and in Amsterdam's Schiphol since
2008. Yotel also operates a hotel based on a similar concept in New
York City, with 669 slightly larger rooms. Yotel marketing director
Jo Berrington said the airport cabins had very high occupancy rates,
and the company planned to roll out its operations in other airports
soon [35].
(b) Napcabs
Napcabs are 4-square-meter, self-service booths operating in
Terminal two of Munich Airport. Six cabins are currently in oper-
ation, with plans to add more in the coming months. They contain a
bed, desk, air conditioning, internet access and a TV program [35].
(c) Sleep-box
The cozy, 4-square-meter sleepbox contains a maximum of
three bunk beds, bedside tables, electrical outlets, and reading
lamps and can be equipped with a television and alarm clock. A
model Sleepbox was installed in the Aeroexpress terminal of
Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport in August, and will be put into
commercial use in coming weeks when 60 are installed for use in
downtown Moscow. The Sleepbox's designers envisage the units
will also be used in train stations, shopping malls and exhibition
centers [35].
(d) Minute suites
Minute Suites provides private rest spaces for travelers to relax,
nap or work inside the security areas at two U.S. airports. Atlanta's
HartsfieldeJackson International Airport has hosted the micro-
rooms since late 2009. Philadelphia International Airport also
installed 13 suites in 2011.
(e) Snooze cube
Situated in Terminal One of the Dubai International Airport,
snooze cube offers compact and soundproof rooms complete with
bed, touch screen TV and internet access. All snooze cubes are
connected to the airport's flight information system to ensure that
passengers do not miss their flights [35].
2.4. Customer satisfaction
In many cases, satisfaction is known to be a great value in un-
derstanding customer's perception and evaluation [36]. Many
scholars try to make definition and theoretical framework about
how services should be performed and how to delivery service
quality to improve customer satisfaction (36e40). Customer satis-
faction (CS) is customer's feeling on received products and services
[36,40]. This feeling can be a reaction to an immediate use situation
or an overall reaction to a series of use situation experience.
Satisfaction is strictly tied to the customer's perception or product
performance. Next, perceived product (or service) performance is
compared with a standard representing the service performance
that the customer expected [39].
It is said that “The expectancy disconfirmation with perfor-
mance (EDP) framework [36] is one of the most common theories
of consumer satisfaction”. A basic assumption is that satisfaction or
dissatisfaction results from a comparison of expectations with
actual performance. The disconfirmation effect, which is separated
to the effect of expectations and performance, has been described
as the subjective difference between expectation and performance.
Confirmed or disconfirmed expectations affect whether one feels
satisfied or dissatisfied with the service and implies an evaluation
of better or worse than expected. Thus, satisfaction often starts
with the expectations a person has. Expectations seem to be based
on and influenced by personal needs, word-of-mouth communi-
cation, and past experiences [36,39,40].
The comparison of perceived performance can be compare with
the comparison of the standard result in disconfirmation, or the
difference between what was expected and what was received [37].
It means that an area immediately surrounding the comparison
standard is labeled the “zone of indifference”. This zone indicates
that, the customer's perspective, there may be some latitude within
which product or service performance may vary but will still be
evaluated as “meeting expectations”.
2.5. Customer value
Value to the seller is realized when a transaction is finalized, i.e.
value equals the money paid for the product. This is well-reflected
in Porter's definitions of value: “In competitive terms, value is the
amount buyers are willing to pay for what a firm provides them”
[38]. Value in management literature can, on a general level, be
divided into three categories: shareholder value, stakeholder value
and customer value. From these values, customer value has been
argued and shown to be the fundamental source of the other two
value forms [41e43]. Even though maximizing shareholder value
has been the axiom of financial economists as the basis for success,
the fundamental value is created in the relationship to the
customer. In the end, shareholder value is derived from profitable
customer relationships [12], not from the stock market.
Customer value success is a concept of continuing interest in the
academic world and a plethora of research, which has emerged
highlighting its importance in driving success as well as its rela-
tionship to other central concepts, such as customer satisfaction,
loyalty and retention [46]. Currently, there is no widely accepted
way of pulling the diverse views together and build a solid ground
to further develop the research upon [44,45]. The use of the concept
of value across different fields further complicates finding a
 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
consistent definition “value as a concept is used in e.g. finance,
management, economics, ethics, justice, aesthetics and marketing,
and further within marketing in connection to pricing, CRM and
consumer behavior” [46]. Ulaga [47] aptly stated “The fundamental
question of how to conceptualize value still merits further inves-
tigation”. A further issue that may complicate the discussion of
customer value is when the concepts “value” and “values” become
mixed. To start off, the researcher will define the concept of
“values” and clearly differentiate it from our notion of “value”.
2.5.1. Scholarly concepts of customer value
Customer value (CV) are identified by some central, generally
agreed characteristics surrounding value need to be clarified. Value
agreed in management literature [3,4,44,46,48,49] is as follows:
* Subjective: Customer value cannot be determined in one exact
figure or amount, since “beauty is always in the eyes if the
beholder.”
* Customer focused: Customer value is determined by the cus-
tomer's perception in the market place, not by the supplier's
assumptions in the factory.
* Evolving over time: The customer's perception of value may
change over time both in terms of the value elements included
as well as in terms of the relative value given to different
elements.
* Contextual: Customer value is linked to the use of some product,
service or solution.
There are two contrasting scholar's opinionsethe view that
defines value as consisting of what the recipient receives, and the
view that sees value as a trade-off between what is received and
what is given up. What the customer receives (e.g. cost savings) are
the named benefits, and what the customer gives up (e.g. price)
sacrificed. Even though these scholars continue to debate over
what the definition of customer value should be, they discuss in
essence, two completely different things.
Customer value, as perceived by academic thought, can be
described as “the value a product offers to a customer, taking all its
tangible and intangible features into account” [50]. The scholar's
defines “value as whatever the consumer wants in a product” with
value being built from all the benefits the product can contribute to
a specific customer [45]. This sort of value is also called “utility
value” by some researchers. Value, as a sum of benefits, is also
widely named “customer desired value”. Customer desired value
focuses on what the customer wants to have from a product or
service offering in a specific use situation in order to achieve the
customer's desired goals [50]. As customer desired value seeks to
explain the customer's needs, wants and desires in an offering [51],
researcher have used means-end theory as the theoretical back-
ground for interpreting customer value [52]. Means-end theory
seeks to explain how the customer attempts to achieve the desired
end-state or goal (end) by choosing products or services (means)
that enable achieving this [4,46,52]. The theory assumes that the
customer behaves rationally and strives to minimize undesirable
consequences and maximize desirable outcome [51].
The second major academic thought chooses to include the
sacrifice side of the interchange between customer and supplier, i.e.
the time and effort needed to purchase and use the product, pur-
chase price, etc. Rust and Oliver [6] explained the idea in a simple
way as “value integrated with received and sacrificed to customer
perceived value”. This view of value is called “customer perceived
value” i.e. the perception of net value achieved considering all
relevant benefits and sacrifices involved in purchasing and using
the offering [2,51].
223
In general, customer perceived value consists of two di-
mensions: product oriented perceived value and relationship-
oriented perceived value. Product oriented value, which is charac-
teristic of the goods-dominant logic (GDL), limits the value trade-
off to the transaction. Product oriented perceived value may thus
be the difference between perceived quality and price, but may also
be extended to include the difference between intrinsic indicators
inherent to the product itself. Relationship-oriented perceived
value broadens the scope to service-dominant logic (SDL) to
include the relationship, the process and the risk components of
the offering [51]. According to Ravald and Gro € nroos [53] these
components become more important the longer the customer
supplier relationship endures, and must be included in the evalu-
ation of the transaction as benefits and sacrifices of preserving the
relationship.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research framework and hypotheses
Based on literature review, the conceptual framework (Fig. 1)
below is constructed as follows: (1) dependent variables are
customer value (CV) and customer satisfaction (CS); (2) moderating
variables is service innovation (SI); and (3) independent variables
are airport accessibility (AA), the security check (SC) and terminal
facilities (TF), to test significance of relationships among their
theoretical statements in airport passengers.
Based on this theoretical framework and the purpose of this
study, five hypotheses are developed to answer research questions.
The hypotheses are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Research design
In accordance with the developed hypothesis the questionnaire
constructed by referring to the previous research which focused on
customer value through customer satisfaction. The questionnaire's
purpose is to identify factors that influence customer satisfaction
toward the airport. Questionnaire developed with a total of 38
questions, of which 5 questions for airport accessibility as
AA1eAA5, 6 questions for security check SC1eSC5, 9 questions for
terminal facility TF1eTF7, 5 questions for customer satisfaction
CS1-SC5, 8 questions for customer value CV1eCV8, and 5 questions
for service innovation SI1eSI5, respectively as Appendix Table 1. A
pre-test of the questionnaire was done to verify the reliability of the
scale items.
The main study questionnaires were collected. This study used a
quantitative research design to: (1) investigate the most influential
factors in gaining customer satisfaction, (2) investigate the rela-
tionship between customer satisfaction and customer value, and
(3) investigate the effect of service innovation in relationship be-
tween customer satisfaction and customer value. The factors of this
research were airport accessibility, the security check and terminal
facilities.
3.3. Data collection and sampling
The target population of this study were passengers from
various Asian countries. Data was collected through online and
asking respondent questionnaires for two months. A survey was
conducted between 5th October to 2nd December 2013 and the
questionnaires were filled out by respondents. First, the survey was
posted on Google Docs and linked to the researcher's Facebook
pages with a message asking any passenger of an airport in an Asian
country for their cooperation. Second, in order to reach a higher
response rate from participants, the researcher has sent private
224 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230

Service Innovation
Airport (SI)
Accessibility (AA)
H1
H5

H2 Customer Customer Value

Security Check
(SC) Satisfaction (CS) (CV)
H4

H3
Terminal
Facilities (TF)

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 2 reliability. Descriptive statistics are procedures used to summaries

Summary of research hypothesis. large volumes of data. The role of descriptive statistics is to provide
Hypothesis Describe hypothesis the reader with an understanding of what the data looks like by
using a few indicative or typical values. The general objectives of
H1 AA has a statistically significant influence on CS.
H2 SC has a statistically significant influence on CS.
the principle component analysis is to provide simple summaries
H3 TF has a statistically significant influence on CS. about the sample and the observations. Once data was collected, it
H4 CS has a statistically significant influence on CV. was necessary to employ statistical techniques to analyze the
H5 SI has a moderating effect on the relationship between
CS and CV.

Table 4
Rotated component matrix for exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
messages to random active members from the previously
Component
mentioned social networking. We gained of response 323 samples
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
and 23 samples were defused from parent population. The total
useful sample size was 300 passengers. AA 1 .800
AA 2 .822
AA 3 .797
3.4. Pilot test AA 4 .710
AA 5 .775
A pilot test was done to assess the reliability of the attributes, SC 1 .906
and to ensure that the wordings of the questionnaire was clear. SC 2 .903
SC 3 .900
Thirty questionnaires were completed by the passengers in the
SC 4 .898
presence of researcher. The purpose of pilot test questionnaire was SC 5 .901
to determine if the factors that influenced customer satisfaction TF 1 .762
were important. The result of pilot test questionnaire described the TF 2 .781
important factors of customer satisfaction, in general. Based on the TF 3 .742
TF 4 .782
results of Cronbach's alpha and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) TF 5 .760
that has 3 items were deleted from questionnaire. The following TF 6 .782
table represents the deleted questionnaire items and the reasons TF 7 .703
why they were deleted (Table 3). CS 1 .723
CS 2 .814
CS 3 .817
3.5. Data analysis and tools CS 4 .723
CS 5 .731
The method of analysis of the sample was the quantitative SI 1 .687
SI 2 .748
method. This was chosen as the best method in order to draw
SI 3 .726
conclusions utilizing techniques that emphasize validity and SI 4 .646
SI 5 .625
CV 1 .889
Table 3 CV 2 .892
Deleted questionnaire items and reasons. CV 3 .887
CV 4 .892
# Variables Deleted items Reason
CV 5 .883
1 Terminal facilities TF 5 Low itemetotal correlation (.231) CV 6 .891
2 Terminal facilities TF 6 Low itemetotal correlation (.167) CV 7 .896
3 Security check SC 4 Low itemetotal correlation (.432) CV 8 .873
 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230 225

Table 5
Reliability and validity.

Variable Code Communalities EFA loading CFA loading Cronbach's a KMO Variance AVE CR

AA AA1 .65 .80 .68 .84 .82 61.57 .49 .83

AA2 .69 .82 .81
AA3 .65 .80 .67
AA4 .52 .71 .63
AA5 .61 .78 .74
SC SC1 .90 .91 .93 .97 .92 90.30 .52 .84
SC2 .90 .90 .93
SC3 .92 .90 .95
SC4 .91 .90 .94
SC5 .90 .90 .93
TF TF1 .64 .76 .74 .91 .91 63.96 .88 .97
TF2 .69 .78 .78
TF3 .60 .74 .70
TF4 .65 .78 .73
TF5 .63 .76 .76
TF6 .70 .78 .83
TF7 .59 .70 .74
CS CS1 .60 .72 .71 .87 .88 65.67 .58 .91
CS2 .72 .81 .80
CS3 .72 .82 .79
CS4 .64 .72 .75
CS5 .63 .73 .74
SI SI1 .58 .69 .71 .87 .81 59.39 .57 .87
SI2 .64 .75 .69
SI3 .66 .73 .74
SI4 .56 .65 .74
SI5 .56 .63 .69
CV CV1 .85 .89 .90 .97 .95 84.78 .83 .97
CV2 .86 .89 .91
CV3 .85 .89 .91
CV4 .85 .89 .91
CV5 .84 .88 .91
CV6 .85 .89 .91
CV7 .86 .90 .92
CV8 .83 .87 .90
Total 0.91 0.92 72.14

information, as this study is quantitative in nature. Descriptive
analysis adopted the use of statistical software SPSS 20.
4. Data analysis and discussion
4.1. Data analysis
This study collected 323 respondents and there were 300 us-
able, complete questionnaires with an overall response rate of 92%.
The demographic data included information on gender, age, edu-
cation, income, occupation, and nationality. Also, the researchers
asked the respondents their frequency of usage of the airport per
year. The gender for the sample was 148 male (49.3%) and 152 fe-
male (50.7%) respondents. In terms of nationality, the majority of
the respondents were Mongolians (68 ¼ 22.7%), then Taiwanese
(56 ¼ 18.7%), followed by Chinese (44 ¼ 14.7%), Indonesian
Table 6
SEM goodness-of-fit statistics.
(32 ¼ 10.7%), Vietnamese (23 ¼ 7.7%), Japanese (17 ¼ 5.7%), Korean
(14 ¼ 4.7%) and other miscellaneous countries (46 ¼ 15.3%). Most of
the respondents were from Asian countries.
Respondents divided into fours levels of education: under-
graduate or less, graduate, master and doctoral were contributed.
149 of the sample were (49.7%) graduate, 114 of the sample were
(38%) with master's degree, followed by 30 of the sample were
(10%) undergraduate students and other 7 of the sample were
(2.3%) doctoral program respondents.
The data analysis include the determination of descriptive sta-
tistics, frequency distribution analysis, and testing of reliability and
validity. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test
validity and the proposed hypotheses. SEM is particularly appro-
priate for the study of multiple dependent relationships, which is to
investigate in the present research. SEM used to determine if the
estimated population covariance matrix of the proposed model was
consistent with the observed covariance matrix. This research used
a user friendly AMOS statistical package in a SEM software
program.

GOF Index Good fit Acceptable fit Structural model 4.2. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
2
X (chi-square) 770.146
df (degrees of freedom) 540 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is an important tool for re-
X2/df <2 2.0e5.0 1.4262
searchers. It can be useful for refining measures, evaluating
Probability .000 .050 .000
NFI >.90 .85e.90 .917 construct validity, and in some cases testing hypotheses. An
CFI >.90 .85e.90 .973 exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the un-
GFI >.90 .85e.90 .872 dimensionality of all variables under investigation which were
TLI >.90 .85e.90 .971 customer value, airport accessibility, the security check, terminal
RMSEA <.06 .06e.08 .038
facilities, customer satisfaction and service innovation (Table 4).
226 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
However, the result of KaisereMeyereOlkin (KMO) and the Bar-
tlett's Test of Sphericity needs to be considered as satisfactory
before the factor analysis could proceed.
4.3. Reliability and validity
Hair et al. [54] suggest that a reliability test should be performed
before an assessment of its validity. “Reliability is an assessment of
the degree of consistency between multiple measurements of a
variable” [54]. According to Cronbach's Alpha, it is the most
commonly reported estimate of reliability and also, Cronbach's
Alpha values provide evidence for reliability. The reliability of the
construct should be greater than .7. In this study, Cronbach's Alpha
values was .91 which is higher than .7 (Table 5).
4.4. Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is another factor analytic
strategy, and it is used to confirm an expected factor structure
rather than to determine a structure [55]. In a departure from
exploratory factor analysis, the desired factor structure needs to be
explicated in confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor
analysis provides an indication of how well the actual data conform
to the specified factor pattern [55]. Confirmatory factor analysis is a
theory-testing model, as opposed to a theory-generating method,
like exploratory factor analysis. In confirmatory factor analysis, the
researcher begins with a hypothesis prior to the analysis. This
model, or hypothesis, specifies which variables will be correlated
with other variables. The hypothesis is based on a strong theoretical
and/or empirical foundation [56].
4.5. Fit statistics
As stated previously, the fit statistics test how well the
competing models fit the data. Examples of these statistics include
the chi square/degrees of freedom ratio, the Bentler comparative fit
index (CFI) [57], the parsimony ratio, and the goodness-of-fit Index
(GFI) [58]. The good-of-fit index “is a measure of the relative
amount of variances and covariances jointly accounted for by the
model” [58]. The GFI gives an indication of the relative amounts of
the covariances among the latent variables that are accounted for
by the model [59].
4.6. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is a measure
of approximate fit in the population [60]. The RMSEA has a value
close to zero indicating perfect fit with values increasing as the
model fit deteriorates. RMSEA values that are lower than .05 can be
considered as a good fit, with values between .05 and .08 as an
adequate fit, and values between .08 and .10 as a mediocre fit,
whereas values >.10 are not acceptable [61].
4.7. Confirmatory factor analysis in measurement model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine
the relationship between the items and their respective latent
variables using AMOS 20. Relationships between the constructs and
their latent variables were specified in the measurement model.
4.8. Structural model testing
The framework model for this research was tested using AMOS
20. The following table shows of the results of the structural
equation model. The hypothesis (H1~H5) of the proposed model
were tested for the sample. The first-fit index for the structural
model indicated an acceptable fit (x2 ¼ 770.146; df ¼ 540; p-
value ¼ .000; RMSEA ¼ .038; CFI ¼ .973; GFI ¼ .872; TLI ¼ .971)
(Table 6).
Among the five hypothesis proposed, four paths were supported
(airport accessibility to customer satisfaction; security check to
customer satisfaction; customer satisfaction to customer value) and
one paths (terminal facilities to customer satisfaction) was not
supported Fig. 2 and Table 7 present the results of the structural
model test.
4.8.1. Hypothesis 1
Airport accessibility has a statistically significant and positive
influence on customer satisfaction. Based on standardized esti-
mates of .15 and the associated p-value of .02 this hypothesis was
accepted (p < 0.05). It implies that most passengers feel access to
airport is one of the barriers for using the airport. More languages
should be written to direct passengers and give other important
information. Other additional services, like a free shuttle bus or a
shuttle bus timetable should widely and visually publicized.
4.8.2. Hypothesis 2
The security check has a significant influence on customer
satisfaction. Based on the standardized estimates of .45 and the
associated p-value of .000 this hypothesis was accepted (p < 0.001).
Based on hypothesis test, it appears the security check has a posi-
tive and statistically significant influence on customer satisfaction.
Previous studies concluded that security related issues were the
most prioritized issues for passengers and this study was consistent
with these priors studies. It means passengers are willing to be
more patient in order to follow security check procedures and are
more satisfied with an airport that has high security check pro-
cedures. It also was the most influential factor for customer
satisfaction.
4.8.3. Hypothesis 3
Based on standardized estimates of .08 and the associated p-
value of .158 this hypothesis was rejected. Based on the hypothesis
test, it appears that terminal facilities have not a positive influence.
However, the terminal facilities influence on customer satisfaction
was revealed to be insignificant in this study. That means that
customers think terminal facilities have not influenced their satis-
faction because they are indifferent to it as a factor in their travel
purposes. For example, business travelers are too busy to enjoy
other facilities in the airport. It reflects that a terminal facility does
not greatly influence the customer satisfaction.
4.8.4. Hypothesis 4
Value is some combination of what is received and what is
sacrificed. Customer satisfaction has significant influence on
customer value. Based on the standardized estimates of .51 and the
associated p-value of .000, this hypothesis was accepted. Based on
the hypothesis test, it appears that customer satisfaction has a
positive and significant influence on customer value. Based on this
result, we can conclude that the experience obtained after using a
certain airport was valuable for these customers.
4.9. Hypothesis 5 and moderating analysis
In general terms, a moderator is a qualitative or quantitative
variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation
between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or
criterion variable. Based on Baron and Kenny [62] the moderating
effect was tested in this hypothesis. For hypothesis 5, the following
variables were measured for the study. The independent variable is
 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
Fig. 2. Standardized structural model.
customer satisfaction; the moderator variable is service innovation;
and the dependent variable is customer value.
In this study, service innovation as a moderator has a significant
impact between relationship of customer satisfaction and customer
value. All the innovative items have increased the influence of
customer satisfaction on customer value. Table 8 presented the
total effect of service innovation items and this result showed that
these items together have a strong influence on customer value
(.65, p < 0.001). The findings state that service innovation play a
moderating effect on the relationship of customer satisfaction and
customer value, therefore hypothesis 5 was accepted.
4.10. Discussion on the result of the research analysis
This part will explain the result of the research analysis. The
objective of this study was to find the most influential factor in
airport customers' satisfaction. In light of previous literature, the
present study used three items, which were airport accessibility,
the security check, and the terminal facilities to study relationships
between customer satisfaction and finally, its influence on
Table 7
Standardized coefficient with standard errors.
Hypothesis
H1: Airport accessibility / Customer satisfaction
H2: Security check / Customer satisfaction
H3: Terminal facilities / Customer satisfaction
H4: Customer satisfaction / Customer value
H5: SI has moderating effect on between CS & CV
***p < 0.001 **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.
227
customer value. In addition to that, the moderating effect of service
innovation was examined. A total of five hypothesis were devel-
oped and tested using SEM. The results demonstrated as follows:
First, demographic characteristics of respondents were sum-
marized using descriptive statistics, respectively. Majority of the
respondents in this study claimed that they worked in both the
public and private sector. In terms of frequency usage of the airport,
most respondents used airport 1e5 times a year (45%).
Secondly, analysis of the findings reveals that the most influ-
ential factor on airport customer satisfaction was the security check
(b ¼ .45, p < 0.001). Previously, the safety and security dimension of
air travel has the most influential impact on customer satisfaction
over other factors of assurance, convenience, comfort, and meals.
This result was consistent with previous studies [63,64]. It means
passengers are willing to be patient for security related airport
service procedures that have high quality and reliable service,
partly because traveling by air sometimes considered as a life-or-
death experience with many accidents happening at the airport.
Therefore, passengers are more likely to obey security related is-
sues and be satisfied that security means service. The next
Standardized estimate Standard error P
.147 .048 *
.446 .039 ***
.083 .088 .158
.510 .074 ***
.650 .072 ***
228 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
Table 8
Moderating analysis result.
Testing step Path Predictor Moderator
Step 1 a CS No
Step 2 b SI5 No
Step 3 c CS*SI5
***p < 0.001 **p < 0.01 *p < 0.05.
influential factor on customer satisfaction was airport accessibility
(b ¼ .15, p < 0.05). Access was defined as approachability and ease
of reach. Scholars studied overall passenger perceptions of service
quality through seven airport service dimensions (access, services
and facilities, dining, shopping, service personnel, and security, the
environment, and immigration/customs). As a result, the airport
environment was revealed to be the most influential dimension of
airport service quality which was followed by access, dining, and
immigration/customs, which is supported in this study. In a per-
son's day to day life, airport accessibility did not have that much
influence. Thus, it had only moderate significance on customer
satisfaction (.15, p < 0.05). However, airports need to provide an
easy way to understandable direction or signs in different lan-
guages, as well as special transit operations for those who need
special care to increase the satisfaction level. Unlike previous
studies, this study concluded that the terminal facilities have not
influenced customer satisfaction (.083, p > 0.05). Since passengers
do not spend much time at the airport, they do not care much about
its facilities or they just consider terminal facilities a given
expectation.
Third, we examined relationships between customer satisfac-
tion and customer value. Some scholars indicated that airport ser-
vice value resulted after experiencing the actual service by the
airport. Therefore, satisfaction can be a good antecedent to examine
customer value. Based on the hypothesis test, it appears that
customer satisfaction has a positive and statistically significant
influence on customer value (.51, p < 0.001). As soon as customer
satisfaction is enhanced, when customers' value is increased, the
customers' intention is to use it again.
Fourthly, the moderating effect of innovation was examined in
relationships between customer satisfaction and customer value.
We have studied 4 main innovative airport services as moderator
which are the self-check-in kiosk, the X-Ray, social media and micro
hotels. The self-check-in kiosk moderates the relationship between
customer satisfaction and customer value (b ¼ .60, p < 0.001). The
X-ray does exert a moderating effect on the customer satisfaction
and the customer value relationship (b ¼ .62, p < 0.001). Service
innovation (SI3 social media) has an effect on the relationship be-
tween customer satisfaction and customer value (b ¼ .53,
p < 0.001). Micro hotels do exert a moderating effect on the
customer satisfaction and customer value relationship (b ¼ .56,
p < 0.001).
At last, a fifth service innovation moderator (SI5) was analyzed.
This indicates that above all, service innovations do exert a
moderating effect on the customer satisfaction and customer value
relationship (b ¼ .65, p < 0.001). Like the above four moderators,
analysis of this item also resulted as statistically significant at all
three steps. In the questionnaire, SI5 was asking about all of those
innovate services enhancing customer value, so in the end result,
we can say that all these 4 kinds service innovation, entirely
moderate the relationship between customer satisfaction (CS) and
customer value (CV).
In summary, all those moderators revealed as significant influ-
ence and increased the direct relationship between customer
satisfaction and customer value. The findings indicated that these
Outcome Std b Geographical display
:51
CV .51*** CSƒ!CV
:25
CV .25*** SI5ƒ!CV
:65
CV .65*** Mod5ƒ!CV
service innovation in the airport are prerequisite for service
providers.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Research result
This study explores factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis,
and structural equation modeling to examine the hypothesis.
Chronbach's alpha was .906 which means that the data had strong
internal consistency. Measurement validity was made upon
exploratory factor analysis and some items were deleted upon its
consistency and factor loading, while consistent factors were
retained in order to run the next statistics analysis. The confirma-
tory factor analysis was applied by the AMOS 20 version, showing
that the outcomes of the CFA do not differ from the EFA. Thus, the
study moved on to the next convergent validity test. The value of
each latent variable ranged from .83 to .97, indicated a strong
composite reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) value of
each latent variable ranged from .49 to .88, demonstrating strong
convergent validity. Discriminate validity of the variables ranged
from .96 to 4.01. The results for all the criteria were valid.
Before the hypotheses testing, the researcher checked the model
fit indexes. For this step, all the fit indexes for the structural model
indicated an acceptable fit (x2 ¼ 770,146; df ¼ 540; p-value ¼ .000;
RMSEA ¼ .038; CFI ¼ .973; GFI ¼ .872; TLI ¼ .971; NFI ¼ .917). The
data indicated that the researcher could move on to the last anal-
ysis. Based on the result of structural equation modeling, the pro-
posed hypotheses were analyzed. The result of hypotheses tests
were shown in Table 7.
5.2. Research finding
Analysis of the findings reveals that the most influential factor
on airport customer satisfaction was the security check. This result
was consistent with previous studies [10]. It means that passengers
are willing to be patient for security related airport service pro-
cedures and expect it to provide more reliability and quality for
their safety. The result similar Handberg [65] point out creating
transportation infrastructure is very important issues in state
spaceport. The next influential factor on customer satisfaction was
airport accessibility. As a result, the airport environment was
revealed to be the most influential dimension of airport service
quality, which was followed by access, dining and immigration/
customs, which was supported in this study. Unlike with previous
studies, this study found that terminal facilities did not influence
customer satisfaction. In addition, the present study found there is
a strong positive relation between customer satisfaction and
customer value. The customers who benefit or receive an advantage
from the airport services tend to value the airport.
Lastly, the moderating effect of innovation was examined in the
relationships between customer satisfaction and customer value.
We studied 4 main innovative airport services as moderators which
were the self-check-in kiosk, the X-Ray, social media and micro
hotels. All those moderators were revealed as significant and
 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
increased the direct relationship between customer satisfaction
and customer value.
5.3. Practical implication
Based on the above findings and results, managers need to be
concerned about the following issues: First, the research proves
that the security check is the strongest significant factor influencing
customer satisfaction. It implies that airports should be concerned
in the development and the process of enhancing the security
check to increase customer satisfaction. The more they are satisfied,
the more they value the airports.
Secondly, the influence of airport accessibility was significant on
customer satisfaction. Therefore, ease of reach to the airport, such
as convenient transit service at the airport, frequent transportation
service, or sufficient parking etc., is the next issue that airports
should consistently enhance for airport customer satisfaction.
Thirdly, passengers just consider terminal facilities as a basic
requirement and it no longer influences passengers. Although, it
does not mean to decrease or assume less importance in consid-
eration of the physical facilities of the airport, such as the internal
organization, seating and heating comfort, availability of banking
services, as well as facilities for the disabled and children. Airports
should make their policies and activities pleasing in the terminal
facilities.
Fourthly, some researchers indicated that airport service value is
a result after the experience of the actual service. Therefore, satis-
faction can be a good antecedent in examining customer value.
From the findings of this research, it appears customer satisfaction
has a positive and significant influence on customer value. As soon
as customer satisfaction is enhanced, an airport customers' value
has increased and it causes the customers to use it again. Hence,
managers of airports should be concerned about increasing sales
per customer by retaining customers longer and keeping flexibility
in the cost to serve.
Lastly, according to the findings of this research, service inno-
vation plays a great role into the value for the customer. Hence,
this study suggests that airports should pay more attention and
invest in their improvement and development for service
innovations.
5.4. Originality/value
Despite numerous studies about airport service, this study has
some significance. Many researchers have used different factors to
measure airport service. In this study, the researcher used the most
important factors to evaluate airport service which are airport
accessibility, the security check, and terminal facilities. Moreover,
the moderating effect of service innovation has been revealed in
this study. The airport is one of the places where technology
advancement is employed as a main necessity. We used the self-
check-in kiosk, the X-ray, social media communication, and
micro-hotels as the innovative items at the airport. In the result, all
four innovation items revealed positive moderation effects. The
respondents viewed the security check as the most important
factor in airport service which produced the most satisfied cus-
tomers while airport accessibility was ranked as the second most
important factor. Moreover, customer satisfaction has influenced
the customer value which means more satisfied customers can
view the airport as a valuable place to use again.
This study creates an evaluation model for evaluating customer
satisfaction and customer value which can be helpful for future
researchers, the airport management team, and airport passengers.
229
5.5. Suggestions and recommendations
There are some suggestions for future researchers. First, in this
study, we used the following independent variables (accessibility,
the terminal facility, and the security check) which are from
SERVQUAL dimensions and the wording has been modified to be
more appropriate for the airport service industry. Future re-
searchers may wish to use other questionnaire items from other
alternatives.
Secondly, the researchers understand the culture and regulation
difference in different countries, which is limitation of the paper.
Thus future researchers may wish to study (a) involving a suffi-
ciently large sample size for entire industry, or (b) including specific
target groups by geographic location or culture difference factors.
Finally, this research study used closed-ended questions to
examine the factors that influenced customer satisfaction, and the
relationships among the variables. Future researchers may wish to
use other methods for collecting data, such as interviews and open-
ended questions to have more extensive understanding. Further
studies could be carried out to develop and validate the models by
adding external constructs within a more specific context.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.010.
References
[1] H.E. Butz, L.D. Goodstein, Measuring customer value: gaining the strategic
advantage, Organ. Dyn. 24 (3) (1996) 63e77.
[2] S.F. Gardial, R.B. Woodruff, Know Your Customer: New Approaches to
Customer Value and Satisfaction, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, 1996.
[3] F. Huber, A. Herrmann, R.E. Morgan, Gaining competitive advantage through
customer value oriented management, J. Consum. Mark. 18 (1) (2001) 41e53.
[4] V.A. Zeithaml, Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence, J. Mark. 52 (2) (1988) 2e22.
[5] J.W. Van Der Haart, R.G. Kemp, O. Omta, Creating value that cannot be copied,
Ind. Mark. Manag. 30 (8) (2001) 627e636.
[6] R.T. Rust, R.L. Oliver, Service quality: insights and managerial implications
from the frontier, J. Mark. Manag. 20 (7,8) (1994) 897e917.
[7] Airport Industry, Market Research Reports, Statistics and Analysis, 2013.
http://www.reportlinker.com/ci02329/Airport.html.
[8] The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/xx.htm, 2013.
[9] A. Parasuraman, Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through
customer value, Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (2) (1997) 154e161.
[10] K.D. Gkritza, F.L. Niemeier, Mannering airport security screening and changing
passenger satisfaction, J. Air Transp. Manag. 12 (5) (2006) 213e219.
[11] S. Solak, J.P. Clarke, E. Johnson, Airport terminal capacity planning, Transp.
Res. Part B 43 (6) (2009) 659e676.
[12] C. Gronroos, Service Management and Marketing: a Customer Relationship
Management Approach, second ed., Wiley, London, UK, 2000.
[13] J. Kandampully, Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation:
the role of technology, knowledge, and networks, Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 5 (1)
(2002) 18e26.
[14] R.M. Grant, The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications
for strategic formation, Calif. Manag. Rev. 33 (2) (1991) 114e135.
[15] D. Flint, J.E. Larsson, B. Gammelgaard, J.T. Mentzer, Logistics innovation: a
customer value-oriented social process, J. Bus. Logist. 26 (1) (2005) 113e147.
[16] K. Mo €ller, R. Rajala, M. Westerlund, Service innovation myopia, Calif. Manag.
Rev. 50 (3) (2008) 31e48.
[17] I. Alam, An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service
development, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30 (3) (2002) 250e261.
[18] H. Dreoge, D. Hildebrand, M.A. Heras Forcada, Innovation in services: present
findings and future pathways, J. Serv. Manag. 20 (2) (2009) 131e155.
[19] J. Sundho, Management of innovation in services, Serv. Ind. J. 17 (3) (1997)
432e455.
[20] S. Thomke, R&D comes to services: Bank of America's pathbreaking experi-
ments, Harv. Bus. Rev. 81 (4) (2003) 70e79.
[21] P. Magnusson, J. Matthing, P. Kristensson, Managing user involvement in
service innovation, J. Serv. Res. 6 (2) (2003) 111e124.
[22] J.C. Narver, S.F. Slater, The effect of a market orientation on business profit-
ability, J. Mark. 54 (4) (1990) 20e35.
230 J.K.C. Chen et al. / Technology in Society 43 (2015) 219e230
[23] R. Deshpande, J.U. Farley, F.E. Webster, Corporate culture customer orienta-
tion and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis, J. Mark. 57 (1)
(1993) 23e37.
[24] S. Murphy, Kiosk 411. Chain Store Age, 2007.
[25] E. Maras, Self-serve Kiosk Addres a Changing Customer, Automatic
Merchandiser, 2006.
[26] F. Bodendorf, Self-service e-transactions for citizens concept and case study,
in: IEEE Computer Society, Third International Conference on Digital Society,
2009.
[27] J. Bennett, Opportunities Emerge for Self-service in Retail and Hospitality,
White Paper, published by NetWorld Alliance and sponsored by NCR Inc,
2009.
[28] J. Twentyman, Twitter time, Airpt. World 14 (1) (2010) 34e36.
[29] ACI-Europe, Airports 2.0: How European Airports Are Embracing Social Media,
ACI-Europe, Brussels, 2011.
[30] Airgate solutions, Lists and Polls, 2012. http://airgatesolutions.com.
[31] A.M. Kaplan, M. Haenlein, Users of the world unite! The challenges and op-
portunities of social media, Bus. Horiz. 53 (1) (2010) 59e68.
[32] T. Correa, A.W. Hinsley, H.G. DeZuniga, Who interacts on the web? The
intersection of users' personality and social media use, Comput. Hum. Behav.
26 (2) (2010) 247e253.
[33] D. Williamson, Worldwide Social Network Ad Spending: 2011 outlook, e-
Marketer, NY, 2011.
[34] B.D. Weinberg, E. Pehlivan, Social spending: managing the social mix, Bus.
Horiz. 54 (3) (2011) 275e282.
[35] T. Hume, E. Macguire, Airports' Tiniest Hotels: Sleeping in a Box, CNN News,
2013. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/travel/airport-microhotels/.
[36] R. Oliver, Satisfaction: a behavioural perspective on the consumer, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, 1997.
[37] R.B. Woodruff, S.F. Gardial, Know Your Customer: New Approach to Under-
standing Value and Satisfaction, USA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc, 1996.
[38] M. Porter, Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior perfor-
mance, in: M.E. Porter (Ed.), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance, Free Press, New York, 1985, p. 38.
[39] R. Hallowell, The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty,
and profitability: an empirical study, Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 7 (4) (1996)
27e42.
[40] E.W. Anderson, M.W. Sullivan, The antecedents and consequences of
customer satisfaction for firms, Mark. Sci. 12 (2) (1993) 125e143.
[41] M. Treacy, F. Wiersima, The Discipline of Market Leaders, Harper Collins,
London, 1995.
[42] K.N. Lemon, R.T. Rust, V.A. Ziethaml, What drives customer equity? Mark.
Manag. 10 (1) (2001) 20e25.
[43] J.L. Heskett, W.E. Sasser, L.A. Schlesinger, The Service Profit Chain: How
Leading Companies Link Profit to Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Value, Free Press,
New York, NY, 1997.
[44] Y. Wang, H.P. Lo, R. Chi, Y. Yang, An integrated framework for customer value
and customer-relationship-management performance: a customer-based
perspective from China, Manag. Serv. Qual. 14 (2/3) (2004) 169e182.
[45] R. Sanchez-Ferna ndez, A.M. Iniesta-Bonillo, Consumer perception of value:
literature review and a new conceptual framework, J. Consum. Satisf.
Dissatisfaction Complain. Behav. 19 (1) (2006) 40e59.
[46] A.S. Khalifa, Customer value: a review of recent literature and an integrative
configuration, Manag. Decis. 42 (5/6) (2004) 645e667.
[47] W. Ulaga, Customer value in business markets, Ind. Mark. Manag. 30 (4)
(2001) 315e319.
[48] J.C. Anderson, J.A. Narus, Business marketing: understand what customers
value, Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 (NoveDec.) (1998) 53e65.
[49] R.B. Woodruff, Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage,
Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (2) (1997) 139e153.
[50] R.B. Woodruff, D.J. Flint, The initiators of changes in customer's desired value:
results from a theory building study, Ind. Mark. Manag. 30 (4) (2001)
321e337.
[51] A. Graf, P. Maas, Customer value from a customer perspective: a compre-
hensive review, J. für Betr. 58 (1) (2008) 1e20.
[52] J. Gutman, Means-end chains as goal hierarchies, Psychol. Mark. 14 (6) (1997)
45e60.
[53] A. Ravald, C. Gro €nroos, The value concept and relationship marketing, Eur. J.
Mark. 30 (2) (1996) 19e33.
[54] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, Multivariate Data Analysis,
seventh ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ, 2010.
[55] R.F. DeVellis, Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA, 1991.
[56] J. Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, third ed.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.
[57] P.M. Bentler, Comparative fit indices in structural models, Psychol. Bull. 107
(2) (1990) 238e246.
[58] K.G. Joreskog, D. Sorbom, Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by
Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables, and Least Squares, fourth ed.,
University of Uppsula Department of Statistics, Uppsula, Sweden, 1986.
[59] J.E. Mathieu, S.I. Tannenbaum, E. Salas, Influences of individuals and situa-
tional characteristics on measures of training effectiveness, Acad. Manag. J. 35
(4) (1992) 828e847.
[60] K. Schermelleh-Engel, H. Moosbrugger, H. Muller, Evaluating the fit of struc-
tural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures, Methods Psychol. Res. Online 5 (2) (2003) 23e74.
[61] M.W. Browne, R. Cudeck, Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in:
K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, New-
bury Park, CA, 1993.
[62] R.M. Baron, D.A. Kenny, The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations,
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6) (1986) 1173e1182.
[63] M.D. Clemes, C. Gan, T.H. Kao, M. Choong, An empirical analysis of customer
satisfaction in international air, Innov. Mark. 4 (2) (2008) 49e62.
[64] J. Swartz, Security systems for a mobile world, Technol. Soc. 25 (1) (2003)
5e25.
[65] R. Handberg, Creating transportation infrastructure through state spaceport
initiatives: Florida and other exles, Technol. Soc. 24 (3) (2002) 225e241.