| Course | BUS 530 Marketing Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Customer research report |
| Length | About 1,013 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 530 Module 3
What Facility Managers Actually Buy: Voice of the Customer Research for a Commercial Floor Scrubber Maker
Student Name
MBA Program, Aspen University
BUS 530: Marketing Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
What Facility Managers Actually Buy: Voice of the Customer Research for a Commercial Floor Scrubber Maker
Buckeye Floorcare, a composite manufacturer in Ohio, makes ride-on and walk-behind floor scrubbers used to clean schools, hospitals, warehouses and stores. Independent tests show its machines clean as well as or better than those of its largest rival, and its prices are similar. Yet over the past two years Buckeye lost seven of twelve large bids, mostly to that rival. Its sales team believed buyers chose on brand familiarity. The marketing director suspected the company did not understand what buyers were really purchasing. This paper reports the research Buckeye conducted to find out.
The Business Question
The research was designed to answer one question: what do the people who choose commercial floor scrubbers value most, and how does Buckeye compare with its main rival on those things? The answer would guide decisions about product features, service and the sales message for the next two years.
Research Design
The study used two stages. The first was qualitative, intended to discover needs in customers' own words. The second was quantitative, intended to measure how important each need was and how well Buckeye performed compared with its rival. Griffin and Hauser (1993) found, in their study of customer needs for a product category, that interviews with 20 to 30 customers identified roughly 90% or more of the needs eventually found, and that one-on-one interviews were about as effective as focus groups at lower cost. They also showed that customers' statements could be sorted into a hierarchy, from a few broad primary needs to many specific tertiary needs. Buckeye followed that approach.
Stage One: Interviews
The marketing team interviewed 24 facility managers and cleaning supervisors, eight each from schools, hospitals and warehouses, chosen from both Buckeye customers and buyers who had chosen the rival. Each interview lasted about 45 minutes and began with open questions about a typical cleaning shift and the last time a machine caused a problem. Interviewers avoided naming brands until the end. Transcripts produced 112 need statements, which two team members independently grouped and then reconciled.
Three primary needs emerged. Facility managers wanted floors cleaned reliably every shift, staff who could use machines without damage or injury, and low total hassle over the machine's life. Under the second need, the most frequent statements concerned high turnover among cleaning staff: managers described training new operators every few months and blamed broken squeegees and drained batteries on inexperience. Under the third, managers described waiting a week or more for parts and losing a machine during inspections.
Stage Two: Survey
The team then surveyed buyers drawn from a facility managers' trade association list. Of 620 invitations, 186 buyers responded, a 30% response rate. The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of eight needs from the interviews on a scale of 1 to 7, and to rate Buckeye and its rival on each need if they had experience with the brand.
| Need | Importance, 1 to 7 | Buckeye performance | Rival performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Floors clean after one pass | 6.1 | 6.2 | 5.8 |
| Machine available every shift | 6.6 | 5.1 | 5.9 |
| Easy for new operators to learn | 6.4 | 4.6 | 5.7 |
| Training provided by the supplier | 6.0 | 3.9 | 5.6 |
| Parts within 48 hours | 5.9 | 4.4 | 5.5 |
| Low purchase price | 5.2 | 5.0 | 4.9 |
| Low water and chemical use | 4.8 | 5.6 | 5.0 |
| Quiet operation for daytime cleaning | 4.5 | 5.4 | 4.8 |
What the Findings Mean
The table shows that Buckeye leads where buyers care least and trails where they care most. Cleaning results, water use and noise, the attributes Buckeye's engineers had optimized, ranked below uptime, ease of learning and supplier training. The rival's advantage lay in its service network and its practice of sending a trainer to every new site, not in the machines.
The pattern fits the distinction Woodruff (1997) drew between the attributes a product has and the consequences customers experience in using it; Buckeye had perfected attributes while buyers judged consequences. The central insight can be stated in one sentence: facility managers are not buying a cleaning machine but a dependable cleaning shift performed by inexperienced staff. This explains the lost bids better than brand familiarity.
Differences Among Facility Types
The averages hide differences worth acting on. Hospital buyers rated parts availability highest of any group, because infection control rules leave no room for a floor that goes uncleaned for a shift. School buyers gave the highest importance to ease of learning, reflecting summer crews of temporary workers. Warehouse buyers cared more about battery life and run time on large floors than the other groups. These differences suggest that the sales message, though built on the same insight, should emphasize different proof for each type of facility.
Research Quality
Malhotra (2019) emphasizes that research quality depends on the sampling frame, nonresponse and measurement. The trade association list underrepresents small buyers, so findings apply mainly to larger facilities. A 30% response rate leaves room for nonresponse bias; respondents may be more engaged with equipment decisions than others. Performance ratings came only from buyers with brand experience, so Buckeye's ratings rest on fewer responses than the rival's. Interview questions were reviewed in advance to remove leading wording, and needs were coded by two people to reduce individual bias. Even allowing for these limits, interviews and survey pointed the same way.
What Buckeye Changed
Buckeye made four changes. It created a free operator training program delivered on site within a week of each delivery, with short video refreshers for new staff. It redesigned the control panel of its best-selling model with a simplified mode for new operators. It promised replacement parts within 48 hours through two regional warehouses. And it retrained its sales team to lead with uptime and training rather than cleaning test results.
Conclusion
Buckeye's machines were never the problem. Research that began with customers' working day, and measured what they valued, revealed that buyers were purchasing reliable shifts with inexperienced staff, and that the rival met that need better. The research turned a vague belief about brand into specific changes in training, design, parts and selling.
References
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.1.1
Malhotra, N. K. (2019). Marketing research: An applied orientation (7th ed.). Pearson.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894350
Reading the BUS 530 Module 3 assignment instructions
Aspen's catalog says BUS 530 is about knowing and satisfying target customers better than competitors do, so a customer insight module usually asks students to plan or report research that reveals what customers value. Follow the Module 3 prompt in your classroom; this example presents a research design and its findings. State the business decision the research must inform. Choose methods suited to the question, typically qualitative work to discover needs and quantitative work to measure them. Describe samples, instruments and how data were analyzed. Report findings with numbers and examples. Discuss limitations and possible bias honestly. Translate findings into insight, a statement of what customers value that the company did not know, and then into specific marketing decisions.
How this BUS 530 Module 3 example is built
The paper begins with Buckeye Floorcare's problem: its scrubbers won performance tests but lost seven of the last twelve large bids. Griffin and Hauser's Marketing Science article supports interviewing about 20 to 30 customers to capture most needs. Twenty-four interviews with facility managers produced 112 need statements, grouped into primary, secondary and tertiary needs. A survey of 186 buyers from a trade association list rated eight needs for importance and rated Buckeye and its main rival on each. An importance-performance table shows Buckeye ahead on cleaning results and behind on operator training, uptime guarantees and parts availability. Malhotra's guidance on sampling, nonresponse and question design frames a section on research quality. The conclusion describes a training program, a 48-hour uptime promise and a new sales pitch.
BUS 530 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Research reports in an MBA marketing course are marked on the fit between question and method, the rigor of sampling and measurement, the clarity of findings and the quality of the insight drawn from them. This example states its business question first and chooses interviews to discover needs and a survey to measure them, explaining why each fits. Sample sizes are justified with Griffin and Hauser's findings and reported with response rates. The importance-performance table lets a grader see exactly how the conclusions were reached. Malhotra's Marketing Research text supports the quality checks on sampling frames, nonresponse and leading questions. The insight is stated in one sentence and connected to specific decisions about service and selling, which shows that research served management rather than standing alone.
BUS 530 Module 3 help from the desk
The most common weakness in Module 3 is research that does not connect to a decision. Start with the question management must answer and design backward from it. Another is a survey written before the researcher understands customers' language; interviews first usually produce better questions. Give the invitation count beside the completed count, and think about who stayed silent. Avoid leading questions that suggest the desired answer. Present findings with numbers, but also explain what they mean. Distinguish findings, which describe the data, from insight, which explains something new about customers. Keep limitations honest and specific. Finally, show how the research changes what the company will do, since findings that change nothing suggest the wrong question was asked.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BUS 530 and MBA sample papers
- BUS 530 Module 1: Value Creation
- BUS 530 Module 2: Situation Analysis
- BUS 530 Module 4: Segmentation and Positioning
- BUS 530 Module 5: Product and Brand Strategy
- BUS 530 Module 6: Pricing and Channel Strategy
- BUS 530 Module 7: Communication and Metrics
- BUS 530 Module 8: The Marketing Plan
- BUS 550 Module 6: Capital Budgeting
- BUS 540 Module 1: Economics and Decisions
- BUS 551 Module 8: International Corporate Finance
- BUS 532 Module 1: Marketing in Health Care
BUS 530 Module 3 questions, answered
What does BUS 530 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 530 covers customer insight and research in this module, so planning or reporting research that reveals what customers value and how it should shape marketing is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is voice of the customer research?
A method of interviewing customers in depth to capture their needs in their own words, then organizing those needs into a hierarchy to guide product and service decisions.
How many customer interviews are enough?
Griffin and Hauser found that interviews with about 20 to 30 customers in a segment identified roughly 90% or more of the needs that larger samples would reveal.
Where can I find a free BUS 530 Module 3 sample paper?
The complete report is shown above: voice of the customer interviews and a buyer survey for a floor scrubber maker, with an importance-performance table and the changes that followed.
What is an importance-performance analysis?
A comparison of how much customers value each attribute and how well a company performs on it, showing where improvement matters most.