Customer Experience Management in Long Journeys in Residential Construction

Ana Laura Matsumoto Pinheiro; Paulo Kazuhiro Izumi

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602648

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

Customer experience has consolidated itself as a strategic element in markets with prolonged journeys, such as residential construction, where the relationship between client and company extends over long periods and involves multiple touchpoints. The study analyzed how the articulation between operational information and subjective customer perceptions influences experience management throughout the journey. A qualitative approach was adopted, through a single, exploratory-descriptive case study, in a large construction company. 14 in-depth interviews were conducted, 6 with clients and 8 with employees from different areas of the organization, covering diverse client profiles and journey stages. The data were analyzed through thematic content analysis, guided by categories such as touchpoints, emotions, trust, and customer effort. The results showed that the experience is built cumulatively, strongly influenced by the consistency of information, quality of communication, level of interaction, and coordination between internal areas. The main frictions were concentrated in the construction and delivery phases, characterized by informational asymmetries and operational misalignments. It was observed that different client profiles adopted distinct criteria for evaluating the experience. It was concluded that experience management in prolonged journeys depends on the alignment between promise and delivery, transparency in communication, and integration between processes to reduce friction and sustain customer trust over time.

Keywords: Case study; Journey frictions; Organizational integration; Customer perception; Touchpoints.

1. Introduction

Customer experience has been consolidated as a strategic element in contemporary markets, being understood as the result of continuous interactions between consumers and companies across multiple touchpoints. These interactions involve perceptions of a cognitive, emotional, social, and sensory nature, ranging from the pre-purchase to the post-purchase phase (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). Central to this perspective is the customer journey, defined as a sequence of interactions that shape the perception of value and the evaluation of the experience. Organizations can design stimuli to influence consumer responses, recognizing that experience is a subjective, contextual, and dynamic phenomenon, built over time and not restricted to the moment of purchase (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020). This view expands the focus of experience management from punctual events to the continuous coordination of interactions throughout the journey, emphasizing the role of everyday and spontaneous situations in the formation of perceived value (Heinonen et al., 2023).

In the residential construction sector, customer journeys are characterized by their long duration and complexity. The relationship between client and construction company can extend over prolonged periods, from the purchase decision to the property handover and after-sales support. This extended journey involves multiple critical moments and interaction between various areas of the organization, such as marketing, sales, construction, finance, and post-handover. In this context, the customer experience is strongly influenced not only by the final result but also by the management of the entire process, including communication, adherence to deadlines, and consistency of information, being built from the coherent integration of touchpoints and by the cognitive, emotional, and relational responses built throughout the journey (Gentile et al., 2007).

The nature of financial investment and the waiting time involved in acquiring a property mean that clients demand greater agility, transparency, and clarity in communication throughout the entire process (Poyer, 2023). Customer experience management, therefore, must be understood as a strategic differentiator. Long and complex journeys, such as those observed in civil engineering services, require integration between marketing, operations, and customer service to avoid loss of trust and relationship breakdown (Ardigó et al., 2022). The technical complexity of the product and the client’s high emotional and financial involvement make the journey more susceptible to communication failures. Customer experience is built cumulatively over interactions, so that isolated failures at any stage tend to compromise the overall perception of value (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Halvorsrud et al., 2016).

However, such journeys rarely follow the linear flow idealized by companies, as failures, inconsistencies, and gaps at touchpoints can generate frictions that compromise the customer experience (Halvorsrud et al., 2016). In long-duration journeys, the lack of integration between objective data, such as deadlines, deliveries, and communications, and subjective perceptions, such as emotions, trust, and perceived customer effort, tends to produce frictions and informational asymmetries throughout the customer relationship. The perception of experience and value depends not only on the final outcome but also on how interactions are conducted and interpreted throughout the journey, so that delays, inter-departmental noise, and lack of clarity can significantly affect customer trust and Customer Assessment (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Becker and Jaakkola, 2020; Halvorsrud et al., 2016).

Despite the relevance of the topic, there are still gaps in the literature regarding the understanding of how organizations practically articulate objective data and subjective perceptions throughout extensive and complex journeys. Such a gap is particularly evident in the construction industry, where the customer experience develops across multiple interdependent phases. Given this scenario, this study is justified by the need to deepen the understanding of customer experience management in long and complex journeys, contributing to theoretical and practical advancement by analyzing how the articulation between operational information and customers’ subjective perceptions influences experience management throughout the journey. To this end, it is proposed to: (i) map the journey from the perspective of customers and internal organizational areas; (ii) identify communication and procedural frictions throughout the different stages; and (iii) understand the evolution of emotions, trust, and perceived effort over time.

2. Material and Methods

The research adopted a qualitative approach, configured as a single case study, of an exploratory-descriptive nature. The unit of analysis was a large construction company, named Construtora Beta, operating in the residential civil construction sector.

The choice of the qualitative approach was justified by its ability to investigate perceptions, experiences, and meanings in depth, within their specific context (Creswell, 2014). The single case study allowed for an in-depth analysis of a contemporary phenomenon within its real-world setting, as advocated by Yin (2015).

Construtora Beta was selected for operating long-term customer relationship journeys, with multiple contact points and high operational complexity, characteristics aligned with the phenomenon investigated. Access to the organization facilitated the collection of primary and secondary data, contributing to the analytical depth of the study.

Construtora Beta presents formalized processes, using performance systems and metrics, but also maintains a strong dependence on interpersonal relationships and direct communication with clients. This dual configuration created a conducive environment to analyze the articulation between operational data and subjective perceptions in the customer experience during long journeys.

The study was developed in sequential stages. Firstly, a literature review was conducted on the customer journey and experience, focusing on the particularities of the civil construction sector. Subsequently, the empirical stage was carried out, with the collection of primary data.

Primary data collection was carried out through in-depth semi-structured interviews with clients and collaborators of the organization. Participants were selected by purposive sampling, a practice aligned with the qualitative approach.

The individuals were chosen for their ability to offer relevant and in-depth information about the phenomenon, without the intention of statistical representativeness. We sought to contemplate diverse perspectives and experiences related to the customer journey.

The first group of participants was composed of clients from Construtora Beta. The selection criteria for this group included heterogeneity regarding the stage of the journey (purchase phase, construction phase, post-delivery) and the purpose of the property acquisition (housing or investment).

The second group consisted of collaborators from internal areas of the construction company who interacted directly or indirectly with clients. Areas such as Marketing, Sales, Customer Service Center, Reception, Architecture and Customization, Portfolio, Real Estate Credit, and Technical Assistance were included.

This selection aimed to reconstruct the journey from an organizational perspective and understand each sector’s responsibility for the customer experience. In total, 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, six with customers and eight with employees.

The comparison between the perspectives of customers and collaborators was a central analytical procedure. While customers described their experiences and perceptions, collaborators detailed the logic of internal processes, information flows, and inter-area integration challenges.

Customer interviews were conducted in person at the company’s showroom, considering the stage of the journey and the buyer profile. It is recognized that this method may have favored the participation of more engaged customers, which is a limitation of the study.

The number of interviews was not predefined, but guided by the criterion of theoretical saturation. Saturation was reached when the data revealed recurring interpretive patterns, without the emergence of new relevant analytical categories (Fontanella et al., 2008; Flick, 2009).

The data analysis was performed through thematic content analysis, following the steps of pre-analysis, material exploration, and treatment of results and interpretation, according to Bardin (2011). The interviews were organized and read in full to identify themes.

Subsequently, thematic coding of the material was performed, using predefined analytical categories based on the theoretical framework, including longitudinal journey, frictions, communication, trust, emotions, customer effort, and integration between areas. Emerging themes from participant reports were also considered.

Customer and collaborator interviews were compared to identify convergences and divergences between the perceived experience and the internal management of the journey. The findings were interpreted in light of the Lemon and Verhoef (2016) model.

The Lemon and Verhoef (2016) model served as an analytical framework to organize the journey into pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase phases. To ensure analytical robustness, source triangulation was used, comparing the perceptions of customers and internal areas.

The interview scripts were developed based on key concepts from the literature on customer experience and journey, covering objective dimensions, such as deadlines, processes, and communication, and subjective ones, such as emotions, trust, and effort.

The theoretical foundation included studies by Lemon and Verhoef (2016), Gentile et al. (2007), Carlzon (1987), Halvorsrud et al. (2016), Becker and Jaakkola (2020), and Kalbach (2016), which guided the analytical dimensions and the aspects investigated in each question of the scripts.

The conceptual foundation of the scripts was based on the understanding of the customer experience as a longitudinal process, according to Lemon and Verhoef (2016). This process is formed by multiple touchpoints and cognitive and emotional responses, requiring integrated management between organizational areas.

To guide the analysis, a customer journey mapping was used at Construtora Beta, adapted from the model by Lemon and Verhoef (2016). This mapping served as a basis for understanding the interactions, frictions, and perceptions throughout the different stages of the journey.

The empirical mapping of the journey at Construtora Beta allowed for the identification of contact points, friction points, and organizational, contextual, and subjective influences. The journey was structured into three phases: pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase, adapted to the residential sector.

The experience was analyzed considering company-controlled touchpoints, indirect or external touchpoints, and individual and contextual customer factors. The interview scripts followed the customer journey structure, differentiating the experience perceived by customers and the one managed internally by employees.

The scripts were organized into thematic blocks: journey perception, experience management, and frictions and improvement opportunities, using open-ended questions for qualitative deepening. The researcher, although familiar with the organization, maintained an analytical and reflective stance.

The researcher did not participate in the operational decisions regarding the interviewees. The conduction of semi-structured interviews allowed for flexibility to adjust the script and deepen responses, favoring a detailed understanding of the participants’ experiences.

Ethical considerations were observed, ensuring that participants were informed about the study’s objectives and participated voluntarily, through free and informed consent. Authorization for recording the interviews was obtained, and the anonymity of the participants, as well as the confidentiality of the collected information, were assured.

The study was not submitted to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), according to institutional guidelines, as it did not involve physical, psychological, or social risks to the participants.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the data, based on the theoretical model by Lemon and Verhoef (2016) and the empirical evidence collected, allowed for the construction of an analytical model of the customer journey adapted to the reality of Construtora Beta. This model synthesizes the main touchpoints, identified frictions, and influences that shape the experience throughout the pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase phases. The journey was investigated from the perspective of customers and employees, revealing the complexity of experience management in a sector characterized by long-term relationships and high involvement. The findings were organized into six analytical categories, which will be detailed below, addressing everything from perceived frictions to implications for journey management.

Frictions in the journey

The interviews revealed that the main frictions in the customer journey were concentrated in the construction phase and the final delivery stage of the property. In these moments, the initial, often idealized, expectation clashed with the restrictions and concrete realities of the construction process. This finding aligns with the literature of Halvorsrud, Kvale, and Følstad (2016), which points out that customer journeys rarely follow a linear flow and are often marked by gaps, inconsistencies, and ruptures that impact the perceived experience. The prolonged nature of the journey in civil construction intensifies the perception of these frictions, making them more salient to the customer.

During the construction phase, friction did not arise from major operational failures, but from minor informational inconsistencies that generated anxiety and a sense of uncertainty. The lack of visibility and predictability was a central factor, manifested by infrequent updates of photos on the construction company’s app and the difficulty in tracking the physical progress of the work. Clients such as “Client 1 – resident” expressed frustration with the lack of regular updates, stating: “We check every week, but photos on the website or app are hardly ever updated.” Similarly, “Client 4 – investor” mentioned: “The only thing that could be improved are the updates of construction photos on the website or app, which are sometimes delayed.”

The issue was not just the lack of information, but how the client interpreted that absence, perceiving it as a lack of transparency. The difficulty in obtaining detailed answers about processes such as property customization also contributed to this perception of opacity. This information gap, while not a serious flaw, created additional effort for the client, who had to actively seek information, negatively impacting their perception of security and control over the process.

In the delivery stage, frictions took on a distinct nature, shifting the focus from diffuse anxiety to the objective evaluation of what was actually received. The final inspection, finishes, and technical assistance became critical moments, condensing the accumulated experience. This corroborates the relevance of Carlzon’s (1987) “moments of truth,” where specific stages of the journey acquire disproportionate weight in the overall evaluation. Small problems in delivery or post-delivery, even if isolated, were capable of reducing the final score attributed to the experience, indicating that the customer evaluates the company in an integrated manner.

The “Client 4 – investor” exemplified this perception by reporting: “During the inspection, I found several small details that could have been avoided”. This observation underlines that, in long journeys, the experience is built cumulatively, and failures in later stages can compromise the positive perception built previously. The frictions did not act homogeneously among all clients; for some, they were tolerable difficulties, while for others, they represented points of wear that required greater emotional and cognitive effort, depending on the client’s profile and accumulated trust capital.

Communication and informational asymmetry

Communication emerged as a central element in the construction of the customer experience. The study demonstrated that the experience depends not only on the existence of information, but on how it is distributed, explained, contextualized, and perceived over time. This finding dialogues with the literature on “customer journey” and reinforces the discussion on information asymmetry, especially in a sector of high technical and temporal complexity. Although customers recognize the existence of formal channels, they identified significant limitations in the clarity and detail of the information provided.

A clear example was the lack of detail in customization budgets, as reported by “Client 1 – resident”: “When we ask for changes, the price comes as a package, without itemized details”. This situation shows that the company had objective data, but did not translate it into intelligible and transparent communication for the client. The long journey intensified the informational asymmetry at various moments, from the purchase phase, where many clients did not fully understand the contractual and financing implications, to the final delivery phase.

In the purchase phase, the asymmetry manifested in the difference between what was presented in the decorated unit and what was actually delivered. “Client 1 – resident” observed: “The decorated unit is very different from what is delivered. Mainly flooring, lighting, and finishes. Even if it is written what is not included, it creates an illusion.” This perception of misalignment between promise and reality generated a breakdown of expectations. In the construction phase, the difficulty in translating technical schedules into visible signs of progress contributed to insecurity, as mentioned by “Client 1 – resident”: “Insecurity was in the first year, when nothing changed on the site. There was only the billboard. When the construction started to appear, it gave much more security.”

In the final phase, the complexity of the settlement, financing, notary, and key handover flows intensified the asymmetry. “Client 6 – resident” described: “The hardest part was in the final phase, with registration, notary, and settlement. We lacked some experience to better plan this stage.” This indicates that the problem was not just the lack of information, but the client’s ability to interpret the concrete meaning of this information for their planning and expectations. The journey, therefore, is not just an architecture of “touchpoints”, but also an architecture of intelligibility, and its failure increases anxiety and perceived effort, shifting trust to the company’s prior reputation (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016).

Interviews with the construction company’s internal departments revealed that informational asymmetry was not limited to the company-client relationship, but also occurred among the sectors themselves. A customer service representative mentioned: “Sometimes the client needs information and depends on several departments to respond.” This dependence on multiple departments for a single piece of information highlights the need for constant alignment between sales, customer service, credit, and support. Informational consistency throughout the customer journey, therefore, depends on intense organizational coordination, which reinforces the idea that experience is a systemic process.

Part of the client’s anxiety was generated not only by the long duration of the journey, but also by the organization’s difficulty in transforming sectoral information into a unique and consistent narrative across all touchpoints. Informal communication in the sales phase was identified as a source of misalignment, with “Client 6 – resident” reporting: “The broker said it would be quick, but then we saw that the process is much more time-consuming”. This finding corroborates the presence of information asymmetry (Akerlof, 1970), amplified by the lack of communication standardization and integration between the company’s areas.

Emotions, of confidence and effort

The emotional dimension proved to be a structuring axis of the experience, not a secondary component. The journey was marked by a sequence of emotional states ranging from initial expectation to anxiety during the work, culminating in relief, satisfaction, or frustration upon delivery and post-delivery. This emotional path confirms the arguments of Gentile, Spiller, and Noci (2007), who highlight the continuous articulation of emotional, relational, and cognitive components in the customer experience. The initial expectation was strongly associated with achieving a life project and trust in the brand.

The “Client 3 – investor” described: “The most striking moment was the purchase. An accomplishment”. However, anxiety took center stage in phases where the product was not yet tangible or when external dependencies, such as financing and notary, were beyond the client’s control. “Client 1 – resident” stated: “Anxiety. It is certainly the main feeling”, while “Client 2 – resident” mentioned: “The most predominant feelings were anxiety and security. Anxiety due to the wait and security due to confidence in the construction company.” These emotions are directly linked to the waiting time and the uncertainty inherent in the process.

Confidence, in turn, did not prove to be a fixed element. Although initially anchored in the construction company’s reputation, it was continuously reaffirmed or strained by successive deliveries and minor failures. “Client 2 – resident” expressed: “The construction company already has an established name. This brings security,” indicating robust confidence. However, “Client 6 – investor” revealed that, despite buying again, they would not give a top score: “I don’t give a 10 because of these minor problems at delivery, but I would buy again without a doubt.” This suggests that confidence is a dynamic variable, renegotiated throughout the journey.

The perceived effort by the customer also stood out as a central component of the experience. When the customer needed to insist on obtaining information, interpret complex flows, or actively follow the work to feel secure, the experience became more burdensome. “Customer 1 – resident” exemplified this situation: “It took about a month to return the customization budget.” This additional effort, although not extreme for everyone, was recurrent in situations where the organization implicitly required the customer to compensate for communication gaps with their own initiative, negatively impacting the experience, according to Halvorsrud et al. (2016).

Integration between areas

The analysis of internal interviews revealed that customer experience is, in practice, a systemic organizational construct. No single area was capable of explaining the final experience in isolation; it emerged from the coordination, or lack thereof, between diverse sectors such as marketing, sales, customer service, reception, architecture, portfolio management, real estate credit, and technical assistance. This finding reinforces the study’s central argument that customer experience in long journeys depends on the organization’s ability to produce coherence between promise and delivery over time, highlighting the interdependence between areas.

One of the most relevant findings was the tension between the commercial discourse and the construction company’s operational capacity. A Marketing area collaborator observed: “Sales promises, but then the area cannot deliver.” This indicates that the sale not only initiates the journey but also sets the expectation level that all other areas will have to manage. When the commercial promise exceeds process capacity, friction ceases to be episodic and becomes structural, compromising customer trust, as pointed out by an Architecture collaborator: “The company loses customer trust mainly when there are promises made during the sale that do not correspond to the project’s reality.”

The sales area, therefore, not only impacts customer acquisition but also conditions the future experience in all subsequent stages, including credit, service, personalization, delivery, and after-sales. Organizational integration, in turn, proved to be a necessary condition to reduce this mismatch. Despite advances in process formalization, the coherence of the journey still depends heavily on internal articulations, interpersonal mediations, and alignment efforts between areas. The study thus reinforces the idea that experience is a systemic and relational outcome, and not just the sum of departmental performances.

Differences in experience between residents and investors

The study revealed significant differences in experience between customers with resident and investor profiles. Resident customers demonstrated greater sensitivity to the emotional dimensions of the journey, especially in the construction and delivery phases. The “Customer 1 – resident” expressed this sensitivity by stating: “It’s a dream, so any delay causes a lot of anxiety”. For these customers, the journey is linked to the realization of a life project, family comfort, and the quality of future use of the property, valuing aspects such as welcoming, clarity, and a sense of security.

On the other hand, investors tended to adopt more rational criteria, prioritizing deadlines and financial return. “Client 3 – investor” exemplified this perspective: “The most important thing for me is the deadline, I don’t get too involved with the rest.” Although both profiles value trust in the brand and predictability of the process, their criteria for evaluating the experience are distinct. While the resident evaluates the journey in terms of subjective fulfillment, the investor judges it by predictability, reliability, and economic coherence. “Client 4 – investor” highlighted: “For me, the most significant moment is the negotiation, managing to structure the payment within my 4 to 5-year plan. I only close when everything is well planned.”

This difference is crucial, as it demonstrates that journey management needs to be sensitive to customer profiles, their expectations, and distinct uses, which empirically broadens the applicability of the Lemon and Verhoef (2016) model to contexts of greater relational heterogeneity. Furthermore, more experienced customers or those with a prior purchase history showed greater tolerance for minor frictions and a greater ability to interpret the process autonomously. “Client 4 – investor” stated: “The construction company has always shown solidity. That is why, in fact, we bought again.”

Customers making their first purchase or less familiar with the dynamics of civil construction tended to depend more on the company’s communication and to feel more strongly anxiety, uncertainty, and effort. “Client 1 – resident” reported: “Insecurity was in the first year, when nothing changed on the land. When the construction started to appear, it gave much more security. The only annoying thing is that they hardly update photos on the website or app. We look every week.” This aspect indicates that the customer’s repertoire is a mediating variable of the experience and should be considered by journey management, requiring differentiated communication and support approaches.

Customer journey management

The research results point to clear managerial implications for Construtora Beta and, more broadly, for organizations operating long journeys in civil construction. Firstly, communication should be treated as a central axis of the experience, not as an accessory function. This implies increasing the frequency, clarity, and intelligibility of information throughout the work, especially at times when the client depends on concrete signals to sustain their confidence. “Client 1 – resident” expressed this need: “If there were more updates, we would be much more at ease.”

Secondly, it becomes essential to reduce customer effort through more transparent flows, more agile responses, and greater explicitness of critical steps, especially in the customization, financing, and post-delivery phases. A Real Estate Credit collaborator suggested: “A communication flow from the beginning about financing would help the client avoid problems with key delivery.” This measure aims to mitigate informational asymmetry and the anxiety perceived by customers, who often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the processes.

Third, the company needs to strengthen the integration between areas, ensuring that the initial promise is continuously validated by subsequent deliveries, minimizing misalignments between commercial discourse and operations. A customer service representative emphasized: “The areas need to respond together so as not to generate different information.” This integration is crucial for building a cohesive and consistent experience, preventing expectations created during the sales phase from being frustrated by inconsistencies in later stages of the journey.

Finally, reducing customer effort can also be achieved through more agile and integrated processes, according to the perception of a Customer Service employee: “Today the customer wants to resolve issues without needing to speak to someone.” These findings reinforce that the customer experience should be managed in an integrated, continuous manner, focused on reducing friction. The findings contribute to the advancement of literature by demonstrating how objective data and subjective perceptions articulate in long and complex journeys, highlighting the importance of informational coherence and organizational integration as pillars for a positive and lasting experience.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed how the articulation between operational information and subjective customer perceptions influences experience management throughout the journey in residential construction. It was found that customer experience is built cumulatively, being strongly influenced by information consistency, communication quality, and the level of interaction and coordination between the organization’s internal areas. The main frictions identified were concentrated in the construction and delivery phases, moments characterized by informational asymmetries and operational misalignments. It was observed that communication emerged as a central axis, where the intelligibility of information, and not just its existence, shaped the customer’s perception. The emotional dimension proved to be structuring, with trust being a dynamic variable, continuously renegotiated throughout the journey, and the effort perceived by the customer directly impacting the experience evaluation. Additionally, it was identified that experience is a systemic organizational construction, dependent on integration between areas and alignment between the commercial promise and operational capacity, with notable differences between customer profiles, such as residents and investors, who adopt distinct evaluation criteria.

As a contribution, the study showed that the management of experience in long and complex journeys depends on informational coherence and organizational integration as pillars for a positive and lasting experience, empirically expanding the applicability of theoretical models by demonstrating the articulation between objective data and subjective perceptions in contexts of relational heterogeneity. Managerially, the results reinforce the need for continuous and transparent communication, reduction of customer effort through clearer and more agile flows, and strengthening of integration between areas to minimize misalignments. However, the study has limitations inherent to its single case and qualitative nature, which restricts the statistical generalization of the findings and reflects the perceptions of a defined group of participants. For future studies, it is suggested to conduct comparative research between companies in the sector and adopt quantitative or mixed approaches, aiming to deepen the understanding of the obtained results.

Bibliographic References

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, v. 84, n. 3, p. 488-500.

Ardigó, C. M., Behling, G., Ardigó, E. B. W.. (2022). Jornada do consumidor B2B: análise e proposição de marketing digital para o mercado de serviços de projetos de engenharia civil. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia, v. 22, n. 2, p. 251-271.

Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70.

Becker, L., e Jaakkola, E. (2020). Customer experience: fundamental premises and implications for research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 48, p. 630-648.

Carlzon, J. (1987). Moments of truth. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4. ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Flick, U. (2009). Desenho da pesquisa qualitativa. Artmed, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Fontanella, B. J. B., Ricas, J., Turato, E. R. (2008). Amostragem por saturação em pesquisas qualitativas em saúde: contribuições teóricas. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n. 1, p. 17-27.

Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. European Management Journal, 25(5), 395–410.

Halvorsrud, R., Kvale, K., & Følstad, A. (2016). Improving service quality through customer journey analysis. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(6), 840–867.

Heinonen, K., Jaakkola, E., & Storbacka, K. (2023). Expanding the understanding of customer experience: The concept of ordinary customer experience. Journal of Service Research, 26(1), 3–20.

Kalbach, J. (2016). Mapping experiences: A complete guide to creating value through journeys, blueprints, and diagrams. O’Reilly Media.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.

Poyer, E. Como melhorar a experiência do cliente na construção civil. Jornal da Construção Civil, 16 fev. 2023. Disponível em: Jornal da Construção Civil. Acesso em: 25 ago. 2026.

Yin, R. K. (2015). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 5. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Marketing of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform