serv ice quality
DESCRIPTION
Service qualityTRANSCRIPT
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
1/25
SERVQUAL:Review, Critique,
research agendaSERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
PrNishant
PinMri
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
2/25
Service Quality
Quality : Composed of those characteristics and features of aproduct or service or process which are needed to satisfy customeneeds.
Service Quality : Used in both customer care evaluations and intechnological Evaluations. The quality of service deals with
measuring the incidence of errors within a process which may causfor the creation of issues for an end user.
Intangibility
Complex to measure
Hence the need for a tool- SERVQUAL
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
3/25
SERVQUAL-Introduction
SERVQUAL provides a technology formeasuring and managing service quality
First published by Parasuraman, Zeithaml andBerry, a series of publications followed
SERVQ
Profitab
+ive word ofmouth
Cost
SQ is widely regarded as
of corporate marketing an
performance
SERVQUAL has been adopted in corporatestudies for industries and sectors like
Computer services Construction
Mental health services Hospitality Recreational services Ophthalmological services Retail services In addition, a number of organizations,
such as the Midland and AbbeyNational banks have adopted it.
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
4/25
This assessment is conceptualized as a gap between what the customer exway of SQ from a class of service providers and their evaluations of the perf
a particular service provider..
In 1988
The ability to perfordependably and acReliability-4 items
The knowledge and
their ability to conveAssurance-5 items
The appearance ofpersonnel and comTangibles-4 items
The provision of carcustomersEmpathy-5 items
The willingness to heprompt service
Responsiveness-4
items
SERVQUAL-Introduction
In their original formulation Parasuraman et al.(1985) identified ten componentsof SQ:
(1) reliability(2) responsiveness(3) competence
(4) access(5) courtesy(6) communication(7) credibility(8) security(9) understanding the customer(10) tangibles
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
5/25
In 1991-refinement of previous work
Wording of all expectations changed:
Companies offering
to
Excellent companies offering
22 questionsExpectation22 questions- PerceptionStrongly agree-7Strongly disagree-1
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
6/25
Analysis of SERVQUAL data cantake several forms:
Item-by-item analysis(e.g. P1E1, P2E2)
Dimension-by-dimension analysis (e.g. ((P1 + P2 + P3+ P4)/4)((E1 +E2 + E3 + E4)/4), where P1 to P4, and E1 to E4, represent the fourperception and expectation statements relating to a singledimension
Computation of the single measure of service quality ((P1 + P2 + P3
+ P22/22)(E1 + E2 + E3 + + E22/22)), the so-called SERVQUALgap.
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
7/25
The Make-up of Servqual
Gap 2: The difference between management perceptions and service quality specstandards gap
Gap 3: The difference between service quality specifications and actual service delstandards consistently met?
Gap 4: The difference between service delivery and what is communicated externapromises made consistently fulfilled?
Gap 5: The difference between what customers expect of a service and what they receive
Gap 1: The difference between management perceptions of what customers expeccustomers really do expect
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
8/25
Conceptual Model of Service Quality
Word-of-mouthCommunications
Personal Needs Past experience
Expected Service
Perceived Service
ServiceDelivery
ExternalCommunicationsTo Customers
Service QualitySpecs
Management
Perceptions ofCustomer Expectations
CUSTOMER
PROVIDER
Gap 1
Gap 2
Gap 3
Gap 4
Gap 5
Parasuraman et al. developed a 22-item instrument with which to measure customers expeperceptions (E and P) of the five RATER dimensions.
PZB MODE
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
9/25
Criticisms of SERVQUAL
Theoretical
Paradigmaticobjections
Gaps model
Processorientation
Dimensionality
Operational
Expectation
ItemCompositio
Moments oTruth
Polarity
Scale Point
Administrativ
VarianceExtracted
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
10/25
Paradigmatic objections
Based on disconfirmation model
Widely used in customer satisfaction literature
Perceived quality - > Attitude - > Attitudinal model
Inconsistency is construct definition
One constructmultiple operationalization
Two constructsorthogonally related
Conceptual cousinsrelated constructs Adequacy-importance model of attitude
measurement should be adopted for SQ researchCronin & Taylor
Failure in Economic, Statistics & Psychological front
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
11/25
Paradigmatic objections (contd..)
Abandon the principle of scientific continuity
and deductionCost of service improvement is not accounted
Use of ordinal scales yet doing a factor analysis
Interdependencies among the dimensions of qualityare difficult to describe
Fail to draw on the large literature on the psychologyof perception
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
12/25
Gaps model
Difference scores do not provide any additional informa
beyond that already contained in the perceptions comthe SERVQUAL scalea generalized response tendencyexpectations high
Consumers may form experience-based norms after sexperiences, rather than expectations beforeNo poinexpectation as a measurement
Expectations may attract a social desirability response b
Gap between (P=1, E=2) is not same as gap between (Pthough they differ by same unit
Fails to capture the dynamics of changing expectations
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
13/25
Process orientation
Focusing on the process of service delivery( Receiving the
product) rather than outcomes of the service encounter(How the product was delivered)
Though both process & outcome componentsare included, it is not determined whichcomponent makes greater impact on choice
In SERVQUAL defense we can say reliability, competenceand security have already been added
SERVQUAL
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
14/25
Dimensionality
Main issueSERVQUAL scale, the number of dimensions, and their stability to context
SQ is a second-order constructconsisting of two factors (Ex : SocioEcon
SERVQUAL is composed of the five RATER factors
SERVQUALs dimensions and items represent core evaluation criteria that tspecific companies and industriesClaim by the Author
Other works related to dimensionality
Lehtinen and Lehtinen - Interactive, physical and corporate quality Hedvall and Paltschikwillingness and ability to serve, and physical an
psychological access
Leblanc and Nguyencorporate image, internal organization, physicathe service producing system, staff/customer interaction, and the levelsatisfaction.
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
15/25
Number of Dimensions of Service Quality
Independent Researchers found differentdimensions and also in different numbers
Saleh and RyanHotel industry 1992 Conviviality (62.8) Tangibles (6.9) Reassurance Avoid sarcasm EmpathyTotal 78.6Two Factor!
Babakus et al.s (1993b) survecompany produced a singleaccounted for 66.3 per cent
These researchers concludeexception of findings reporteand his colleagues, empiricadoes not support a five-dimeof service quality
Spreng and Singh (1993)Lack of discrimination betweendimensionsAssurance and Responsivenesscorrelation 0.97
the domain of service quality may be factorially complex in some industriesvery simple and uni-dimensional in others. Babakus and Boller (1992)
Parasuraman et al. (1991a) have now accepted that the five SERVQUAL dimare interrelated as evidenced by the need for oblique rotations of factor soluobtain the most interpretable factor patterns. One fruitful area for future reseathey conclude, is to explore the nature and causes ofthese interrelationships
It therefore does appear that both contextual circumstances and analyticalprocesses have some bearing on the number of dimensions of SQ
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
16/25
Contextual Stability & Item Loading
According to Carman, customers are at least partly context-specific in the dimensions they employ to e
Tangibles, Reliability and Security were present
Responsiveness, a major component in the RATER
relatively weak in the dental clinic context If a dimension is very important to customers they
decomposed into a number of sub-dimensions.
In placement centre Responsiveness, Personal atand Convenience were all identified as separate
Carman (1990) tested the generic
qualities of the SERVQUAL instrumentin three service settingsa tyreretailer, a business schoolplacement centre and a dentalschool patient clinic.
According to Carman, this indicates that researchers should work with the originadimensions, rather than adopt the revised five-factor Parasuraman et al. (1988) m
Items have not loaded on the factors to which they were expected to belong.
Two items from the Empathy battery loaded heavily on the Tangibles factor in the study of dental clin
In the tyre retail study, a Tangibles item loaded on to Security;
in the placement centre a Reliability item loaded on to Tangibles.
An item concerning the ease of making appointments loaded on to Reliability in the dental clinic coSecurity in the tyre store context.
Carman warns against importing SERVQUAL into service setting contexts without m
and validity checks
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
17/25
CONCERNS ABOUT THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF
E (EXPECTATIONS) IN SERVQUAL.
Service attribute importance: Customers mayrespond by rating the expectations
statements according to the importanceof each. Forecasted performance: Customers may
respond by using the scale to predict theperformance they would expect.
Ideal performance: The optimalperformance; what performance canbe.
Deserved performance: The performancelevel customers, in the light of theirinvestments, feel performance should be.
Equitable performance: The level ofperformance customers feel they oughtto receive given a perceived set of costs.
Minimum tolerable performance: Whatperformance mustbe.
HOW DID PARASURAMAN RESPO
CRITICISMS ?
He defined expectation as some
providershould offer rather than
Redefined expectations as the se
would expect from excellent se
rather than normative expecta
providers
Some critics have questioned SERVQ
access customer evaluations based
standards of SQ.
Customers will evaluate a service f
their expectations are met or excee
whether their prior expectations we
regardless of whether the absolute
[service] performance is high or low
prediction is illogical. We argue tha
(e.g. the prior standards) certainly m
customers evaluation (Iacobucci e
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
18/25
BAD SERVICE PARADOX
E-Score calculated on the basis of: Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Not good enough to capture
Expectations
Case Study:
E-score of six for Joes Greasy SpoonDiner is equivalent to an E-score of sixfor Michel Rouxs Le Lapin Frenchrestaurant.
ANOTHER P
Zeithaml e
DESIRED SERVservice a custoand should be
ADEQUATE SEservice the c
acceptable
SO THE DEBA
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
19/25
ITEM COMPOSITION
Each factors in SERVQUAL is broken up intoa number of items: Carmans (1990) study of hospital
services employed 40 items
Bouman and Van der Wiele (1992) used48 items in their car service research etc.
Parasuraman et al. (1991b) acknowledgethat context specific items can be used tosupplement SERVQUAL, but thenew itemsshould be similar in form to the existingSERVQUAL items
MOMENTS OF TRU
Carman (1990) found evidence thaevaluate SQ by referenceto these multiple encounters:
(1) My discharge from the hosp(2) Nurses responded promptly(3) My admission to the hospit
POLARITY OF ITEMS
Of the 22 items in the 1988 SERVQUALscale, 13 statement pairs are positivelyworded, and nine pairs are negatively
worded.
SCALING PO
Use of seven-point Likert scales on severalgrounds- This may caover use extreme ends of the sca
Babakus and Mangold (1992) point Likert scales on the groreduce the frustrationlevelof pincrease response rate and respo
TWO ADMINISTRATIONS
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
20/25
TWO ADMINISTRATIONS
(E & P) SIMULTANEOUSLY
Carman (1990) is critical of Parasuraman et al. for askingrespondents to complete E & P at a single sitting- IncreasesBoredom & Response Quality
Clow and Vorhies (1993) argue:
When expectations and experience evaluations aremeasured simultaneously, respondents will indicate thattheir expectations are greater than they actually werebefore the service encounter.
Customers who had a Negative Experience with theservice tend to overstate their expectations, creating alarger gap; customers who had a Positive Experiencetend to understate resulting in smaller gap
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
21/25
CONCLUSION
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
22/25
Major Concerns faced bySERVQUAL users
Face validity Construct validity
Face validity :Concerned with
the extent to whicha scale appears to
measure what it
purports tomeasure
Construct validity :Concerns about
the adoption of aninappropriateparadigm, theGaps Model,SERVQUALs
Process Orientationand SERVQUALsDimensionality areconstruct validity
issues.
Coitsof
coa
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
23/25
How valid are the concerns?
Issues of face and construct validity are of overriding impthe development of instruments such as SERVQUAL
The operational criticisms are evidently less significant theoretical criticisms and pose less of a threat to validi
The theoretical criticisms raised in this article pose a quesvalidity of the instrument
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
24/25
Directions for future research
Set ofquestionswhich SQ
researchers
should address
Do consumersalways
evaluate SQ interms of
expectationsand
perceptions?
What otherforms of SQevaluation are
there?
What form docustomer
expectationstake and howbest, if at all,
are theymeasured? Are
expectations
commonacross a class
of serviceproviders?
Do attitude-based
measures of SQperform better
than thedisconfirmationmodel? Which
attitudinalmeasure is
most useful?
Is itadvantageous
to integrateoutcome
evaluationsinto SQ
measurement
and how bestcan this be
done?
Is thepredictive
validity of Pmeasures of
service qualitybetter than
that of PEmeasures?
-
5/20/2018 Serv ice Quality
25/25
Set of Questions continued
What is the role of context in determining E and P evaluations? What context-markers do cemploy?
Are analytical context markers such as tangibility and consumer involvement helpful in adtheory?
Do evaluative criteria in intangible-dominant services (e.g. consulting) differ from those intangible-dominant servic
How does involvement influence the evaluation of SQ?
How do customers integrate transaction-specific or MOT-specific evaluations of SQ? To whsome MOTs more influential in the final evaluation than others?
What are the relationships between the five RATER factors? How stable are those relations
context?
What is the most appropriate scale format for collecting valid and reliable SQ data?
To what extent can customers correctly classify items into their a priori dimensions?
Answers to questions such as these would help improve our understanding of the service qconstruct and assess the value of the SERVQUAL instrument.