SERVQUAL: concept, management strategies, critique

Transcription

1 SERVQUAL: concept, management strategies, critique by Sujay M.J [a] Abstract In today s highly competitive situation, business organizations are increasingly realizing the need to focus on service quality as a measure to improve their competitive position. The unique characteristics and inherent complexity of the service environment opens up a number of difficulties and potential conflicts. Different customer or stakeholder groups may well have different expectations about the same service or have different service priorities. This paper after started with the meaning of service quality has tried to demonstrate the model of SERVQUAL and the service quality gaps along with conceptual framework and management strategies with the objective of providing contribution towards improvement in services. Key words: Service quality, Service quality gaps, SERVQUAL, RATER [a] Sujay M.J, Research scholar, Tumkur University, Tumkur, India. & Faculty, MBA Hospital Administration, Dept. of Health System Management Studies, JSS University, Mysore , Karnataka, India. sujay15@gmail.com 1. Introduction Service Quality (SQ) The term service quality from the services point of view is the term that has been often referred to as the measurement of the standard of services rendered to the customer by the services providers to the total satisfaction of the recipient. Service Quality in short is Meeting or exceeding the expectations of customers (Quester and Romaniuk, 1997) The theory and understanding of service quality are explained differently by two schools of thought the European school of thought led by Gronroos (1984) and the American school of thought expounded by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1991, and 1994). The European school of thought hinges on the fact that customers evaluate service quality from dual point of view, i.e., functional and technical. But, the European school of thought overlooks the importance of the physical environment of the place where the service is being delivered and/or exchanged. The American school of thought fills this gap by conceptualizing service quality as the difference between the overall gap in the perception and expectation of service delivery (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988, 1991, and 1994). Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.1

2 2. Literature review According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1988) service quality is the customer s judgment of overall excellence of the service or the difference between customer s expectation and the actual service performed or perceived. Gronroos (1984) defines perceived service quality as a consumption process in which the customer is part of the service process that leads to an outcome or result. The way the customer perceives the service process at the time of providing the service is more important than the outcome of the service. The customer s expectation and perception of the service become important when the customer retrospectively thinks back to assess if the perception exceeded the expectations (Siu& Cheung 2001, Kang& James, 2004). SERVQUAL Concept SERVQUAL (for Service Quality ) was developed in the mid-1980s by Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry to measure the quality in service sector (the American school of thought). The SERVQUAL approach (Parasuraman et al. 1985) begins with the assumption that service quality is critically determined by the difference between customers expectations and their perceptions of the service actually received. SERVQUAL initially included 10 dimensions namely, tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, communication, credibility, security, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing the customer, and access, but in later work(early 1990 s) they were redefined and reduced particularly the last seven dimensions into two broader dimensions labeled as assurance and empathy (see Figure below). The other dimensions tangibles, reliability, and responsiveness were remained intact throughout the scale development and refinement process. Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.2

3 Source: Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L.L., (1990). The SERVQUAL model identifies five criteria / generic dimensions / factors to evaluate service quality: RELIABILITY involves consistency in performance and dependability. It means that the firm performs the service right the first time. It otherwise implies that the firm honors its promises. Specifically, it involves accuracy in billing, keeping records correctly, timely rendering the service...etc. ASSURANCE : A combination of competence (possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service); courtesy (politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of contact staff); credibility (trustworthiness, believability and honesty of staff); security (freedom from danger, risk and doubt) TANGIBLES include the physical evidence of the service. i.e., physical facilities, appearance of personnel, tools or equipment used to provide the service, other customers in the service facility...etc. EMPATHY: A combination of access (approachability and ease of contact); communication (keeping customers informed in a language they understand and alternatively listening to them); understanding the customer (making an effort to know the customers and understanding their needs). RESPONSIVESNESS concerns the willingness or readiness of employees to provide needed service. It involves timeliness in providing service. i.e., calling the customer back quickly, giving prompt service...etc RATER is the acronym for SERVQUAL dimensions. Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.3

4 Businesses using SERVQUAL to measure and manage service quality, deploy a questionnaire that measures both the customers expectations and their perceptions of the service quality they receive with respect to the above mentioned five dimensions. SERVQUAL model is 22 item instrument which is applied twice in different forms across the five dimensions, first to measure customer s expectations and second to measure customer s perceptions of the service they receive. Then the Gap in service is calculated by subtracting the expectation from the actual perception. Thus the measurement of service quality through SERVQUAL model can be expressed with the following equation (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1986). k SQ = j=1 (P ij - E ij ) where, SQ= overall service quality; k = number of attributes P ij = Performance of stimulus i with respect to the attribute j E ij = Service quality expectation for attribute j that is relevant norm for stimulus i. 3. Discussion SERVQUAL (RATER) dimensions Dimensions Definitions Items in scale Reliability The ability to perform the promised 4 service dependably and accurately Assurance The knowledge and courtesy of 5 employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence Tangibles The appearance of physical 4 facilities, equipment, personnel and communication materials Empathy The provision of caring, 5 individualized attention to customers Responsiveness The willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service 4 Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) SERVQUAL is based on the idea that the quality is a slanted evaluation of the customer, as the service is an experience. SERVQUAL is useful in measuring the extent of dissimilarity between consumer s preferences and his actual experience and specify the areas that require improvement. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry the SERVQUAL model is universal and can be applied to any service organization to assess the quality of services provided. Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.4

5 Service Quality Gaps It is necessary to remember that it is always the customer who sets the determinants of the service quality for his own self. The producer and the provider have to understand the expectations of the customer and take care of the determinants as given to him to provide the service value as expected by the customers. But the dilemma is that the service provider may at times will not be able to understand the complete expectation of the customer and also in the spirit in which it probably had been conveyed by the customer to him. The result is that there will always be a gap between what the service marketers provided and what has actually been perceived to have been received by the customer. That leads to low satisfaction generated in the mind of the customer about the quality of services received. The SERVQUAL authors identified five Gaps that may cause customers to experience poor service quality. There are five major gaps in the service quality concept, which are shown in Figure 1. Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.5

6 Figure 1: Model of service quality gaps The Customer gap is the central focus of the gap model i.e. the difference between customer expectations and perceptions (see Figure 2 Gap 5). It is the service delivery gap and an understanding of the service delivery gap, which give us an insight of all the four provider gaps. Expectations are the reference points where customers are coming into a service experience; perceptions reflect the services that are actually received. The actual business will want to close this gap between what is expected and what is received to satisfy their customers and build long-term relationships with them. To close this all-important customer gap, the model suggests that four other gaps the provider gaps need to close. The provider gaps Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.6

7 (Gap1-4) are the underlying cause behind the customer gap Gap 1 Knowledge gap (not knowing what customers expect) is the difference between what service providers believe that the customers expect and customers actual needs and expectations. Gap 2 Standards gap (not selecting the right service designs and standards) is the difference between management s perceptions of customer expectations and the quality standards set out for service delivery. Gap 3 Delivery gap (not delivering according to service standards) is the difference between specified delivery standards and the service provider s actual performance on these standards. Gap 4 Internal communications gap (not matching performance to promises) is the difference between what the company s advertising and sales personnel think are the product s features, performance, and service quality level and what the company is actually able to deliver. Gap 5 - Service gap (the difference between consumer expectations and perceptions is a direct reflection of Gap 1-4) is the difference between what customers expect to receive and their. [1, 6] perceptions of the service that is actually delivered The consumer s evaluations of service quality center on the balance of their expectations and perceptions of a service. Expectations that are met or exceed in a service encounter, or series of service encounters, will result in adequate or ideal service quality evaluations. Alternatively, expectations that are not met in service encounter will result in negative service quality evaluations. The service quality gap model in Figure 2 provides a framework for organizations seeking to systematically improve consumer perceptions of service quality. Figure 2 illustrates five gaps as mentioned. Gap 5 is the difference between consumer expectations and perceptions and is a direct reflection of Gap 1-4. This implies that the smaller the discrepancy observed in Gaps 1-4, it is more likely consumers will favorably evaluate service quality (O Connor, S.J., Trinh, H.Q., and Skewchuk, R.M, 2000). Conceptual Framework In order to measure service quality, the five dimensions of the SERVQUAL instrument are needed to be and these include tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The measure of the significance of difference between these dimensions in the expected service and perceived service is done based on the hypotheses mentioned below. The proposed framework is shown in Figure 2. Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.7

8 Figure 2: The Conceptual Framework Where H 1, H 2, H 3, H 4, H 5 and H 6 are the hypotheses which are formed as per requirement. Some Management Strategies to addressing the Service Quality Gaps The following implications address such an attempt to fill the gaps in the quality of services. 1) Learn about customer s perceptions: As the customers are individuals, each customers perceptions will be different under the same situation. While many measurement programs attempt to get mass average from which organizations build or rebuild their quality and Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.8

9 customer s service programmes, it is essential that the managers should not neglect or ignore identifying each customer s individual perspective. 2) The perceptions to be identified include what customer expect from the service provider; the reason for changing service providers; is there any necessity for them in changing again in the future and if so how soon; what are their criteria for acceptable service quality performance; what must they perceive to be minimally satisfied; how managers can make them extremely satisfied. 3) Determination of customer s needs, wants, requirements and expectations: customer satisfaction measurements not only must determine how the customers feel about the services they receive but also assess their currents need and wants from the service provider and also future expectations. 4) Closing the Gaps: It is possible that there may be many gaps that exist between customers and service provider in this study. These gaps exist because of the differences in perceptions between the service provider s understanding of the service provided and the customers perception of the service received. Here is a list of the important ones. a. The gap between what a service provider perceiving a customer s wants and what the customer actually wants. b. The gap between what a service provider thinks a customer has bought and what a customer perceives that he has received. c. The gap between the service quality the business believes it is providing and what the customer s perception of the provided service. d. The gap between the customer s expectations of service quality and the actual performance. e. The gap between marketing promises and actual delivery. Therefore closing or avoiding these gaps is critical to the success which can be achieved by satisfying and retaining the customers to the organizations. 5) Inspection for improving service quality and customer satisfactions Service provider must set standards for performance as stated earlier, make the staff and the customers understand about those standards and then compare the actual performance with those standards. Goals are set for the service provider based on customer s requirements and expectations, and then the service providers performances towards those goals are publicly measured. This is a best choice for providing improved service quality and the services to the customers. 6) Improved service performance may lead to increased profits: while there is no guarantee that this will occur, it is a safe assume that quality services are improved while delivering them, service provider will benefit from increased profits. More customers will get attracted towards such service providers, thereby contributing to profits. 7) Draw Road Maps: there are many good reasons to measure service quality performance and customers satisfaction levels. Gaps should be identified and then should be initiated to close Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.9

10 them, it only gives service provider an opportunity to learn further whether the organisation is going in right direction at all times and also enable it enables to initiate further steps for the future. 8) Process of continuous improvement: If service provider does not try to continuously improve the services offered, someone else will and then the customers from one service provider will shift their loyalty to other. While eliciting customers opinion about the service you can do better, employees also should be asked for suggestions, and recommendations. These will go in long way in making incremental improvements. 9) Understanding customers zone of tolerance: it is important for the service companies to understand that customers at their levels are aware of the shortcomings in the service provided and are not willing to shift to the alternate. However the service providers have to make it apparent to the customer that his inconvenience is well aware of by the organisation and the organisation is making all efforts to make necessary improvements in the service deficiencies. 10) Proactive and Reactive approach Proactive: A proactive approach entails actively reaching out to customers and trying to gather their feedback on service quality and suggested areas of improvement. This can be achieved by way of Surveys and administering questionnaires Gap Analysis, and Staff training Reactive: A reactive approach basically consists of resorting to a predetermined service recovery mechanism after receiving customer complains about poor service quality. It usually starts with apologizing to the customer or appreciating customer s suggestion and then taking steps to redeem the situation. 4. Limitations Despite its wide usage, it has received its share of criticism involving the length of the questionnaire and the validity of the five service quality dimensions. Despite its criticisms, SERVQUAL remains a frequently utilized instrument to assess service quality and as a result of these criticisms, alternative measures of service quality for specific service settings were developed. In the tourism and hospitality industry, Knutson et al. (1991) developed LODGSERV, a model utilized to measure service quality in the lodging industry. Getty and Thompson (1994) introduced another specific model for hotel settings, called LODGQUAL, as did Wong Ooi Mei, Dean and White (1999) who developed a HOLSERV model. Furthermore, DINESERV is a model used for measuring restaurant service quality (Stevens, Knutson and Patton 1995). O Neill et al. (2000) developed the DIVEPERF model for assessing perceptions of diving services and was utilized to measure. All of these models one way or other represent modifications of the SERVQUAL instrument, aiming to improve its original methodology. Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.10

11 Cronin and Taylor (1992) in their research into service quality in banks, pest control, dry cleaning and fast food argued that performance is the measure that best explains customers perceptions of service quality, so expectations should not be included in the service quality measurement instrument. They developed a performance-only scale called SERVPERF and tested it in industries where the results indicated that the SERVPERF model explained more of the variation of service quality rather than SERVQUAL. 5. Directions for further studies This review has raised few questions surrounding SERVQUAL which are yet to be resolved. The following represent a set of questions which service quality researchers should address: What other alternative contemporary models more suited to measure service quality. (Like SERVPERF for Education service)? What are the relationships between the five Dimensions? What relationships are there between service quality, customer satisfaction, behavioral intention, purchase behavior, market share, word-of-mouth and customer retention? Can SERVQUAL scale be modified? 6. Conclusion In this paper, service quality, its dimensions and its model of gaps are reviewed. Although assessing service quality is a complex and multidimensional construct the measurement of perception and expectation of the customers requirements provide valuable insight into the process by which the organization s service quality could be evaluated. Parasuraman has suggested that, with minor modification, SERVQUAL can be adapted to any service organization. Therefore by identifying strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the dimensions of service quality, organizations would be in a better position to formulate customer oriented services. Generally, the study of service quality is not only important but is also challenging because due to liberalization and globalization the focus of organizations is shifting from profit maximization to customer satisfaction. Hence future efforts should bestow attention to advance the understanding of the concept and means to measure and improve service quality. The question of whether service quality should be measured as the difference between customers perceptions and expectations, or whether any better alternative appropriate approach is available remains part of an extensive debate in service quality literature. 7. References: 1) Zeithaml,V.A., Bitner,M.J., Gremler D.D., Pandit A. (2011). Services Marketing: Integrating customer focuses across the firm (5th Edition). Tata McGraw-Hill Edition, pp ) Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.11

12 3) accessed on June 8, ) Hales, D., & Williams, D Wow! That s What I Call Service! Cornwall, England: Academy Press Limited. 5) Hemmington, N From service to experience: Understanding and defining the hospitality 6) business. The Service Industries Journal, 27 (6), ) Andreassen, T.W. (2000), Antecedents to satisfaction with service recovery, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. ½, pp ) Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1985), A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 pp ) Quester, P.G and Romaniuk, S (1997), Service Quality in the Australian Advertising Industry: A Methodological Study, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.11. No.3, pp ) Asubonteng, K. McCleary, J. and Swan J.E (1996), SERVQUAL revisited; A Critical Review of Service Quality, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.10, No.6, pp ) Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1986), SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Marketing science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 12) Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing 64,pp ) Parasuraman A, Berry L and Zeithaml V (1991), Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp ) Zeithaml,V.A., Parasuraman,A., and Berry,L.L., (1990). Delivering Quality Service - Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc. New York. 15) Kang Gi-Du., James Jeffrey., (2004) "Service quality dimensions: an examination of Gronroos s service quality model", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 Issue: 4, pp ) Gronroos, C. (1984), A service quality model and its marketing implications, European journal of marketing, 18 (4), Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988), A conceptual model of service quality International journal of operations and production management, 8 (6) ) Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, ) Knutson, B., P. Stevens, C. Wullaert, and M. Patton. (1991). LODGSERV: A service quality index for the lodging industry. Hospitality Research Journal, Vol.14, No.7, pp ) Getty, J., and K. Thomopson. (1994). A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodging quality. Hospitality Research Journal, Vol.18, No.2, pp ) Wong Ooi Mei, A., A. M. Dean, and C. J. White. (1999), Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry Managing Service Quality, Vol.9, No 2, pp ) O Connor, S.J., Trinh, H.Q., and Skewchuk, R.M. (2000). Perceptual Gaps in Understanding Patient Expectations for Health Care Service Quality. Health Care Management Review. Vol. 25, No. 2, pp ) Stevens, P., B. Knutson, and M. Patton DNESERV: A tool for measuring service quality in restaurants. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36, No.2, pp ) O Neill, M. A., P. Williams, M. MacCarthy, and R. Grovers Diving into service quality: The dive tour operator perspective. Managing Service Quality, Vol.10, No.3.pp ) Cronin, J. J., and S. A. Taylor (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, Vol.56, No.3.pp ) Gronroos C (1984), A Service Quality Model and Its Market Implications, European 26) Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp ) Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V and Berry L (1994), Refinement Alternative Scales for Measuring Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on Diagnostic Criteria, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp Aano bhadraa krathavo yanthu vishwathaha -"Let the noble thoughts come to all from all directions". Page No.12