See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225083670
A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implication for Future Research (SERVQUAL)
Article in Journal of Marketing · January 1985
DOI: 10.2307/1251430
CITATIONS
11,387
READS
274,140
3 authors, including:
A Parsu Parasuraman University of Miami
157PUBLICATIONS 132,684CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Valarie A. Zeithaml
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 120PUBLICATIONS 165,132CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Valarie A. Zeithaml on 21 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
A conceptual model of service quality and A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research its implications for future research
A.Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml,
Leonard L. Berry
Journal of Marketing Vol. 49(Fall 1985), 41-50.
Abstract
The attainment of quality in products & services became pivotal in 1980s.
Quality in tangible goods can be described &
measured by marketers, quality in services is largely undefined & unresearched.
PZB attempted to rectify by reporting the insights
obtained in an extensive exploratory investigation of
quality in four service businesses & by developing a
model of service quality (SQ) and propositions.
Introduction
Crosby (1979) said “Quality is ballet, not hockey”, quality is an elusive (intangible) & indistinct (obscure) construct.
Researchers often bypass definitions & use unidimensional self-report measures to capture quality.
Research has demonstrated the strategic benefits of quality in contributing to market share, ROI, lowering manufacturing costs, improving productivity.
Only a handful of researches have focused on SQ.
Objectives of Study
Reviewing the small number of existing studies that have investigated SQ.
Reporting the insights obtained in an extensive
exploratory investigation of quality in four service business.
Developing a conceptual model of SQ.
Offering propositions to stimulate future research about quality.
Existing knowledge about SQ
Efforts in defining & measuring quality have come largely from the goods sectors.
Japanese philosophy – quality is zero defects, doing it right the first time.
Crosby (1979) defines quality as “conformance to requirements”.
Garvin (1983) measures quality by counting the incidence of “internal” failures & “external” failures.
knowledge about goods quality is insufficient to understand service quality.
Existing knowledge about SQ
(Cont.)Heterogeneity
Inseparability Intangibility
1. Intangibility
Most services are intangible
(Beteson ,1977 etc.)Most services cannot be counted, measured,
inventoried, tested, and verified in advance of sale to assure quality.
Because of intangibility, the firm may find it
difficult to understand how consumers perceive their services & evaluate SQ
(Zeithaml, 1981)Intangibility
Heterogeneity
Inseparability Characteris
tics of services
2. Heterogeneity
Service performance varies from producer to producer, from customer to customer, and from day to day.
Consistency of behavior from service personnel is difficult to assure because what the firm intends to deliver may be entirely different from what the consumer receives.
Intangibility
Heterogeneity
Inseparability Characteris
tics of services
3.Inseparability
Production & consumption of many services are inseparable.
In labor intensive services, quality occurs during service delivery, usually in an interaction between the client and the contact person from the service firm.
The consumer’s input becomes critical to the quality of service performance. (e.g., haircuts &
doctor’s visits)
Intangibility
Heterogeneity
Inseparability Characteris
tics of services
A handful literature on SQ suggest three themes
SQ is more difficult for consumer to evaluate than goods quality.
SQ perceptions result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service performance.
Quality evaluations are not made on the
outcomes of a service; also involve evaluations of
the process of service delivery.
SQ More Difficult to Evaluate
Purchasing goods, consumer employs many tangible cues to judge quality: such as style, color, design,
packaging.
Purchasing services, fewer tangible cues exist because tangible evidence is limited to the service provider’s physical facilities, equipment, and personnel.
In absence of tangible evidence, price becomes a pivotal quality indicator.
Quality Is a Comparison between Expectations & Performance
Service quality is a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customer expectations.
Delivering quality service means conforming to customer expectations on a consistent basis (Lewis
& Booms, 1983)
Quality Evaluation Involve Outcomes &
Processes
Three different dimensions of service performance: levels of material, facilities, & personnel.(Sasser et al., 1978).
This trichotomy implied that service quality involves more than outcomes; it also includes the manner in which the service is delivered.
Quality Evaluation Involve Outcomes &
Processes
(Cont.)Two types of SQ: (Gronroos,1982)
(1) technical quality - what the customer is actually receiving from the service (outcome);
(2) functional quality - the manner in which the service is delivered (process).
Three quality dimensions: (Lehtinen & Lehtinen,1982)
(1) physical quality – e.g. equipment;
(2) corporate quality – company’s image;
(3) interactive quality – interaction between contact personnel &
customers.
Exploratory Investigation
Because the literature on SQ is not yet rich enough to provide a sound conceptual foundation for
investigating SQ, an exploratory qualitative study was undertaken to investigate the concept of SQ.
Focus group interviews with consumers & in-depth
interviews with executives were conducted to develop a conceptual model of SQ.
Insights about the Questions:
What do managers perceive to be the key attributes of SQ?
What do consumers perceive to be the key attributes of SQ?
Do discrepancies exist between the perceptions of consumers & service marketers?
Can consumer & marketer perceptions be combined in a general model that explains SQ from consumer standpoint?
口碑相傳 個人需求 過去經驗
消費者在事前期望的服務
消費者在事後服務的認知
實際服務品質的傳送 (服務的提供)
管理者對消費者期望服務認 知轉為明確的服務品質規格
管理者對消費者期望的服務認知
對顧客的溝通
缺口1
缺口2 缺口3
缺口4 缺口5
ＰＺＢ模式
消 費 者 部 分
企 業 部 分
Executive Interviews
A set of gaps exists regarding executive perceptions of service quality and the tasks associated with service delivery to consumers
Gap1:
Consumer expectation – management perception gap
Proposition 1:
The gap between consumer expectations and management perceptions of those expectations will have an impact on the consumer’s evaluation of service quality
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
Gap2:
Management perception – SQ specification gap Proposition 2 :
The gap between management perceptions of consumer
expectations and the firm’s SQ specifications will affect service quality from consumer’s viewpoint
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
Gap 3
SQ specification – service delivery gap
¾ It’s so hard to maintain standardized quality.
¾ Difficulty in adhering to formal standards or specifications for maintaining SQ
Proposition 3
The gap between SQ specifications and actual service
delivery will affect service quality from consumer’s standpoint
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
Gap 4
Service delivery – external communications gap
¾ Media advertising and other communication (eg. slogan)
Proposition 4
The gap between actual service delivery and external
communications about the service will affect service quality from a consumer’s standpoint
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
Gap 5
Expected service – perceived service gap
¾Judgments of high and low service quality depend on how consumers perceive the actual service performance in the context of what they expected
Proposition 5
The quality that a consumer perceives in a service is a
function of the magnitude and direction of the gap between expected service and perceived service
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
Proposition 6
Gap 5 = f(Gap1, Gap2, Gap3, Gap4)
The magnitude and direction of each gap will have an impact on service quality
The Perceived Service Quality Component
The focus groups revealed that consumers used basically similar criteria in evaluating SQ
These criteria fall into 10 key categories
A Service Quality Model
Determinants of service quality
Reliability, consistency of performance and dependability
Responsiveness, willingness or readiness of employees to provide service
Competence, required skill and knowledge to perform the service
Access, approachability and ease of contact
Courtesy, politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness
Communication, keeping customers informed in language they can understand
Credibility, trustworthiness, believability, honesty
Security, freedom from danger, risk, or doubt
Understanding/knowing, understand customer’s need
Tangible, physical evidence of the service
Determinants of perceived service quality
W.O.M Personal need ExperiencePast
Expected Service
Perceived service
Perceived service
quality Determinants
of perceived
Service quality
Difference in evaluation of goods and service
Two categories of properties of consumer goods
(Nelson,1974)
--search goods, consumer can determine prior to purchasing a product.
-- properties such as color,style, price, fit, feel, hardness, and smell
--experience properties, only be discerned after purchase or during consumption
-- properties include taste, wearability, and dependability.
Added third category (Darby & Karni,1973)
--credence properties, consumer may find impossible to evaluate even after purchase and consumption
10 service quality determinants v.s properties of consumer goods
Most service contain few search properties and high in experience and credence properties
Most of dimensions of service quality were experience properties:
--access, courtesy, reliability, responsiveness,
understandingknowing the customer, and communication Credence properties consumer cannot evaluate even after purchase
--competence, security
10 service quality determinants v.s properties of consumer goods
Proposition 7:
Consumer typically rely on experience properties when evaluating service quality
Perceived service quality posit to exist along a continuum range from ideal quality to totally unacceptable quality, with some point along the continuum representing satisfactory quality.
The discrepancy between the expected service (ES)and perceived service (PS).
Proposition 8:
ES>PS, perceived quality is less than satisfactory and will tend toward totally unacceptable quality, with
increased discrepancy between ES and PS.
ES=PS, perceived quality is a satisfactory
ES<PS, perceived quality is more than satisfactory and will tend toward ideal quality , with increased discrepancy between ES and PS.
Directions for Future Research
A need and an opportunity to develop a standard instrument to measure consumers’ service quality perceptions.
Consumers’ quality perceptions are influenced by a series of distinct gaps occurring on the marketers’ side.
Examine the nature of the association between service quality as perceived by consumers and its determinants.
The usefulness of segmenting consumers on the basis of their service quality expectations is worth exploring.
Expected service—a critical component of perceived service quality –in addition to being influenced by a marketer’s
communications, is shaped by word-of –mouth communications, personal needs, and past experience.
Summary
Exploratory research (insights, propositions) 10 dimensions exceptions and perceptions Four key discrepancies or gap on the service provider’s side
Conceptual service quality model
Please visit our website:
http://www.aesl.nccu.edu.tw
Research Topics: SOA & SSME (service science)
AeSL, Ambient e-Service Lab
64, Sec. 2,Zhi-nan Rd., Wenshan, Taipei 116, Taiwan, Republic of China,Commerce Building 5F
View publication stats
