CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.11 SERVQUAL
Quality is clearly a complex concept, which cannot be satisfactorily measured by a series of ad - hoc studies. This, and the increasing importance of quality as a means of gaining competitive advantage has seen the emergence of comprehensive programmes to research customers expectations and perceptions of service quality. The most widely adopted approach thus far has been that suggested by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985).
They have developed the Service Quality, SERVQUAL methodology from 1983 onwards and have developed their first SERVQUAL measuring instrument in 1985 and subsequently refined it. They postulate that the only factors that are important are those that the customers perceive as relevant to them.
SERVQUAL is a multi-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.
Today numerous applied research companies use the SERVQUAL instrument as an adapted measuring instrument to measure Customer Satisfaction within their industry.
Although there are other measures of this abstract construct (Customer Satisfaction), the SERVQUAL instrument is generally the most popular used instrument worldwide.
The SERVQUAL instrument measures servIce quality within the areas of customer satisfaction. The measuring instrument breaks down the construct of Customer Satisfaction into five distinct areas namely:
• Tangibles (appearance of physical elements)
• Reliability (dependability, accurate performance)
• Responsiveness (promptness and helpfulness)
• Assurance (competence, courtesy, credibility, and security)
• Empathy (caring and individualized attention the firm provides for its customers) (Parasuraman .et al., 1985)
2.11 SERVQUAL
Quality is clearly a complex concept, which cannot be satisfactorily measured by a series of ad - hoc studies. This, and the increasing importance of quality as a means of gaining competitive advantage has seen the emergence of comprehensive programmes to research customers expectations and perceptions of service quality. The most widely adopted approach thus far has been that suggested by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985).
They have developed the Service Quality, SERVQUAL methodology from 1983 onwards and have developed their first SERVQUAL measuring instrument in 1985 and subsequently refined it. They postulate that the only factors that are important are those that the customers perceive as relevant to them.
SERVQUAL is a multi-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.
Today numerous applied research companies use the SERVQUAL instrument as an adapted measuring instrument to measure Customer Satisfaction within their industry.
Although there are other measures of this abstract construct (Customer Satisfaction), the SERVQUAL instrument is generally the most popular used instrument worldwide.
The SERVQUAL instrument measures servIce quality within the areas of customer satisfaction. The measuring instrument breaks down the construct of Customer Satisfaction into five distinct areas namely:
• Tangibles (appearance of physical elements)
• Reliability (dependability, accurate performance)
• Responsiveness (promptness and helpfulness)
• Assurance (competence, courtesy, credibility, and security)
• Empathy (caring and individualized attention the firm provides for its customers) (Parasuraman .et al., 1985)
Figure 2.5 Conceptual Model of Service Quality
W ord-of-Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience
Communications
1
Expected Service
.. r
GapS
..
Perceived Service
------- --- ----------- --- PR OVIDER
External
Service Gap 4
Delivery ~ ... ~ Communications to customers
:
Gap 3
..
Service Quality Gapl Specifications
•
Gap 2
..
Management Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
Source: Parasuraman et al., (1985)
Figure 2.5 Conceptual Model of Service Quality
W ord-of-Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience
Communications
1
Expected Service
.. r
GapS
..
Perceived Service
------- --- ----------- --- PR OVIDER
External
Service Gap 4
Delivery ~ ... ~ Communications to customers
:
Gap 3
..
Service Quality Gapl Specifications
•
Gap 2
..
Management Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
Source: Parasuraman et al., (1985)
2.11.1 Service Quality Gap
Service quality is based on a comparison between what the customer feels should be offered and what is provided (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The difference between expected and perceived service is termed Gap 5 (Zeithaml et al., 1990). This customer- perceived service quality shortcoming, Gap 5, is the result of four service provider shortfalls (Gaps 1 through 4). These gaps which were identified by Berry and his
colleagues (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Zeithaml et al., 1988) through their Gaps Model of Service Quality are as follows:-
• Gap1: Customers' expectations-management perceptions gap, which is the discrepancy between customers' expectations of service quality and management perceptions of those expectations.
• Gap 2: Management's perception-service quality specifications gap, which is the discrepancy between management's perceptions of customers' expectations and the firm's service quality specifications.
• Gap 3: Service quality specifications-service delivery gap, which is the discrepancy between service quality specifications and actual service quality.
• Gap 4: Service delivery-external communications gap, which is the discrepancy between actual service delivery and external communications to customers about service delivery.
• Gap 5: Expected service-perceived service gap, which is the discrepancy between expected service and perceived service.
2.11.1 Service Quality Gap
Service quality is based on a comparison between what the customer feels should be offered and what is provided (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The difference between expected and perceived service is termed Gap 5 (Zeithaml et al., 1990). This customer- perceived service quality shortcoming, Gap 5, is the result of four service provider shortfalls (Gaps 1 through 4). These gaps which were identified by Berry and his
colleagues (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Zeithaml et al., 1988) through their Gaps Model of Service Quality are as follows:-
• Gap1: Customers' expectations-management perceptions gap, which is the discrepancy between customers' expectations of service quality and management perceptions of those expectations.
• Gap 2: Management's perception-service quality specifications gap, which is the discrepancy between management's perceptions of customers' expectations and the firm's service quality specifications.
• Gap 3: Service quality specifications-service delivery gap, which is the discrepancy between service quality specifications and actual service quality.
• Gap 4: Service delivery-external communications gap, which is the discrepancy between actual service delivery and external communications to customers about service delivery.
• Gap 5: Expected service-perceived service gap, which is the discrepancy between expected service and perceived service.
The conceptual model of service quality was modified to include seven quality gaps leading to customer dissatisfaction as shown in Figure2.6, however for the purposes of this study we will focus on the 5 Gaps Model by Parasuraman et al., 1985. The seven potential gaps in service quality are:
1. The knowledge gap - the difference between what service providers believe customers expect and customers' actual needs and expectations.
2. The standards gap - the difference between management's perceptions of customer expectations and the quality standards established for service delivery.
3. The delivery gap - the difference between specified delivery standards and the service provider's actual performance.
4. The internal communications gap - 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.
5. The perceptions gap - the difference between what is actually delivered and what customers perceive they have received (because they are unable to accurately evaluate service quality).
6. The interpretation gap - the difference what a service provider's communications efforts actually promise and what a customer thinks was promised by these communications.
7. The service gap - the difference between what customers expect to receive and their perceptions of the service that is actually delivered.
The conceptual model of service quality was modified to include seven quality gaps leading to customer dissatisfaction as shown in Figure2.6, however for the purposes of this study we will focus on the 5 Gaps Model by Parasuraman et al., 1985. The seven potential gaps in service quality are:
1. The knowledge gap - the difference between what service providers believe customers expect and customers' actual needs and expectations.
2. The standards gap - the difference between management's perceptions of customer expectations and the quality standards established for service delivery.
3. The delivery gap - the difference between specified delivery standards and the service provider's actual performance.
4. The internal communications gap - 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.
5. The perceptions gap - the difference between what is actually delivered and what customers perceive they have received (because they are unable to accurately evaluate service quality).
6. The interpretation gap - the difference what a service provider's communications efforts actually promise and what a customer thinks was promised by these communications.
7. The service gap - the difference between what customers expect to receive and their perceptions of the service that is actually delivered.
Figure 2.6 Seven Quality Gaps Leading to Customer Dissatisfaction
Customer needs And expectations