2.6 SERVQUAL METHODOLOGY
2.6.1 The Service Quality Model
Due to the intangible nature of services, service quality is generally more difficult to measure than product quality. In their initial paper, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (PZB) (1985) proposed a conceptual framework for service quality. This model was based on the interpretation of qualitative data from a wide range of exploratory research (focus groups and in-depth executive interviews) performed in four service organisations (Cook & Verma, April 2002: 5). Their research revealed 10 dimensions (which would be expounded upon below) cutting across different types of services that customers use in forming expectations and perceptions of services received. PZB also identified five gaps on the service provider's side that potentially affect customer perceptions of service quality.
2.6.1.1 Determinants of Service Quality
Only two of the ten determinants, tangibles and credibility, can be known in advance of purchase, the other determinants are often only evidenced once a service transaction has taken place. While customers may possess some information based on their experience or on other customers' evaluations, they are likely to re-evaluate these determinants each time a purchase is made because of the heterogeneity of services. Two of the determinants, competence and security, consumers cannot evaluate even after purchase and consumption.
Figure 2.2 indicates that perceived service quality is the result of the consumer's comparison of expected service with perceived service. It is quite possible that the relative importance of the 10 service quality determinants in moulding consumer expectations may differ from their relative importance with regard to consumer perceptions of the service delivered.
FIGURE 2.2. Determine DETERMINANTS OF SERVICE QUALITY
1. Access
2. Communication 3. Competence 4. Courtesy 5. Credibility 6. Reliability 7. Responsiveness 8. Security
9. Tangibles 10. Understanding/
knowing the customer
Source: Cullen, 2000: 2.
Since the introduction of the conceptual service quality model, PZB published the 22-item instrument referred to as SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988). The original intention was to provide a tool for assessing customer perceptions of service quality in service and retailing organisations. Perceived service quality is the degree and direction of discrepancy between customers' perceptions and expectations. Customer expectations are the standards or reference points for performance against which service experiences are compared and are often developed in terms of what the customer believes should happen. The gap between expectations and perceptions may be analysed with reference to five dimensions. An examination of the content of the ten service quality items allows for a construction of five dimensions in SERVQUAL, of which three are from the original list of items (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness) and two are combined dimensions: (assurance including communication, credibility, security, competence and courtesy; and empathy including
of Perceived Service Quality
Word of mouth communications
Personal needs
Past Experience
C
service I xpectedService Quality Gap Perceived
service r
Perceived I service
quality
understanding/ knowing customers and access). The final list of five dimensions and the concise definitions are as follows:
fl» Tangibles: physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel.
4 Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
4 Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
4 Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence.
4 Empathy: caring, individualised attention that the organisation provides to the consumers of its services.
The last two dimensions contain items representing seven original dimensions: communication, credibility, security, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing customers, and access that did not remain distinct after the two stages of scale purification. Therefore, while SERVQUAL has only five distinct dimensions, they capture facets of all 10 originally conceptualised dimensions.
In the questionnaires the dimensions are divided into a 22-item, 7-point scale. Dimensions may not be regarded as equally important. Each client may allocate points out of 100 to each of the five dimensions so that the instrument is sensitive to an individual's perceptions of the relative importance of each dimension.
SERVQUAL has a variety of potential applications. It can help a wide range of service and retailing organisations in assessing consumer expectations about and perceptions of service quality. It can also help in pinpointing areas requiring managerial attention and action to improve service quality.
Application of SERVQUAL can be used to make comparisons globally over time. Moreover, it is possible to ascertain those elements of services in which the gap between expectations and
perceptions is widest. The application of this instrument and the results of measurement allow possibilities of more specific management action to redress perceived shortcomings. Although well-developed and extensively used in the USA, studies are only just commencing in utilising the methodology elsewhere in the world.
The SERVQUAL instrument remains as one of the most widely used approaches to measure service quality. The instrument has been used in a variety of service scenarios across the world.
However, it has been subject to much criticism. The dimensionality and reliability of SERVQUAL has been the subject of many studies (Carman 1990; Cronin and Taylor 1992;
Babakus and Boiler 1992; Cronin and Taylor 1994; Van Dyke, Prybutok, and Kapelman 1999).
Since the inception of the original instrument, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1991; 1994) and other researchers have produced many refinements, reassessments and rebuttals to criticism (Chang, Chen & Hsu, 2002: 5).