MSB
Service Quality and Satisfaction
Part 2: Measurement and management
Marketing Services 5
Difficulties of measurement and management
Intangibility of services makes quality difficult to measure. An abstract construct
Inseparability means that customers co-produce the service and take some responsibility for quality
Variability means no two interactions will be the same
As well as identifying five dimensions of service quality (RATER), Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (PZB) developed:
the SERVQUAL Questionnaire (PZB, 1991) to measure service quality
a framework commonly called the Gaps model (PZB, 1985) to show the major causes of service quality shortfalls and how to remedy them
SERVQUAL
22 items, across the five dimensions
P (perception) and E (expectation scores) scores for each item are compared to arrive at a quality score for each of the 22 items
Adapt depending on the industry and context to reflect different service activities
Administer on a regular basis to analyse trends
Criticisms of SERVQUAL
Is it measuring SQ or satisfaction?
SERVQUAL dimensions are not generic
Concentrates on process more than outcome
Excessively long questionnaire
Respondents are required to rate expectations and perceptions at the same time. Expectations will be biased by experience of service
No indication of importance of each item to customers
The fact that what we experienced is better than we expected (P>E), doesn’t actually tell us much about the quality of the service
Performance-only questionnaire
Cronin and Taylor (1992) recommend using only the performance questions of the SERVQUAL model
Resembles typical customer survey
They also allow for weighting of the 22 items
Service quality Gaps model
Management’s perceptions of customer expectations
Translation of perceptions into service quality specifications
Service Delivery
Perceived Service
Expected Service
External Communications
WOM
Personal needs
Past experience
Gap 5
Consumer
Company
Gap 4
Gap 3
Gap 2
Gap 1
PZB (1985)
Gap 1: Not knowing what customers expect
The gap between customer expectations and management perception of customer expectations
A misunderstanding of what attributes are valued by customers
A market intelligence gap
Causes of gap 1
Gap 2: Inappropriate service standards
The gap between management perception of customer expectations and service quality specifications
Service designs and standards do not reflect expectations
A design standards gap
Causes of gap 2
| Lack of management commitment (belief that customer expectations are unrealistic) |
| Vague, undefined service designs |
| Inadequate task standardization |
| Failure to develop physical environment in line with customer expectations |
Gap 3: Failure to deliver to standards
The gap between service quality specification and service delivery
May lack necessary systems, processes, and people
May not encourage and require staff to meet standards
A delivery gap
Causes of gap 3
| Rigid or complicated specifications |
| Poor internal marketing |
| Employee role ambiguity or conflict |
| Break-down in technology or systems support |
| Employee/customer unwillingness or inability to perform |
| Failure to match supply and demand |
Gap 4: Failure to meet promises
The gap between service delivery and external communications
The provider promises one thing and delivers another
A communications or ‘promises’ gap
Causes of gap 4
| Propensity to over-promise or exaggerate |
| Lack of integration between marketing and operations |
| Lack of horizontal communication within the firm |
Gap 5
The gap between perceived service and expected service.
The customer-perceived gap
The result of one or more of gaps 1 to 4
SERVQUAL measures gap 5 (perceptions versus expectations)
Having administered SERVQUAL, marketers can examine which of the four gaps is responsible for gap 5
Closing the gaps
| Gap 1: Market intelligence gap | Market research; customer feedback; interaction between customers and management; communication between contact personnel and management |
| Gap 2: Standards gap | Specify tasks, sequences, and timings as tightly as possible; standardize repetitive tasks to improve consistency |
| Gap 3: Delivery gap | Improve recruitment, training, and rewards; clarify roles; empower; improve technology and equipment; educate customers; monitor late/inaccurate deliveries; complaints recovery procedures |
| Gap 4: Communications gap | Don’t over-promise; seek input from contact personnel; pre-test advertising; facilitate inter-functional communication |
E-service quality
Parasuraman et al. (2005) developed a measure of service quality for the internet. Twenty-two items across four dimensions:
Efficiency (accessibility and speed)
System availability (reliable web site/well functioning)
Fulfilment (items arrive as promised)
Privacy and security
Levels of measurement
Three sets of measures:
Customer measures
Service performance measures
Financial measures
Measuring satisfaction
Organizations create customized measures of satisfaction to suit their individual needs
Attempts have been made to devise generic models. UKCSI uses five dimensions:
staff professionalism
quality and efficiency
ease of doing business
problem-solving
timeliness
Sainsbury’s
| Checkout | Trolleys and baskets | Products | Deli and fish counter | Staff | Pricing | Misc. |
| Help at checkouts Enough time to pack purchases | Easy to steer trolleys Strong bags | Wide range of Quality fresh fruit and veg | Quick service High quality product | Always available Helpful and courteous | Clearly marked on shelf Good offers | Baby-changing facilities Not crowded |
58 statements across seven categories to rate on a Likert scale.
Research techniques
Questionnaires (SERVQUAL surveys; exit surveys)
Critical incident technique
Customer panels
Mystery customers
Complaint (and compliment) analysis
Employee research
Ethnographic research
User-generated content
Lost-customer follow-up
Setting service standards
Q: How far should a firm go in improving service quality?
A: As far as customers are prepared to pay for the enhanced level of quality
References
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1992) Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing. 56 (3), pp. 55-68.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L.L. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 49 (Fall), pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L.L. (1988) SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64 (1), pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L.L. (1991) Refinement and re-assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing. 67 (4), pp. 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Malhotra, A. (2005) E-S-Qual: A multiple item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research. 7 (3), 213-233.