of 34
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
1/34
A conceptual model of service quality andA conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future researchits implications for future research
A.Parasuraman,Valarie A. Zeithaml,
Leonard L. Berry
Journal of Marketing Vol. 49(Fall 1985), 41-50.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
2/34
Abstract
The attainment of quality in products & servicesbecame pivotal in 1980s.
Quality in tangible goods can be described &measured by marketers, quality in services is largelyundefined & unresearched.
PZB attempted to rectify by reporting the insightsobtained in an extensive exploratory investigation of
quality in four service businesses & by developing amodel of service quality (SQ) andpropositions.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
3/34
Introduction
Crosby (1979) said Quality is ballet, not hockey, quality isan 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 incontributing to market share, ROI, lowering manufacturing
costs, improving productivity.
Only a handful of researches have focused on SQ.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
4/34
Objectives of Study
Reviewing the small number ofexisting studies that haveinvestigated SQ.
Reporting the insights obtained in an extensiveexploratory investigation of quality in four service business.
Developing a conceptual model of SQ.
Offeringpropositions to stimulate future research aboutquality.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
5/34
Existing knowledge about SQ
Efforts in defining & measuring quality have come largelyfrom the goods sectors.
Japanese philosophyquality iszero defects, doing it rightthe first time.
Crosby (1979) defines quality as conformance torequirements.
Garvin (1983) measures quality by counting the incidence
ofinternal failures & external failures.
knowledge about goods quality is insufficient to understandservice quality.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
6/34
Existing knowledge about SQ (Cont.)
Heterogeneity
InseparabilityIntangibility
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
7/34
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 understandhow consumers perceivetheir services & evaluate SQ (Zeithaml, 1981)
Intangibility
HeterogeneityInseparability
Characteristics of
services
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
8/34
2. Heterogeneity
Service performance varies from producer to
producer, from customer to customer, and fromday to day.
Consistency of behavior from service personnel
is difficult to assure because what thefirm intendsto deliver may be entirely differentfrom what theconsumer receives.
Intangibility
HeterogeneityInseparability
Characteristics of
services
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
9/34
3.Inseparability
Production & consumption of many services are
inseparable.In labor intensive services, quality occurs during
service delivery, usually in an interaction betweenthe client and the contact person from the servicefirm.
The consumers input becomes critical to thequality of service performance. (e.g., haircuts &doctors visits)
Intangibility
HeterogeneityInseparability
Characteristics of
services
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
10/34
A handful literature on SQ suggest three
themes
SQ ismore difficult for consumerto evaluate
than goods quality.SQ perceptions result from a comparison ofconsumer expectations with actual service
performance.Quality evaluations are not made on the
outcomes of a service; also involve evaluations oftheprocess of service delivery.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
11/34
SQ More Difficult to Evaluate
Purchasing goods, consumer employs manytangible
cues to judge quality: such as style, color, design,packaging.
Purchasing services, fewer tangible cues exist because
tangible evidence is limited to the service providersphysical facilities, equipment, and personnel.
In absence of tangible evidence,price becomes a pivotal
quality indicator.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
12/34
Quality Is a Comparison between
Expectations & Performance
Service quality is a measure of how well the servicelevel delivered matches customer expectations.
Delivering quality service means conforming tocustomer expectations on a consistent basis (Lewis& Booms, 1983)
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
13/34
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 thanoutcomes; it also includesthe manner inwhich the service is delivered.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
14/34
Quality Evaluation Involve Outcomes &
Processes (Cont.)
Two types of SQ: (Gronroos,1982)
(1)technical quality - what the customer is actually receiving fromthe 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 companys image;
(3) interactive quality interaction between contact personnel &customers.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
15/34
Exploratory InvestigationBecause 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-depthinterviews with executives were conducted to develop a
conceptual model of SQ.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
16/34
Insights about the Questions:
What domanagers perceive to be the key attributes of SQ?
What doconsumers perceive to be the key attributes ofSQ?
Dodiscrepancies exist between the perceptions of
consumers & service marketers?Can consumer & marketer perceptions be combined inageneral modelthat explains SQ from consumer standpoint?
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
17/34
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
18/34
()
1
2
3
4
5
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
19/34
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 gapProposition 1:
The gap between consumer expectations and management
perceptions of those expectations will have an impact on the
consumers evaluation of service quality
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
20/34
Gap2:
Management perception SQ specification gap
Proposition 2 :
The gap between management perceptions of consumer
expectations and the firms SQ specifications will affect service
quality from consumers viewpoint
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
21/34
Gap 3
SQ specification service delivery gap
Its so hard to maintain standardized quality.
Difficulty in adhering to formal standards or specifications formaintaining SQ
Proposition 3
The gap between SQ specifications and actual service
delivery will affect service quality from consumers standpoint
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
22/34
Gap 4
Service delivery external communications gap
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 consumers standpoint
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
23/34
Gap 5
Expected service perceived service gap
Judgments of high and low service quality depend on howconsumers perceive the actual service performance in thecontext of what they expected
Proposition 5The quality that a consumer perceives in a service is afunction of the magnitude and direction of the gap between
expected service and perceived service
Insights from Exploratory Investigation
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
24/34
Proposition 6
Gap 5 = f(Gap1, Gap2, Gap3, Gap4)
The magnitude and direction of each gap will have an impact onservice quality
The Perceived Service Quality ComponentThe focus groups revealed that consumers used basically similarcriteria in evaluating SQ
These criteria fall into 10 key categories
A Service Quality Model
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
25/34
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 customers need
Tangible, physical evidence of the service
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
26/34
Determinants of perceived service quality
W.O.MPast
Experience
Personalneed
ExpectedService
Perceivedservice
Perceivedservicequality
Determinants
of
perceived
Service
quality
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
27/34
Difference in evaluation of goods and service
Two categories of properties of consumer goods(Nelson,1974)
--search goods, consumer can determine prior to purchasing aproduct.
-- properties such as color,style, price, fit, feel, hardness, and smell
--experience properties, only be discerned after purchase orduring 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
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
28/34
10 service quality determinants v.s properties
of consumer goodsMost service contain few search properties and high inexperience and credence properties
Most of dimensions of service quality were experienceproperties:
--access, courtesy, reliability, responsiveness,
understandingknowing the customer, and communicationCredence properties consumer cannot evaluate even afterpurchase
--competence, security
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
29/34
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 acontinuum range from ideal quality to totallyunacceptable quality, with some point along thecontinuum representing satisfactory quality.
The discrepancy between the expected service (ES)andperceived service (PS).
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
30/34
Proposition 8:
ES>PS, perceived quality is less than satisfactory andwill tend toward totally unacceptable quality, withincreased discrepancy between ES and PS.
ES=PS, perceived quality is a satisfactory
ES
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
31/34
Directions for Future ResearchA need and an opportunity to develop a standard instrument tomeasure consumers service quality perceptions.
Consumers quality perceptions are influenced by a series ofdistinct gaps occurring on the marketers side.
Examine the nature of the association between service quality asperceived by consumers and its determinants.
The usefulness of segmenting consumers on the basis of their
service quality expectations is worth exploring.
Expected servicea critical component of perceived servicequalityin addition to being influenced by a marketers
communications, is shaped by word-ofmouth communications,personal needs, and past experience.
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
32/34
Summary
Exploratory research (insights, propositions)
10 dimensions exceptions and perceptions
Four key discrepancies or gap on the serviceproviders side
Conceptual service quality model
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
33/34
8/2/2019 Katrina_2006_09_25
34/34
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