Critical Analysis Is Made On The Servqual Model Marketing Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

This section defines service quality, consumer satisfaction and explains the importance of its measurement and reviews two models used in measuring service quality: Groonoos service quality model and the SERVQUAL model.

Empirical background

In this section a critical analysis is made on the SERVQUAL model based on the different works carried out in the field of assessing service quality.

2.1 Theoretical Background

2.1.1 Introduction

Today, with the expansion of service sectors and fierce competition on the market, organisations are looking for a way to distinguish themselves from theirs competitors. Therefore providing superior service quality is believed to be the most effective way for organisations to do so.

It is beneficial for businesses to make sure that their customers are always satisfied with the service quality provided because this ensures the survival, prosperity and profitability of the businesses in the long run. If there exist any negative discrepancies between consumer expectation and what the consumers actually get then this shows that services provided by the organisation is of poor quality. Thus it becomes important for service providers to keep on checking whether their customers are satisfied with the services provided by them and what can be done in order to satisfy those who are not.

2.1.2What is Service Quality?

One of the most important challenges that business are facing today is the management of service quality (Blackiston 1988; sherden 1988). For firms especially in the service sector delivering quality service is considered as a fundamental factor in order to succeed and survive in today's competitive environment (Dawkins and Reichheld, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Zeithaml et al., 1990).

Service quality is a form of attitude, which is said to be related but not equivalent to satisfaction and thus service quality involves a comparison of expectation with performance (Bolton and Drew 1991; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988).

Most definition of service quality focuses on fulfilling the needs of customers and their requirements constantly like for instance according to Lewis and Booms (1983), service quality is "a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customer expectations." Service quality can thus be defined as the difference between customer expectations of service and perceived service.

2.1.3 Why should service quality be measured?

Firms should measure service quality so that they can identify problems associated with the quality of service they provide and can improve their efficiency, profitability and performance. Moreover this can also improve their position vis a vis their competitors and they can also surpass the expectations of their customers in a continuous basis.

2.1.4 Customer Satisfaction

According to Spreng and Mackoy (1996), there is no clear definition of satisfaction, although most definitions would involve "an evaluative, affective or emotional response."

"Satisfaction is merely the result of things not going wrong; satisfying the needs and desires of consumers." (Besterfield 1994). Satisfaction is thus the pleasure that results when a customer compare a product or service performance with his or her expectation. Moreover customer satisfaction is "a consumer's post-purchase evaluation and affective response to the overall product or service experience." (Oliver 1992).

2.1.5 Customer's satisfaction in the service context

For years achieving customer satisfaction has been the major goal of service companies as it has positive impact on the business success. It is so because high customer satisfaction leads to customer loyalty (Yi, 1991; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Boulding et al., 1993) which, in turn, leads to future revenue (Fornell, 1992; Bolton, 1998).

However there is still considerable confusion concerning the relationship between customer satisfaction and service quality (Burns et al., 2003). Service quality is related but is not equivalent to satisfaction as service quality is the comparison of expectation with performance (Bolton and Drew 1991). There is a need for service providers to know whether to have consumers who are satisfied with their performance or to deliver the maximum level of perceived service quality. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988), a rise in consumer satisfaction is the result of higher levels of perceived service quality. Moreover as concluded by Iacobucci, Ostrom and Grayson (1995) the difference that exist between service quality and customer satisfaction is that while service quality refer to the managerial delivery of the service, customer satisfaction reflects experience of customers with that service.

If customers are satisfied with the firms services offered or product, they will have a tendency to buy more of the firm's product/service and will be less likely to switch to other providers of the same service or product. Therefore there is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell, 1992; Rust and Zahornik, 1993; Taylor and Baker, 1994)

Moreover, as the customer is satisfied about the service or product of a company they will advise others to buy from that company. Thus customer satisfaction is another factor which leads to positive word of mouth. Word of Mouth has strong impact to customers' judgments (Silverman, 1997).

Customer satisfaction leads to customer loyalty as stated above. It is so because customers trust the company. Therefore, if the company introduces a new services or product it will be easily accepted by customers.

The more satisfied customers are, the greater is their retention (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell, 1992). Customer satisfaction leads to customer retention. Since customers will be loyal to the company they are less likely to pay attention to other providers on the market.

2.1.6 Service Quality Models

The literature of service quality has seen many models being developed for the measurement of service quality. The SERVQUAL model being one of these models has been widely used as well as criticized by many researchers (Cronin and Taylor 1992, Carman 1990).

2.1.6 (a)Gronroos Service Quality model

As per Gronroos (1984), service quality consists of 3 dimensions which are technical quality, functional quality and reputational quality. Technical quality is the quality of what is delivered and received by the customer. Functional quality is the quality of the service delivery process itself that is how the service is being provided for example the care, attention provided by the delivery personnel. According to Gronroos functional is more important than technical quality. Reputational quality refers to the corporate image that is how the consumers perceive the firms.

2.1.6(b)The SERVQUAL Model

The SERVQUAL model was developed by Parasuraman et al and has been subject to many changes since its publication in 1985. The model is based on the assumptions that the results of market surveys are accurate and customers' needs can be documented, captured and remains unchanged during the whole analysis procedure. After extensive research, Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1988) found five dimensions which customers use when evaluating service quality. Therefore in assessing service quality the 5 dimensions that consumers usually consider are reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibility.

Reliability refers to the provision of the promised service consistently and accurately. Customers expect the service to be accomplished on time, every time without errors meaning that the firm should performs the service right the first time.

Responsiveness refers to the willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. If customers feel that they have to wait for a long time in order to have access to a service this will creates negative perceptions on the quality of service provides whereas ability to recover quickly from a service failure creates positive perceptions.

Assurance refers to the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence.

Empathy refers to care, individual attention that the organisation provides its customers. It also means efforts made by the firm to understand the needs of its customers.

Tangibility includes physical evidence of the service. It refers to physical facilities such as Equipment, communication materials as well as appearance of personnel.

Moreover this model highlights 5 gaps in the delivery of service as shown in figure 1 which can impact customer's judgement concerning service delivery and they are as follows:

Gap 1- Customers expectation versus management perceptions. It includes what consumers expect and what managers think they expect.

Gap 2- It includes the perception of service quality by management and the translation of these into quality specification.

Gap 3- It includes the service specification and the service delivery at the front line. The gap between service quality specification and actual service delivery will affect service quality from customer's point of view.

Gap 4- Includes what is promised in external communication and actual service delivered.

Gap 5- is the gap between a customer's perception of the experience and the customer's expectation of the service. Customer expectations are influenced by the extent of personal needs, word of mouth recommendation and past service experiences.

Figure. 1: The Integrated Gaps Model of Service Quality

(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, Berry 1985)

2.1.7 Demographic profile in the service context

It is important for mobile service providers to maintain up-to-date profile information of the customer in the form of customer-based data as demographic characteristics contribute to the evaluation of service quality. It is so because by making use of information available on the customers, they can formulate effective marketing strategies and demographic characteristics can also contribute to the evaluation of service quality. Moreover mobile service providers can design effective plans and program's regarding the marketing of their services. Therefore, customer's age, income, and education level should be known.

2.2 Empirical Background

In order to assess service quality, Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed the SERVQUAL model and it has been widely used to measure quality of service (Angur et al, 1999; Yavas et al. 2004). This model has been modified further so as to cater for changes in different sectors. However, it has not completely been able to convince researchers of its reliable application. Therefore this section analyses if reliable outcome has always resulted when SERVQUAL model has been used.

Though the SERVQUAL model has been commonly used, it has also been subject to criticism. Several researchers (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Brown et. al, 1993) were against the use of difference scores (perception of service quality minus expectation of service quality) in the model as this can result in customers overstating their expectations if they had a bad experience with the organisations in the past (Clow and Vorhies, 1993). These researchers have developed an alternative model to measure quality of service namely the SERVPERT model which according to them most appropriate to measure service quality. This model is based on service performance (perceptions) rather than perception minus expectation. Cronin and Taylor (1992) tested the SERVPERF model, in four industries (banking, pest control, dry cleaning and fast food) in order to measure service quality. They found that this measure explained more of the variance in an overall measure of service quality than did SERVQUAL. SERVPERF is composed of the 22 perception items in the SERVQUAL scale, and did not considered expectations.

Francis Buttle criticizes the SERVQUAL model in the article "SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda". He criticizes the model from two perspectives; theoretical base and operational base. In the latter, he stipulates that the model does not consider economic, statistical and psychological and that there is lack of evidence showing that customers assess quality of service being offered in term of Perception-Expectation gaps. Moreover SERVQUAL instead of focusing on the outcomes of the service delivered, it focuses on the process of service delivery. In the operational criticisms, he adds that the term "expectation" has many meanings and that rating of a particular service can vary over time.

Van Dyke et al. (1997, 1999) recognised a number of conceptual and empirical criticisms of SERVQUAL. Conceptually, they criticised using two different instruments for measuring two different concepts (perceptions and expectations) to measure a third concept (perceived service quality) and according to them in order assess service quality, direct measurement of perceived service quality is more reliable. Empirically, they argued that SERVQUAL has a number of empirical problems including low reliability and unstable dimensionality.

Moreover, Robert Orwig et al (1997) have analyzed the validity of the SERVQUAL model in the Air National Guard. They wanted to know if the level of service quality in the public sector is the same as that of private sector. According to their findings, the instrument which has been adapted from the marketing literature did not "fair well in the transition" and even emphasized on the problems of the model because other tests done revealed that problems was also associated with the questionnaire. Assessing service quality using SERVQUAL model in public sector may not always result in a reliable result. However, analysis of the service quality in the public sector is also important but it is also recommended to use other models of service quality together with the SERVQUAL model so as to have a better idea of quality of service being offered in this sector.

Jo Ann M Duffy and Alice A. Ketchand (1998) concluded that customers' well being needs to be considered if the SERVQUAL model is used to assessing consumer satisfaction. It is so because well being has a major contribution towards determining overall customer satisfaction. If we do not consider well being of customers then customers' satisfaction ratings as proposed by the SERVQUAL model would not give a true picture of the quality of service being offered. However, it should be considered that mood is a major factor in determining customers' well being but it is not the determining factor Customer well being and mood is a dynamic psychological factor which can greatly influence the overall outcome of a research. Therefore, it should be considered separately in the model.

Despite the existence of evidences that the SERVQUAL model is not free from many limitations, the model has nevertheless been successfully used in researches. Analysing Service Quality and Customer Choice of Mobile Telecommunication Service Providers in Ghana, on a sample size of 260 customers using SERVQUAL, Ahmed Agyapong(2012) concluded that in the mobile telecommunication industry tangibility and empathy dimensions had a strongest impact on satisfaction. Indeed all the dimensions had a strong impact on customer satisfaction except reliability which had a correlation coefficient not different from zero. Thus in the mobile telephony industry, customer satisfaction is significantly influenced by the tangible element of the service provider such as the ambiance of buildings, provision of visually attractive offices, equipment pleasant appearance and uniforms of employees It was also noted that there is positive relationship between customer satisfaction and service quality.

Rahman (2006) used a sample of 1008 questionnaires to measure customer satisfaction in Indian Cellular Telecommunication industry. He found out that customer contact employees play an important role in affecting customer perception of service quality. The tangible dimension was seen as an aspect of service quality extremely important to customers.

Importance is placed on the principle dimensions of the SERVQUAL model. This means that mobile telecoms who wants to supply high quality service show be able to recognise needs and expectations of customers. As berry et al. (1990) indicates in their research, customers do not assign same weight to service quality dimensions. It is so because the types of services provided by companies differ. Therefore, it becomes crucial for companies to know which service areas customers perceive to be the most important and therefore companies should focus more on these areas.

According to the research of Katerina Stylianou (2006) in the Cyprus mobile telecommunication industry, the modified version of SERVQUAL model was used (Parasuraman et al. 1988; 1991) to assess service quality of two mobile operators namely CYTA and Areeba. 150 respondents were chosen from both companies and it was noted that service quality performances and the strategies adopted by the companies differ. In term of tangibility CYTA had higher weighted scores compare to Areeba. However CYTA achieved lower weighted scores on reliability and it was the same for Areeba. Moreover Responsiveness was the most efficient dimension for Areeba compare to CYTA and this was one of the main reasons why CYTA was loosing valuable market positioning. Therefore it can be concluded that in Cyprus, customers relies on responsiveness in order to decide which mobile service provider to choose. In addition it was noted that females and males show different perceptions regarding the dimensions incorporated in the SERVQUAL. Males perceive empathy as the key determinant of service quality being delivered and empathy was also positively related to the other dimensions. Females perceive assurance as the key determinant which affects responsiveness and empathy significantly. As for those who were aged between 18-30, assurance was found to be the most important dimension for them and as for those who was between 31-50 there was correlation between nearly all dimensions except for reliability and tangiability.

The SERVQUAL model was also used by Lai et al. (2007) in China's mobile telecommunication by making use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed that the SERVQUAL instrument is a valid means for measuring service quality. They also identified "service convenience" as an important additional dimension of service quality in China's mobile telecommunication industry.

Rakshit Negi (2009),in his article "User's perceived service quality of mobile communications: experience from Ethiopia", makes use of two additional dimensions namely network aspects(transmission and network quality) and convenience to measure customers' perceptions and expectations of mobile telecommunications services of the Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation(ETC). It was noted that the highest service quality gap was reported with the added dimension of network aspect(-3.68), while the lowest score obtained was for convenience(-2,44).moreover negative gap scores was recorded for the other dimensions as well, this shows that customer perceptions of mobile service quality performance fall below their expectations. Since the perception minus the expectation scores for all the service quality dimensions were negative, there is a need to manage all the dimensions and at the same time enhancing perceptions of service quality. Therefore ETC should provide superior reliability and accuracy in mobile services.

Muhammad Asif Khan (2010) also makes use of the adapted SERVQUAL model with additional dimensions (network aspects and convenience) in his study 'An Empirical Assessment of Service Quality of Cellular Mobile Telephone Operators in Pakistan'. Convenience and network quality dimensions were the most important dimensions affecting users' perception. The dimension of reliability did not have significant effect on customers' perception of quality. By including the additional dimensions customers' interest can be safeguarded properly and it can help management to attract and retain customers.

It can therefore be concluded that though the SERVQUAL model has been subject to many criticisms, it has proved to be a reliable and productive way of measuring service quality. The dimensions proposed by this model are, as to be expected, not the same in all investigations. The following table describes which dimension is more important in some of the researches carried out:

Researcher

Country of investigation

Prevailing dimension

Ahmed Agyapong

Ghana

Tangible

Rahman

India

Tangible

Katerina Stylianou

Cyprus

Responsiveness

Rakshit Negi

Ethiopia

reliability and accuracy

Lai et al.

China

service convenience

Muhammad Asif Khan

Pakistan

Convenience and network quality