Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Servqual (Zeithaml Parasuraman Berry
Servqual (Zeithaml Parasuraman Berry
Servqual (Zeithaml Parasuraman Berry
A. Parasuraman
University of Miami
Washington, DC
November 4, 2005
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Personal
Needs
Expected
Service
Service
Quality
Gap
Past
Experience
External
Communication
to Customers
Perceived
Service
Quality
Perceived
Service
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Customers
Service
Expectations
Service
Quality
Gap
Customers
Service
Perceptions
SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Market
Information
Gap
Organizations
Understanding of
Expectations
Service
Standards
Gap
Organizations
Service Standards
GAP 1
GAP 2
Service
Performance
Gap
GAP 5
GAP 3
GAP 4
Organizations
Communications to
Customers
Organizations
Service
Performance
Internal
Communication
Gap
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
POTENTIAL CAUSES OF
INTERNAL SERVICE GAPS
[GAPS 1 - 4]
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
GAP 1
Customer
Expectations
Key Factors:
Insufficient marketing research
Inadequate use of marketing research
Lack of interaction between
management and customers
Insufficient communication between
contact employees and managers
Management
Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Lack of
Upward
Communication
GAP 2
Management
Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
Key Factors:
Inadequate management commitment
to service quality
Absence of formal process for setting
service quality goals
Inadequate standardization of tasks
Perception of infeasibility -- that
customer expectations cannot be met
Service
Quality
Specifications
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
GAP 3
Service
Quality
Specifications
Key Factors:
Lack of teamwork
Poor employee - job fit
Poor technology - job fit
Lack of perceived control (contact personnel)
Inappropriate evaluation/compensation system
Role conflict among contact employees
Role ambiguity among contact employees
Service
Delivery
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
GAP 4
Service
Delivery
Key Factors:
Inadequate communication between
salespeople and operations
Inadequate communication between
advertising and operations
Differences in policies and procedures
across branches or departments
Puffery in advertising & personal selling
External
Communications
to Customers
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Lack of
Horizontal
Communication
10
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
11
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
12
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
13
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
14
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
15
Continue to monitor
customers expectations
and perceptions
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Is the information
communicated to customers
about your offerings accurate?
NO
YES
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
16
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
17
Word of
Mouth
Personal
Needs
Expected
Service
Service
Quality
Gap
Past
Experience
External
Communication
to Customers
Perceived
Service
Quality
Perceived
Service
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
18
SERVQUAL Dimensions
TANGIBLES
RELIABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
ASSURANCE
EMPATHY
TANGIBLES
RELIABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
COMPETENCE
COURTESY
CREDIBILITY
SECURITY
ACCESS
COMMUNICATION
UNDERSTANDING/
KNOWING THE
CUSTOMER
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
19
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
20
RESPONSIVENESS
EMPATHY 16%
22%
ASSURANCE 19%
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
21
33
23
11
23
14
21
15
13
18
32
19
Computer Manufacturer
All Companies
Retail Chain
29
28
12
12
23
23
18
17
19
20
Auto Insurer
Reliability
15
18
Responsiveness
Life Insurer
Assurance
Empathy
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Tangibles
22
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
Tangibles Reliability Responsive- Assurance
ness
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Empathy
23
Desired Service
Level Customers
Believe Can and Should Be
Delivered
Zone
of
Tolerance
Adequate Service
Minimum Level
Customers Are Willing
to Accept
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
24
Measure of Service
Superiority (MSS)
Perceived
Service
Adequate
Service
Perceived
Service
Desired
Service
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
25
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
26
TWO-COLUMN FORMAT
Please think about the quality of service ________ offers compared to the two different levels of
service defined below:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL - the minimum level of service performance you consider
adequate.
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL - the level of service performance you desire.
For each of the following statements, please indicate: (a) how ______s performance compares
with your minimum service level by circling one of the numbers in the first column; and (b) how
______s performance compares with your desired service level by circling one of the numbers
in the second column.
Compared to My Minimum
Service Level ____s
Service Performance is:
The
Same
Compared to My Desired
Service Level ____s
Service Performance is:
No
Higher Opinion
The
Same
No
Opinion
When it comes to
Lower
1.
Prompt service
to policyholders
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Lower
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Higher
27
THREE-COLUMN FORMAT
We would like your impressions about ________s service performance relative to your expectations. Please think
about the two different levels of expectations defined below:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL - the minimum level of service performance you consider
adequate.
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL - the level of service performance you desire.
For each of the following statements, please indicate: (a) your minimum service level by circling one of the numbers
in the first column; and (b) your desired service level by circling one of the numbers in the second column; and (c)
your perception of ___________s service by circling one of the numbers in the third column.
My Minimum
Service
Level is:
When it comes to
Low
High
My Desired
Service
Level is:
Low
My Perception
of ____s Service
Performance is:
High
Low
No
High Opinion
1.
Prompt service
to policyholders
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Employees who are
consistently courteous
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
28
Two-Column
Format
Three-Column
Format
Computer
Manufacturer
8.6%
0.6%
Retail Chain
18.2%
1.8%
Auto Insurer
12.2%
1.6%
Life Insurer
9.9%
2.7%
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
29
SERVQUAL
Dimensions
TWO-COLUMN FORMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE
MSA Scores MSS Scores
THREE-COLUMN FROMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE
MSA Scores
MSS Scores
Reliability
6.8
5.9
0.2
-1.0
Responsiceness
6.7
5.7
0.3
-1.1
Assurance
6.8
5.9
0.4
-0.9
Empathy
6.5
5.6
0.2
-1.2
Tangibles
7.1
6.4
1.1
-0.2
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
30
Tangibles
Assurance
9. Employees who instill confidence in customers
10. Making customers feel safe in their transactions
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
31
S.Q. Perception
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
32
S.Q. Perception
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
33
6.8
8.4
8.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.4
6.7
6.8
8.3
6.7
6.8
7.5
6.8
5.7
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Zone of Tolerance
Empathy Tangibles
S.Q. Perception
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
34
8.5
8.4
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.1
8.3
8.1
6.3
6.8
6.4
6.3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness
Zone of Tolerance
Assurance
Empathy
S.Q. Perception
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
35
36
37
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
38
Company
Internal
Marketing
External
Marketing
Technology
Employees
Customers
Interactive
Marketing
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
39
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
40
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
41
Definition of e-Service
Quality (e-SQ)
e-SQ is the extent to which a Website facilitates
efficient and effective shopping, purchasing
and delivery of products and services
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
42
Dimensions of e-Service
Quality from Focus Groups
Access
Ease of Navigation
Efficiency
Customization/
Personalization
Security/Privacy
Responsiveness
Assurance/Trust
Price Knowledge
Site Aesthetics
Reliability
Flexibility
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
43
Reliability
DEFINITION
Correct technical
functioning of the
site and the
accuracy of service
promises, billing
and product
information.
SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
Site does not crash
Accurate billing
Accuracy of order
Accuracy of account
information
Having items in stock
Truthful information
Merchandise arrives
on time
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
44
Efficiency
DEFINITION
SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
45
Means-End Model
Concrete
Cues
Perceptual
Attributes
Dimensions
SPECIFIC/
CONCRETE
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Higher-level
Abstractions
ABSTRACT
46
Means-End Model of
e-Service Quality
Concrete
Cues
Tab Structuring
Site Map
Search Engine
One-click Ordering
Perceptual
Attributes
Dimensions
Higher-Level
Abstractions
Easy to Maneuver
through Site
Easy to Find
What I Need
Ease of
Navigation
Speed of
Checkout
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
47
Concret
e Cues
Perceptual
Attributes
Dimensions
Higher-Level
Abstractions
Access
Ease of
Navigation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Reliability
Personalization
Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Security/
Privacy
Responsiveness
Assurance/
Trust
Site
Aesthetics
Price
Knowledge
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
48
Purchase
Loyalty
Perceived
Convenience
W.O.M
Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Perceived
Control
Perceived
Value
Perceived
Price
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
49
Fulfillment
Gap
Customer
Web site
Requirements
Customer
Web site
Experiences
Perceived
e-SQ
Perceived
Value
Company
Purchase/
Repurchase
Information
Gap
Design and
Operation
of the
Web site
Marketing
of the
Web site
Communication
Gap
Managements
Beliefs
about Customer
Requirements
Design
Gap
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
50
Dimensions of e-SQ
Core Dimensions
[E-S-QUAL]
Efficiency
Fulfillment
System Availability
Privacy
Recovery Dimensions
[E-RecS-QUAL]
Responsiveness
Compensation
Contact
Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra, E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality,
Journal of Service Research, February 2005.
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
51
E-RecS-QUAL Dimensions
Responsiveness: Effective handling of problems and returns through the site.
Compensation: The degree to which the site compensates customers for
problems.
Contact: The availability of assistance through telephone and online
representatives.
Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra, E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality,
Journal of Service Research, February 2005.
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
52
53
What is Technology
Readiness [TR]?
TR refers to peoples
propensity to embrace
and use new
technologies for
accomplishing goals in
home life and at work
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
54
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
55
56
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
Resistant to
Technology
Neutral
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Receptive to
Technology
57
Technology
Readiness
High
Medium
Low
Resistant to
Technology
Neutral
Receptive to
Technology
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
58
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
59
60
Optimism
Innovativeness
Technology Readiness
Inhibitors
Discomfort
Insecurity
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
61
62
10 items
7 items
Discomfort
10 items
Insecurity
9 items
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
63
61% in 1999
68% in 2000
65% in 2001
65% in 2002
67% in 2004
68% in 1999
69% in 2000
65% in 2001
59% in 2002
60% in 2004
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
64
52% in 1999
54% in 2000
55% in 2001
51% in 2002
46% in 2004
87% in 1999
88% in 2000
82% in 2001
82% in 2002
78% in 2004
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
65
Mean TR
Scores
OPT.
1999
INN.
2000
DIS.
2001
INS.
2002
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
TRI
2004
66
High TR
Low TR
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
67
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
68
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort 2
TR
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort Y
Year 1-5
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort Y
Year 6-10 Year 11-15 Year 16-20 Year 21-25 Year 26-30
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
Age Range
Covered in
TR Surveys
Time
69
Explorers
High
High
Low
Low
Pioneers
High
High
High
High
Skeptics
Low
Low
Low
Low
Paranoids
High
Low
High
High
Laggards
Low
Low
High
High
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
70
1999
2000
2001
2002
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
2004
71
Technology
Readiness
High
Skeptics
Paranoids
Laggards
Low
Early
Late
72
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
73
Explorers
Pioneers
Skeptics
Paranoids
Laggards
Low
Low
High
Appeal of High-Touch
Service Channels
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
74
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
75
www.technoreadymarketing.com
76
Thank You!
A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the authors permission
77