See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330618062

SERVICE QUALITY IN HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF

MODELS

Article  in  Review of Business and Technology Research · January 2019

CITATION READS

1 16,175

3 authors, including:

Bibhuti B Pradhan Ansuman Samal

Siksha O Anusandhan University Siksha O Anusandhan University
64 PUBLICATIONS   292 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Service quality in Hospitals View project

Medical Tourism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ansuman Samal on 25 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

SERVICE QUALITY IN HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY: A SYSTEMATIC

REVIEW OF MODELS
LonashreeSanasam, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
(lonaelle1995@gmail.com)
Bibhuti Bhusan Pradhan, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
(registrar@soa.ac.in)
Ansuman Samal, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha; Email:
(ansumansamal@soa.ac.in)

ABSTRACT

Hospitality industry is multifaceted sector that deals in multibillion dollars and works with profit maximization
as its main objective. Service quality is a unique measure adopted by the hospitality sector to enhance profit
margins by increasing the numbers of satisfied customers. The basic aim behind the concept is to match the
expectation levels of the customers and find ways to exceed their expectations which would make them ahead of
the competitors. Within the ambit of Service quality concept, the SERVQUAL scale plays a crucial role as it has
been recognized as the mostly recognized & adopted scale to measure the differences between customers’
expectations and perceptions. With this background, our study tries to study the concept of service quality in
hospitality industry as well as have made a comparison between various scales developed over the years. The
paper reveals the importance of service quality in hospitality industry as well as acceptability of the
SERVQUAL model in the industry.
Key words: Service Quality, SERVQUAL, Hospitality Industry.

INTRODUCTION

The culture of profit maximization has been followed as the main goal in every firm. To increase the profit and
the productivity they need more customers to boost the sales figures. Because of the more customers equals to
more sales, more sales leads to more profit and ultimately more market share. However, earning profit by
keeping the current customers is much wiser approach than acquiring newer customers as it will lead to less
expenditure on marketing/advertising and secondly retaining customer will bring more profit, loyalty and
contributes to the growth of the firm. (Kotler & Armstrong 2007).
But, the key to retain the older customers or to acquire newer customers is to provide good quality in products
and services in order to encourage them to make the purchase (Kotler &Armstrong 2007). Apart from the
conventional agriculture sector, the modern era Industry structure is divided in two key components of products
related industry and services providing industry where the provision of good quality is influenced by the
satisfaction level, loyalty of the customer, and their intention to comeback (repeat purchase behaviour). (Cronin
& Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). The importance of services sector in world’s largest
economies has considerably overtaken the other sector as we can figure out from the CIA World Fact book of
2017.
Fig.1: Contribution of Various Sectors to the World’s Largest Economies (in %)

80.2 78.8
80.2 69.4 69.1 73.3 73.8
51.6 53.7 62.1
39.8 29.6 30.3
18.9 19.2 19.6 20.9 29.0 24.1 32.5
8.6 5.8 17.3
0.9 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.6 2.1 4.7
USA China Japan Germany UK France Brazil India Italy Russia
Agriculture Industry Services

Source: CIA World Factbook 2017(Last Updated on 03.01.2018)

But to survive and grow in this volatile market today, we cannot always depend upon the conventional
ways to manage and grow the business by only going after the sales. Rather, we need to search for the
innovative measures for effectively catering the customers which will provide sustainable competitive
advantage over a period of time. Due to the diminishing physical, financial and psychological barriers resulting
from Globalization phenomena, the taste and preference of customers have transformed greatly in the recent

179
Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

past (Samal et. al 2018). In a developing country like India, the opening of markets in the mid 90s has made the
customers more demanding (Dzever & Jaussaud, 2004). This change has also affected the emerging sector of
hospitality business for which, we need to keep a constant vigil in the market to observe and adopt innovative
ways of customer service that will make us different than the others (Samal et. al, 2017).
In this direction, our research paper here has investigated the concept of service quality in the
hospitality business and tries to list various types of scales developed over the years to measure the satisfaction
levels of the customers. Based on the findings of the study we have tried to suggest some measures in order to
make the service delivery process more effective in the hospital sector.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In general, the term quality has been around since the Industrial revolution in the Europe, but it is only after the
great World Wars, it gained momentum and seriously spoken off. In these years, many definitions of the term
quality have been proposed by the researchers and with globalization it has placed in the centre of their activities
paradigm (Samal et. al, 2017). Some studies have proposed it as a phenomenon which results in achieving
customer satisfaction and thereby leading to generate the loyalty & repeat purchase intentions (Jaswal &
Walunj, 2017). Therefore the term quality of a product / services can make or break a deal and help in building
the brand image of the company (Arsanam & Yousapronpaiboon, 2014). Some researchers have defined the
term quality as the combination of technical quality (What is given?) and functional quality (How it is given?)
(Gronroos, 1984; Yousapronpaiboon & Johnson, 2013). Some other suggests it as the difference between the
perception (after availing services) and expectations (before availing the services) of the customers (Parsuraman
et al. 1988; Wang & Shieh, 2006). It has been also defined as the superior offerings that provide the satisfaction
(Lymperopoulos et al., 2006), help in gaining profitability as well as help in incrementing the market share of
the company (Caruana, 2002; Dadoa et al., 2012; & Sharma, 2014). In case of services, as it becomes difficult to
evaluate the quality due to the unique characteristics normally we take note of the perception of the customers
rather than depending on the technicality of the services (Parsuraman et. al. 1985, 1988). Over the years, many
models have been derived to capture the perception of people (Lehtinen, & Lehtinen, 1982, Grönroos, 1984,
Garvin, 1987, Coddington, & Moore, 1987, Brogowicz, Delene, & Lyth, 1990, Cronin, & Taylor, 1992,
Mattsson, 1992, Rust, & Oliver, 1994, Dabholkar, et al., 1996, Philip, & Hazlett, 1997, Victor, et al., 2001, Zhu,
et al., 2002, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Malhotra, 2005, Landrum, et al., 2008, Lee, D. 2016). Many
comparisons have also been made between these scales amongst which the GAP model analysis and subsequent
SERVQUAL scale developed by Parsuraman, Zeithamal and Berry (1985, 1988) in mapping the gap between
the perception and expectation levels of the customers, has become the most popular, valid, robust, reliable, and
predominate over all other types of scales (Babakus & Mangold, 1992, Asunbonteng et al., 1996, Heung et al.,
2000). Due to its universal acceptability and use across different segments, we have concentrated our focus on
the same in our study.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

a. To figure out various scales developed for measuring service quality over the years.
b. To study the SERVQUAL scale in detail and its relevance in hospitality industry.
c. To find out how it can be implemented in the hospitality sector.

THE CONCEPT OF SERVICES

Today, as the economy is dominated by the contributions of the services sector, this industry has to be explored.
Unlike the products / hard goods manufacturing sector, the Services possess some unique characteristics which
make it difficult for the marketers to define and assess their quality and thereby even more problematic to offer a
holistic bouquet to the customers to gain their satisfaction (Siddiqui & Khandaker, 2007). To become successful
in the service sector, an organization needs to develop higher order strategies and core competencies such as
knowledge, skills which will allow them to establish, develop and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship
with the customers (Cronin & Taylor, 1994). Over the years, many researchers have conducted their studies in
this regard and more or less everybody is of the opinion that good service quality can lead to retention of
existing customers and attraction of new ones, reduction in cost and time, enhancement of corporate image,
positive word-of-mouth communication and all this leading to ultimate profitability and long-term competitive
advantage (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990; Rust & Zahorik, 1993; Kang & James, 2004).
As attracting new customers is a costlier affair than retaining the existing customers, maintaining them and
increasing their loyalty levels is the essence of many corporate strategies today. It can be used as an effective
weapon to differentiate and build a distinctive advantage over others which will be difficult to copy and thus the

180
Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

sustainable competitive advantage can be achieved (Lim & Tang, 2000). In order to define the stated service
quality, we need to start by answering the simple question about the definition of Service.
“A service is any activity or benefit that one party can offer to another which is essentially intangible and does
not result in the ownership of anything.”By Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders, and Wong.
“Services are economic activities that create value and provide benefits for customers at specific times and
places as a result of bringing about a desired change in or on behalf of the recipient of the service.” By
Christopher Lovelock.
“Services are activities, benefits or satisfactions that are offered for sale or provided with the sales of goods to
the customer, that is, pre-sale and after-sales services.” By the American Marketing Association.

KEY SERVICES CHARACTERISTICS

The basic difference between a product and service lies in the unique characteristics of services which
differentiate them from the product categories. They can be called as 5 ‘I’ which are –
a. Intangibility: Services lack physical existence and are intangible in nature. Hence they are hard to smell,
hold, taste or touch. Thus, the concept of transportation, stocking or storing is very difficult in this scenario.
b. Inventory/(Perishability): Once used it becomes very difficult for the Services to be reused, stored, saved,
returned or resold. Once it is given to a person or performed it becomes very difficult to deliver the same to
another one.
c. Inseparability: This refers to the fact that services are generated and consumed at the same time. Examples:
The service consumer must sit in the hair dresser's shop & chair or in the plane & seat; correspondingly, the
hairdresser or the pilot must be in the same shop or plane, respectively, for delivering the service.
d. Inconsistency/(Variability): Each time the service is performed, it is done in a unique way. It can never be
repeated as the first time and varies from place to place, time to time even from person to person.
e. Involvement: To make a service transaction successful, both the provider and consumer have to participate
in the service transaction process.
The services sector doesn’t possess a particular product/technology rather it is more of an experience
which makes it difficult for the marketers to develop and offer a bundle of utilities that can further attract and
retain the customers in order to build a sustainable service delivery system. Due to this uniqueness of the
services, we cannot define the term quality in it as it defined for products. Rather we have to take the perceived
service delivery as a parameter for assessing the quality. It may include the process, the person, the equipment
as well as the environment in which services are delivered (Collier, 1990). As it is evidenced that the future of
economy belongs to the service sector, it is the call of the time to make the delivery process seamless, optimized
as well as bring excellence in to it so that we can produce and provide the service standards as desired by the
customers and of required excelled than the expectations of the customers.

SERVICE QUALITY

By book definitions, the term Service quality can be referred as the shared endeavor or performances that ensure
the satisfaction levels amongst the users (Martinez, 2001). Again the service qualities provided through the
offerings have a direct relationship with the increased levels of customer satisfaction and vice versa (Brady &
Robertson, 2001). Service quality can be defined as the personal experience of the customer with the service
provider (Arokiasamy & Abdullah, 2013). The quality of services can also be broadly divided into two type
namely technical and functional quality (Grönroos, 1984). Simply stating, technical quality is the accuracy and
technicality involved in the service delivery whereas functional quality is the procedure through which services
are delivered to the customer. Some researchers have defined it as the experience and thereby generated
impression about the relative supremacy or mediocrity of a service provided (Bitner & Hubbert, 1994) and it
guides the attitude of the customers towards the company either positively or negatively (Parasuraman et al.
1988; Bitner, 1990). Another angle views it as the difference between what is expected by the customers and
what they perceived to receive after availing the services (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Some others suggest it to
be the combination of four prospective namely excellence, value, confirmation to specifications and
meeting/exceeding the expectation levels (Hernon & Danuta, 2001).
Due to these multidimensional aspects of service quality, associated with the unique characteristics of
services, many times the modern day marketers face some distinctive challenges like accurately defining them,
designing & testing new service offerings, effectively communicating to create an image, assessing & managing
the supply-demand scenarios as well as human resource aspects, effectively costing the service offerings and
ensuring consistency in terms of quality in the service delivery processes etc. (Samal et. al, 2018).
The evaluation process of services differs from that of the goods. The service offerings are believed to
be high in experience qualities as the service delivery is all about a feeling or outcome not about owning it like a
product. Similarly, they are also high in terms of credence attributes as many times the customers are not sure
about the quality of services availed by them instantly as it’s an intangible, variable, perishable and inseparable

181
Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

feeling. These characteristics are not applicable to the products sector as they are high in terms of search
qualities through which the consumer can evaluate and experience a product before actually going for it (Ford et
al., 1988; Tulay & Dion, 2010). Within these wider frameworks of explanations, if a company wants to provide
optimum levels of quality in its offerings, then it has to understand its customer base thoroughly including their
demographics, tastes, preferences etc., identify the problems in the service delivery process before anyone does
& proactively solve them, establish reliable & validated measures of performances, constantly measure the
expectations and perception levels of the customers and above all ensure the provision of high standard service
quality delivery at all the times (Woodside et al., 1989; Bou-Llusar et al., 2001; Pollack, 2008; Owusu et al.
2010; Falk et al., 2010;). Thus, we can derive from the discussions that in these turbulent times, it is the basic
strategy of providing excellence in customer service delivery that will give the quintessential “Wow Factor” to
the company and propels them ahead of the competitors.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Service Quality and customer satisfaction goes hand in hand. Over the years, it has attracted many practitioners
as well as academicians for continuous improvement of service quality and there by meeting the customers’
needs and earning their satisfaction (Samal et. al, 2018). A customer can be identified as satisfied when he/she
becomes fully contended with the product/service offerings (Oliver, 1997). It’s a feeling of pleasure or
disappointment that arises from the comparison between the perceived performances with the expectations of the
customers (Kotler & Keller, 2009). As all human beings are different, their tastes and preferences differ from
each other and thereby their definition of satisfaction also varies (Garga & Bambale, 2016). It has a direct impact
on the behavioral responses, future purchase intentions as well as the loyalty of the customers and thereby shares
a direct relationship with the service quality (Farris et al. 2010).
In order to understand the various factors affecting customer satisfaction, over the years many researchers
have tried and explored many parameters to measure service quality dimensions which directly and indirectly
influence customer’s satisfaction (Bowers et al., 1994; Brown & Swartz, 1989; Gooding, 1995). The
significance of customer satisfaction for today’s hyper competitive market place is very high as it ensures repeat
purchases, converts the customer base to loyalists, differentiate the company from others, reduces defection
rates of the customers, increases lifetime value of the customers, reduces negative feedbacks from the
customers, retains the existing customers and helps in acquiring the newer ones. (Samal et. al, 2018).

RELATION BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

From the discussions above, we can comfortably derive that, customer satisfaction is the basic aim of all
business activities (Wang, & Lo, 2002). Successful businesses today nurture the customer expectations and
successfully fulfil them in order to enhance the customer delivered value (Owusu F. et al., 2010). The research
works done over the years have revealed a strong bond between service quality, trust, and customer satisfaction
with customer loyalty which grows gradually and remains inseparable for both the service providers and the
customers (Akbar & Parvez, 2009).
Thus we can derive that with the enhancement of service quality, the level of customer satisfaction
increases and thus the customers show favorable behavioral intentions which becomes crucial factors for the
long-term success of the service providers (Aliman & Mohamad, 2016). Conceptually it can be shown as.

Fig 2: Effects of Service Quality on Customer satisfaction

Expected Perceived Customer Customer Repeat Competitive Sustainable

Quality in Competitive
Service Service Satisfaction Loyalty Purchase Advantage
Service Service
Quality Quality Behavior Advantage
Providing delivery
Entities
Source: (Samal et. al, 2018)

Models/measuring tools developed for service quality measurement over the years
Over decades, to understand and define the term quality many researchers have tried to study it from
various perspectives. If we conduct a detailed analysis of the various studies done, we can get different views
along with models for measuring the service quality.

182
Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

Summary of models to assess service quality dimensions over the years

No Researcher(s) Key Models and Findings
1 Sasser et al., 1978 Security, attitude, consistency, condition, completeness, availability, and
training of service Providers etc.
2 Lehtinen, 1982 Physical quality (Tangibility), interactive quality (Interaction), and the
corporate Image quality (Brand).
3 Grönroos, 1984 Technical quality (What) and Functional quality (How)
4 Garvin, 1987 Features, Performances, Reliability, Conformance, Durability, Serviceability,
Aesthetics and Perceived Quality.
5 Coddington & Moore, Warm Caring Nature, Staff, Technology & Equipment, Specialization &
1987 Scopes Of Services Available, and Outcome of the Service Process.
6 Parasuraman, Zeitaml, Initially developed 10 parameters of competence, courtesy, credibility,
& Berry, 1985, 1988 security, access, communication, customer knowhow, tangibles, reliability,
and responsiveness which again refined to final dimensions such as reliability,
assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness.
7 Haywood & Farmer, Tangibles, Process, Behavior and Professionalism.
1988
8 Brogowicz, Delene, & Service Quality and Synthesis Model with planning, implementation and
Lyth, 1990 controlling functions.
9 Cronin & Taylor, 1992 Developed the SERVPERF model where the perceptions of the customers
were captured in a more efficient manner.
10 Mattson, 1992 Service Quality Ideal Value Model where comparisons were made of the
experience of the customers with ideal usage standards.
11 Teas, 1993 Performance Evaluation (PE) and Normed Quality (NQ) Model where the
concept of service quality is defined as the gap between perceived
performance and ideal performance.
12 Rust & Oliver, 1994 Service Product, Service Delivery, and Service Environment.
13 Berkley & Gupta, 1994 Derived the harmony model of IT and advocated for the use of Information
Technology in service provisions.
14 Lovelock, 1994 An additional GAP was added to the existing five gaps which is the difference
between the actual service delivered and the quality of perceived service by
the customer affect their overall experience.
15 Dobholkar, 1996 Developed the Retail Service Quality Scale (RSQS) that consist of 5
dimensions, 6 sub-dimensions and 28 items applicable to the retail sector.
16 Spreng & Mackoy, Maintenance of specifications and confirmations to the standards
1996
17 Sweeney, Soutar, & Retail service Quality and Perceived Value Model where the monetary aspect
Johnson, 1997 was added to the service quality ambit.
18 Philip, & Hazlett, 1997 Derived the model known as PCP (Pivotal, Core and Peripheral). Pivotal are
the basic reason a service is availed. Core attributes are the people and
processes and Peripheral attributes are the additional objects provided,
environment in which services are delivered.
19 Chakrapani, 1998 Dependability of product or services, the support of the company and their
ability to exceed the expectations.
20 Oh, 1999 Perceptions, Service Quality, Consumer Satisfaction, Customer Value and
Intentions to Repurchase
21 Evans, & Lindsay, Accessibility & Convenience, Accuracy, Completeness, Consistency,
1999 Courtesy, Time, Timeliness, and Responsiveness.
22 Dabholkar. 2000 Reliability, Personal Attention, Comfort and Features
23 Frost & Kumar, 2000 Took the employee aspects and emphasized on the internal customers for
effective service delivery and thereby generating customer satisfaction.
24 Soteriou & Stavrinides, Nos. of customers and resources like people, space and time etc. affecting the
2000 Service Quality DEA Model.
25 Victor, et al., 2001 Respect & caring, effectiveness & continuity, Appropriateness, Information,
Efficiency, Meals, First Impression and Staff diversity etc.
26 Brady & Cronin, 2001 Interaction quality, environment quality and outcome quality
27 Broderick & Expectation levels of the customers, reputation and image of the service
Vachirapornpuk, 2002 providers, environment in which services are offered, the actual transaction
between the customers and providers, and levels of customer participation.

183
Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

28 Zhu et. al., 2002 Age, need of attention, ease of access, comfort of using internet from
anywhere, personal interaction, less cost of usage of internet etc.
29 Santos, 2003 Website design, accessibility, attractiveness of the website, ease of use, speed
of browsing etc.
30 Parasuraman, Zeitaml, Adequacy, Execution, Usability, and Privacy.
& Malhotra, 2005
31 Jabnoun, & Khalifa, Reliability, Values, Personal Skills and Image.
2005
32 Kang, 2006 Functional quality and the outcome quality
33 Voon, 2006 Orientation towards to customers, competitors, inter-functional aspects,
performance, employees and long-term survivability.
34 Landrum et. al., 2008 Information Systems and the essential parameters were identified as quality of
information (IQ), user’s involvement in the service delivery process, and
quality of the system (SyQ).
35 Jain et. al., 2010 Campus, reputation, visual appeal, industry interaction, support facility,
quality of faculty members, inter-personal relationships, curriculum, academic
related facilities, outcome, quality of students, and support facilities etc.
36 Sahney, 2010 Focus on the customers, communication channels, evaluation and control
systems, design of the curriculum, competency in instructions, specific
policies and procedures, effective leadership, regular reviews, allocation of
resources, and operational planning etc.
37 Lee, D., 2016 HEALTHQUAL: Aspect of caring, aspects in services offered, tangibility
aspects, efficiency aspects, safety aspects and empathy parameters.
Source: Author’s Collection

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SERVQUAL MODEL

If we go through the various definitions of the concept of service quality as well as conduct an analysis amongst
the various scales developed over the years to measure it, the SERVQUAL scale developed by Parasuraman,
Zeitaml, & Berry in 1985 came up as the most reliable, trustworthy and used one. It also has wide applicability
across sectors which make it a universal scale over these years. Therefore, we have focussed on the
SERVQUAL scale in this paper.
(Babakus & Mangold, 1992) tested the SERVQUAL scale and recommended it as a reliable scale with
acceptable levels of stability and validity. (Asunbonteng et al., 1996) revisited the concept of SERVQUAL and
stated that the SERVQUAL scale can predominate rest all scales till a far simpler and better scale for measuring
service quality would emerge.
(Heung et al., 2000) tested the SERVQUAL scale across various industries and stated it as the most
valid instrument for capturing data. (O'Connor et al., 2001) conducted a study to map the perception levels of
the consumers in a hospital setting and found the SERVQUAL instruments very suitable to analyze the
perceptual gaps in patients’ expectations. (Kulašin & Fortuny-Santos, 2005) conducted a research on the
applicability of the SERVQUAL scale and stated that it is the first and doubtlessly the most popular
measurement instrument to be used in the field of service quality assessment. He further stated that the
SERVQUAL instrument is the generic scale which can be used across various sectors of the services. (Rohini &
Mahadevappa, 2006) analyzed the SERVQUAL scale and found it to be a standardized and reliable instrument
that identifies five different dimensions of service quality and also validate them in different service situations.
(Hill & Alexander, 2006) in their book highly appraised the SERVQUAL scale and noted that it has been used
in assorted industries in various versions which has in turn turned it into a more meaningful, effective and
reliable scale to be used. (Mangkolrat, 2008), in his research, summarized seven benefits of SERVQUAL
approach in measuring satisfaction levels of the patients like a) It is good at describing the service encounters
from the customer’s viewpoints. e.g. their importance parameters, expectations and satisfaction levels. b) With
the ability to tap the perceptions of both the customers and management we can alert the management about the
perceived differences. c) Addressing the service gaps can serve as a basis for formulating strategies and tactics
in order to ensure the fulfilment of expectations. d) Areas of excellence and weakness can be properly identified
by the SERVQUAL scale. e) The areas of weaknesses can be prioritized by the use of SERVQUAL. f) Within
the industry it can help in creating a benchmark for the organizations. g) It can help in tracing the change in the
trends of the customers if applied periodically.
(Chunulaka, 2010), studied the effects of SERVQUAL scale and concluded that it helps in understanding
the customers’ value more efficiently and the comparison between the expectations and perception can be
effectively measured through this. They also stated that the accuracy and adequacy of this scale is much ahead

184
Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

of other scales. (Al Bassam, & Al Shawi, 2010) analyzed the SERVQUAL scale and arrived at the conclusion
that, it’s a tried and tested instrument that can be effectively used for benchmarking purposes. The scale has
been widely used over the years and thus the scale’s validity has been drastically improved due to extensive
field testing and refinements. (Mukhtar et al., 2013) praised the SERVQUAL scale for its validity, applicability
and reliability in assessment of service quality of different organizations. They also stated that the SERVQUAL
has proved itself to be self-sufficient, effective, and efficient over the years and can be used in varieties of
services providing organizations. (Qolipour et al., 2017) tried to validate a questionnaire to be administered to
the medical tourists in Iran and find the SERVQUAL scale to be much more valid and reliable than any other
scale to assess the perceptions regarding healthcare facilities.
In the recent years, many studies have been conducted on the applicability of the SERVQUAL model
in various key business sectors where it came out to be a trustworthy and reliable tool for decision making
across industry verticals like Health sector (Nawaz, et al., 2016; Ajam, et al., 2014; Education (Mansori et al.,
2014; Automobile (Katarne et al., 2010), Banking (Panda, & Kondasani, 2014;), Telecom (Baruah et al., 2015)
and Hotel (Ryglová et al., 2013) etc.
Time and again the SERVQUAL scale has been established as one of the most popular and widely
applicable tools to measure the service quality parameters (Chakraborty & Majumdar, 2011). Though it has
some drawbacks as questioned by some researchers over the years (Bowers et al., 1994; Cronin & Taylor,
1994), but majority of the studies have voted for it as the best-suited instrument in service quality studies (Akter
et al., 2008; Boshoff & Gray, 2004).
Because of this popularity, wide applicability, as well as questionings, the SERVQUAL scale has to be
studied deeply in various context and social settings across the globe.
The SERVQUAL Scale

Fig.3: Conceptual GAP model of Service Quality

Source: Parasuraman et al. (1985) pp. 41-50

The basic concept behind this model is to compare the feelings of the customers both before and after
availing a service. We can define the service GAP as the difference between the expectation and perception of
the customers. As per the model, the GAP 5 arises due to combined reasons of GAP 1 to GAP 4. At the
beginning customer’s expectations are formed due to three factors of word-of-mouth communication about a
particular service, personal needs & wants, and the past experiences of the customers.
1. GAP 1 is the difference between the expectation level of a customer and what the company perceives
about the expectations of the customers.
2. GAP 2 is the difference between what company perceives about the expectations of the customers and
development of inaccurate service quality standards.
3. GAP 3 is the difference between deployment of service standards and actual levels of delivery of high-
quality services to the customers.
4. GAP 4 is the difference between the promise made through communications and actual delivery of
services.
By definition, SERVQUAL is a multidimensional research instrument used through a questionnaire to capture
the expectation levels and perception levels of the customers. It consists of a list of 22 matched numbers of
statements each in the expectation and perception parameters and arranged into 5 dimensions.

185
 Review of Business and Technology Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2018, ISSN: 1941-9406 (Print), 1941-9414 (CD)

The finally defined five dimensions of the SERVQUAL instrument can be described as
a. Reliability: Dependable and accurate performance of the duties assigned.
b. Assurance: the ability to generate trust and confidence amongst the customers by virtue of the knowledge
and courtesy of the employees.
c. Tangibles: Tools, equipment, appearances, physical facilities, personnel and communication materials,
uniforms which originates the feel of quality.
d. Empathy: Furnishing a caring and attentive attitude towards the customers.
e. Responsiveness: Provision of prompt services and the attitude and willingness to help.

WAY FORWARD

From the discussions above, we can safely derive that the SERVQUAL scale has been accepted as a Universal
scale for measuring quality parameters in various service sector entities. Though challenged over the years, still
it has maintained its robustness and validity in this volatile market place and also acting as a base to lunch any
new study regarding quality in services marketing. Some Researchers have challenged it over the period but due
to its universal applicability it has maintained the top position and we hope it will continue to do so in future.

REFERENCE
For detailed bibliography, authors may be contacted

186

View publication stats