Service Quality Literature Review Words | 4 Pages. the concepts of service quality and service excellence and lays a foundation for Chapter 3 - Literature Review. The chapter begins by reviewing the concept of service quality and the related concepts such as service quality expectation, service performance and service outcomes Sep 30, · Literature Review. Theoretical Background. Service quality is a significant factor because it determines the university’s reputation that can provide attraction to attract customers (Daniel et al. ). Moreover, in a competitive world, universities need to focus on the quality of their service to help build a positive reputation of the Disclaimer: is the online writing service that offers custom written papers, Literature Review On Service Quality including research Literature Review On Service Quality papers, thesis papers, essays and others. Online writing service includes the research material as well, but these services are for assistance purposes only. All papers from this agency should be
(PDF) SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW | Katherine Green - blogger.com
The purpose of this review is to consider both current and past literature concerning the main concept areas associated with the study in question and also to provide some rationale for conducting the study. The literature review will focus on critically analysing tools which have been used in the past to measure service quality such as, SERVQUAL Parasuraman et al and SERVPERF Cronin and Taylor, By critically analysing these tools through the views of past research, it will provide a better understanding of which tool should be used in the current study.
A service is an act or performance that one party may offer to another that is strictly intangible and does not result in ownership of anything Kotler, Fitness centres base their businesses primarily on the provision of services; therefore it is vital the service provided meets customer requirements. Services have four unique characteristics which distinguish them from goods, service quality literature review. Services are intangible, perishable, variable and inseparable Lamb, Hair and McDaniel, This view on the four characteristics has been criticised by some authors on the basis that the characteristics stated are not applicable to all service sectors Afthinos et al, Also, focusing heavily on these characteristics can overlook the consumer role in the delivery of a service Afthinos et al, A key feature of the services is inseparability, as it clearly highlights consumer-employee interaction as a vital part of production and consumption of a service Chelladurai and Chang, Organisations which deal with tangible goods are able to measure quality by the number of defects produced; organisations such as fitness centres are unable to do this as they need to measure the service they provide.
One way of measuring the service provided is to ask customers to give feedback through certain tools. A variety of past studies have been service quality literature review to assess service quality. Much of the initial work in developing a model to assess service quality came from Parasuraman et al ; who noticed that discrepancies existed between organisations and customer perceptions of the service quality delivered.
Parasuraman et al developed the SERVQUAL scale, consisting of 22 expectation and 22 perception questions, which were rated on a seven point likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
They suggested that when the perceived experience is less than the expected experience, it implies less than satisfactory service quality. After two stages of purification, the SERVQUAL scale was adapted from a model with ten dimensions to five; tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy Parasuraman et al, service quality literature review, Empirical evidence has shown that SERVQUAL has good trait validity and a reliability of between.
This shows that the SERVQUAL scale is valid and the results gained from service quality literature review study are likely to be reliable, however it must be taken into account that the trait validity and the reliability will vary depending on the type of industry that is being evaluated. It was hypothesised by Parasuraman et al that when there is a negative discrepancy, the performance gap will cause dissatisfaction, whilst a positive discrepancy will cause consumer delight, service quality literature review.
The positive and negative discrepancies are calculated through subtracting customer perceptions from expectations. The problem facing a service provider who does not directly deliver a service to the customer, is how to analyse the service quality gap. A solution for this problem was to use the SERVQUAL scale and identify the areas where expected customer service level is not achieved in each of the five dimensions Gagliano and Hathcote, The results from the SERVQUAL scale could then indicate where a gap analysis is required, service quality literature review.
During the late eighties and very early nineties the SERVQUAL scale was advantageous to managers of organisations as it was easy to use, as well as being the first qualitative method to measure service quality.
The SERVQUAL scale invented by Parasuraman et al has been supported by various researchers Mckay, ; Brady and Robertson, The scale has also been tested by McKay in Canadian municipal parks, and he was able to extract the same five dimensions as Parasuraman et alconfirming the reliability of the scale.
SERVQUAL has also been tested by Brady and Robertson who employed the scale to test the quality of service received from travel agencies. They found that it is still a valid and reliable model with which to evaluate service quality provided by travel agencies Brady and Robertson, The SERVQUAL scale focuses on the fifth service service quality literature review gap, which is the discrepancy between customer expectations and their perceptions of the service delivered; when customer expectations are greater than perceptions.
Parasuraman et al believed that by using their performance minus expectations theory, they would be able to analyse and close this gap. Managers and employees would know what the customer requirements were and therefore they could establish a plan to close the gap. Once the plan of action had been in place for a certain amount of time they would conduct the study again to see if they were any closer to closing the service quality gap Parasuraman et al This was a good plan as it allows an organisation to see how far away they are from closing the service quality gap.
If the research is conducted again and the results are more positive then the organisation knows they are heading service quality literature review the right direction. However, service quality literature review, if the results are negative then the organisation knows that the plan they have implemented needs to be altered.
Chellaudri et al were one of the service quality literature review researchers to evaluate service quality in fitness centres as they developed The Scale of Attributes of Fitness Services SAFS. The scale consisted of five dimensions and was similar to the SERVQUAL model.
Parassuraman et al criticised the SAFS scale by suggesting that it had a lack of structure, and it was confusing as to what in particular was being measured. Also, the wordings of the dimensions were not clear, which in turn questions the scales validity and reliability. If the wording is not clear to the customers then the investigator may think he is measuring one thing when in fact the customer has interpreted the question in another way.
Parasuraman et al suggested the new and improved SERVQUAL scale was the way forward as it was the superior scale to use when measuring service quality across numerous industries. However numerous researches and testing have not been supportive of the SERVQUAL scale and it has been heavily criticised. Carman admitted that the SERVQUAL model has good stability; however the five dimensions stated are not always generic, as the dimensions will alter depending on the organisation being surveyed.
Even when the expectations are taken before a service has been delivered there is still no relationship between one another. One of the major objections against the SERVQUAL scale is in relation to the performance minus expectation gap scores. Many authors have struggled to find a positive fit between the quality measured through the SERVQUAL scale and overall quality measured directly through a single-item scale Babakus and MangoldFin and Lamb Although the use of the performance minus expectations gap score is naturally appealing and theoretically sensible, the ability of these scores to provide extra information beyond that which is present in the perception component of service quality scale is under doubt Carmon, Churchill, Brown and Peter further criticise the SERVQUAL scale suggesting that problems of reliability, discriminant validity and variance restrictions are present.
They also found that the distribution of SERVQUAL scores was not normal, and the scale also failed to achieve discriminant validity from its components. Due to many authors, notably Carmancriticising the SERVQUAL model for not being industry specific, Crompton and McKay developed the Recreation Quality REQUAL scale. The REQUAL scale used the SERVQUAL scale as its basis and it was developed for the evaluation of recreation and leisure services. Service quality literature review scale consisted of the same five dimensions as SERVQUAL.
Backman and Veldkamp tested the REQUAL scale and found that the scale was a valid tool of measurement in the recreational field, service quality literature review. They recommended that the scale can serve as a template for other researchers to use in their investigation of recreational service quality. Apart from this study, there has been a real lack of confidence in this scale and it has not been used anywhere near as much as the SERVQUAL scale. It must also be noted that this scale still complies by the rules of the SERVQUAL scale.
So the majority of the criticism that SERVQUAL apart from not being industry specific receives, is also directed at the REQUAL scale. They found that 28 of the 30 service quality literature review scored negatively, therefore the perceptions did not meet the customer expectations. They concluded that their modified SERVQUAL instrument could be useful in the public leisure service quality literature review. Although they state service quality literature review scale may be useful, it will still cause the fitness centre problems as customer expectations always seem to be higher than their service quality literature review. Consumers always want the best; therefore the managers of fitness centres will have difficulty in improving these scores and providing the perfect service for each customer, service quality literature review.
This is one area where the SERVQUAL scale has received heavy criticism Cronin and Taylor, ; Carmon, Many authors have attempted to replicate the SEVQUAL scale and failed. The most intense criticism of the scale has come from Cronin and Taylorsuggesting that the SERVQUAL model is based on very little theoretical and empirical evidence. Cronin and Taylor developed a performance based model to measure service quality, known as SERVPERF.
After consumers have experienced a service, their attitudes about the service quality may alter over a certain period of time and can change their future attitudes. For example, just after a person has experienced a holiday they may think it was average or below average but as the service quality literature review looks back over a period of time then they may feel that it was an enjoyable experience.
So the perception of services can interestingly change over a period of time. Empirical evidence has been shown across a variety of industries to support their performance only scale over the SERVQUAL instrument. According to several authors, the SERVPERF scale is a clear improvement on the SERQUAL instrument Boulding et al ; Carman Researchers have also found that the single — item performance based scale is able to measure greater variance in the overall service quality than the SERVQUAL scale Grewal and Brown, ; Hartline and Ferrell, Many authors prefer the SERVPERF scale as it is more efficient than the SEVQUAL scale, service quality literature review.
This will allow greater feedback as more customers will be willing to answer the questions as there is a reduction in time taken to complete the questionnaires. Another benefit is that the results gained from measuring customer perceptions only are more relevant and meaningful as it is discovered straight away what the customers thought of the service.
However, several authors will argue the fact that measuring customers expectations are still important Parasuraman et al ; Service quality literature review ; Bopp Teas has questioned SERVQUAL on a conceptual basis and suggested that it was very confusing in relation to service satisfaction. They agreed with Carman who suggested that the expectations element of SERVQUAL should be eliminated and instead the performance element alone should be used.
Although the SERVPERF scale is still trailing the SERVQUAL scale in terms of the amount of researchers who have used the instrument, the number of researchers who are making use of the SERVPERF scale are increasing remarkably. When the two scales have been applied in conjunction with one another, the SERVPERF scale has been shown to outperform the SERVQUAL scale Cronin and Brand, ; Dabholkar et al, The debate between the two service quality literature review has been continuous.
In Parasuraman et al defended their SERVQUAL model against the numerous amounts of criticism it received, service quality literature review. They stated that although Cronin and Taylor suggest that there is little empirical evidence to support the theory of perceptions minus expectations gap, many researchers have supported this theory Crompton and Mckay ; Gronroos, Parasuraman et al also argue that the SERVQUAL model attempts to measure consumers attitude level, whereas SERVPERF tends to focus on the formation of attitudes, therefore according to Parasuraman et althe two scales are not measuring the same variables.
By suggesting that the two models are measuring different variables they are implying that the criticism of the SERVQUAL scale and the preference of the SERVPERF model is irrelevant, however Cronin and Taylor disagree, service quality literature review. It is also noted that research has shown that the SERVQUAL scale has greater convergent and discriminant validity than the SERVPERF model Parasuraman et al The authors do however service quality literature review that their perception minus expectations method is less predictive than the SERVPERF scale, but they believe the SERVQUAL scale has better diagnostic value.
Cronin and Taylor responded to the arguments made by Parasuraman et al and suggest that they are not the only researchers to challenge the SERVQUAL model and many others have found faults in the model Grewal and Brown, ; Hartline and Ferrell, They go on to say that based on the literature they reviewed, SERVQUAL does not exhibit construct validity.
Finally they stress that SERVQUAL has little research that conceptually supports the scale, therefore the question needs to be asked if the SERVPERF scale can validly and reliably measure service quality. Cronin and Taylor strongly believe that their scale is valid, reliable and very useful in measuring service quality and consumer attitudes. One of the most significant views on the SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL debate comes from one of the founders of the SERVQUAL scale, service quality literature review.
This statement by Zeithamal shows the superiority of the SERVPERF scale, as he was one of the founders of the SERVQUAL scale and is now admitting that his opposing model is superior to his own. Researchers started using the SERVQUAL and the SERVPERF scales as platforms to develop new models with which to measure service quality. Kim and Kim developed the Quality of Excellence in Sports Centres QUESC instrument, which consisted of 11 dimensions with only sevencorresponding with the SERVQUAL model.
After reviewing the literature on service quality, Kim service quality literature review Kim had the option of creating an instrument to measure customers expectations and perceptions similar to SERVQUAL or customers perceptions only similar to SERVPERF. The fitness centres in Korea at this time were gradually increasing, as demand was increasing. Consequently, the managers of fitness centres wanted to know what customers in this new field required so they could implement it in their fitness centre and gain a competitive advantage over existing and new competitors.
A variety of different models and tools have been assessed in the literature review.
What is a Literature Review?
, time: 2:12Service quality models: a review | Emerald Insight
Service Quality Literature Review Words | 4 Pages. the concepts of service quality and service excellence and lays a foundation for Chapter 3 - Literature Review. The chapter begins by reviewing the concept of service quality and the related concepts such as service quality expectation, service performance and service outcomes service quality management: a literature review ABSTRACT Service quality becomes the crucial issue for hospitality industry and the theory of service Disclaimer: is the online writing service that offers custom written papers, Literature Review On Service Quality including research Literature Review On Service Quality papers, thesis papers, essays and others. Online writing service includes the research material as well, but these services are for assistance purposes only. All papers from this agency should be
No comments:
Post a Comment