Service Quality Assurance Case Study

Parasuraman et al. (1988) argued that the customer’s perception of service quality offering is a function of five dimensions categorized as reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness (RATER) and suggested SERVQUAL (a service quality measurement tool). Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued for “Performance only” measurement of service quality and proposed a service quality measurement tool called SERVPERF. Teas (1993) argued on the measurement of expectations and presented the Normed Quality and Evaluated Performance model. Dabholkar (1996) addressed the need for conducting longitudinal studies (measuring expectations prior to the service encounter). However, such studies are not very commonly reported in literature due to the

However, several studies have identified potential difficulties with the use of SERVQUAL (Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Asubonteng et al., 1996; Buttle, 1996; Van Dyke et al., 1997; Llosa et al., 1998). These difficulties have related to the use of so-called “difference scores”, the ambiguity of the definition of “consumer expectations”, the stability of the SERVQUAL scale over time, and the dimensionality of the instrument. As a result of these criticisms, questions have been raised regarding the use of SERVQUAL as a generic measure of service quality and whether alternative industry-specific measures of service quality should be developed for specific service settings. Over the past 15 years or so, at least 30 industry-specific scales of service quality have been published in the literature on service quality – including (among others) scales suggested by Saleh and Ryan (1991), Vandamme and Leunis (1993), Jabnoun and Khalifa (2005), Akbaba (2006), and Caro and Garcia (2007). However, no study has attempted to review and integrate this plethora of research on service-quality measurement. The present study addresses this gap in the literature. Its purpose is to explore some of the pertinent conceptual and empirical issues involved in the development of industry-specific measures of service

(1985, 1988), their aim was to provide a generic instrument for measuring service quality across a broad range of service categories. Relying on information from 12 focus groups of consumers, Parasuraman et al. (1985) reported that consumers evaluated service quality by comparing expectations (of service to be received) with perceptions (of service actually received) on ten dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, communication, credibility, security, competence, understanding/knowing customers, courtesy, and access. In a later (Parasuraman et al. (1988)) work, the authors reduced the original ten dimensions to five: (1) tangibles (the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, and personnel); (2) reliability (the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately); (3) responsiveness (the willingness to help customers and provide prompt service); (4) empathy (the provision of individual care and attention to customers); and (5) assurance (the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence). Each dimension is measured by four to five items (making a total of 22 items across the five dimensions). Each of these 22 items is measured in two ways: (1) the expectations of customers concerning a service; and (2) the perceived levels of service actually provided. In making these measurements, respondents are asked to indicate their degree of agreement with