Service quality models
Overview of quality and service quality
“Quality is how we describe the value we perceive in the innate characteristics of a product or the attributes of a service” (Kenyon & Sen, 2015). “Service quality” is achieved when the customer or the consumer believes he or her is given more than he is paying or more than his global expectations, and this definitely results in a better relationship. Literature clearly shows that service quality is a strategic tool and the most significant positioning tool for services providers especially when we consider the increasing competition in the services markets (Grubor et al., 2015; Yarimoglu, 2014).
In the service industry, quality plays a very important role as providers need to know which dimension will help them satisfy best their customers. Even if the technical dimension seems key, most of services firms are preferring the functional dimension since this enhance customer relationship very easily (Grubor, Salai & Leković, 2015).
Many practitioners, managers and researchers have designed service quality models in response to the markets’ challenges. There are many models with different approaches. Seth et al. (2004) have identified and analyzed a total of nineteen developed during 1984 to 2003. All these models aim at helping companies to better handle service quality matters in order to gain competitive advantage, customer satisfaction and loyalty (Yarimoglu, 2014). They each have their own strong points and limits and have been profusely discussed in the literature, with different views from researchers.
Among all the models discussed in the rich literature, some major models seem to be the most used and adopted: Grönroos’ model, GAP model and SERVQUAL model (Ghotbabadi et al., 2012; Yarimoglu, 2014). These models are foundation for other service quality measurements (Yarimoglu, 2014).
For each model discussed, we start with a brief description before critically reviewing their contribution to solving business issues. Seth, et al. (2004) have used 11 factors to evaluate the 19 different models, and they include: identification of factors affecting service quality, suitability for service industry, relevance to assess customer satisfaction, consideration for customer perception’s changing nature and capability to suggest proper guidance to improve service quality.
Assessment of service quality models
a. Grönroos’ model
The Grönroos’ Perceived Service Quality model has been of one the very first conceptualization early in 1984 and opened doors to many others models. Three many components have been identified to assess service quality and include: technical, functional and image (Seth et al., 2004).
The technical dimension refers to what customer actually receives from service provider: eg. a car repaired by a mechanic that works fine. The functional component entails the way the service is offered (Seth et al, 2004; Ghotbabadi et al., 2012). This is for example how the mechanic welcomes the client, the global comfort the client has been given while his car is being repairing. Both dimensions just highlighted above are said very important but functional deserves more attention because, if we assume the mechanic is an expert but use to treat very badly his clients, by concentrating himself only on getting the car work fine, he would surely not be seeing a lot of clients in his garage. The 3rd component of Grönroos’ Perceived Service Quality model is “Corporate/brand image”. Image is very important in service industry and highly depends on technical and functional quality as shown on figure 1 below. There are others valuable factors like word of mouth, ideology, pricing, tradition and public relation (Seth et al., 2004).
Figure 1: : Grönroos’ perceived service quality model
Source: Grönroos (1984) cited in Seth et al., 2004
Although fine and having the advantage of pioneering the field of service quality conceptualization, being the first attempt to measure quality of service (Ghotbabadi et al., 2012), Seth et al. (2004), found that the model fails to offer an explanation on how to measure functional and technical quality. Out of the 11 factors, the model satisfies to only five. Seth et al. (2004) highlighted that the model is not suitable for developing a link for measurement of customer satisfaction and is does not suggest suitable measurements to improve quality service.
Later in 1990, the author developed a more comprehensive model called “Augmented services Offer”, shortened ASO Model. The model considers the whole service process based on consumers’ perception (Sanghera, Chernatony & Brown, 2002).
Figure 2: Adapted ASO Model
Source: Sanghera, et al., 2002
The ASO Model is a popular conceptual model that makes clear the need to emphasize consumer’s brand perception from a holistic standpoint in order to achieve service differentiation. However, Sanghera et al. (2002) found its application has been limited and constrained to different uses than originally envisaged.
b. GAP model
In 1985, Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (Brassington & Pettitt, 2013; Yarimoglu, 2014; Ghotbabadi et al., 2012; Seth et al., 2004) proposed GAP model based on gaps between expectation and performance during the service delivery process. The authors identified 5 gaps to assess service quality. “The GAP model provides an important framework for defining and measuring service quality” (Saat, 1999 cited in Yarimoglu, 2014).
Figure 3: Gap Analysis Model
As shown on the figure 3 above, most of the gap concerned the marketer side and are as follow:
1. Gap between what customer actually expect and what management is building as an offer. Here the marketer shows a lack in understanding the needs and wants of his target consumer.
2. Dissimilarity between the marketer’s views about the expectations of their consumers and service quality specifications, meaning that quality standards are a bad fit.
3. The service quality specifications differ from what is actually delivered to the customer
4. Gap between service actually delivered and what has been announced by the marketer about the service, meaning the promise has not matched the delivery.
5. The fifth gap is at the consumer side and consists of the difference between perceived service quality actually delivered and global customer expectations based on communication about the service. This fifth gap, the only one at the consumer side, highly depends on the four gap at the provider side (Seth et al., 2004; Parasuraman et al., 1985).
The model used 10 service quality determinants to assess the gaps: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding, tangibility (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
As analytical tool, the model allows marketer to easily identify service quality gaps and the factors significant to consumers. But it has the weakness of being an only exploratory study and fails to elucidate how the gaps can be efficiently assessed (Seth et al., 2004).
c. SERVQUAL Model
The most commonly used and most famous model of service quality measurement is SERVQUAL (Gilmore & McMullan, 2009; Duff and Hair, 2008; Ladhari, 2009 cited in Rodrigues, Barkur, Varambally & Motlagh, 2011; Gothbabadi et al., 2012). SERVQUAL has been the result of the exploratory research refinement of the GAP Model Parasuraman et al. developed in 1985 (Seth et al., 2004; Gothbabadi et al., 2012; Grubor et al., 2015). The 10 service quality determinants have been reduced to 5 in the new model: Tangible, reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1988). But the 5 dimensions used to evaluate differences between perception and expectation of service quality still have considerations for the 10 initial components. It is a 22-item questionnaire that help marketers identify gaps, but even better, just as GAP model it also fails to give a very clear understanding of how efficiently the gap must be measured.
As highlighted early in the introduction, there several service quality models but the above appear to be insightful and most used. My further research to to apply SERVQUAL model to banks operating in West Africa.
