Revisiting The Conceptualization And Measurement Of Service Qualityeprints.qut.edu.au/28608/1/Zhi_Wei_Yap_Thesis.pdf · Revisiting The Conceptualization And Measurement Of Service

Revisiting The Conceptualization And

Measurement Of Service Quality

By:

Yap Zhi Wei David (05461502)

BIT (Information Systems)

Queensland University of Technology

Supervisors:

Prof. Guy Gable (Principal)

Dr. Taizan Chan (Associate)

A dissertation presented to the Faculty of Information

Technology, Queensland University of Technology, in

fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters degree.

Masters Degree Candidate: Yap Zhi Wei David (05461502)

i

I dedicate this Thesis to my late mother, Madam

Chua Choon Hiang (1953 – 2008), for her constant

prayers and support during my candidature.


ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank God because without Him all these things would not be

possible.

I would like to thank my Family (Dad, late mum and brother) for being a pillar of

encouragement, support and prayers.

I would like to thank Prof. Guy Gable (Principle Supervisor) and Dr. Taizan Chan

(Associate Supervisor) for their encouragement, patience, guidance, time and sharing

of their knowledge with me. I also thank them for believing and having confidence

in me. They have definitely played a significant part in my life in my education

journey.

I would like to thank Dr. Greg Timbrell for his assistance, motivation and belief in

me in our collaboration for our Australasian Conference on Information Systems

(ACIS) paper which was accepted and presented in Year 2007.

I would like to thank Assoc Prof. Judy Drennan from QUT Business Faculty for

her kind and generous contribution and support towards my research.

I would like to thank Pastors, cell and church members from International City

Church (Brisbane) for their constant prayers, encouragement and belief in me.

I would like to thank Pastor, connect group and church members from Church

Arise (Singapore) for their constant prayers, encouragement and belief in me.

I would like to thank members of the Information Technology Professional

Services (ITPS) research track in QUT, whom I reside in, for their support and

encouragement.


iii

Statement Of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for any reasons.

To the best of my knowledge, the material in this thesis is original unless otherwise

stated by referencing.

Signature

Yap Zhi Wei David

Date


iv

Table Of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................... 4

1.1 Research Problem Statement ................................................................................... 4

1.2 Motivation For Research ......................................................................................... 6

1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 7

1.4 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Research Background .............................................................................................. 7

1.6 Significance Of Research ........................................................................................ 9

1.7 Structure Of Report ................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................... 10

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Objectives Of The Literature Review ............................................................. 10

2.1.2 Structure Of The Literature Review ............................................................... 11

2.2 Services .................................................................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Definitions Of A Service ................................................................................ 12

2.2.2 Products Versus Services................................................................................ 14

2.3 Service Quality ...................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 Definitions Of Service Quality ....................................................................... 17

2.3.2 Why Measure Service Quality? ...................................................................... 18

2.3.3 Problems With Measuring Service Quality .................................................... 19

2.3.4 Conceptualizations Of Service Quality .......................................................... 20

2.3.5 Measurements Of Service Quality .................................................................. 50

2.4 Relationships Between Perceived Service Quality And Satisfaction .................... 59

2.5 Relationships Between Service Quality And IS Success ...................................... 69

2.5.1 Definition Of IS Success ................................................................................ 69

2.5.2 Service Quality And IS Success ..................................................................... 69

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 74

Chapter 3: Research Design ..................................................... 76

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 78

Chapter 4: Archival Analysis Of Data And Discussion Of Mapping Results ........................................................................ 79

Chapter 5: Conclusions ............................................................ 96

5.1 Limitations Of Research ........................................................................................ 99

5.2 Future Research ..................................................................................................... 99


v

Appendices ............................................................................. 101

Appendix A – List Of Journal Articles Considered For B&C (2001) Model Mapping

Exercise ..................................................................................................................... 102

Appendix B – Mapping Protocol ............................................................................... 113

Appendix C - Mapping Of Industries’ Service Quality Dimensions To The B&C

(2001) Model’s Sub-dimensions ............................................................................... 150

Appendix D - Mapping Of Industries’ Service Quality Dimensions To The B&C

(2001) Model’s Primary Dimensions ........................................................................ 167

References .............................................................................. 180


vi

Table of Figures

Figure 1 – The Brady and Cronin (2001) Model (Brady and Cronin 2001) ................................... 46

Figure 2 – Discovery grant model (Gable 2008) ................................................................................ 72

Figure 3 – IS-Impact model................................................................................................................. 73


1

Abstract

Since the 1980s, industries and researchers have sought to better understand the

quality of services due to the rise in their importance (Brogowicz, Delene and Lyth

1990). More recent developments with online services, coupled with growing

recognition of service quality (SQ) as a key contributor to national economies and as

an increasingly important competitive differentiator, amplify the need to revisit our

understanding of SQ and its measurement.

Although ‘SQ’ can be broadly defined as “a global overarching judgment or attitude

relating to the overall excellence or superiority of a service” (Parasuraman, Berry

and Zeithaml 1988), the term has many interpretations. There has been considerable

progress on how to measure SQ perceptions, but little consensus has been achieved

on what should be measured. There is agreement that SQ is multi-dimensional, but

little agreement as to the nature or content of these dimensions (Brady and Cronin

2001). For example, within the banking sector, there exist multiple SQ models, each

consisting of varying dimensions. The existence of multiple conceptions and the lack

of a unifying theory bring the credibility of existing conceptions into question, and

beg the question of whether it is possible at some higher level to define SQ broadly

such that it spans all service types and industries.

This research aims to explore the viability of a universal conception of SQ, primarily

through a careful re-visitation of the services and SQ literature. The study analyses

the strengths and weaknesses of the highly regarded and widely used global SQ

model (SERVQUAL) which reflects a single-level approach to SQ measurement.

The SERVQUAL model states that customers evaluate SQ (of each service

encounter) based on five dimensions namely reliability, assurance, tangibles,

empathy and responsibility. SERVQUAL, however, failed to address what needs to

be reliable, assured, tangible, empathetic and responsible. This research also

addresses a more recent global SQ model from Brady and Cronin (2001); the B&C

(2001) model, that has potential to be the successor of SERVQUAL in that it


2

encompasses other global SQ models and addresses the ‘what’ questions that

SERVQUAL didn’t. The B&C (2001) model conceives SQ as being multi-

dimensional and multi-level; this hierarchical approach to SQ measurement better

reflecting human perceptions. In-line with the initial intention of SERVQUAL,

which was developed to be generalizable across industries and service types, this

research aims to develop a conceptual understanding of SQ, via literature and

reflection, that encompasses the content/nature of factors related to SQ; and

addresses the benefits and weaknesses of various SQ measurement approaches (i.e.

disconfirmation versus perceptions-only). Such understanding of SQ seeks to

transcend industries and service types with the intention of extending our knowledge

of SQ and assisting practitioners in understanding and evaluating SQ.

The candidate’s research has been conducted within, and seeks to contribute to, the

‘IS-Impact’ research track of the IT Professional Services (ITPS) Research Program

at QUT. The vision of the track is “to develop the most widely employed model for

benchmarking Information Systems in organizations for the joint benefit of research

and practice.” The ‘IS-Impact’ research track has developed an Information Systems

(IS) success measurement model, the IS-Impact Model (Gable, Sedera and Chan

2008), which seeks to fulfill the track’s vision.

Results of this study will help future researchers in the ‘IS-Impact’ research track

address questions such as:

• Is SQ an antecedent or consequence of the IS-Impact model or both?

• Has SQ already been addressed by existing measures of the IS-Impact model?

• Is SQ a separate, new dimension of the IS-Impact model?

• Is SQ an alternative conception of the IS?

Results from the candidate’s research suggest that SQ dimensions can be classified

at a higher level which is encompassed by the B&C (2001) model’s 3 primary

dimensions (interaction, physical environment and outcome). The candidate also

notes that it might be viable to re-word the ‘physical environment quality’ primary


3

dimension to ‘environment quality’ so as to better encompass both physical and

virtual scenarios (E.g: web sites). The candidate does not rule out the global

feasibility of the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions, however, acknowledges

that more work has to be done to better define the sub-dimensions. The candidate

observes that the ‘expertise’, ‘design’ and ‘valence’ sub-dimensions are supportive

representations of the ‘interaction’, physical environment’ and ‘outcome’ primary

dimensions respectively. The latter statement suggests that customers evaluate each

primary dimension (or each higher level of SQ classification) namely ‘interaction’,

physical environment’ and ‘outcome’ based on the ‘expertise’, ‘design’ and

‘valence’ sub-dimensions respectively. The ability to classify SQ dimensions at a

higher level coupled with support for the measures that make up this higher level,

leads the candidate to propose the B&C (2001) model as a unifying theory that acts

as a starting point to measuring SQ and the SQ of IS. The candidate also notes, in

parallel with the continuing validation and generalization of the IS-Impact model,

that there is value in alternatively conceptualizing the IS as a ‘service’ and ultimately

triangulating measures of IS SQ with the IS-Impact model. These further efforts are

beyond the scope of the candidate’s study.

Results from the candidate’s research also suggest that both the disconfirmation and

perceptions-only approaches have their merits and the choice of approach would

depend on the objective(s) of the study. Should the objective(s) be an overall

evaluation of SQ, the perceptions-only approached is more appropriate as this

approach is more straightforward and reduces administrative overheads in the

process. However, should the objective(s) be to identify SQ gaps (shortfalls), the

(measured) disconfirmation approach is more appropriate as this approach has the

ability to identify areas that need improvement.


4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over the years, as importance has shifted from product quality to SQ, many

researchers have focused their research on SQ, yielding a range of SQ models and

measurement approaches. Despite much research done in the SQ field, there is a lack

of consensus regarding the conceptualization and measurement of SQ (Dabholkar,

Shepherd and Thorpe 2000). The aim of this study is to explore the potential from a

new high-level and global conception of SQ, that as far as possible, logically

subsumes existing models and conceptions. This study is being conducted within the

IS-Impact track at QUT; the track vision being “to develop the most widely

employed model for benchmarking Information Systems in organizations for the

joint benefit of research and practice.” The IS-Impact track has yielded the IS-

Impact measurement model, “a measure at a point in time of the stream of net

benefits from the IS, to date and anticipated, as perceived by all key user groups”

(Gable, Sedera and Chan 2008, 381). Results of this study will help future

researchers in the IS-Impact track address questions such as: Does the IS-Impact

model encompass SQ? Alternatively, is SQ an antecedent or consequence of IS-

Impact? Can Information Systems be usefully conceptualized as services? More

information about the foundational work done within the IS-Impact track can be

found in Chapter 2.5 (page 46)

1.1 Research Problem Statement

Although it is apparent that perceptions of SQ are based on multiple dimensions,

there is no agreement as to the nature or content of these dimensions (Brady and

Cronin 2001; Ko and Pastore 2004). This lack of agreement is evidenced by the

existence of multiple SQ models, even within in a single industry, each model

consisting of a unique combination of dimensions (Mersha and Adlakha 1992;

Ennew, Reed and Binks 1993; Avkiran 1994; Aldlaigan and Buttle 2002; Allred and

Addams 2000). Over the years, there has also been a transition in the conceptual

structure of SQ from being single-level (Gronroos 1984; Parasuraman et al. 1988;


5

Rust and Oliver 1994; Lehtinen and Lehtinen 1991) to multi-level (hierarchical)

(Fassnacht and Koese 2006; Kang 2006; Brady and Cronin 2001; Dabholkar, Thorpe

and Rentz 1996; Carman 1990; Dagger, Sweeney and Johnson 2007; Ho and Lee

2006; Loiacono, Watson and Goodhue 2007; Bauer, Falk and Hammerschmidt 2006;

Ko 2000; Ko and Pastore 2004; Collier and Bienstock 2006). This transition from a

single-level to a multi-level (hierarchical) structure is in response to the observation

that customers tend to cognitively decompose SQ dimensions into various sub-

dimensions (Carman 1990) and a hierarchical structure accounts for the complexity

of human perceptions (Dabholkar et al. 1996).

There exist issues regarding the measurement of SQ. Two measurement approaches

dominate, namely the disconfirmation approach (which encompasses computed and

measured disconfirmation) and the perceptions-only approach. The disconfirmation

approach measures both expectations and perceptions and equates SQ evaluation to

the difference scores derived from the two measures. The perceptions-only approach

equates SQ evaluation to the measurement of service performance perceptions after

the service has been delivered. Dabholkar, Shepherd and Thorpe (2000) argue that

the majority of empirical studies conducted to measure SQ (E.g: disconfirmation

approach, perceptions-only approach) have been cross-sectional meaning that

perceptions and expectations are captured after the service has been delivered and

this assumes that customers’ expectations do not change over time nor do they

change after the delivery of the service. Even within the disconfirmation approach,

there is a debate as to whether measured disconfirmation (a mental estimation of

perceptions compared to expectations) is superior to computed disconfirmation or

difference scores (a mathematical calculation of perceptions-minus-expectations).

In the services realm, the success of a service encounter is dependent on the service

outcome which is the customers’ purchase intentions or behavior intentions. The

service encounter is deemed successful if customers have purchase (behavior)

intentions to re-purchase the service(s) in question at the end of the service

encounter. In any service encounter, the formulation of the customers’ purchase


6

(behavior) intentions comprise of two components. These two components are SQ

and Satisfaction (SAT) which are evaluated by the customers during the service

encounter. There, however, exist two notions of causality between SQ and SAT that

influences (or is an antecedent of) purchase intentions or behavior intentions. One

notion states that SQ influences SAT while the other states that SAT influences SQ.

The direction of causality is important because both SQ and SAT are important

strategic objectives of ensuring the success of a service encounter (Dagger et al.

2007).

1.2 Motivation For Research

SERVQUAL, which was developed to measure SQ globally, continues to be popular

and widely-used, with many studies using SERVQUAL as the basis of SQ

measurement (Li, Tan and Xie 2002). Despite its widespread popularity, several

concerns with the SERVQUAL model were noted by marketing researchers in

relation to difficulties with reproducing SERVQUAL’s five dimensions (reliability,

assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness) when the SERVQUAL survey

was administered in various industries (Collier and Bienstock 2006). These main

concerns include: (1) SERVQUAL’s five dimensions were not able to capture the

SQ dimensions from all industries and had to be modified to suit the service nuances

of specific industries; and (2) SERVQUAL answered the ‘HOW’ questions (i.e. How

should SQ be measured? E.g. It can be measured by its reliability), but not the

‘WHAT’ questions (E.g: What needs to be reliable?) in-relation to each of its five

dimensions (Li et al. 2002).

Ko and Pastore (2004) suggested that for the best conceptualization of SQ,

researchers should focus on: (a) how the SQ construct is conceptualized; (b) which

factors determine the consumer’s perception of SQ; and (c) how to measure the

constructs. They also mention that “the differences in the conceptualization of SQ

suggest that a comprehensive conceptual model needs to be developed for better

understanding of this construct (SQ)” (Ko and Pastore 2004). The absence of a


7

comprehensive conceptual model (E.g: existing SQ conceptualizations and

measurement approaches are problematic) coupled with the intentions of

SERVQUAL to measure SQ globally, give rise to this timely review and

harmonization of these concepts and measurement approaches to form a better

understanding of SQ. Such an understanding seeks also to assist in facilitating the

benchmarking of SQ across various industries and service types.

1.3 Research Questions

The candidate, having reviewed prior studies on SQ and its measurement, raises the

following research questions:

1) From the literature, does there exists a global SQ measurement model that

encompasses the content/nature of SQ dimensions represented across various

industries and service types?

2) From the literature, in-relation to the two approaches of measuring SQ (I.e.

disconfirmation, perceptions-only), would one approach be better than the other?

1.4 Research Objectives

This research project seeks to develop a conception of SQ, via literature, that (1)

encompasses the content/nature of factors related to SQ; and (2) addresses the

benefits and weaknesses of various measurement approaches (disconfirmation versus

perceptions-only). This understanding of SQ seeks to transcend various industries

and service types.

1.5 Research Background

Since the 1980s, increasingly industries and researchers have turned their attention to

the quality of services (Brogowicz et al. 1990; Kunst and Lemmink 1996) as services

have grown in importance (Rust and Oliver 1994) and the provision of services


8

(rather than goods) is fundamental to economic exchange (Vargo and Lusch 2004).

Vargo and Lusch (2004) mentions that marketing has shifted much of its dominant

logic away from the exchange of tangible goods (manufactured things) and toward

the exchange of intangibles, specialized skills and knowledge, and processes (doing

things for and with). They believe that the latter move points marketing towards a

more comprehensive and inclusive dominant logic – one that integrates goods with

services.

Services are the largest and fastest growing sector in developed countries. In Europe,

the service sector accounts for between 60 and 80 percent of Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) (Sundbo and Gallouj 1999). During the 2004-05 financial years, the

services-producing industries' overall contribution to the total production of goods

and services in the Australian economy (gross domestic product - GDP) was 56%.

Average annual total employment in the Australian service industries in 2005-06

was 7,530,600 people, which represented 75% of all employment (Trewin 2007).

To maintain customer-bases and compete effectively in the international service

markets, organizations must be able to measure and maintain the quality of their

services at a level that meets or exceeds the expectations of their customers. There

exist various SQ models depicting various nature/content of SQ dimensions. Many

studies on SQ have made progress in ‘how’ service quality should be measured but

little advancement in ‘what’ should be measured.

Dabholkar, Shepherd and Thorpe (2000) mentioned that a major debate has focused

on whether SQ should be measured as perceptions-only or as disconfirmation. Both

measurement approaches (perceptions-only and disconfirmation) have their fair

share of support from researchers as well as advantages and disadvantages. Support

for the disconfirmation approach comes from SQ being traditionally conceptualized

as a disconfirmation process, which was founded on the disconfirmation paradigm

(employed in the physical goods literature), which posits that quality results from a

comparison of perceived with expected performance. Support for the perceptions-


9

only approach comes from the lack of support for the disconfirmation approach

(Carman 1990) and evidence that current performance adequately captures

consumers’ SQ perceptions (Cronin and Taylor 1992).

1.6 Significance Of Research

This study aims to make two main contributions. First, the conceptual understanding

of SQ would better assist researchers in understanding: (1) the content/nature of SQ

dimensions that customers use when evaluating SQ across various industries; and (2)

the strengths and weaknesses of each measurement approach (I.e. disconfirmation

versus perceptions-only). Second, this understanding can then be applied globally (as

a potential set of best practices) to better assist management in maintaining and

improving their organization’s SQ. The rationale being that a better informed

management would then be able to take proactive steps into improving and bringing

about better SQ to consumers.

1.7 Structure Of Report

The following Chapters document the following:

Chapter 1 - goal of the report, structure of the report, the motivation for the research

and documents the research problem, questions and objectives.

Chapter 2 - literature review.

Chapter 3 - chosen research method.

Chapter 4 - archival analysis of data and discussion of mapping results.

Chapter 5 - conclusions of the report, research limitations and future research.


10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This Chapter documents a review of literature from the fields of services, SQ and IS.

2.1.1 Objectives Of The Literature Review

The objectives of the Literature Review are as follows:

• To review various definitions of a ‘service’ prior to understanding SQ as this

forms the basis of the candidate’s research. The candidate also adopts a

definition of a ‘service’ that would be used throughout the project.

• To review the differences between a ‘product’ and a ‘service’ so as to clearly

differentiate one from another and to prevent any ambiguity.

• To review various definitions of SQ with the candidate adopting a ‘SQ’

definition that would be used throughout the project.

• To review various conceptualizations and measurement approaches of SQ.

• To identify the relationships between SQ and IS Success.

• To identify the relationships between SQ and SAT and the direction of

causality. Such an understanding would assist in understanding how SQ and

SAT contributes to the formulation of customers’ re-purchase intentions.


11

2.1.2 Structure Of The Literature Review

Chapter 2.1 states the objectives, limitations and structure for the Literature

Review.

Chapter 2.2 documents the various definitions of a ‘service’ before adopting a

definition of a ‘service’ that would be used throughout this project. The differences

between a ‘product’ and a ‘service’ are also documented to help differentiate one

from another and prevent any confusion.

Chapter 2.3 builds upon the previous Chapter by documenting the various

definitions of SQ before adopting a definition of ‘SQ’ that would be used throughout

this project. This Chapter documents the reasons why measuring SQ is important as

well as the problems associated with it.

Chapter 2.4 documents the various definitions of ‘SAT’ before adopting a definition

of ‘SAT’ that would be used throughout this project. This Chapter focuses and

documents the direction of influence between ‘SQ’ and ‘SAT’ and how each affects

the other. Such an understanding is important in order to obtain an accurate view on

how customers evaluate a successful service encounter.

Chapter 2.5 documents the definition of IS Success followed by documenting how

SQ has a potential influence on IS Success. This Chapter also puts the B&C (2001)

model alongside the IS-Impact model with the aims of cross-fertilizing ideas and

further validating the IS-Impact model (if necessary) by conceptualizing IS as a

‘service’ The latter would be carried out via an Australian Research Council (ARC)

discovery grant proposal.


12

2.2 Services

The candidate understands that in order to evaluate SQ, it is vital to take a step back

to first understand ‘services’.

2.2.1 Definitions Of A Service

Across service literature, there have been various definitions of the term ‘service’

and some of them have been documented in Table 1.

Authors Definitions

(Edvardsson and Olsson

1996)

A detailed description of what is to be done for

the customer and how this is to be achieved

(Johns 1999) A service is a process that has a style or manner

of its own that incorporates the delivery.

(Clark, Johnston and

Shulver 2000)

A mental picture (E.g: service in the mind) held

by not only customers but employees and

designers as well.

(Rathmell 1966) “A verb; an act; a deed; a performance; an

effort” (Rathmell 1996, 33)

(Gronroos 1988) Services as processes.

(Gallouj 2002) A process or a sequence of operations.

(Berry 1980) Acts, deeds, performance or efforts.

Table 1: Definitions of a service

Fisk, Gountas, Hume, Gountas, Grove and John (2007), in their book, mention and

adopt Rathmell’s (1996) definition of a ‘service’ which is “a deed, a performance,

and an effort” (Rathmell 1996, pg 33) that reflects a process (activity). Table 2 maps

the ‘service’ definition given by Rathmell (1996) to the characteristics of a ‘service’

(intangibility, simultaneity, heterogeneity and perishability). Results from Table 2

suggest that Rathmell’s (1996) definition of a service appears to have encompasses


13

the characteristics of a ‘service’. In-agreement with the results from Table 2, the

candidate has adopted Rathmell’s (1966) definition of a ‘service’ for this study.

Characteristics Of A Service Rathmell’s (1966)

Definition

Intangibility of a service means it cannot be

seen, touched, held or put on a shelf. Such

intangible aspects of a service are those that

cannot be physically perceived and whose

performance is difficult to measure. The

intangible nature of services makes the service

evaluation and establishing of expectations

more difficult as compared to the tangible

nature of products (Fisk, Gountas, Hume,

Gountas, Grove and John 2007). Because of the

intangibility of services, customers often

evaluate services based on the limited tangible

elements.

A deed

Simultaneity of a service suggests that in order

for the service to happen, interaction between

the customer and service provider must occur.

And in most services, the production and

consumption of the service performance occur

simultaneously. This simultaneity makes the

separation of the service from its provider

difficult (Fisk et al. 2007). In comparison to

products, the consumption of the product

normally occurs after its production and this

implies that the product is easier to separate

from its provider.

An effort


14

Heterogeneity refers to the difference and

diversity of customers’ needs. Due to this

diversity, it makes the offering of a standard

service that satisfies all customers very

difficult. Unlike physical products, services

depend on human performance which is

subjected to variations across workers and

customers and from one service encounter to

another (Fisk et al. 2007).

A performance

Perishability of a service refers to its temporal

existence in the sense that it cannot be

produced and stored before consumption but

only exists at the time of production (Fisk et al.

2007). This is in contrast to a product whereby

it can be produced, stored and consumed at a

later date.

A performance

Table 2: Comparison of the characteristics of a ‘service’ to Rathmell’s (1996)

‘service’ definition

2.2.2 Products Versus Services

A product can be defined as “anything that can be offered to a market for attention,

acquisition, use or consumption that might satisfy a want or need”. This includes

physical objects, services, persons, places, organizations and ideas (Kotler, Adam,

Brown and Armstrong 2003). Kotler, Adam, Brown and Armstrong (2003), in their

study, defined product broadly to include both tangible goods as well as services in-

response to the notion that there exist few “pure’ versions of either physical products

or services.

While Kotler, Adam, Brown and Armstrong (2003) state that services are

encompassed by products, Fisk, Gountas, Hume, Gountas, Grove and John (2007)


15

argue that services can be distinguished from products by several characteristics

namely intangibility, simultaneity, heterogeneity, and perishability. Intangibility of a

service means it cannot be seen, touched, held or put on a shelf. Such intangible

aspects of a service are those that cannot be physically perceived and whose

performance is difficult to measure. The intangible nature of services makes the

service evaluation and establishing of expectations more difficult as compared to the

tangible nature of products (Fisk et al. 2007). Because of the intangibility of

services, customers often evaluate services based on the limited tangible elements.

Simultaneity of a service suggests that in order for the service to happen, interaction

between the customer and service provider must occur. And in most services, the

production and consumption of the service performance occur simultaneously. This

simultaneity makes the separation of the service from its provider difficult (Fisk et

al. 2007). In comparison to products, the consumption of the product normally

occurs after its production and this implies that the product is easier to separate from

its provider. Heterogeneity refers to the difference and diversity of customers’ needs.

Due to this diversity, it makes the offering of a standard service that satisfies all

customers very difficult. Unlike physical products, services depend on human

performance which is subjected to variations across workers and customers and from

one service encounter to another (Fisk et al. 2007). Perishability of a service refers

to its temporal existence in the sense that it cannot be produced and stored before

consumption but only exists at the time of production (Fisk et al. 2007). This is in

contrast to a product whereby it can be produced, stored and consumed at a later

date.

A comparison between goods and services (in-relation to economic offerings) has

been attempted by Kotler, Adam, Brown and Armstrong (2003) and documented in

Table 3.


16

Economic

Offering

Goods Services

Economy Industrial Service

Economic Function Make Deliver

Nature Of Offering Tangible Intangible

Key Attribute Standardized Customized

Method Of Supply Inventoried After

Production

Delivered On Demand

Seller Manufacturer Provider

Buyer Customer Client

Factors On Demand Features Benefits

Table 3: Economic distinctions between goods and services (Kotler et al. 2003)

Shostack (1977) distinguishes between goods and services along a continuum from

intangible dominant services to tangible dominant physical goods. Her work

suggests that services can have tangible aspects and goods can have intangible

aspects. Stemming from her work is a proposed model (theory) that posits that the

proportion of tangibles to intangibles in a product determines whether it should be

classified as a good or service. Lovelock and Yip (1996) commented that every

tangible product necessarily contains some service because without it the exchange

would be impossible. The candidate is in-agreement with Shostack’s (1977) theory

over Kotler, Adam, Brown and Armstrong’s (2003) use of a collective classification

term of ‘products’ to reflect both goods and services. Shostack’s (1977) theory

seems to better explain and distinguish between goods and services along the

tangibility aspects. Concluding this discussion of products versus services, it seems

that services can be differentiated from products by the proportion of intangible to

tangible aspects (E.g: a service has a higher proportion of intangible to tangible

aspects) and the presence of service-related characteristics (E.g: intangibility,

simultaneity, heterogeneity and perishability)


17

2.3 Service Quality

2.3.1 Definitions Of Service Quality

Across SQ literature, there have been various definitions of the term ‘SQ’ and some

of them have been documented in Table 4.

Authors Definitions

(Jiang, Klein, Tesch and

Chen 2003)

“The comparison between what the customers feel

should be offered (expectations) and what is

actually delivered (perceptions)” (Jiang, Klein,

Tesch and Chen 2003, 72).

(Parasuraman et al.

1988)

The global overarching judgment or attitude

relating to the overall excellence or superiority of

the service.

(Conceptual aspect)

(Parasuraman et al.

1988)

“A form of attitude, related but not equivalent to

satisfaction, that results from the comparison of

expectations with performance” (Parasuraman et

al. 1988, 15).

(Discriminatory aspect)

(Parasuraman et al.

1988)

The degree of discrepancy between customers’

normative expectations for the service and their

perceptions of the service performance.

(Measurement aspect)

(Lewis and Booms

1983)

How well the service level delivered matches the

expectations of the customer.

(Zeithaml 1987) Consumer’s judgment about an entity’s overall

excellence or superiority.


18

(Gronroos 1984) A perceived judgment resulting from an

evaluation process where customers compare their

expectations with the service they perceive to

have received.

(Ghobadian, Speller and

Jones 1994)

“A measure of the extent to which the service

delivered meets the customer’s expectations”

(Ghobadian, Speller and Jones 1994, 49).

Table 4: Definitions of service quality

A review of the various definitions of SQ can be summarized as the “degree and

direction of discrepancy between consumers’ perceptions and expectations”

(Parasuraman et al. 1988) and this approach has been adopted in this study.

The candidate has also adopted Bitner and Hubbert’s (1994) view on perceived SQ

being similar to an attitude because it represents a general, overall appraisal of a

product or service. The classic definition of an attitude is “a learned predisposition to

respond to an object in a consistently favorable or unfavorable way” (Allport 1935).

2.3.2 Why Measure Service Quality?

Over the years, organizations have become aware that it is not feasible to rely on

products (or product quality per se) for the upper edge in profitability because such

is common in the contemporary context. There have been several studies that

confirm an empirical link between superior SQ and key performance indicators (or

SQ dimensions) that positively impact upon financial returns (Imrie, Cadogan and

McNaughton 2002). Key outcomes of good SQ include: (a) a higher than normal

share of the market; (b) improved profitability relative to the competition; (c)

consumer loyalty; (d) the realization of a competitive price premium; and (e) an

increased probability of purchase (Ko and Pastore 2004). The former and latter

statements have encouraged organizations to shift their attention from product

quality to SQ which serves as a key competitor differentiator (Dabholkar et al. 1996;


19

Parasuraman et al. 1988; Brady, Voorhees, J. Joseph Cronin and Bourdeau 2006;

Fassnacht and Koese 2006; Mohanty, Seth and Mukadam 2007; Ko and Pastore

2004). This shift has made organizations realize that in order to retain customers,

survive , grow and thrive financially, they must be able to provide high quality

services (Dabholkar et al. 2000). The resulting effect from the latter statement is the

organization’s shift of focus from profit maximization to maximizing profits through

increased customer satisfaction (Seth, Deshmukh and Vrat 2005). Satisfaction with

SQ has an impact on behavioral intentions which drives repurchase intentions

(Dabholkar et al. 2000; Brady, Knight, J. Joseph Cronin, Tomas, Hult and Keillor

2005).

2.3.3 Problems With Measuring Service Quality

Studies have noted that a leading measure of performance in the service sector is

quality, however, SQ is neither easy to define nor operationalize (Rosen and Karwan

1994). SQ evaluations are complex and this is evident in the many failed attempts to

replicate the dimensional structure of SQ perceptions (E.g: SERVQUAL) (Dagger et

al. 2007).

Across different industries, there are many interpretations of the term ‘SQ’ from the

collection of SQ literature (both past and present). There has been considerable

progress to how SQ perceptions should be measured but little advance as to what

should be measured. Dabholkar, Shepherd and Thorpe (2000) made a vital

contribution to the former by stating (from their research) that both approaches (I.e.

disconfirmation and perceptions-only) of measuring SQ perceptions have their

merits and the more appropriate approach would depend on the objective(s) of the

study. Although it is apparent that the perceptions of SQ are based on multiple

dimensions, there is no agreement as to the nature or content of these dimensions

(Brady and Cronin 2001). Even within a particular industry (E.g: banking), there

have been various models consisting of varying number and nature of SQ


20

dimensions. The latter is an example of the little advancement to what should be

measured.

Rosen and Karwan (1994)’s conducted a study on the claims that SQ dimensions

have similar relative importance across various service types. Results from their

study claim the relative importance of SQ dimensions varies according to the service

setting. This is in-contrast to Parasuraman et al.’s (1988) and Zeithaml et al.’s (1990)

results that indicate that the ‘reliability’ dimension consistently proved to be most

crucial (important) in all services investigated and ‘empathy’ dimension being the

least important. Rosen and Karwan (1994) also add that a major debate still

continues to be waged in marketing literature regarding the relationships and

distinctions among SQ, satisfaction and service value (Rosen and Karwan 1994).

SQ is difficult to measure due to the unique characteristics of a service which

comprises of intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability (Bateson

1995). The measurement approach of SQ seems to be dependent on how SQ is

perceived. To-date, no concrete consensus has been found. If SQ is perceived based

on the satisfaction theory (E.g: SERVQUAL), the disconfirmation (comparison of

perceptions to expectations) approach is supported. If SQ is perceived as an attitude,

the attitudinal theory is adopted which supports the perceptions-only approach. Over

a span of several years, there has been a major debate focusing on whether SQ

should be measured as perceptions (Cronin and Taylor 1992; Cronin and Taylor

1994) or as disconfirmation (Parasuraman et al. 1988; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and

Berry 1994). Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.

2.3.4 Conceptualizations Of Service Quality

Since the rise in importance of SQ, several global SQ models (conceptualizations)

have been developed and they are documented in Table 5. The candidate

acknowledges that there are many other existing SQ models not documented in

Table 5. Reason being they pertain to specific industries (E.g: Dabholkar, Thorpe


21

and Rentz’s (1996) model which only pertains to the retail industry) and the purpose

of this study is to concentrate on models developed to measure SQ across all

industries.

An analysis of the models reveals that several models (E.g: Gronroos (1984),

Parasuraman et al. (1988), Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1991), Rust and Oliver (1994))

seem to reflect a categorical classification of dimensions used in the evaluation of

SQ. For example, the Gronroos (1984) model suggests that SQ evaluation is

categorized under two dimensions namely technical and functional quality. These

models, however, do not seem to state what factors fall under each dimension (E.g:

In the Gronroos (1984) model, what factors does the ‘technical quality’ dimension

encompass). Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) mention that literature on SQ

focus on the categorical level and there is a lack of discussion of SQ at the factor

level (E.g: What factors come under each classification dimension?). Such

categorical models, as termed by the candidate, do little to suggest the separate and

critical factors of SQ that would be useful to organizations and practitioners

(Dabholkar et al. 1996).

The candidate inventoried the dimensions of various SQ models and analyzed their

dimensional descriptions. The candidate notes that these dimensional descriptions

seem to fall into three generic high level dimensions namely physical environment,

process and product. Physical environment can be generally referred to as general

surroundings of a particular context that entails visual and/or non-visual experiences;

Process can be generally referred to how customers receive the service and the

experiences they experienced as they receive the service; Product can be generally

referred to as what the customer gets at the end of the service. Table 6 documents

this classification. From the table, there appears to be a consensus that SQ evaluation

is made up of the process and product dimensions. Later models (Rust and Oliver

1994; Brady and Cronin 2001) seem to suggest some consensus that physical

environment is also part of SQ evaluation. The reason might be because there has


22

been recent evidence that the service environment affects SQ perceptions (Bitner

1990; Rust and Oliver 1994; Bitner 1992).

Two Popular And Distinct Schools Of Thought Regarding Service Quality

Conceptualization

The conceptualizations of SQ are based on two distinct schools led by Parasuraman,

Berry and Zeithaml (1995; 1998) and Gronroos (1982; 1990) or alternatively called

“the 1orth American School” and “the 1ordic School” respectively (Brogowicz et al.

1990). The 1ordic School noted that SQ, as perceived by customers, consists of two

dimensions namely (1) functional quality and (2) technical quality. Functional

quality refers to the service delivery process and technical quality refers to the SQ

outcomes (Gronroos 1982; Gronroos 1990). The 1orth American School identified

five dimensions that represent service encounter characteristics that customers use to

evaluate SQ. These dimensions are: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance

and empathy (Parasuraman et al. 1988). The identified dimensions gave birth to a

SQ measurement tool called SERVQUAL. SERVQUAL is widely-used and has

been the basis of many SQ models (E.g: Johns and Tyas 1996; Owlia and Aspinwall

1996; Kettinger and Lee 1997; Mels, Boshoff and Nel 1997; Owlia and Aspinwall

1998; Watson et al. 1998; Wang, Xie and Goh 1999; Wong, Dean and White 1999;

Dabholkar et al. 2000; Frochot and Hughes 2000; Lee, Delene and Bunda 2000; Lim

and Tang 2000; Andaleeb 2001; Sullivan and Walstrom 2001; Tan and Theresia

2001; Li et al. 2002; Lai 2006; Saravanan and Rao 2007) and thus makes

SERVQUAL appropriate as a basis for investigation in this study.

SERVQUAL

The purpose of the SERVQUAL tool is to provide a basic “skeleton” (group of core

evaluation criteria) underlying SQ that would transcend multiple measurement

contexts and provide managers with deeper insights concerning the areas

(dimensions) for improvement.


23

The initial SERVQUAL was developed based on a set of focus group interviews of

consumers and in-depth interviews of executives in four nationally recognized

service firms. Their responses fell into ten key dimensions (Parasuraman, Berry and

Zeithaml 1985) which were later revised to five that are encompassed by 22

statements (Parasuraman et al. 1988). Parasuraman et al. (1988) mention that

customers use these five dimensions to evaluate SQ. The definitions of the ten

dimensions (Parasuraman et al. 1985) are as follows: Tangibles - appearance of

physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication materials; Reliability -

ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately; Responsiveness -

willingness to help customers and provide 7prompt service; Competence –

possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service; Courtesy –

politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of contact personnel; Credibility –

trustworthiness, believability and honesty of the service provider; Security – freedom

from danger, risk or doubt; Communication – keeping customers informed in the

language that they can understand and listening to them; Access – approachability

and ease of contact; Understanding the customer – making the effort to know

customers and their needs. Over time, only the ‘tangibles’, ‘reliability’ and

‘responsiveness’ dimensions from the original SERVQUAL(1985) remained. The

‘competence’, courtesy’, ‘credibility’, security’ and ‘communication’ dimensions

formed the ‘assurance’ dimension which is defined as knowledge and courtesy of

employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. The ‘access’ and

‘understanding the customer’ dimensions formed the ‘empathy’ dimension which is

defined as caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers

(Parasuraman et al. 1988).

There have been several studies in-support of SERVQUAL (1998) and they include:

the presence of the conceptual matching of SERVQUAL’s (1988) dimensions with

IS settings (Jiang, Klein and Carr 2002); empirical support for SERVQUAL (1988)

in-terms of reliability (Pitt, Watson and Kavan 1997) and dimensionality (Kettinger

and Lee 1997); and studies could not discern any unique features of IS that make

dimensions underlying SERVQUAL (1988) inappropriate for measuring IS SQ or


24

excluding some meaning of SQ in the IS domain (Pitt, Watson and Kavan 1995) thus

this supports the use of SERVQUAL to measure SQ in an IS context, just to name a

few.

Benefits Of SERVQUAL

SERVQUAL provides superior managerial diagnostic capability via the gap measure

(Jiang et al. 2002) by indicating SQ strengths and shortfalls (Pitt et al. 1997;

Kettinger and Lee 1997). Inferring from the latter statement, one of the key benefits

of SERVQUAL is its ability to identify gaps (discrepancies between consumers’

perceptions and expectations) that would provide vital process-improvement

information (Saravanan and Rao 2007). Such information would greatly assist in

improving SQ. Another benefit of SERVQUAL is its ability to evaluate the relative

importance of SQ dimensions in influencing customers’ overall perceptions of a

service.

Problems With SERVQUAL

There have been several problems associated with SERVQUAL.

Conceptual problems. Problems include subtraction as a “simulation” of a

psychological process, ambiguity of the “expectations” construct and applicability

issues of SERVQUAL across industries.

Empirical difficulties. Difficulties include reliability problems with different scores,

predictive and convergent validity issues with difference scores and unstable

dimensionality (Dyke, Kappelman and Prybutok 1997).

Paradigmatic objections. Buttle (1996) states that SERVQUAL has been

inappropriately based on an expectations-disconfirmation model, which is widely

adopted in the customer satisfaction literature, rather than on an attitudinal model of

SQ. Cronin and Taylor (1992; 1994) agree with Buttle (1996) by stating that


25

perceived quality is best conceptualized as an attitude and suggest the adequacy-

importance model of attitude measurement be adopted instead. This model states that

an individual’s attitude (towards SQ in this case) is defined by his/her importance-

weighted evaluation of the performance of specific dimensions of a product or

service (Cohen, Fishbein and Ahtola 1972). Experimental evidence indicates that the

performance dimension alone predicts behavioral intensions and behavior thus

suggesting that perceptions-only (and not the comparison of perceptions to

expectations) is a good measure of SQ (Cronin and Taylor 1992).

Process orientation. SERVQUAL’s dimensions have been criticized for focusing

more on the service delivery process rather than the outcomes of the service (Cronin

and Taylor 1992; Buttle 1996; Kang 2006). Results from a mapping exercise (Table

9) appear to be in support of the latter statement.

Dimensionality. SERVQUAL’s (1988) intention is to be able to transcend various

industries to measure SQ, however, studies have indicated that SERVQUAL (1988)

can’t be used just as it is and had to be customized to fit into a particular context

(Dyke et al. 1997; Carman 1990; Bouman and Wiele 1992; Li et al. 2002; Dagger et

al. 2007; Cook, Heath and Thompson 2001; Saravanan and Rao 2007). Li et al.

(2002) further illustrates the latter point by applying SERVQUAL to various

contexts with the aim of identifying the total number of SQ dimensions (Table 7) for

each context. Results from Table 7 indicate disarray in the total number of SQ

dimensions and seem to suggest the non-global applicability of SERVQUAL’s five

dimensions.

Reliability of dimensions. The reliability of SERVQUAL’s (1998) dimensions was

questioned when tested. The results showed the ‘tangibles’ dimension being broken

down into two parts namely (1) appearance and (2) hardware and software (Pitt et al.

1995). There have been situations whereby users perceive the ‘responsiveness’,

‘assurance’ and ‘empathy’ dimensions very similarly because they are closely

aligned and semantically similar in concepts (Pitt et al. 1995). Spreng and Singh


26

(1993) are in-agreement with the latter statement by commenting that SERVQUAL

lack in discrimination between several of the dimensions.

Culture issues. Imrie, Cadogan and McNaughton(2002) mention that SERQUAL

was developed in the North American context and did not take into consideration the

culture values of other “foreign” contexts (in their study, they used Taiwan as an

example of a foreign context) which in combination make up the variety of cultures

found in International markets. They state that culture values endow consumers with

rules that guide their evaluation of SQ, and therefore is the focus of their study.

Results from their study, revealed that SERVQUAL (1988) did not fully encompass

the dimensions that Taiwanese consumers use to evaluate SQ. They found that

Taiwanese consumers consider relational factors as a dimension of SQ evaluation

which consists of three main themes namely sincerity, generosity and

courtesy/politeness. Results from applying SERVQUAL in the Taiwan context

revealed only four (reliability, assurance, tangibles, responsiveness) out of five

SERVQUAL (1988) dimensions were evident while the ‘empathy’ dimension failed

to truly capture the relational factors. From their study, they concluded that culture

values not only influence the nature (content) and hierarchy of SQ dimensions but

also put the global applicability of SERVQUAL into question.

Gaps model. Babakus and Boller (1992) found that the “gap” approach (or

difference scores), which has been adopted by SERVQUAL, does not provide any

additional information beyond that already contained in the perceptions component

of the SERVQUAL scale. They found that the dominant contributor of difference

scores was the perceptions score due to a generalized response tendency of rating

expectations high. It was noted that although difference scores might be sensible,

they are problematic in that they are notoriously unreliable (Iacobucci, Grayson and

Omstrom 1994).

Components model. SERVQUAL has been classified as a components model by

Dabholkar et al. (2000) whereby SQ is not viewed as a separate construct but rather


27

the sum of the components and they have a direct effect on behavior intentions. In

their study, they argue that consumers evaluate different factors related to SQ and

also form a separate overall evaluation of SQ (which is not a straightforward sum of

the components). They state that these factors serve as antecedents to the overall

evaluation which in-turn influences behavior intentions. This conceptualization gave

birth to the antecedents model of SQ. They claim that this model reflects a better

understanding of how consumers evaluate SQ (Dabholkar et al. 2000).

Validating The Global Applicability Of SERVQUAL’s (1988) Five Dimensions

Gronroos (1988) mentions six criteria that customers consider when evaluating good

perceived SQ. These criteria include: professionalism and skills; attitudes and

behavior; accessibility and flexibility; reliability and trustworthiness; recovery; and

reputation and credibility. The candidate conducted a logical definition-to-definition

mapping of these six criteria onto SERVQUAL’s (1988) five dimensions with the

aim of identifying commonality (Table 8). The candidate took the definition of each

of Gronroos’s (1988) six criteria and tried to identify which dimensional

definition(s) of SERVQUAL has/have the closest fit in-terms of definition. Should a

fit be found, that SERVQUAL dimension(s) would be assigned to the particular

criteria. Results appear to suggest that SERVQUAL’s (1988) five dimensions seem

to encompass the six criteria that customers use to evaluate good SQ.

The candidate also consolidated a collection of SQ dimensions and descriptions

identified from seven different industries. The candidate conducted a logical

definition-to-definition mapping of the collection of SQ dimensions from seven

different industries (seven SQ models) onto SERVQUAL’s ten dimensions

(Parasuraman et al. 1985) and followed by onto SERVQUAL’s five dimensions

(Parasuraman et al. 1988). The mapping process was as follows: (1) For each of the

dimensions within a particular industry model, its dimensional description was

compared with the description of each of SERVQUAL’s ten and five dimensions to

find commonality in meanings; (2) Should commonality be found, the appropriate

SERVQUAL dimension(s) would be mapped onto that particular industry model’s


28

dimension. Steps (1) and (2) were repeated for all the dimensions of all seven

industry models. Table 9 illustrates the mapping of SQ dimensions. The intentions

were to identify commonalities and exceptions between the various SQ models and

SERVQUAL. From Table 9, it is observed that the ‘assurance’ and ‘empathy’

dimensions seem to be common to all seven industries. The ‘reliability’ dimension

occurs in five out of the seven industries and did not occur in the call center and

education industries. The ‘tangibles’ dimension occurs in three of the seven

industries and did not occur in the call center, academic libraries, E-service and

banks and credit unions industries. The ‘responsiveness’ dimension occurs in six out

of the seven industries and did not occur in the call center industry. Attributes that

are unmapped (unclassified) include flexibility, efficiency, quality of information

(Tan, Xie and Li 2003), effect of service, library as ba, collection and access

(Nagata, Satoh, Gerrard and Kytomaki 2004), efficiency, incentive (Santos 2003)

and cost / time (Joseph and Joseph 1997). Several of the unmapped attributes like

‘quality of information’ (Tan et al. 2003), ‘effect of service’, ‘library as ba’ (Nagata

et al. 2004) and ‘cost / time’ (Joseph and Joseph 1997) seem to be able to be

classified as dimensions of technical quality because they seem to represent

outcomes of a service. The candidate acknowledges this mapping exercise was part

of his paper submitted to the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems

which was accepted.

From the two mapping exercises, some doubts have been cast over the global

applicability of SERVQUAL’s (1988) five dimensions. The first mapping exercise

seems to support the global applicability of the five dimensions (Table 8). However,

the second mapping exercise (Table 9) seems contrary to that. Results from Table 9

appear to be in-agreement with Kang (2006) who mentioned that the dimensions of

SERVQUAL seem to focus on the functional quality aspect but neglects the

technical quality aspect.

Imrie, Cadogan and McNaughton(2002) further criticizes SERVQUAL by arguing

that SERVQUAL did not fully take into account the diverse variety of cultures


29

(other than its own – North America) and questioned the global applicability of

SERVQUAL. Results from their study indicate that SERVQUAL fell short of

measuring SQ in the Taiwan context.

The candidate acknowledges that the five dimensions have gained much credibility

and validity in the SQ realm with many researchers in-agreement (either fully or

partially) with them and/or using them as a basis for comparison. From a managerial

point-of-view, the SERVQUAL dimensions provide a valuable starting point for

understanding what constitutes (characterizes) a given service (Gronroos 2000).

Despite SERVQUAL’s credibility, validity, popularity and benchmarking

capabilities, the candidate is in-agreement with Brady and Cronin (2001) that

SERVQUAL’s (1988) five dimensions do not address the crucial questions of what

needs to be reliable, assured, tangible, empathetic, responsive. The candidate

believes that this is a fundamental gap that needs to be addressed.


30

Service Quality M

odels

Dim

ensions

Explanation O

f Dim

ensions

Bord

ic M

odel

(Gronroos 1984)

Technical Quality

What the consumer receives as a result of his/her

interactions with the service firm (E.g: What the

customer gets).

Functional Quality

Expressive performance of a service (E.g: How the

customer gets the service).

SERVQUAL

(Parasuraman et al.

1988)

Tangibles

Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of

personnel.

Reliability

Ability to perform the promised service dependably

and accurately.

Responsiveness

Willingness to help customers and provide prompt

service.


31

Leh

tinen

& L

ehtinen

Model

(Lehtinen and Lehtinen

1991)

Service Quality M

odels

Dim

ensions

Explanation O

f Dim

ensions

Assurance

Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their

ability to inspire trust and confidence.

Empathy

Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its

customers.


32

Service Quality M

odels

Dim

ensions

Explanation O

f Dim

ensions

Output Quality

Consumer’s evaluation concerning the result of a

service production process. The result, the output,

can be divided into two categories: tangible (or

physical) and intangible.

Three-Componen

t M

odel

(Rust and Oliver 1994)

Service Product

The service as it is designed to be delivered.

Service Delivery

Consumers are thought to possess expected

sequences of events and provider role expectations

within most service encounters.

Service Environment

Internal Environment – focuses on organizational

culture and the overriding philosophy brought to

service provision by management.

External Environment – focuses primarily on the

physical ambience of the service setting.


33

Service Quality M

odels

Dim

ensions

Explanation O

f Dim

ensions

Bra

dy &

Cro

nin M

odel

(Brady and Cronin 2001)

Interaction Quality

Attitude – a function not only of the inherent

personality of the provider but also of the client’s

perception, the client-provider interaction, and the

given situation (Czepiel, Solomon and Surprenant

1985).

(Meaning from dictionary.com – a manner;

disposition; feeling; state of mind)

Behavior – actions of service provider (E.g:

helpfulness, openness, friendliness, warmth,

concern, etc) (Czepiel et al. 1985). (Meaning from

dictionary.com – behaving; acting; action)

Expertise – extent to which the individual provider

can affect the outcome of the service through his or

her skills (Czepiel et al. 1985).

(Meaning from dictionary.com – skill or

knowledge in a particular area)


34

Service Quality M

odels

Dim

ensions

Explanation O

f Dim

ensions

Physical Environment

Quality

Ambient Conditions – non-visual aspects (E.g :

temperature, scent, music, etc).

Design - layout or architecture of the environment

(either functional – practical, or aesthetic – visually

pleasing)

Social Factors – number and type of people

evident in the service setting as well as their

behaviors.

Outcome Quality

Waiting Time – amount of time before service was

experienced.

Tangibles - physical facilities, equipment, and

appearance of personnel.

Valence – attributes that control whether customers

believe the service outcome is good or bad,

regardless of their evaluation of any other aspect of

the experience. The degree to which the object of

interest is considered favorable or unfavorable.

Table 5: Global service quality m

odels


35

Dimensions

Models

Physical

Environment

Process Product

Bordic Model

(Gronroos

1984)

Functional Quality Technical

Quality

SERVQUAL

(Parasuraman

et al. 1988)

Tangibles Reliability

Assurance

Tangibles

Empathy

Responsiveness

Lehtinen &

Lehtinen

Model

(Lehtinen and

Lehtinen 1991)

Process Quality Output Quality

Three-

Component

Model

(Rust and

Oliver 1994)

Service

Environment

Service Delivery Service

Product

Brady &

Cronin Model

(Brady and

Cronin 2001)

Physical

Environment

Interaction Quality Outcome

Quality

Table 6: Classification of service quality model dimensions


36

Authors Sectors Of Study Bumber Of

Dimensions

(Johns and Tyas 1996) Foodservice outlet 7

(Owlia and Aspinwall

1996)

Higher education 4

(Kettinger and Lee 1997) Information systems 4

(Mels, Boshoff and Nel

1997)

Banks, insurance, repair

service station

2

(Owlia and Aspinwall

1998)

Engineering education 6

(Watson, Pitt and Kavan

1998)

Information systems 5

(Wang, Xie and Goh

1999)

Internet search engines 3

(Wong, Dean and White

1999)

Hotel 3

(Dabholkar et al. 2000) Pictorial dictionary industry 4

(Frochot and Hughes

2000)

Historic houses 4

(Lee, Delene and Bunda

2000)

Hospital 7

(Lim and Tang 2000) Hospital 6

(Andaleeb 2001) Hospital 6

(Sullivan and Walstrom

2001)

Electronic commerce 5

(Tan and Theresia 2001) Tourism 3

(Lai 2006) E-Business 4

Table 7: Applications of SERVQUAL and their related dimensions (Li et al.

2002)


37

Gronroos(1988) 6 Criteria Of Good

Perceived Service Quality

SERVQUAL(1988) 5 Dimensions Of

Service Quality

Professionalism and Skills

Customers realize that the service

provider, its employees, operational

systems, and physical resources have

the knowledge and skills required to

solve their problems in a professional

way. (outcome-related criteria)

Assurance, Tangibles

Attitudes and Behaviour

Customers feel that the contact

persons are concerned about them and

genuinely interested in solving their

problems in a friendly and

spontaneous way. (process-related

criteria)

Empathy

Accessibility and Flexibility

Customers feel that the service

provider, its location, operating hours,

employees and operational systems

are designed and operate so that it is

easy to gain access to the service and

so that they are prepared to adjust the

demands and wishes of the customer

in a flexible way. (process-related

criteria)

Empathy


38

Gronroos(1988) 6 Criteria Of Good

Perceived Service Quality

SERVQUAL(1988) 5 Dimensions Of

Service Quality

Reliability and Trustworthiness

Customers know that whatever takes

place or has been agreed upon, they

can rely on the service provider, its

employees and systems to keep

promises and perform with the best

interest of the customers at heart.

(process-related criteria)

Reliability, Assurance

Recovery

Customers realize that whenever

something goes wrong or something

unpredictable unexpectedly happens,

the service provider will immediately

and actively take corrective action.

(process-related criteria)

Responsiveness

Reputation and Credibility

Customers believe that the operations

of the service provider can be trusted

and that it stands for good

performance and values which can be

shared by them. (image-related

criteria)

Assurance

Table 8: Mapping of Gronroos (1988) 6 criteria of good service quality onto

SERVQUAL’s (1988) five dimensions


39

Industry

(Context)

Dim

ension

Explanation O

f Dim

ension

Mapping O

f

Dim

ension T

o

SERVQUAL’s

(1985) 10

dim

ensions

Mapping O

f

Dim

ension T

o

SERVQUAL’s

(1988) 5

dim

ensions

Call C

enters (Dean 2002)

Adaptiven

ess

Ability to solve and help to interpret

different customer problems and questions.

Competence

Assurance

Assura

nce

To clearly explain the steps in the

procedure of solving the customer’s

question and to explain exactly for what

purposes the customer’s information would

be used by the firm.

Competence

Assurance

Empath

y

To empathize with the customer’s situation

and give the customer a feeling that the

customer and his/her problem are important

to the firm.

Understanding the

customer

Empathy

Auth

ority

The authority and the ability to perform the

required tasks.

Competence

Assurance

Web

-based Inform

ation Systems (W

IS) (Tan et al. 2003)

Reliability

The ability of the WIS to provide accurate

information and to perform the promised

service.

Reliability

Reliability

Responsiven

ess

The ability of the WIS to perform the web-

based service consistently and accurately.

Responsiveness

Responsiveness


40

Acc

ess

Quick access to the site and the company

when needed.

Access

Empathy

Flexibility

Choices of way to pay, ship, buy, search for

and return items.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Ease of

navigation

Intuitive on-page navigation to improve

ease-of-use.

Communication

Assurance

Efficiency

Simplicity of usage.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Assura

nce

/

trust

The ability of WIS to convey trust and

confidence.

Assurance

Assurance

Sec

urity

Customers’ confidence in the safety of the

site from intrusion and protection of

privacy.

Security

Assurance

Site aesth

etics

The appearance of the site

Tangibles

Tangibles

Customization /

per

sonaliza

tion

The ability of WIS to provide caring and

individual attention.

Understanding the

customer

Empathy

Quality of

inform

ation

The ability of WIS to provide quality

information.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Aca

dem

ic L

ibra

ries (Nagata et al. 2004)

Effec

t of serv

ice

(per

sonal)

Scenarios where library staffs serve the

customer in association with the service

encounter.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Libra

ry as ba

(place

)

Composed of not only of physical elements

such as reading rooms and study rooms, but

also mental aspects of quietness, comfort

and exchanges with other users and library

staff.

Unclassified

Unclassified


41

Collec

tion and

acc

ess

Materials and information the library offers

such as convenient access to library

collections, availability of required

information and timely document delivery.

Reliability,

responsiveness

Reliability,

responsiveness

Effec

t of serv

ice

(org

anizational)

Assuring users of the accuracy and

confidentiality of their personal information

/ data and keeping users informed about

when services will be performed.

Security,

communication

Assurance,

empathy

E-ser

vice (Santos 2003)

Reliability

Ability to perform the promised service

accurately and consistently including

frequency of updating the web site, prompt

reply to customer enquiries and accuracy of

on-line purchasing and billing.

Reliability,

responsiveness,

credibility

Reliability,

responsiveness,

assurance

Efficiency

Speed of downloading, search and

navigation.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Support

Technical help, user guidelines and

personal advice available to customers

from a web site.

Understanding the

customer,

responsiveness

Empathy,

responsiveness

Communication

Keeping customers properly informed and

communicating with them in a language

they can understand.

Communication

Assurance

Sec

urity

Freedom from danger, risk or doubt during

the service process.

Security

Assurance


42

Ince

ntive

Encouragement given by web providers to

consumers to browse and use the web site

including rewards for doing so.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Educa

tion (Joseph and Joseph 1997)

Aca

dem

ic

reputation

Prestigious degree program, recognized

nationally and internationally and which

has excellent instructors.

Credibility

Assurance

Pro

gra

m issues

The availability of specialist programs,

degree flexibility, a practical component in

the degree, the availability of several

course options and flexible entry

requirements.

Responsiveness

Responsiveness

Physica

l

facilities

Excellent academic, accommodation and

sports and recreational facilities as well as

an appealing campus layout.

Tangibles

Tangibles

Cost / tim

e Length of time it takes to complete a degree

and the costs involved in doing so.

Unclassified

Unclassified

Loca

tion

Geographical location of the institute.

Access

Empathy

Caree

r

opportunities

How employable will students be after

getting a degree from a specific institution

and the information the institute provided

on career opportunities.

Security

Assurance

Oth

er

Influence of word-of-mouth

communication as well as of family and

peers when selecting a university.

Communication

Empathy


43

Banks And C

redit U

nions (Allred and Addams 2000)

Reliability

Accurate, consistent, dependable

performance.

Reliability,

credibility

Reliability,

assurance

Responsiven

ess

The willingness and capabilities of

employees.

Responsiveness

Responsiveness

Competen

ce

Skill and knowledge to provide expected

service at all levels of the organization.

Competence

Assurance

Acc

ess

Ease of contact, convenient hours, minimal

waiting time and approachability of

employees.

Access

Empathy

Communication

Using language that the customer can

understand and sincerely listening to the

customer.

Communication

Assurance

Retail (Siu and Cheung 2001)

Per

sonal

intera

ction

Individual attention, knowledge and

responsiveness of the employee.

Understanding the

customer,

responsiveness

Empathy,

responsiveness

Policy

Matter of return / exchange, quality of

merchandise, operating hours as well as

safely and error-free transactions.

Credibility, security

Assurance

Physica

l

appea

rance

Visually appealing physical facilities,

equipment and service material.

Tangibles

Tangibles

Pro

mises

Trustworthiness of the department store

perceived by its customers.

Credibility

Assurance


44

Pro

blem solving

Handling customers’ complaint directly and

immediately, sincere interest to solve

problem and clean, attractive and

convenient public areas.

Responsiveness,

credibility

Responsiveness,

assurance

Conven

ience

Convenience of store layout and the

availability of merchandise.

Access, reliability

Empathy,

reliability

Table 9: M

apping of dim

ensions of serv

ice quality fro

m various industries onto SERVQUAL


45

Brady And Cronin (2001) Model – A Hierarchical Model Of Service Quality

It is apparent that SQ evaluations are highly complex processes that may operate at

several levels of abstraction (Carman 1990; Dagger et al. 2007) and customers tend

to break SQ dimensions into various sub-dimensions (Brady and Cronin 2001;

Dagger et al. 2007) which seem to more fully account for the complexity of human

perceptions (Dabholkar et al. 1996). There has been support for conceptualizing SQ

as a hierarchical (third-order) construct from authors like Hightower, Brady and

Baker (2002) who have developed models including specific aspects of SQ such as

environment and perceived waiting time which are posited as affecting overall SQ

and ultimately behavioral outcomes (Hightower, Brady and Baker 2002). The latter

statement supports the mediating approach to SQ. The establishment of the

mediating effect underscores the importance of measuring overall quality

perceptions and gives credence to the hierarchical (third-order) conceptualization of

SQ (Dagger et al. 2007).

There has been consensus that SQ perceptions are multilevel and multi-dimensional

(Fassnacht and Koese 2006; Kang 2006; Brady and Cronin 2001; Dabholkar et al.

1996; Carman 1990; Dagger et al. 2007; Ho and Lee 2006; Loiacono et al. 2007;

Bauer et al. 2006; Ko 2000; Ko and Pastore 2004; Collier and Bienstock 2006; Caro

and Garcia 2007; Liu 2005), however, there has been little effort in identifying: (1)

the attributes or factors that define the sub-dimensions; (2) a unifying theory or

conceptualization that reflects this complexity (SQ evaluation); and (3) the

hierarchical nature of SQ (Brady and Cronin 2001). The B&C (2001) model (Figure

1) proposes a hierarchical conceptualization of SQ and defines the content of the

sub-dimensions. The basis of their model draws upon earlier conceptual work by

Gronroos (1984) and Bitner (1992). Gronroos (1984) states that SQ evaluation is

based on what customers get (technical/outcome quality) and how customers get it

(functional/interaction quality). Bitner (1990, 1992) and others (Dabholkar et al.

1996; Fassnacht and Koese 2006) state recent evidence that service environment

affects SQ perceptions. The former and latter statements gave birth to three primary

dimensions (outcome quality, interaction quality and physical environment quality)


46

of the model. Brady and Cronin (2001) further broke down the three primary

dimensions into nine sub-dimensions to account for the way customers evaluate SQ.

The interaction quality primary dimension was broken down into ‘attitude’,

‘behavior’ and ‘expertise’ sub-dimensions. The physical environment quality was

broken down into ‘ambient conditions’, ‘design’ and ‘social factors’ sub-dimensions.

The outcome dimension was broken down into ‘waiting time’, ‘tangibles’ and

‘valence’ sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions were evaluated based on three of

SERVQUAL’s (1988) attributes namely reliability, responsiveness and empathy.

The tangibles attribute is included as a sub-dimension (and not a factor of the sub-

dimensions) because of evidence suggesting that customers use tangibles as a proxy

for evaluating service outcomes (Booms and Bitner 1981). The assurance attribute

was dropped completely because it did not remain distinct in factor analyses and it

was found to load on several different factors depending on the industry context

(Babakus and Boller 1992; Carman 1990; Dabholkar et al. 2000). These three factors

are modifiers of the sub-dimensions (as opposed to direct determinants of SQ) and

address the ‘what’ questions that SERVQUAL did not address (E.g: what needs to

be reliable, etc).

Attitude Behaviour ExpertiseAmbient

ConditionsDesign

Social

Factors

Waiting

TimeTangibles Valence

Interaction

Quality

Environment

Quality

Outcome

Quality

Service

Quality

R SP E R SP E R SP E R SP E R SP E R SP E R SP E R SP E R SP E

Figure 1 – The Brady and Cronin (2001) Model (Brady and Cronin 2001)


47

Support For The B&C (2001) model Being The Basis For Service Quality

Measurement

Over recent years, there has been considerable support for the B&C (2001) model

being the basis for SQ measurement. Some examples are listed below. Alexandris,

Zahariadis, Tsorbatzoudis and Grouios (2004)’s application in the context of health

club (fitness industry) (Alexandris, Zahariadis, Tsorbatzoudis and Grouios 2004).

Alexandris et al. (2004) tested the applicability of a simplified version of the B&C

(2001) model in the context of a health club. Results support the three primary

dimensions of the B&C (2001) model with emphasis on ‘outcome quality’ in the

context of sports services. Ko and Pastore (2004)’s application in the context of the

sports industry. Their paper uses the B&C (2001) model as the basis for measuring

SQ in the sports industry. Results suggest 4 primary dimensions (program quality,

interaction quality, outcome quality and physical environment quality) and 11 sub-

dimensions (range of programs, operating time, information, client-employee

interaction, inter-client interaction, physical change, valence, sociability, ambience,

design and equipment). To add to the support for the B&C (2001) model, Liu

(2005) successfully replicated the procedures developed by Brady and Cronin for

testing the hierarchical nature of perceived SQ.

Benefits Of A Hierarchical Model Of Service Quality

One of the benefits of such a hierarchical model allows for analysis at several levels

of abstraction – overall, primary dimension and sub-dimensional. Perspectives taken

at the different levels allow the identification of different dynamics which can be

used in understanding attitudes or perceptions (Cook et al. 2001). Coupled with the

latter, the ability to dissect the quality experience will allow managers more control

and faster response to areas that are weakening the service experience (Collier and

Bienstock 2006). Depending on the purposes, practitioners can measure SQ at any

one or all of the levels. For example, the practitioner could measure the overall SQ if

he/she wants to get a broad indication of an organization’s SQ performance.

Practitioners can measure SQ at the sub-dimensional level for a detailed analysis of

SQ perceptions. Within the latter statement, the practitioner is also able to identify


48

the primary dimensions that require improvement and develop a strategic plan

(Dagger et al. 2007).

Another benefit, besides being used as a diagnostic tool for identifying poor and/or

excellent service performance, the scale can be used for benchmarking across

multiple functions within a single organization, across multiple locations, or within a

particular industry (Dagger et al. 2007). Furthermore, any of these situations can also

be compared across time, information generated from the scale can be used as a

platform for funding and to set priorities and allocation resources (Dagger et al.

2007).


49

Priority Of Service Quality Dimensions

There has been considerable support for the prioritizing/weighting of dimensions.

For example, Li et al. (2002) state that the ‘quality of information’ and ‘competence’

dimensions are more important over the other dimensions in their web-base service

quality model (Li et al. 2002). Fassnacht and Koese (2006) in their development of a

QES model, suggested further research into looking for potential differences

concerning the perception of Electronic SQ in various contexts. For example,

emotional benefit might have a higher relevance for news and weather services than

for online shopping (Fassnacht and Koese 2006). Syed and Amiya (2004) examined

the relationship between customers’ assessment of SQ of an auto service facility and

five factors (perceived fairness of the facility; empathy; responsiveness; reliability;

convenience) and found perceived fairness to be significantly more important than

the other four factors when the task was complex and customers did not feel

knowledgeable (Syed and Amiya 1994). Collier and Bienstock (2006) in their study

on measuring SQ in E-Retailing, note that consumers place an important emphasis

on the ‘outcome’ dimension over the process and recovery dimensions (Collier and

Bienstock 2006).

The functional and environment quality dimensions have gained much insight over

the years with prior research focusing on the implications of those dimensions with

Gronroos (1998, 2001) suggesting the focus be on those dimensions when faced with

limited resources. There, however, have been relatively little insights into the

implications and importance of the technical quality dimension. Reasons cited for

the lack of attention towards the technical quality dimension include: the general

nature of services being described as acts of “process consumption” rather than acts

of outcome consumption (Gronroos 1998); and the difficulties of evaluating

technical quality for service products (Brady et al. 2006), give top priority to

functional and environment quality.

Brady et al. (2006) conducted a study to investigate the effect of valence, a key

component of technical quality (Brady and Cronin 2001), on service perceptions and


50

outcomes. They noted that in most cases, valence of the outcome is uncontrollable

but often tied to customer service perceptions. Their research focuses on valence-

orientated industries (E.g: sporting events, banking, casino) and highlights that for

such industries, valence (or technical quality dimension per se) is more important

that functional and technical quality. They gave an example of a casino, where a

gambler places bets, could very well provide excellent service (functional quality)

and a great environment (environment quality), but all these will not prevent the

gambler from inevitably losing money (negative valence). For such a situation, the

emphasis seems to be on the outcome (valence or technical quality) and not so much

on the functional and environment quality. The satisfaction of the customer

(gambler) could very well rest on whether he/she wins money (outcome).

Brady et al. (2006) in-line with Gronroos (1998, 2001) seem to suggest that the

importance and focus of SQ dimensions depends on the type of service industry in-

terms of how much control it has over the outcome. Less control over the outcome

(E.g: a sporting event) appears to suggest that technical quality attributes (E.g:

outcome of the sporting event – whether the team wins or loses) tend to have a

higher influence on customer satisfaction while more control (E.g: hotel experience)

would suggest higher influence of functional (E.g: hotel service) and environment

(E.g: hotel ambience) quality attributes.

2.3.5 Measurements Of Service Quality

Over a span of several years, there has been a major debate focusing on whether SQ

should be measured as perceptions (Cronin and Taylor 1992; Cronin and Taylor

1994) or as disconfirmation (Parasuraman et al. 1988; Parasuraman et al. 1994).

Disconfirmation in general can be defined as the comparison of perceptions

(performance) with expectations and this definition has been adopted in this study.

Disconfirmation can be classified into two categories namely computed

disconfirmation and measured disconfirmation. The difference between the two

categories of disconfirmation is computed disconfirmation uses mathematical


51

calculations (E.g: Perceptions minus Expectations) while measured disconfirmation

uses a mental estimation of the comparison of perceptions with expectations

(Dabholkar et al. 2000).

It should be noted that the disconfirmation approach mentioned and criticized in this

study refers to computed disconfirmation (Dabholkar et al. 2000), unless otherwise

stated, which is operationalized by SERVQUAL. The candidate has used the term

‘SERVQUAL’ in the following paragraphs to refer to computed disconfirmation and

the self-created term ‘generic disconfirmation’ to refer to both computed and

measured disconfirmation with focus on the difference (comparison) between

perceptions and expectations.

Disconfirmation Approach

Traditionally, SQ has been conceptualized as a disconfirmation process

(Parasuraman et al. 1988; Gronroos 1984; Lewis and Booms 1983) founded on the

disconfirmation paradigm employed in the physical goods literature (Brady and

Cronin 2001). This paradigm suggests that quality results from a comparison of

perceived with expected performance as reflected in Gronroos’s (1982, 1984)

conceptualization of SQ. Various studies have measured SQ using the

disconfirmation model (Dabholkar et al. 2000) with results being mixed. The

candidate has adopted the classification suggested by Dabholkar et al. (2000) that

SERVQUAL is considered as computed disconfirmation.

Parasuraman et al. (1988) operationalized SQ as the difference between performance

perceptions and expected levels of service (Babakus and Boller 1992).

SERVQUAL’s measurement approach is such that SQ for each of the five

dimensions is captured by a gap score (G) which is the comparison of expectations

(E) and perceptions (P), or by the formula G = P – E where ‘P’ and ‘E’ represent the

average ratings of a dimension’s corresponding ‘P’ and ‘E’ statements (Jiang et al.

2003). Overall perceived SQ is captured by the sum of ‘P’ items ratings minus sum

of ‘E’ items ratings (Parasuraman et al. 1988).


52

Benefits

There are several benefits associated with the generic disconfirmation approach and

they have been documented below.

The generic disconfirmation approach allows the determination of the relative

weight that customers seem to give each SQ dimension by comparing the overall

SAT data with differences between expectations and perceptions. It provides

superior managerial diagnostic capability via the gap measure (Jiang et al. 2002) by

indicating SQ strengths and shortfalls (Pitt et al. 1997; Kettinger and Lee 1997).

Though perceptions-only (performance-based) measures of SQ had both higher

convergent and predictive validities, gap measurement (SERVQUAL) incorporates

and measures customers’ (users’) expectations and perceptions. For example in an IS

context, the results of such a measurement would assist IS managers to identify

areas for improvement as well as identify areas where changes have occurred over

time (Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml 1993). IS managers find the concept of gap

measurement (difference between perception and expectation) most useful for it

indicates SQ strengths and shortfalls, that managers would like to know and should

know, in-relation to what the customers expect (Pitt et al. 1997; Kettinger and Lee

1997).

Problems

There are several problems associated with the disconfirmation approach and they

have been documented below.

Gap scores (difference scores or computed disconfirmation). SERVQUAL’s primary

area of criticism is the reliance on gap scores. Gap scores are calculated as the

difference score between the users’ perceptions and expectations (Kettinger and Lee

2005). This criticism is based on the conceptualization of gap scores being equated

to ‘perceptions minus expectations’ and that ‘minus’ is too simplistic of a measure of

explaining the complex psychological processes behind the whole equation. Gap


53

scores also have reliability problems, predictive and convergent validity issues and

lower predictive power. The two components of SERVQUAL (perceptions and

expectations) are designed to measure consumers’ “desired level” of service from a

service sector and “existing level” of service from a particular provider. Babakus and

Boller (1992) state that customers seldom rate “desired level” scores lower than

“existing level” scores and this brings about a psychological constraint. The

consequence of this constraint is the resulting “deficiency” (difference) scores may

be dominated primarily by the “existing level” scores. There has also been empirical

evidence that such difference scores typically have unstable factor structures from

one application to another. Results from their test (testing of correlations of

SERVQUAL and its components with overall quality ratings and complaint

resolution scores) suggest that expectation scores did not contribute to difference

scores materially and perceptions scores was the dominant component (Babakus and

Boller 1992).

Conceptual problems and empirical difficulties. Conceptual problems which include

subtraction as a “simulation” of a psychological process, ambiguity of the

“expectations” construct and applicability issues of SERVQUAL across industries.

Empirical difficulties include reliability problems with different scores, predictive

and convergent validity issues with difference scores and unstable dimensionality

(Dyke et al. 1997).

SERVQUAL’s conceptualization is flawed because it’s based on a SAT paradigm

rather than an attitude model (Cronin and Taylor 1992). Parasuraman et al. (1988)

describes SQ as a form of attitude, however, doesn’t operationalize it as such. If SQ

has an impact on predicting behavior or behavior intentions then based on the

adequacy-importance model (Mazis, Michael, Ahtola and Klippel 1975), it appears

SQ should be conceived as an attitude and measured by perceptions alone.

Problems with expectations. Parasuraman et al. (1988) defined expectations as

“desires or wants of customers”. The expectations component was designed to


54

measure “customers normative expectations” (Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml

1990) and is similar to the ideal standard in customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction

literature (Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman 1991). Teas (1993) commented that

these explanations are “somewhat vague” and suspects the “fault” lies in the

respondents’ interpretation of the term ‘expectations’. He believes that respondents

could be using any one of six interpretations namely: (1) service attribute

importance; (2) forecasted performance; (3) ideal performance; (4) deserved

performance; (5) equitable performance; and (6) minimum tolerable performance

(Teas 1993b). Inferring from the six interpretations, each interpretation is somewhat

different and Teas suggests that a considerable percentage of variance in

SERVQUAL’s expectations measure can be explained by the difference in

respondents’ interpretations (Buttle 1996). Parasuraman et al. (1991, 1994), noted

the criticisms of Teas and acknowledged that the expectations component of

SERVQUAL lacks discriminant validity, responded by redefining expectations as

the service customers would expect from “excellent service organizations” instead of

the previous definition of “what customers should expect from a given service

provider.

Gronroos (2000) mentions certain validity problems related to the measurement of

expectations. Firstly, if expectations are measured after the service experience or at

the same time, then what is measured is not really expectation but something which

has been biased by experience. Secondly, it doesn’t make sense to measure

expectations prior to the service experience as the expectations which the customers

have beforehand might not be the expectations with which they will compare their

experiences to. Thirdly, due to the fact that experiences are perceptions of reality,

prior expectations are inherent in these perceptions.

Scale points. The SERVQUAL scale employs the use of the seven-point Likert scale

which has been criticized on several grounds (Buttle 1996). Lewis (1993) criticizes

the scale on three issues. Firstly, the scale lacks verbal labeling for points two to six.

She believes that this may cause respondents to overuse the extreme ends of the


55

scale. Secondly, she raises the issue of the respondents’ interpretation of the mid-

point of the scale. Different respondents have different interpretations of what it

means to them. Thirdly, she raises the issue of the scale consisting of only whole

numbers. For example, a respondent may have expectations of 5.4 and perceptions

of 4.6. There is technically a gap of 0.8. However, when the respondent uses the

SERVQUAL scale, he/she is unable to put those integers in and may put the value of

5 for both expectations and perceptions thus it seems like there is no gap. This

results in a Type II error.

Two administrations. To measure both expectations and perceptions of a service,

two administrations of a survey must be carried out (one for expectations and one for

perceptions). The drawback of such an approach is respondents might appear bored

and sometimes confused by the two different administrations which might imperil

data quality (Bouman and Wiele 1992).

Perceptions-Only Approach

There have been little (if any) theoretical or empirical evidence supporting the

relevance of the expectations-minus-perceptions (computed disconfirmation)

approach adopted by SERVQUAL (Carman 1990). Cronin and Taylor (1992)

introduce the perceptions-only approach (SERVPERF) of measuring SQ to counter

SERVQUAL’s inadequacies in its conceptualization and operationalization. Their

approach appears to have considerable support from literature stating the superiority

of the performance-based (perceptions-only) approach for measuring SQ (Bolton

and Drew 1991a; Bolton and Drew 1991b; Dabholkar et al. 2000; Dabholkar and

Overby 2005; Collier and Bienstock 2006). SERVPERF directly measures

perceptions-only to avoid the problem of an unambiguous expectations measure.

SERVPERF generally have both higher convergent and predictive validities and may

possess stronger statistical properties as compared to SERVQUAL (Pitt et al. 1997).

Bolton and Drew (1991a) mention that current performance ratings strongly affect

attitudes (assuming SQ is an attitude) whereas the effects of disconfirmation are

generally insignificant and transitory. Inferring from SAT and attitude literature, it


56

appears that current performance adequately captures consumers’ perceptions of SQ

offered by a specific service provider (Cronin and Taylor 1992). Practitioners often

measure the determinants of overall perceived quality by having customers assess

the performance of the company’s business processes (Cronin and Taylor 1992).

Benefits

There are several benefits of the perceptions-only approach which include providing

a more construct-valid explication of SQ because of evidence of content and

discriminant validities (Cronin and Taylor 1992); measuring experiences

(perceptions-only) only over a set of appropriate attributes can lead to a good

approximation of perceived quality (Gronroos 2000); and a perceptions-only survey

is easier to administer and the data is easier to analyze (Gronroos 2000), just to name

a few.

Problem

A critical problem with the perceptions-only approach is that it does not identify

gaps (E.g: discrepancies between customers’ expectations and perceptions) that

provide valuable process-improvement information for practitioners. The candidate

acknowledges that although it appears the perceptions-only approach has fewer

problems and issues (or fewer documented criticisms) as compared to SERVQUAL,

the latter problem is deemed crucial and worthy of mention. Such a problem appears

to have put some doubt as to whether the perceptions-only approach, though

seemingly more favorable, is the better of the two measurement approaches in

measuring SQ. The candidate acknowledges that this problem is one of the strengths

of SERVQUAL but a weakness of the perceptions-only approach.

Disconfirmation Approach Versus Perceptions-Only Approach

By doing a simple cross-analysis of the benefits and problems of each approach, it

appears that both approaches have their merits. However, it appears the perceptions-

only approach has fewer problems as compared to the disconfirmation (computed)

approach.


57

It would seem naive to totally discredit the disconfirmation approach just because

the “net benefits” of the perceptions-only approach appears to outweigh the “net

benefits” of the disconfirmation (computed) approach. Regarding the problems with

the expectations construct, Carman (1990) argues that they are important in

determining SAT. Gronroos (2000) argues that a comparison of experiences

(perceptions) and expectations makes sense because expectations clearly influence

the perception of quality. The former and latter statements coupled with the merit of

being able to identify SQ gaps within the generic disconfirmation approach (general

comparison of perceptions to expectations), beg the question of how best to

operationalize such an approach. Dabholkar, Shepherd and Thorpe (2000) conducted

a recent study to identify if: (1) perceptions-only is superior to measured

disconfirmation; (2) perceptions-only is superior to computed disconfirmation; and

(3) measured disconfirmation is superior to computed disconfirmation. The results

from their study showed full support for points (2) and (3) and had partial support

for point (1). Reason given for the partial support of perceptions-only being superior

to measured disconfirmation is that the latter had better fits in most cases but

perceptions-only had excellent fits as well as better fits in a few cases. The candidate

also believes that another reason for the support of measured disconfirmation (and

not to rule out disconfirmation totally) is its ability to identify SQ gaps which is

crucial and a vital flaw of the perceptions-only approach. It is also clear from their

study that computed disconfirmation is inferior to both perceptions-only and

measured disconfirmation. The measured disconfirmation approach appears to have

many benefits that overlap and outweigh the computed disconfirmation approach.

Some of the benefits include: (1) allows for the identification of SQ gaps; (2) retains

the expectations construct; and (3) overcomes the psychological problems associated

with using arithmetic calculations, just to name a few. In-relation to which

measurement approach is better, Dabholkar, Shepherd and Thorpe (2000) concluded

their study by stating that it boils down to the objectives of the analysis. They

suggest that if the objective is to evaluate SQ or gauge its determinants, then

perceptions-only approach is better. However, if the objective is to identify gaps that

provide process-improvement information, then measured disconfirmation (but not


58

computed disconfirmation) is better. The candidate is in-agreement with Dabholkar,

Shepherd and Thorpe (2000) as he understands that both approaches have their

strengths (and weaknesses) and it appears that their conclusions have both managed

to utilize each approach’s strengths and cater to what appears to be key objectives of

SQ analysis (E.g: to evaluate overall SQ, to identify gaps in SQ).


59

2.4 Relationships Between Perceived Service Quality And

Satisfaction

In the services realm, there exists a nomological net that states both SQ and

satisfaction (SAT) influence purchase intentions. It’s to the candidate’s

understanding that ‘purchase intentions’ is a form of behavior which is similar to

‘behavioral intentions’ (BI) as termed by Brady et al. (2005). The candidate has

adopted the term ‘BI’ to represent ‘purchase intentions’ for this study. In the

services realm, the customers’ BI at the end of any service encounter determines the

success or failure of the service(s) offered. BI is also a crucial driver of profitability.

There, however, exist two schools of thought in-relation to the direction of causality

between SQ and SAT which influences BI. One school of thought states SQ is an

antecedent (->) of SAT while the other states SAT -> SQ. The former and latter

statements advocate the need to analyze the direction of causality between SQ and

SAT and how SQ and SAT influence BI. Dagger, Sweeney and Johnson (2007)

mention the need to consider both SQ and customer satisfaction as important

strategic objectives, because these constructs provide a way for managers to ensure

positive BI.

Defining Satisfaction

Across literature, there have been various definitions of the term ‘SAT’ and they

have been documented in Table 10.


60


61


62

Table 10: Definitions of satisfaction (Giese and Cote 2002, 6)

Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) mention that SAT is the consumer fulfillment response

and it is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself,

provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment (Zeithaml and Bitner

2003). Giese and Cote (2000), in their analysis of twenty definitions used during a

thirty year period of consumer SAT research, identified three general components


63

embedded in these definitions. These three components are: (1) consumer SAT is a

response (emotional or cognitive); (2) the response pertains to a particular focus

(E.g: expectations, product, consumption experience, etc); and (3) the response

occurs at a particular time (E.g: after consumption, after choice, based on

accumulated experience, etc). These three components can be classified as the type,

focus and timing of the SAT response respectively (Giese and Cote 2000). Giese and

Cote (2000) state that a generic definition of SAT is not feasible due to the

innumerable contextual variables that would affect the way SAT is viewed. Such a

generic definition is also susceptible to chameleon effects (due to the latter

statement). To overcome the former and latter issues, Giese and Cote (2000) propose

a framework for developing context-specific definitions of SAT. The framework

(after reviewing literature and validating data from group and personal interviews)

consists of three essential components of consumer SAT: (1) affective response

(which reflects SAT as a holistic evaluation outcome); (2) focus; and (3) timing

(Giese and Cote 2000). The candidate notes that these three essential components are

similar to the three components (that were embedded in the definitions) as

mentioned above.

Oliver (1989) defines SAT as an “evaluate, affective, or emotional response”. The

candidate has attempted to map Oliver’s (1989) definition to Giese and Cote’s

(2000) three essential components to identify commonality (Table 11).

Oliver’s (1989)

Definition

Giese and Cote’s (2000) Essential Three

Components

Affective

Response

Focus Timing

evaluate, affective, or

emotional response

Affective Experience During or

after

consumption

Table 11: Mapping of Oliver’s (1989) definition to Giese and Cote’s (2000)

three components


64

Spreng and MacKoy (1996) mentioned that although there is no clear consensus

regarding the definition of SAT, most definitions are similar to how Oliver (1989)

described it. The results of the mapping attempt (Table 11) appear to incorporate the

three components suggested by Giese and Cote’s (2000). The candidate, in review of

the former and latter statements, has adopted Oliver’s (1989) definition of SAT for

this study.

SQ And SAT – Are They Similar Or Distinct Constructs?

Several researchers have raised the issue of whether SQ and SAT are similar or

distinct constructs (Dabholkar 1993; Dabholkar 1995b; Iacobucci et al. 1994; Oliver

1993).

A few examples where both constructs were found to be similar include: (1)Spreng

and Singh (1993) in their study of service evaluations of banking customers failed to

find discriminant validity among the two constructs; (2) Dabholkar (1995a) in her

study of retail customers found the two constructs to be distinct for recent customers

but overlap in meaning for long-term customers as customer SAT grew increasingly

cognitive over time; and (3) Dabholkar et al. (2000) mention that for situations with

minimum emotional content, or where performance always falls within the zone of

indifference, or over time, there might be even greater overlap between the 2

constructs.

A few examples where both constructs were found to be distinct include: (1)

Dabholkar et al. (2000) in their study of correlations among various types of

measurement (perceptions, measured disconfirmation, computed disconfirmation)

data found the constructs to be distinct although highly correlated; and (2)

Parasuraman et al. (1988) describe SQ as a form of attitude that is similar but not

equivalent to SAT.


65

Direction Of Causality Between SQ and SAT

There have been two notions regarding the causality of SQ and SAT. The first notion

is SQ -> SAT and the second notion is the direct opposite of the first. Support for

both notions have been tabulated in Table 12 below.

SQ -> SAT SAT -> SQ

• Cronin and Taylor (1992) state

(from their findings) that SQ has a

significant effect on SAT. They

state that SQ is an antecedent of

SAT and that SAT exerts a

stronger influence on purchase

intentions.

• Parasuraman et al. (1988)

conceptualized perceived SQ as a

long-run overall evaluation about

a service, whereas SAT is a

transaction-specific evaluation.

Based on these conceptualizations,

they posited that incidents of SAT

over time result in perceptions of

SQ.

• Oliver (1993) suggested that SQ

would be antecedent to SAT

regardless of whether these

constructs were measured for a

given experience or over time.

• Traditionally, researchers have

suggested that SAT with a given

service experience would lead to

an overall evaluation/attitude of

SQ over time (Bitner 1990; Oliver

1981; Parasuraman et al. 1988)

• Several researchers (E.g: Anderson

and Sullivan 1993; Spreng and

MacKoy 1996) found empirical

support for this model (SQ ->

SAT), wherein SAT is a

consequence of SQ.

• Dabholkar et al. (2000) mention

that for situations with high

emotional content, or where

performance always falls outside

the zone of indifference, the causal

sequence between the two

constructs may be reversed.


66

• Gronroos (2000) states that a

person consuming a service first

perceives the quality of the

dimensions of the service and only

then is either satisfied or not with

the quality of that service.

• Dabholkar and Overby (2005)

mention that for extreme situations

(E.g: when expectations are

greatly exceeded or unfulfilled),

customer SAT evaluations will

precede and influence SQ

evaluations.

• SAT is characterized by the

surprise (Oliver 1981), the

contentment, the pleasure

and/or the relief (Woodruff et

al. 1983) a customer

experiences after a purchase or

service encounter (Roest and

Pieters 1997).

• Lee, Lee and Yoo (2000)

proposed customers can

evaluate an object only after

they have interpreted the

object.

• Dabholkar and Overby (2005)

mention that for non-extreme

situations (E.g: service is

within an acceptable range),

customers will evaluate the

service more rationally and

cognitively whereby SQ

evaluations will precede and

influence customer SAT

evaluations.


67

• Chien and Tsaur (2007)

mention that IS departments

evaluate user SAT primarily to

improve their SQ.

• Chien and Tsaur (2007)

mention that SQ is included as

one of the dimensions that

affect use and user SAT.

• Alexandris et al. (2004)

mention that SAT is a broader

concept, whereas SQ

judgments are specific, and its

assessment focuses specifically

on dimensions of SQ. This

view suggests that SQ

perceptions influence customer

SAT.

Table 12: Tabulation of support for both notions

Ellis and Johnson (2002) mention that when customer SAT is transaction-specific, it

is regarded as an antecedent to SQ. However, if customer SAT is measured as an

overall assessment (global scale), SQ is an antecedent of SAT (Oliver 1997; Ellis

and Johnson 2002). Parasuraman et al. (1994) pointed out that the conflicts in the

causality could be related to the differing perspectives (focuses) of SQ and SAT

research. They mention that a global focus is adopted for most SQ research (SQ ->

SAT) and a transaction-specific focus is adopted for most SAT research (SAT ->

SQ).

Parasuraman et al. (1994) argue that SQ and SAT could be examined from both

perspectives (transaction-specific and global). The candidate is in-agreement with

Parasuraman et al. (1994) and Oliver’s (1989) definition of SAT which implies that


68

customers can only evaluate an object after they have interpreted it. In other words,

regardless of whether SAT is evaluated on a global scale or based on a specific

transaction, customers can only be satisfied / dissatisfied only after they have

evaluated the quality of the service. Dabholkar et al. (2000) in their study of whether

SAT has an incremental effect (and if yes, is this effect independent or a mediating

one?) over that of SQ and BI, found that SAT mediates the influence of SQ on BI

and SQ is an antecedent of SAT. They also found the mediating role of SAT to be

more natural in the way people make evaluations. Dabholkar and Overby (2005) also

mention, in their study of how customers evaluate SQ and SAT, that seventy-two

percent of their respondents said they first evaluated SQ and then decide if they are

satisfied. With all these being said, the candidate has adopted the notion of SQ being

an antecedent of SAT for this study.


69

2.5 Relationships Between Service Quality And IS Success

In today’s context, organizations need to look beyond the traditional role of IS

(which was to design, build and install systems) and look towards improving their

SQ. Improved SQ has a positive “domino” effect on the organization’s productivity

as improved SQ would increase the client’s productivity and this would in-turn

increase the organization’s productivity (Watson et al. 1998). It was stated that IS

managers have put their focus on the product viewpoint (outcome quality) and

process viewpoint (information quality) and have neglected the service viewpoint

(SQ) of IS (Whyte, Bytheway and Edwards 1997). When a customer buys a tangible

product, he/she also buys a service and the product is only a means of accessing a

service (Shostack 1977) thus the emphasis from the customer’s point-of-view is not

only on the product but on the service that accompanies the product.

2.5.1 Definition Of IS Success

The candidate has adopted the definition of IS-Impact as “a measure at a point in

time of the stream of net benefits from the IS, to date and anticipated, as perceived

by all key user groups” (Gable, Sedera and Chan 2008, 381) as the basis for IS

Success measurement. Reasons for the adoption are that the candidate is part of the

ITPS track that utilizes this definition of IS success coupled that this definition of IS

success was taken from a top-tier journal publication (Journal of the Association for

Information Systems).

2.5.2 Service Quality And IS Success

Information System (IS) organizations have been placed in dual roles (information

provider and service provider) due to the emergence of end user computing and the

realization of the importance of IS support. The rise in importance of SQ in IS

brought about the inclusion of the ‘SQ’ construct in the updated version of a popular

and widely-cited IS Success model (DeLone and McLean 2003). Pitt et al. (1995)

highlights that IS effectiveness consists of multiple constructs (measures) and that


70

there is no single construct that can measure IS success. An example that Pitt et al.

(1995) gave was the IS success model (DeLone and McLean 1992) consisting of

constructs grouped into six categories namely system quality, information quality,

use, user satisfaction, individual impact and organizational impact. Pitt et al. (1995)

argued that the service component should be included into the IS success model

(DeLone and McLean 1992) due to the underlying theory that when a customer

purchases a tangible product, he or she also buys a service and that a product is only

a way of accessing a service. Lin (2007) in her study on measuring IS (online

learning systems) success by applying the D&M (2003) model showed that system

quality, information quality and SQ influenced actual online learning systems (OLS)

use through user SAT and behavioral intentions. Her study revealed a high score for

SQ (E.g: visual appeal, availability of help, and response of the OLS) had a

significant and positive influence on user SAT and behavioral intentions (Lin 2007).

SQ has an apparent relationship to customer SAT (Siu and Cheung 2001) and

customer SAT influences IS effectiveness. Therefore, IS Success is brought about by

the SAT with SQ.

The latter notion is supported by DeLone and McLean in their IS Success Model

(DeLone and McLean 2003), whereby they state that IS SQ is an antecedent of use

and user SAT (Pitt et al. 1995). By neglecting SQ, the evaluation of IS effectiveness

might be inaccurate (Pitt et al. 1995). This paragraph highlights and reiterates that

SQ and the measurement of SQ are important and vital to IS Success.

The above paragraph highlights the key influences of SQ on IS success via SAT. As

mentioned earlier in this report, the candidate’s project is part of a larger research

project , that via an Australian Research Council (ARC) discovery grant proposal,

seeks to alternatively conceptualize IS as a ‘service’ and ultimately triangulating

measures of IS SQ with the IS-Impact model (Figure 2 A) – an IS Success

measurement model developed by the candidate’s research track (Sedera 2006;

Gable, Sedera and Chan 2003). Details of the ARC discovery grant proposal are

documented below.


71

Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant Proposal

The measurement of SQ has been of central interest to the Services Marketing

discipline for several decades; ‘SERVQUAL’(Parasuraman et al. 1988) being the

most widely employed and cited measurement model. More recent work by Brady

and Cronin (2001), consistent with ideas espoused by Dabholkar et al. (1996, 2000),

represents SQ perceptions as multilevel and multidimensional (the ‘B&C’ Model)

(Brady and Cronin 2001); the rationale being that customers tend to cognitively

decompose SQ dimensions into various sub-dimensions (Carman 1990), and a

hierarchical structure accounts for the complexity of human perceptions (Dabholkar

et al. 1996). Brady and Cronin (2001) bring substantial clarity and harmony to the

measurement of SQ. Their third order model (Figure 2B) relates SQ perceptions to

the three dimensions – Interaction quality, Environment quality, and Outcome

quality; each of which has three sub-dimensions that define the basis of SQ

perceptions. They further suggest that for each of these sub-dimensions to contribute

to improved SQ perceptions, the quality must be perceived to be reliable, responsive

and empathetic. This hierarchical structure is analogous with that of the IS-Impact

model (Figure 3). The IS-Impact sub-model (Figure 2A and Figure 3) includes four

dimensions in two halves representing “the stream of net benefits from an

Information System to date and anticipated as perceived by all key-user-

groups”(Gable 2008). The ‘impact’ half measures benefits to date, or Individual- and

Organizational-Impact. The ‘quality’ half, uses System-Quality and Information-

Quality as proxy measures of probable future impacts. There is much potential here

for cross-fertilization of ideas between the IS and Marketing fields. In example,

Gronroos (1982), as cited in Brady and Cronin (2001:35), suggest two main SQ

dimensions where “Functional quality represents how the service is delivered; that

is, it defines customers’ perceptions of the interactions that take place during service

delivery. Technical quality reflects the outcome of the service act, or what the

customer receives in the service encounter.” With the ‘operational’ IS (the focus of

the IS-Impact evaluation approach), where the system itself is conceived as a stream

of services or a systematized (automated) service, the system (and its quality) are the

‘functional’ and its impacts are the ‘technical’ (or outputs). Note that the key


72

distinction made in the IS-Impact model between its Quality and Impact halves, is

also similar to Alter’s (as cited in Seddon et al, 1999) distinction between ‘internal

performance’ and ‘external performance’ which respectively refer to ‘how well the

system operates internally’ versus ‘how well the system achieves it purpose’

(1999:48), or which he more simply refers to as the “system” versus “the system’s

performance” (1999:43). From a Services Marketing perspective, main intended

outcomes of the proposal are to: (1) develop, operationalise and empirically validate

a new SQ measurement model; and (2) extend the ‘service’ notion to ‘operational

information systems in organisations’ or IS. From an Information Systems

perspective, main intended outcomes are to: (3) explore implications for evaluating

IS from conceptualising the IS as a service; (4) bring conceptual clarity to the IS

discipline regarding the alternative notion of SQ as a ‘dimension’ of IS Success as

first suggested by (DeLone and McLean 2003); and (5) further validate the IS-

Impact model (Gable 2008). The candidate’s research assists in contributing

knowledge to points (4) and (5).

The B&C Service Quality Model (Brady and Cronin 2001)

The IS-Impact Model (Gable et al 2008)


ConditionsDesign

Social

Factors

Waiting


Interaction

Quality

Environment

Quality

Outcome

Quality

IS-SvQ


Service

Quality

(D&M 2003)

SV1 SV2 9 SVx

Quality Impact

System

Quality

SQ1SQ2SQ3SQ4SQ5SQ6SQ7SQ8SQ9

Information

Quality

IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 IQ6

Individual

Impact

II1 II2 II3 II4

Organisational

Impact

O11O12 OI3 OI4 OI5 OI6 OI7 OI8

IS-Impact

Satisfaction

S1

S2

9

Sx

IS-Impact+

The B&C Service Quality Model (Brady and Cronin 2001)

The IS-Impact Model (Gable et al 2008)


ConditionsDesign

Social

Factors

Waiting


Interaction

Quality

Environment

Quality

Outcome

Quality

IS-SvQ

R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E R SP ER SP E

Service

Quality

(D&M 2003)

SV1 SV2 9 SVx

Service

Quality

(D&M 2003)

SV1 SV2 9 SVxSV1 SV2 9 SVx

Quality Impact

System

Quality

SQ1SQ2SQ3SQ4SQ5SQ6SQ7SQ8SQ9

System

Quality

SQ1SQ2SQ3SQ4SQ5SQ6SQ7SQ8SQ9SQ1SQ2SQ3SQ1SQ2SQ3SQ4SQ5SQ6SQ4SQ5SQ6SQ7SQ8SQ9SQ7SQ8SQ9

Information

Quality

IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 IQ6

Information

Quality

IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 IQ6IQ1 IQ2 IQ3IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5 IQ6IQ4 IQ5 IQ6

Individual

Impact

II1 II2 II3 II4

Individual

Impact

II1 II2 II3 II4II1 II2 II3 II4

Organisational

Impact

O11O12 OI3 OI4 OI5 OI6 OI7 OI8

Organisational

Impact

O11O12 OI3 OI4 OI5 OI6 OI7 OI8O11 O12 OI3 OI4 OI5 OI6 OI7 OI8

IS-Impact

Satisfaction

S1

S2

9

Sx

Satisfaction

S1

S2

9

Sx

S1

S2

9

Sx

IS-Impact+

Figure 2 – Discovery grant model (Gable 2008)

A

B


73

Figure 3 – IS-Impact model


74

Chapter Summary

This Chapter first sourced and analyzed various definitions of SQ before adopting

the definition proposed by Rathmell (1966) that a ‘service’ is “a deed, a

performance, and an effort”. In order to avoid confusion between a ‘service’ and a

‘product’, a comparison between the two was done and outcome of which is the

candidate’s adoption of Shostack’s (1977) proposed model (theory) which

distinguishes between goods and services along a continuum from intangible

dominant services to tangible dominant physical goods. Her model posits the

proportion of tangibles to intangibles in a product determines whether it should be

classified as a good or service. Various definitions of SQ were sourced and analyzed

from literature before adopting the definition by Parasuraman et al. (1988) that SQ is

the “degree and direction of discrepancy between consumers’ perceptions and

expectations”. This Chapter revisited two main conceptualizations of SQ namely the

Nordic and North American schools. A popular and widely-used SQ model

developed by the North American School (SERVQUAL), with intentions of being

able to measure SQ globally, was documented and results from a mapping exercise

(Table 9) to test its global feasibility seemed to be contrary to its intentions. Despite

the contrary results, researchers have noted the value in SERVQUAL’s

conceptualization of its five dimensions being pivotal as a starting point to

measuring SQ (Li et al. 2002). Researchers also noted SERVQUAL seemed to

indicate the “key” criterion of SQ (five dimensions of SQ), however, it didn’t seem

to indicate WHAT needs to be asked for each criterion (Li et al. 2002). A seemingly

successor of SERVQUAL, which adopted three of SERVQUAL’s five dimensions

(responsiveness, reliability and empathy), the Brady and Cronin (2001) model, was

introduced in a bid to better explain how customers evaluate SQ (hierarchical/multi-

level instead of single-level nature). The Brady and Cronin (2001) model, or B&C

(2001) model, gained favor as its conceptualization seemed to have overcome some

of SERVQUAL’s shortfalls (E.g: the ‘what’ question in-relation to SERVQUAL’s

(1988) five dimensions) coupled with support from many other researchers. The

candidate is in-agreement with Li et al. (2002) that due to the unique characteristics

of each industry, dimensional (or sub-dimensional in the B&C (2001) model)


75

weighting is supported. Two main approaches (perceptions-only and

disconfirmation) of measuring SQ as well as their benefits and problems were

documented. A cross-analysis was conducted to try and identify if a particular

approach (if any) was better in measuring SQ. The conclusion was that both

approaches were valid and depending on the objectives of the analysis, one approach

would be better over the other. Various definitions of SAT were sourced and

analyzed from literature before the candidate adopted Oliver’s (1989) definition of

SAT being an “evaluate, affective, or emotional response”. Two notions of causality

between SQ and SAT were documented. Dagger, Sweeney and Johnson (2007)

mention the strong association between SQ and BI is noteworthy because SAT is

generally viewed as more closely aligned with BI, in that SAT is typically modeled

as mediating the relationship between SQ and BI (in-support for SQ->SAT->BI)

where ‘->’ represents influence. Results from the candidate’s analysis coupled with

the latter statement bring about support and adoption of the notion of SQ ->SAT-

>BI. The importance of SQ and the potential influence SQ has on IS Success was

also highlighted. The latter statement suggests organizations should look beyond the

traditional role of IS and move towards improving its SQ. The inclusion of the ‘SQ’

dimension in a well-known and widely-cited IS Success model (DeLone and

McLean 2003) greater emphasizes the importance of SQ in IS. Recent research

suggests SQ perceptions are better represented as multilevel and multidimensional

and such perceptions were represented by the Brady and Cronin (2001) or ‘B&C’

model. The ‘B&C’ model was put alongside the IS-Impact model (an IS Success

measurement model developed by the candidate’s research track) with the aims of

cross-fertilizing ideas and further validating the IS-Impact model (if necessary) by

conceptualizing IS as a ‘service’.


76

Chapter 3: Research Design

The candidate has employed the archival analysis research method, which is defined

as “a form of the observational method, whereby the researcher examines the

accumulated documents, or archives, of a culture (e.g., diaries, novels, magazines,

and newspapers)” (archival analysis - Lexikon 2006), for his research. The research

approach is essentially qualitative, treating literature as evidence. The candidate’s

research is composed of two phases (inventory and deductive) with archival analysis

applied in each.

The inventory phase, being by nature open-ended and exploratory, is first used to

identify and consolidate SQ dimensions from various industries. The aim of the

inventory phase is to consolidate a collection of SQ dimensions derived from a

diversity of industries, thereby facilitating generalizability of results from the

deductive phase. SQ evidence (articles) from IT online databases (E.g: ACM Digital

Library, Emerald Management Xtra, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Web Of Science, etc)

and marketing journals (E.g: Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing, Journal of

Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Retailing, Harvard

Business Review, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Business Research,

European Journal of Marketing, etc) were sourced via links from QUT’s library web

site. Key words such as “service quality”, “service quality dimensions”, “service

quality conceptualization” and “service quality measurement” were entered into the

search function under the ‘title’ and ‘key words’ categories of each database. The

aim of the key words was to narrow the search to those articles of relevance; those

which document: (1) how SQ is conceptualized in the particular industry and (2)

what are the SQ dimensions in the particular industry. This search resulted in a

collection of fifty-nine SQ articles reflecting diverse industries (Appendix A). This

collection of industry-related SQ articles was then filtered to a sub-set of only those

that documented and defined the SQ dimensions (Appendix A). Articles that made

mention of SQ dimensions but failed to define them, were excluded, as they would


77

not be useful in the deductive phase (see following). A total of seventeen out of fifty-

nine SQ articles included appropriate detail.

In the deductive phase, a mapping exercise (Appendix B) was conducted (by the

candidate and his colleague) using the B&C (2001) model as the basis, to classify

the SQ dimensions identified from the seventeen SQ articles. The seventeen SQ

articles coincidentally represented seventeen different industries. Table 6 documents

the classification of SQ dimensions based on five global SQ models (Table 5)

documented thus far in the service marketing literature. These five global SQ models

were developed over time due to the rise in importance of SQ and the necessity to

measure SQ with a measurement model that is not developed based on any specific

industry. From Table 6, it can be seen that SQ dimensions fall into three categories

namely physical environment, process, and product. Classification results from

Table 6 suggest only two global SQ models were feasible to be used as the basis of

classification in the mapping exercise: (1) the (B&C (2001) model, and (2) the Rust

and Oliver (1994) model). The B&C (2001) model was chosen over the Rust and

Oliver (1994) model because the B&C (2001) model had based certain measurement

aspects (E.g: SERVQUAL’s ‘responsiveness’, ‘reliability’ and ‘empathy’

dimensions were used to measure the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions) on

the credible and widely cited SERVQUAL while Rust and Oliver’s (1994) model

didn’t state how their model’s SQ dimensions were measured. The purpose of the

mapping exercise is to further validate an existing global SQ model by testing its

global applicability across various industries and service types. For the candidate’s

research, the existing global SQ model being tested is the B&C (2001) model and

the seventeen industries (Appendix A) singled out represent the various industries

and service types. Tests of the B&C (2001) model include: (1) do the nine sub-

dimensions encompass the SQ dimensions identified from seventeen different

industries?; and (2) do the three primary dimensions encompass the SQ dimensions

identified from seventeen different industries? Each definition of the SQ dimensions

(from seventeen different industries) was compared and mapped logically to each of

the definition of the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions. For each of the SQ


78

dimensions mapped onto the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions, the

corresponding B&C (2001) model’s primary dimension(s) was/were mapped to that

SQ dimension.

Chapter Summary

This Chapter documents the research method used by the candidate (archival

analysis) as well as the procedures of how this method was applied to the candidate’s

research. The candidate’s research method can be summarized as consisting of two

phases (inventory and deductive) with archival analysis being performed

respectively in each phase.


79

Chapter 4: Archival Analysis Of Data And Discussion

Of Mapping Results

Validating The Global Applicability Of The B&C’s (2001) Model

The candidate first consolidated a collection of SQ journal articles that were industry

focused. Secondly, he filtered through the collection and excluded articles that

either had no SQ dimensions mentioned or had the latter mentioned but no

descriptions of them (Appendix A). The outcome of which are seventeen articles that

represented seventeen different SQ models/industries (Table 13).

The candidate conducted a logical definition-to-definition comparison of the

seventeen industries’ SQ dimensions with that of the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-

dimensions and subsequently the model’s three primary dimensions. It should be

noted that the seventeen industry models’ dimensional descriptions were not

compared to the B&C (2001) model’s three measures (reliability, responsiveness and

empathy) because the measures were merely descriptors of the sub-dimensions and

not direct determinants of SQ (Brady and Cronin 2001).

The mapping process was as follows:

(1) For each of the dimensions within a particular industry model, compare its

dimensional description with the description of each of the B&C (2001) model’s

nine sub-dimensions to find commonality in meanings (either in-terms of similar

“key words” or similar inferential meanings).

“Key words” can be described as similar words or phrases within the descriptions of

the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions and the industry model’s dimensions.

For example, the key word for the ‘ambient conditions’ sub-dimension of the B&C

(2001) model would be “non-visual” and the key word for the ‘ambience’ dimension

under the ‘recreation sport’ industry would be “non-visual”. The former and latter

suggest commonality in meanings in-terms of key words.


80

Similar inferential meanings can be described as phrases or sentences within the

descriptions of the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions and the industry

model’s dimensions with similar meanings. For example, the description of the

‘adaptiveness’ dimension (“ability to solve and help to interpret different customer

problems and questions”) under the ‘call centers’ industry has a similar inferential

meaning to the description of the ‘expertise’ dimension (“extend to which the

individual provider can affect the outcome of the service through his or her skills”)

in the B&C (2001) model. For example, the expertise of the staff would be seen by

his/her ability to interpret the customer’s problem/question accurately and solve it

appropriately. Should the staff lack expertise in the sense that the staff

misunderstands or misinterprets the customer’s issue, tension could arise on the

customer’s end (if not on both ends) as both parties are not able to see things on the

same wavelength. Should the staff be unable to solve the customer’s issue, the

outcome of the service encounter would be more negative. In short, it takes expertise

on the staff’s end to accurately interpret, identify and solve a customer’s issue with

the end result of closing the issue.

(2) Should commonality (in dimensional meanings) be found, the appropriate sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model would be mapped onto that particular industry

model’s dimension. An example of the latter, based on commonality in-terms of key

words, would be the mapping of the ‘ambience’ dimension under the ‘recreation

sport’ industry to the ‘ambient conditions’ sub-dimension of the B&C (2001) model.

Should a particular industry model’s dimension map onto more than one sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model, the B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimension with

the closest match in dimensional meaning would be mapped to that particular

model’s dimension. For example, the description of the ‘graphic quality’ dimension

(“how well the various elements of the user interface are visually represented”)

under the ‘electronic services’ industry seems to represent a tangible appearance

(and therefore conforming to the ‘tangibles’ sub-dimension of the B&C (2001)


81

model), however, the latter’s description more closely aligns to the description of the

‘ambient conditions’ sub-dimension of the B&C (2001) model in the sense that the

description of the ‘graphic quality’ dimension implicitly describes the layout and

architecture of the environment rather than just being tangible in appearance.

Should NO commonality be found, label the particular industry model’s dimension

‘unclassified’. An example is the ‘support’ dimension under the ‘health’ industry

whereby the candidate was not able to find a match in meanings between the latter

dimension and the sub-dimensions of the B&C (2001) model. The ‘support’

dimension was therefore labeled as ‘unclassified’ to indicate ambiguity. It should be

noted that each industry model’s dimension should map onto only ONE sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model.

(3) For each sub-dimension of the B&C (2001) model mapped onto the particular

industry model’s dimension, its associated primary dimension (on the B&C (2001)

model) would be mapped. For example, taking the mapping of the ‘ambience’

dimension under the ‘recreation sport’ industry to the ‘ambient conditions’ sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model, the associated primary dimension of the B&C

(2001) model in-relation to the ‘ambient conditions’ sub-dimension is ‘physical

environment quality’. Thus, it is said that the ‘ambience’ dimension maps onto the

‘physical environment quality’ primary dimension of the B&C (2001) model. The

purpose for step (3) is to assist the candidate in validating the classification of SQ

dimensions on a higher level based on the three primary dimensions of the B&C

(2001) model.

(4) Steps (1 – 3) to be repeated for all dimensions of all seventeen industry models.

Appendix B documents the mapping exercise attempted by the candidate and his

colleague. It is to be noted that all industries’ dimensional descriptions were cut and

pasted direct from the literature.


82

Mapping Exercise Results In-Relation To The B&C (2001) Model’s Sub-

Dimensions

The following observations were made by the candidate after analyzing the mapping

results (agreed upon by both the candidate and his colleague) in-relation to the B&C

(2001) model’s sub-dimensions (Appendix C).

The mapping results appear to show confusion with the ‘behavior’ and ‘expertise’

sub-dimensions. This could be due to the cognitive interpretation that ‘expertise’ can

also be a type of behavior. An example is the definition of the ‘authority’ SQ

dimension under the ‘Call Centers’ industry which could be interpreted as a verb

(behavior) by the phrase in the definition “…perform the required tasks” or as

‘expertise’ by the phase in the definition “…ability to perform…”.

The mapping results appear to show confusion with the ‘design’ and ‘valence’ sub-

dimensions. This could be due to the definitions of industry SQ dimensions being

encompassed by either the ‘valence’ or ‘design’ sub-dimension of the B&C (2001)

model. An example is the definition of the ‘ease of use’ SQ dimension under the

‘electronic services’ industry which could be interpreted as a customer’s perspective

(valence) or as part of the web site design (design).

The mapping results appear to show confusion with the ‘attitude’ and ‘behavior’

sub-dimensions. The definitions of ‘attitude’ and ‘behavior’ defined by Brady and

Cronin seem to implicitly encompass each other. For example in the definition of

‘attitude’ which is defined as “a function not only of….situation”, the phrase

“…client’s perception, client-provider interaction, and the given situation” within

the latter’s definition seems to implicitly encompass the definition of “behavior”.

The mapping results appear to show confusion with the ‘ambient conditions’ and

‘design’ sub-dimensions. A possible rationale for the latter could be the definition of

the industry SQ dimension having implicitly encompassed the definitions of

“ambient conditions and “design”. An example is the “transcendence” SQ dimension


83

which is defined as “appearance and color...clarity and readability of text” by which

the phrase “clarity and readability of text” might be more aligned to the definition of

“design” while the rest of the latter’s definition is more aligned to the definition of

“ambient conditions”.

The candidate notes that such confusions between the above mentioned sub-

dimensions of the B&C (2001) model could contribute to perceptual

misinterpretations during the execution of the mapping exercise due to overlaps in

definitions between the sub-dimensions and industry SQ dimensions. Though the

sub-dimensional definitions defined by Brady and Cronin are valuable, the candidate

suggests a review of these sub-dimensional definitions with the aim of reviewing

them to be more precise and to avoid perceptual overlaps in interpretations.

Mapping Exercise Results In-Relation To The B&C (2001) Model’s Primary

Dimensions

The following observations were made by the candidate after analyzing the mapping

results (agreed upon by both the candidate and his colleague) in-relation to the B&C

(2001) model’s primary dimensions (Appendix D).

For the ‘Call Centers’, ‘Banks And Credit Unions’, ‘Retail’, Web-based Services’

and ‘E-travel’ industries, focus appears to be solely on interaction quality. This could

be due to the nature of the industry being more interactive between service provider

and customer. Emphasis on physical environment and outcome qualities appear

negligible as contact is mainly focused on the interaction between service provider

and customer.

For the ‘Web-based Information Systems (WIS)’ industry, focus appears to be on all

three of B&C (2001) model’s primary dimensions with emphasis on the interaction

and physical environment quality dimensions. An example of such an industry is an

inventory retrieval system which gathers and displays information according to the

requests of the customer. For this industry, emphasis is on how well the system


84

(service provider) is able to interact with the customer, gather and deliver what the

customer requests (interaction quality) as well as the environment that the system

provides in supporting the customer’s requests (physical environment quality).

For the ‘Academic Libraries’ and ‘Health’ industries, focus appears to be equal

across all three B&C (2001) model’s primary dimensions.

For the ‘E-service’ industry, focus appears to be on the interaction and outcome

quality primary dimensions of the B&C (2001) model with emphasis on interaction

quality.

For the ‘Education’ industry, focus appears to be on the physical environment and

outcome quality primary dimensions of the B&C (2001) model with emphasis on

outcome quality. A possible rationale for the latter could be due to students being

more concerned with the outcome of their education (E.g: if they obtained a degree

at the end of their course) rather than the environment that they are studying in.

For the ‘Electronic Services’ industry, focus appears to be on all three of B&C

(2001) model’s primary dimensions with emphasis on outcome quality. A possible

rationale for the latter is that customers in this particular industry might be more

concerned with the outcome of the service rather than the interaction between

service provider and customer and the quality of the physical environment. An

example of an electronic service is the automated teller machine. Customers are

more concerned about the outcome quality of the service (E.g: being able to

withdraw money) rather than the quality of interaction between customer and service

provider (E.g: machine screen) and the quality of the physical (or screen-based)

environment. This industry unlike the ‘web-based information system’ industry has

more tangible outcomes because the latter’s objective is just to deliver information to

the customer (via a screen). Thus for the WIS industry, emphasis is more on the

quality of the interaction and physical environment.


85

For the ‘Web Sites’ industry, focus appears to be on all three of B&C (2001)

model’s primary dimensions with emphasis on physical environment and outcome

quality dimensions. An example of a web site would be Queensland University of

Technology (QUT) web site. The customer might be more concerned about the

environment of the web site (E.g: look and feel of the web site) and if he/she

managed to get the required information he/she seeks rather than the quality of

his/her interaction between the web site and himself/herself.

For the ‘Automobile’ industry, focus appears to be on all three of B&C (2001)

model’s primary dimensions with emphasis on physical environment and outcome

quality dimensions. An example of such an industry is a car dealer showroom. A

possible rationale for the emphasis could be the customer might be more concerned

if the showroom had the cars all neatly parked in an organized manner (physical

environment quality) so he/she can more easily browse through the variety of cars

and if the purchase transaction for the car goes through successfully (outcome

quality).

For the ‘E-Business’ industry, focus appears to be on all three of B&C (2001)

model’s primary dimensions with emphasis on physical environment and interaction

quality dimensions. An example of such an industry could be Yahoo Auctions. A

possible rationale for the emphasis could be the customer might be more concerned

about the reliability and accuracy of information provided by the seller (interaction

quality) as well as the ease of securing the purchase online (physical environment

quality).

For the ‘Online Shopping’ industry, focus appears to be on the interaction and

physical environment quality primary dimensions of the B&C (2001) model with

emphasis on interaction quality. An example of such an industry is E-Bay. A

possible rationale for the emphasis is customers might be more concerned about the

reliability of the purchase transaction and accuracy of information on the web site as

there is no tangible product that the customers can view and verify.


86

For the ‘Recreation Sport’ industry, focus appears to be on the outcome and physical

environment quality primary dimensions of the B&C (2001) model with emphasis

on outcome quality. An example of such an industry is a football organization. A

possible rationale is that customers (or football teams in this context) might be more

concerned if their team wins the football match as compared to the quality of the

interaction (between players in the team or even between team and organization) and

physical environment (E.g: how neat the football pitch looks).

For the ‘E-Retailing’ industry, focus appears to be on all three of B&C (2001)

model’s primary dimensions with emphasis on physical environment. An example of

such an industry is the Symantec online store. A possible rationale is that customers

might be more concerned about the look and feel as well as the ease of navigation of

the web site (physical environment quality).

The tabulation procedures in-relation to the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-

dimensions, for the candidate and his colleague, were as follows: (1) For each of the

B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions, the presence of that sub-dimension (in a

particular industry) as mapped similarly by the candidate and his colleague was

checked against the mapping results (Appendix C). For example, the ‘expertise’ sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model was mapped by both the candidate and his

colleague onto the ‘adaptiveness’ SQ dimension in the ‘call centers’ industry. (2)

Should there be at least one match (agreed by the candidate and his colleague)

between the B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimension and the industry model’s SQ

dimensions, it was noted that the particular B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimension was

present in that particular industry. For example, the ‘expertise’ sub-dimension of the

B&C (2001) model was mapped onto two SQ dimensions (‘reliability’ and

‘support’) in the ‘E-Service’ industry as compared to one SQ dimension

(‘competence’) in the ‘Banks and Credit Unions’ industry. Steps (1) and (2) were

carried out for all SQ dimensions in all seventeen industries.


87

The tabulation procedures in-relation to the B&C (2001) model’s three primary

dimensions, for the candidate and his colleague, were as follows: (1) For each of the

B&C (2001) model’s three primary dimensions, the presence of that primary

dimension (in a particular industry) as mapped similarly by the candidate and his

colleague was checked against the mapping results (Appendix D). For example, the

‘interaction quality’ primary dimension of the B& C (2001) model was mapped onto

the ‘adaptiveness’ SQ dimension in the ‘Call Centers’ industry. (2) Should there be

at least one match (agreed by the candidate and his colleague) between the B&C

(2001) model’s primary dimension and the industry model’s SQ dimensions, it was

noted that the particular B&C (2001) model’s primary dimension was present in that

particular industry. For example, in the ‘E-Travel’ industry, the ‘interaction quality’

primary dimension of the B&C (2001) model was mapped onto two SQ dimensions

(‘security’ and ‘responsiveness’) as compared to one SQ dimension (‘tailored

information’) in the ‘Web Site’ industry. Steps (1) and (2) were carried out for all

SQ dimensions in all seventeen industries.

Results from the tabulation (Tables 14) would give the candidate an approximation

of the global validity of the B&C (2001) model. For each B&C (2001) model’s

primary dimension, support is deemed should the presence of the primary dimension

be present in more than or equals to fifty percent among the seventeen industries.

Results from the tabulation (Tables 14) appear to suggest strong support for all three

(interaction, physical environment and outcome) B&C (2001) model’s primary SQ

dimensions and considerable support for the nine sub-dimensions (attitude, behavior,

expertise, ambient conditions, design, social factors, waiting time, tangibles and

valence).

In-relation to the ‘interaction quality’ primary dimension, there appears to be

considerable support for the expertise sub-dimensions. However the ‘attitude’ and

‘behavior’ sub-dimensions appear to have a low presence. In-relation to the ‘physical

environment quality’ primary dimension, there appears to be considerable support

for only the ‘design’ sub-dimension. However, ‘ambient conditions’ and ‘social


88

factors’ sub-dimensions appear to have a low presence. In-relation to the ‘outcome

quality’ primary dimension, there appears to be considerable support for the

‘valence’ sub-dimension. However, ‘tangibles’ and ‘waiting time’ sub-dimensions

appear to have a low presence.

All in all, it appears that the B&C (2001) model’s three primary dimensions serve as

an appropriate basis for global SQ measurement across industries. The candidate

acknowledges that although all three B&C (2001) model’s primary dimensions were

not present in all seventeen industries, the tabulation results (>= 50% presence)

suggest that they are a reliable starting point (at a higher level of dimensional

classification) and basis for SQ measurement. The candidate also acknowledges that

although all the B&C (2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions were not present in all

seventeen industries, with some sub-dimensions appearing low in presence, none of

the sub-dimensions had a zero presence which appears to suggest the sub-

dimensions’ existence. A possible reason for the low presence of sub-dimensions

could be the existence of sub-dimensions is context-specific and what would be

considered as a dimension of SQ in one context might not apply to another.

The candidate notes that confusions as stated above between the B&C (2001)

model’s sub-dimensions and industry SQ dimension could contribute to the low

presence of sub-dimensions with the resultant effect of support for the primary

dimensions.


89

Stu

dy

Domain O

f

Measu

re

Dim

ensions

(Sub-dim

ensions)

Scope Of

Application

Theoretical Reference

(Dean 2002)

Service

quality

Adaptiveness, assurance,

empathy, authority

Call centers

(Burgers, Rutyer, Keen

and Streukens 2000)

framework

(Tan et al.

2003)

Service

quality

Reliability, responsiveness,

access, flexibility, ease of

navigation, efficiency,

assurance/trust, security, site

aesthetics,

customization/personalization,

quality of information

Web-based

information

systems (WIS)

(Zeithaml, Parasuraman

and Malhotra 2000)

framewrok

(Nagata et al.

2004)

Service

quality

Effect of service, library as ba,

collection and access, effect of

service

Academic

libraries

SERVQUAL(Parasuram

an et al. 1988)

(Santos 2003)

Service

quality

Reliability, efficiency, support,

communication, security,

incentive

E-service

Not stated


90

Stu

dy

Domain O

f

Measu

re

Dim

ensions

(Sub-dim

ensions)

Scope Of

Application


(Joseph and

Joseph 1997)

Service

quality

Academic reputation, program

issues, physical facilities,

cost/time, location, career

opportunities, other

Education

Not stated

(Allred and

Addams 2000)

Service

quality

Reliability, responsiveness,

competence, access,

communication

Banks and

credit unions

SERVQUAL(Parasuram

an et al. 1988;

Parasuraman et al. 1985)

framework; (Berry ,

Parasuraman and

Zeithaml 1994)

framework

(Siu and

Cheung 2001)

Service

quality

Personal interaction, policy,

physical appearance, promises,

problem solving, convenience

Retail

(Dabholkar et al. 1996)

framework

(Li et al.

2002)

Service

quality

Responsiveness, Competence,

Quality of information,

Empathy, Web assistance,

Callback systems

Web-based

services

SERVQUAL(Parasuram

an et al. 1988)


91

Stu

dy

Domain O

f

Measu

re

Dim

ensions

(Sub-dim

ensions)

Scope Of

Application


(Dagger et al.

2007)

Service

quality

Interpersonal quality

(interaction, relationship),

technical quality (outcome,

expertise), environment quality

(atmosphere, tangibles),

administrative quality

(timeliness, operation, support)

Health

Brady and Cronin

(2001) framework;

Retail service quality

framework (Dabholkar

et al. 1996)

(Fassnacht and

Koese 2006)

Service

quality

Environment quality (graphic

quality, clarity of layout),

delivery quality (attractiveness

of selection, information

quality, ease of use, technical

quality), outcome quality

(reliability, functional benefit,

emotional benefit)

Electronic

services

(Rust and Oliver 1994)

framework


92

Stu

dy

Domain O

f

Measu

re

Dim

ensions

(Sub-dim

ensions)

Scope Of

Application


(Loiacono et

al. 2007)

Web site

quality

Usefulness (informational fit-

to-task, tailored information,

online completeness, relative

advantage), ease of use (ease of

understanding, intuitive

operations), trust, response

time, entertainment (visual

appeal, innovativeness,

emotional appeal, consistent

image)

Websites

Theory of reasoned

action (Ajzen and

Fishbein 1980);

technology acceptance

model (Davis, Bagozzi

and Warshaw 1989)

(Ho and Lee

2006)

Service

quality

Information quality, security,

website functionality, customer

relationships, responsiveness

Websites

Not stated

(Saravanan

and Rao 2007)

Service

quality

Human aspects of service

delivery, core service, social

responsibility, systematization

of service delivery, tangibles of

service, service marketing

Automobile

SERVQUAL(Parasuram

an et al. 1988);

(Sureshchandar,

Rajendran and

Anantharaman 2002)

framework


93

Stu

dy

Domain O

f

Measu

re

Dim

ensions

(Sub-dim

ensions)

Scope Of

Application


(Mohanty et

al. 2007)

Service

quality

Performance, features,

serviceability, accuracy/clarity,

responsiveness, structure,

customization, integrity,

flexibility, reliability, time and

timeliness, security/system

integrity, accessibility,

communication and feedback,

usability/navigability,

availability, functionality,

reputation, trust

E-Business

(Kano, Seraku,

Takahashi and Tsuji

1984) framework

(Bauer et al.

2006)

Service

quality

Functionality/design,

enjoyment, process, reliability,

responsiveness.

Online shopping

Not stated


94

Stu

dy

Domain O

f

Measu

re

Dim

ensions

(Sub-dim

ensions)

Scope Of

Application


(Ko and

Pastore 2004)

Service

quality

Program quality (range of

programs, operating time,

information), interaction quality

(client-employee interaction,

inter-client interaction),

outcome quality (physical

change, valence, sociability),

physical environment quality

(ambience, design, equipment)

Recreation sport

(Brady and Cronin

2001) and (Dabholkar et

al. 1996) frameworks

(Collier and

Bienstock

2006)

Service

quality

Process (privacy, design,

information accuracy, ease of

use, functionality), outcome

(order timeliness, order

accuracy, order condition),

recovery (interactive fairness,

procedural fairness, outcome

fairness)

E-Retailing

Not stated

Table 13: Service Quality M

odels Across Industries


95

Table 14: Mapping results of service quality dimensions mapped onto B&C

(2001) Model that was agreed by the candidate and his colleagues in their own

separate mapping exercise.

Primary

Dimension

Presence

(Out of 17

Industries)

Sub-Dimensions Presence

(Out of 17

Industries)

Interaction

Quality

15 Attitude 4

Behavior 3

Expertise 13

Physical

Environment

Quality

11 Ambient

Conditions

2

Design 8

Social Factors 1

Outcome

Quality

11 Waiting Time 4

Tangibles 1

Valence 8


96

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Since the 80s, there has been increasing recognition that SQ is vital and influential to

the success of businesses (and Information Systems) as well as being a key

competitive differentiator. In recent years, there has been a shift in the structure of

SQ models (from single-level to multi-level) to better represent the complexity of

human perceptions and to better portray how consumers evaluate SQ.

A popular and widely-used global SQ model (SERVQUAL – a single-level model)

was analyzed in the candidate’s research because of its prominence and stature; it

being the basis for the conceptualization of many other SQ models; and it being

regarded by most as the basis of SQ measurement. The candidate tested the intended

global applicability of SERVQUAL’s five dimensions on seven different industries

(via a mapping exercise) with results suggesting limitations (Table 9). The results

(Table 9) concur with many of SERVQUAL’s known limitations as reported in the

literature. Most importantly, SERVQUAL failed to address the ‘what’ questions in-

relation to its five dimensions. The candidate notes that each of the five dimensions

is important to the evaluation of SQ, however, the five dimensions should also

address the ‘what’ question (E.g: what needs to be reliable, assured, tangible,

empathetic and responsible.). The ‘what’ question needs to be addressed so that

researchers know what to measure in-relation to the five SERVQUAL dimensions.

In the past few years, another global SQ model, the Brady and Cronin (2001) model

or the B&C (2001) model, has gained traction in academe with its conceptualization

of SQ as multi-level and multi-dimensional. Consistent with the views of several

prominent researchers (E.g: Kang (2006), Dabholkar et al. (1996)), the B&C (2001)

model (a hierarchical model) overcomes several of the weaknesses of SERVQUAL

(E.g: the ‘what’ question in-relation to the five SERVQUAL dimensions). The

authors of the B&C (2001) model, however, state that although it is apparent that

perceptions of SQ are based on multiple dimensions, there is no agreement as to the

nature or content of these dimensions (Brady and Cronin 2001; Ko and Pastore


97

2004). The candidate tested the global applicability of the B&C (2001) model’s

primary and sub-dimensions (via a mapping exercise – Appendix B), and results

(Appendix C and D, Tables 14) indicate strong support for the three primary quality

dimensions (interaction, physical environment and outcome) and considerable

support for the nine sub-dimensions (attitude, behavior, expertise, ambient

conditions, design, social factors, waiting time, tangibles, valence). In-terms of

matched mapping results in-relation to the B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimensions, the

candidate and his colleague scored a percentage of 51.42% (seventy-two out of one

hundred and forty SQ dimensions across seventeen industries). Such a low

percentage could be attributed to the lack of explicitness in some of the definitions of

the B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimensions (E.g: attitude, behavior) and the unique

features of each industry. The candidate notes that some of the sub-dimensions do

cognitively overlap in meanings resulting in varied mapping results. The candidate

suggests that work still needs to be done on the sub-dimensional level to better

define these sub-dimensions more explicitly (both logically and cognitively) to

reduce the probability of overlaps in meanings. In-terms of matched mapping results

in-relation to the B&C (2001) model’s primary dimensions, the candidate and his

colleague scored a percentage of 70% (ninety-eight out of one hundred and forty SQ

dimensions across seventeen industries). Such a high percentage suggests agreement

between the candidate and his colleague that the B&C (2001) model’s three primary

dimensions are existent among the seventeen industries and serve as a good basis for

evaluating SQ across various industries and service types.

The candidate acknowledges that SQ dimensions can be classified at a higher level

which is encompassed by the B&C (2001) model’s three primary dimensions

(interaction, physical environment and outcome). The candidate also notes that it

might be viable to re-word the ‘physical environment quality’ primary dimension to

‘environment quality’ so as to better encompass both physical and virtual scenarios

(E.g: web sites). The candidate does not rule out the global feasibility of the B&C

(2001) model’s nine sub-dimensions, however, acknowledges that more work has to

be done to better define the sub-dimensions. The candidate observes that based on


98

the tabulation of mapping results (Table 14), it appears that the ‘expertise’, ‘design’

and ‘valence’ sub-dimensions are supportive representations (I.e. highest presence

among the other sub-dimensions within the same primary dimension) of the

‘interaction’, physical environment’ and ‘outcome’ primary dimensions respectively.

The latter observation appears to suggest the significance of the ‘expertise’, ‘design’

and ‘valence’ measures across various industries and could suggest their global

validity in the conceptualization of a global SQ model. With respect to the

conceptualization of a global SQ model, the existence of the B&C (2001) model’s

primary dimensions coupled with considerable support for its sub-dimensions

advocate the candidate’s proposal for the B&C (2001) model being the unifying

theory that acts as a starting point to measuring SQ globally.

Two SQ measurement approaches dominate, namely the disconfirmation (difference

between perceptions and expectations) approach and the perceptions-only approach.

The disconfirmation approach can be further broken down into computed (arithmetic

calculations) and measured (mental estimation) disconfirmation. Both approaches

have their strengths and weaknesses and one approach’s strength is another’s

weakness and vice-versa. Just focusing on both approaches’ strengths, the

disconfirmation approach has the ability to identify gaps so improvements can be

made while the perceptions-only approach has the ability to give a more hassle-free

overall evaluation of SQ. The candidate is in-agreement with Dabholkar et al. (2000)

that the appropriate approach depends on the objective(s) of the study. The

(measured) disconfirmation approach is encouraged should the objective be to

identify SQ shortfalls while the perceptions-only approach is encouraged should the

objective be to analyze the overall SQ.

In-relation to the causality between SQ and SAT, the candidate agrees with the

notion of SQ being an antecedent of SAT. Reason being that regardless of the type

of evaluation (E.g: global, transaction-specific), the candidate believes (with support

from many other authors) that SQ has to be evaluated first prior to the evaluation of

SAT.


99

5.1 Limitations Of Research

Due to time constraints of the Masters project (1.5 years), only a clear and concise

understanding of SQ was sought via a comprehensive literature review. The main

focuses of the research were on the conceptualizations of SQ among a variety of

industries and the measurements of SQ.

For the mapping exercise (Appendix B), the B&C (2001) model was adopted to test

its global validity and the seventeen industries were used to represent a global

sample of industries. The mapping exercise (Appendix B) should be replicated and

conducted on more industries that were not covered by the seventeen. This mapping

exercise (Appendix B) should also be attempted by a larger targeted audience (E.g:

volunteers from QUT of all ages and occupations) to further validate the B&C

(2001) model.

5.2 Future Research

There has been a lack of attention given to the theoretical development of formative

and reflective constructs. Over the years, there has been support for formative (E.g:

Dagger et al. (2007); Collier and Bienstock (2006)), reflective (E.g: Ho and Lee

(2006); Fassnacht and Koese (2006); Lai (2006); Kilbourne, Duffy, Duffy and

Giarchi (2004)) and mixed directional constructs (E.g: Brady and Cronin (2001)).

Freeze and Raschke (2007) state such lack of attention can lead to measurement

model misspecification. Three implications that can stem from it involve: (1)

construct misspecification; (2) construct identification; and (3) construct validation

(Freeze and Raschke 2007). Collier and Bienstock (2006) suggest the SQ construct

should be made up of formative indicators as SQ is a summation of its dimensions

(Collier and Bienstock 2006). The candidate notes that the B&C (2001) model is

made up of reflective constructs and future research is needed to address the

concerns pointed out by Freeze and Raschke (2007) and Collier and Bienstocl

(2006).


100

From the candidate’s research, it appears beneficial to review all the definitions of

the B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimensions with the aim of defining them more

explicitly followed by a re-attempt of the mapping exercise. Should results of the

mapping exercise suggest that the ‘expertise’, ‘design’ and ‘valence’ sub-dimensions

are significant across the various industries (as similar to the candidate’s results), the

candidate suggests scaling down the sub-dimensions of the B&C (2001) model to

just the ‘expertise’, ‘design’ and ‘valence’ sub-dimensions followed by another re-

attempt of the mapping exercise. It would be interesting should the results suggest

that the above three sub-dimensions appear to encompass the majority of industry

SQ dimensions. The results would help to further the development of a global

conceptualization of SQ.

There has been consensus that SQ is pivotal to IS success (E.g: DeLone and McLean

(2003); Pitt et al. (1995); Lin (2007)) and therefore an accurate conceptualization of

IS SQ is vital. The candidate’s research acts as the foundation for future work into

cross-fertilizing the B&C (2001) model with an IS Success measurement model (IS-

Impact model) to exploit potentials with outcomes of: (1) further validating the IS-

Impact model; (2) further validating the B&C (2001) model; or (3) conceptualizing a

new IS SQ model.


101

Appendices


102

Appendix A – List Of Journal Articles Considered For B&C

(2001) Model Mapping Exercise

S/� Title Of Article Journal/Conference Accepted?

1. A Hierarchical Model of

Health Service Quality

(Dagger et al. 2007)

Journal of Service

Research

2. Investigating the success

of ERP systems: Case

studies in three

Taiwanese high-tech

industries

(Chien and Tsaur 2007)

Computers in Industry

3. Quality Dimensions of E-

Commerce and their

Implications

(Mohanty et al. 2007)

Total Quality

Management

4. Measurement of Service

Quality from the

Customer's Perspective -

An Empirical Study

(Saravanan and Rao

2007)

Total Quality

Management

5. Measuring Service

Quality in E-Retailing

(Collier and Bienstock

2006)

Journal of Service

Research


103

6. Measuring Service

Quality in Sport Services

(Tsitskari, Tsiotras and

Tsiotras 2006)

Total Quality

Management

7. eTransQual: A

transaction process-based

approach for capturing

service quality in online

shopping

(Bauer et al. 2006)

Journal of Business

Research

8. The development of an e-

travel service quality

scale

(Ho and Lee 2006)

Tourism Management

9. WebQual: An Instrument

for Consumer Evaluation

of Web Sites

(Loiacono et al. 2007)

International Journal

of Electronic

Commerce

10. Quality of Electronic

Services.

Conceptualizating and

Testing a Hierarchical

Model

(Fassnacht and Koese

2006)

Journal of Service

Research

11. Assessment of employees'

perceptions of service

quality and satisfaction

with e-business

(Lai 2006)


of Human-Computer

Studies


104

12. A framework for

measurement of quality of

service in supply chains

(Seth, Deshmukh and

Vrat 2006)

Supply Chain

Management: An


13. The applicability of

SERVQUAL in cross-

national measurements of

health-care quality

(Kilbourne, Duffy, Duffy

and Giarchi 2004)

Journal of Services

Marketing

14. Hospital service quality: a

managerial challenge

(Rose, Uli, Abdul and Ng

2004)


of Health Care

Quality Assurance

15. An empirical

investigation of the

relationships among

service quality, customer

satisfaction and

psychological

commitment in a health

club context

(Alexandris et al. 2004)

European Sport

Management

Quarterly

16. Current Issues and

Conceptualizations of

Service Quality in the

Recreation Sports

Industry

(Ko and Pastore 2004)

Sport Marketing

Quarterly


105

17. Services, e-Services and

e-Service Innovations -

Combination of

Theoretical and Practical

Knowledge

(Jarvinen and Lehtinen

2004)

Frontiers Of E-

Business Research

18. The dimensions that

construct the evaluation

of service quality in

academic libraries

(Nagata et al. 2004)

Performance

Measurement and

Metrics

19. E-Services

(Stafford 2003 )

Communications Of

The ACM

20. Measuring E-Commerce

Effectiveness: A

Conceptual Model

(Pather, Erwin and

Remenyi 2003)

Proceedings Of The

2003 Annual Research

Conference Of The

South African

Institute Of Computer

Scientists And

Information

Technologists On

Enablement Through

Technology

21. A service quality

framework for Web-

based information

systems

(Tan et al. 2003)

The TQM Magazine


106

22. Mapping service quality

in the tourism industry

(Atilgan, Akinci and

Aksoy 2003)

Managing Service

Quality

23. E-Service Quality: a

model of virtual service

quality dimensions

(Santos 2003)

Managing Service

Quality

24. Measuring web-based

service quality

(Li et al. 2002)

Total Quality

Management

25. SYSTRA-SQ: a new

measure of bank service

quality

(Aldlaigan and Buttle

2002)


of Service Industry

Management

26. A probabilistic approach

to measure hotel service

quality

(Erto and Vanacore 2002)

Total Quality

Management

27. Service quality in call

centres: implications for

customer loyalty

(Dean 2002)

Managing Service

Quality


107

28. Users' Hierarchical

Perspectives on Library

Service Quality: A

"LibQUAL+" Study

(Cook et al. 2001)

College & Research

Libraries

29. User satisfaction and

service quality of the IS

department: closing the

gaps

(Watson, Pitt,

Cunningham and Nel

2001)

Journal of Information

Technology

30. Evaluating the service

quality of information

services using a new "P-

C-P" attributes model

(Philip and Hazlett 2001)

Journal of Quality &

Reliability

Management

31. A measure of retail

service quality

(Siu and Cheung 2001)

Marketing

Intelligence &

Planning

32. Service quality at banks

and credit unions: what

do their customers say?

(Allred and Addams

2000)

Managing Service

Quality

33. Service quality in

education: a student

perspective

(Joseph and Joseph 1997)

Quality Assurance in

Education


108

34. Perceived Service Quality

and User Satisfaction

with the Information

Services Function

(Kettinger and Lee 1994)

Decision Sciences

35. Attributes of Service

Quality: The Consumers'

Perspective

(Mersha and Adlakha

1992)


of Service Industry

Management

36. Importance-performance

analysis and the

measurement of service

quality

(Ennew et al. 1993)

European Journal of

Marketing

37. A customized measure of

service quality in the

UAE

(Jabnoun and Khalifa

2005)

Managing Service

Quality

38. A hierarchical framework

for a quality information

system

(Naveh and Halevy 2000)

Total Quality

Management

39. Customer-centric service

quality management for

SK telecom's mobile

packet service

(Kim, Park, Kim, Lee,

Kim and Jin 2006 )


of Network

Management


109

40. Ensuring IT Consulting

SERVQUAL and User

Satisfaction: A Modified

Measurement Tool

(Yoon and Suh 2004)

Information Systems

Frontiers

41. E-Services

(Stafford 2003 )

Communications Of

The ACM

42. From intangibility to

tangibility on service

quality perceptions: a

comparison study

between consumers and

service providers in four

service industries

(Santos 2002)

Managing Service

Quality

43. Measurement of

outpatients' views of

service quality in a

Finnish university

hospital

(Hiidenhovi, Nojonen and

Laippala 2002)

Journal of Advanced

Nursing

44. Measuring Tourist

Judgment On Service

Quality

(Weiermair and Fuchs

1999)

Annals of Tourism

Research


110

45. Online Travel Service

Quality: the Role of Pre-

Transaction Services

(Riel, Semeijn and

Pauwels 2004)

Total Quality

Management

46. Customers' perspectives

on service quality and

relationship quality in

retail encounters

(Wong and Sohal 2002)

Managing Service

Quality

47. Quality Measurement in

Service Industries

(Silvestro, Johnston,

Fitzgerald and Voss

1990)


of Service Industry

Management

48. Quality measurement in

the public sector: Some

perspectives from the

service quality literature

(Rowley 1998)

Total Quality

Management

49. Quality of service in an

information economy

(Braumandl, Kemper and

Kossmann 2003)

ACM Transactions on

Internet Technology


111

50. REFERQUAL: a pilot

study of a new service

quality assessment

instrument in the GP

exercise referral scheme

setting

(Cock, Adams, Ibbetson

and Baugh 2006)

BMC Health Services

Research

51. Relationship quality,

relationship marketing,

and client perceptions of

the levels of service

quality of charitable

organisations

(Bennett and Barkensjo

2005)


of Service Industry

Management

52. TQM implementation:

comparing Singapore's

service and

manufacturing leaders

(Woon 2000)

Managing Service

Quality

53. Service Quality: A

Concept Not Fully

Explored

(Hernon and Nitecki

2001)

Academic Research

Library

54. Service quality in China's

hotel industry: a

perspective from tourists

and hotel managers

(Tsang and Qu 2000)


of Contemporary

Hospitality

Management


112

55. Service quality in the

management of

simulation projects

(Robinson and Pidd 1995

)

Proceedings of the

27th conference on

Winter simulation

56. The ASP-Qual model:

measuring ASP service

quality in Greece

(Sigala 2004)

Managing Service

Quality

57. The LibQUAL+ gap

measurement model: the

bad, the ugly, and the

good of gap measurement

(Thompson, Cook and

Heath 2000)

Performance

Measurement and

Metrics

58. Analyzing service quality

in the hospitality industry

(Wong et al. 1999)

Managing Service

Quality

59. Consumer perspectives

on service quality of

electronic commerce web

sites

(Sullivan and Walstrom

2001)

Journal of Computer

Information Systems


113

Appendix B – Mapping Protocol


ConditionsDesign

Social

Factors

Waiting


Interaction

Quality

Environment

Quality

Outcome

Quality

Service

Quality


Brady & Cronin (2001) Model (Brady and Cronin 2001)

Instructions

(1) For each of the dimensions within a particular industry model, compare its

dimensional description with the description of each of the B&C (2001) model’s

nine sub-dimensions to find commonality in meanings (either in-terms of similar

“key words” or similar inferential meanings).

(2) Should commonality (in dimensional meanings) be found, the appropriate

sub-dimension of the B&C (2001) model would be mapped onto that particular

industry model’s dimension.

Should a particular industry model’s dimension map onto more than one sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model, the B&C (2001) model’s sub-dimension

with the closest match in dimensional meaning would be mapped to that

particular model’s dimension.

Should NO commonality be found, label the particular industry model’s

dimension ‘unclassified’.


114

Note: Each industry model’s dimension should map onto only ONE sub-

dimension of the B&C (2001) model.

(3) For each sub-dimension of the B&C (2001) model mapped onto the particular

industry model’s dimension, its associated primary dimension (on the B&C

(2001) model) would be mapped.

(4) Steps (1 – 3) to be repeated for all dimensions of all seventeen industry

models.


115

Brady &

Cro

nin (2001) M

odel D

escription

Primary

Dim

ensions

Sub-D

imen

sions

Explanation O

f Sub-D

imen

sions

Intera

ction Q

uality

Attitude

A function not only of the inherent

personality of the provider but also of the

client’s perception, the client-provider

interaction, and the given situation (Czepiel

et al. 1985).

(Meaning from dictionary.com – a manner;

disposition; feeling; state of mind)

Beh

avior

Actions of service provider (E.g: helpfulness,

openness, friendliness, warmth, concern, etc)

(Czepiel et al. 1985).

(Meaning from dictionary.com – behaving;

acting; action)

Exper

tise

Extent to which the individual provider can

affect the outcome of the service through his

or her skills (Czepiel et al. 1985).

(Meaning from dictionary.com – skill or

knowledge in a particular area)


116

Primary

Dim

ensions

Sub-D

imen

sions

Explanation O

f Sub-D

imen

sions

Physica

l Environmen

t Quality

Ambient Conditions

Non-visual aspects (E.g : temperature, scent,

music, etc).

Design

Layout or architecture of the environment

(either functional – practical, or aesthetic –

visually pleasing)

Social Factors

Number and type of people evident in the

service setting as well as their behaviors.

Outcome Quality

W

aiting T

ime

Amount of time before service was

experienced

Tangibles

Physical facilities, equipment, and

appearance of personnel.

Valence

Attributes that control whether customers

believe the service outcome is good or bad,

regardless of their evaluation of any other

aspect of the experience. The degree to

which the object of interest is considered

favorable or unfavorable.


117

Sample M

apping W

ork

shee

t

Industry

(Context)

Dim

ension

Explanation O

f Dim

ension

Mapping

Of

Dim

ension

Onto

Bra

dy & Cro

nin

(2001)

Sub-

Dim

ensions

Mapping

Of

Dim

ension

Onto

Bra

dy

&

Cro

nin

(2001)

Primary

Dim

ensions

Call C

enters

(Dean 2002)

Adaptiven

ess

Ability to solve and help to

interpret different customer

problems and questions.

Assura

nce

To clearly explain the steps in

the procedure of solving the

customer’s question and to

explain exactly for what

purposes the customer’s

information would be used by

the firm.

Empath

y

To empathize with the

customer’s situation and give the

customer a feeling that the

customer and his/her problem

are important to the firm.


118

Auth

ority

The authority and the ability to

perform the required tasks.

Web

-based

Inform

ation

System

s

(WIS

)

(Tan et al.

2003)

Reliability

The ability of the WIS to provide

accurate information and to

perform the promised service.

Responsiven

ess

The ability of the WIS to

perform the web-based service

consistently and accurately.

Acc

ess

Quick access to the site and the

company when needed.

Flexibility

Choices of way to pay, ship, buy,

search for and return items.

Ease of navigation

Intuitive on-page navigation to

improve ease-of-use.


119

Efficiency

Simplicity of usage.

Assura

nce

/ tru

st

The ability of WIS to convey

trust and confidence.

Sec

urity

Customers’ confidence in the

safety of the site from intrusion

and protection of privacy.

Site aesth

etics

The appearance of the site

Customization /

per

sonaliza

tion

The ability of WIS to provide

caring and individual attention.

Quality of inform

ation

The ability of WIS to provide

quality information.

Aca

dem

ic

Libra

ries

(Nagata et al.

2004)

Effec

t of serv

ice

(per

sonal)

Scenarios where library staffs

serve the customer in association

with the service encounter.


120

Libra

ry as ba (place

) Composed of not only of

physical elements such as

reading rooms and study rooms,

but also mental aspects of

quietness, comfort and

exchanges with other users and

library staff.

Collec

tion and acc

ess

Materials and information the

library offers such as convenient

access to library collections,

availability of required

information and timely

document delivery.

Effec

t of serv

ice

(org

anizational)

Assuring users of the accuracy

and confidentiality of their

personal information / data and

keeping users informed about

when services will be performed.


121

E-ser

vice

(Santos 2003)

Reliability

Ability to perform the promised

service accurately and

consistently including frequency

of updating the web site, prompt

reply to customer enquiries and

accuracy of on-line purchasing

and billing.

Efficiency

Speed of downloading, search

and navigation.

Support

Technical help, user guidelines

and personal advice available to

customers from a web site.

Communication

Keeping customers properly

informed and communicating

with them in a language they can

understand.

Sec

urity

Freedom from danger, risk or

doubt during the service process.


122

In

centive

Encouragement given by web

providers to consumers to

browse and use the web site

including rewards for doing so.

Educa

tion

(Joseph and

Joseph 1997)

Aca

dem

ic rep

utation

Prestigious degree program,

recognized nationally and

internationally and which has

excellent instructors.

Pro

gra

m issues

The availability of specialist

programs, degree flexibility, a

practical component in the

degree, the availability of several

course options and flexible entry

requirements.

Physica

l facilities

Excellent academic,

accommodation and sports and

recreational facilities as well as

an appealing campus layout.

Cost / tim

e Length of time it takes to

complete a degree and the costs

involved in doing so.


123

Loca

tion

Geographical location of the

institute.

Care

er opportunities

How employable will students

be after getting a degree from a

specific institution and the

information the institute

provided on career opportunities.

Oth

er

Influence of word-of-mouth

communication as well as of

family and peers when selecting

a university.

Banks And

Cre

dit U

nions

(Allred and

Addams 2000)

Reliability

Accurate, consistent, dependable

performance.

Responsiven

ess

The willingness and capabilities

of employees.


124

Competen

ce

Skill and knowledge to provide

expected service at all levels of

the organization.

Acc

ess

Ease of contact, convenient

hours, minimal waiting time and

approachability of employees.

Communication

Using language that the

customer can understand and

sincerely listening to the

customer.

Retail

(Siu and

Cheung 2001)

Per

sonal intera

ction

Individual attention, knowledge

and responsiveness of the

employee.

Policy

Matter of return / exchange,

quality of merchandise,

operating hours as well as safely

and error-free transactions.


125

Physica

l appea

rance

Visually appealing physical

facilities, equipment and service

material.

Pro

mises

Trustworthiness of the

department store perceived by its

customers.

Pro

blem solving

Handling customers’ complaint

directly and immediately, sincere

interest to solve problem and

clean, attractive and convenient

public areas.

Conven

ience

Convenience of store layout and

the availability of merchandise.

Web

-based

serv

ices

(Li et al. 2002)

Responsiven

ess

The ability of web-based service

systems to perform the online

service consistently and

accurately.


126

Competen

ce

Ability of e-mail systems and

web site to provide accurate

information and perform the

promised service; the ability of

web-based system to convey

trust and confidence.

Quality of inform

ation

The attributes of information

contained in e-mails or web

sites.

Empath

y

The ability of e-mail systems or

web site to provide caring and

individual attention.

W

eb assistance

The function of FAQs to help

customers solve their problems,

either by themselves or with

technical support.

Callback

system

s Complementary role of callback

systems in web-based customer

services.


127

Hea

lth

(Dagger et al.

2007)

In

tera

ction

The attitude and behavior of a

service provider in the service

setting. The interactive nature of

the interpersonal process.

Communication includes the

transfer of information between

a provider and a customer, the

degree of interaction, and the

level of two-way

communication.

Relationsh

ip

The closeness and strength of the

relationship developed between a

provider and a customer.

Exper

tise

A provider’s competence,

knowledge, qualifications, or

skill. Expertise reflects the

ability of a service provider to

adhere to high standards of

service provision.


128

Outcome

What a consumer receives as a

result of his or her interactions

with a service firm.

Atm

osp

her

e The intangible, background

characteristics of the service

environment.

Tangibles

The physical elements of the

service environment that exist at

the forefront of awareness.

Tangibles comprise the design,

function, or layout of the

environment and the signs,

symbols, and artifacts found in

the environment.

Tim

eliness

The factors involved in

arranging to receive medical

services, such as appointment

waiting lists, waiting time, the

ease of changing appointments,

and hours of operation.


129

Oper

ation

The general administration of the

clinic and the coordination,

organization, and integration of

medical care.

Support

An augmented service element

that adds value to the core

service.

Electro

nic

Ser

vices

(Fassnacht and

Koese 2006)

Gra

phic quality

How well the various elements

of the user interface are visually

represented.

Clarity of layout

The degree to which the design

structure of the user interface

helps users to find their way.

Attra

ctiven

ess of

selection

The extent to which the available

range of offerings appeals to the

customer.


130

In

form

ation quality

The extent to which complete,

accurate, and timely information

is provided for the customer

during the interaction process

with the user interface.

Ease of use

The degree to which the

functionality of the user interface

facilitates the customer’s

retrieval of the electronic

service.

Tec

hnical quality

The goodness of data transfer

and data processing during the

delivery of the electronic service.

Reliability

The extent to which the provider

keeps its service promise. The

accuracy and timeliness with

which the underlying service

promise is fulfilled.

Functional ben

efit

The extent to which the service

serves its actual purpose.


131

Emotional ben

efit

The degree to which using the

service arouses positive feelings.

Web

Sites

(Loiacono et

al. 2007)

In

form

ational fit-to-

task

The concern that information

provided is accurate, updated,

and appropriate. The extent to

which users believe that the Web

site meets their needs.

Tailore

d inform

ation

Communications can be tailored

to meet the user’s needs.

Tru

st

Secure communication and

observance of information

privacy.

Response tim

e Time to get a response after a

request or an interaction with a

Web site.

Ease of under

standing

Easy to read and understand.


132

In

tuitive oper

ations

Easy to operate and navigate.

Visual appea

l The aesthetics Web site.

In

novativen

ess

The creativity and uniqueness of

a web site.

Emotional appea

l The emotional affect of using the

Web site and intensity of

involvement.

Consisten

t im

age

The Web site does not create

dissonance for the user by an

image incompatible with that

projected by the firm through

other media.

On-line co

mpleteness

Allowing all or most necessary

transactions to be completed on-

line

(E.g: purchasing over the Web

site).

Relative advantage

Equivalent or better than other

means of interacting with the

company.


133

E-tra

vel

(Ho and Lee

2006)

In

form

ation quality

Service attributes related to the

information provided by

websites. Service attributes

namely accuracy, concise nature,

and timeliness of information.

Sec

urity

Protection of customers’

information, site reputation, and

confirmation of payment.

W

ebsite functionality

Service characteristics regarding

the functions and availability of

the site. These include items

related to the ease of use,

provision of profound and

comprehensive information in

regard to customers’ wants and

needs, and encompass the

determinants of accessibility and

navigation.


134

Customer

relationsh

ips

Personalised services a website

provides for its customers and

their interactions with other

website users through the online

community. It encompasses the

exchange of travel information

and experiences among website

users.

Responsiven

ess

Attributes that describe the

ability of website personnel to

respond to customers’ inquiries.

Automobile

(Saravanan and

Rao 2007)

Human asp

ects of

serv

ice deliver

y

Role of human elements (E.g:

employee’s behaviours,

personalization, etc) in service

delivery.

Core

ser

vice

Various schemes and facilities

that are offered by the service

organization. Core service

describes the ‘content’ of a

service.


135

Social resp

onsibility

The responsibility of the

organization to support the

society upon which it thrives.

Social responsibility helps in

improving the organization’s

image and goodwill and

influences the customers’ overall

evaluation of service quality and

their loyalty to the organization.

System

atiza

tion of

serv

ice deliver

y

The streamlining of systems and

procedures involved in the

service delivery. Customers

always expect the service

delivery processes to be

simplified and standardized in

such a way that they could

receive the service without any

hassles.

Tangibles of serv

ice

(ser

vicesca

pes)

The tangible aspects of service

(man-made environment) like

employee’s dress, colour of

equipment, effect of atmosphere

(E.g: light, ventilation, etc)


136

Ser

vice mark

eting

The marketing techniques and

strategies adopted by the

organization in order to attract

the customers and retain the

market share. Service providers

have to improve their customer

bases by advertising in the audio

and visual media, by providing

attractive schemes, by keeping

close contact with the customers,

etc.

E-B

usiness

(Mohanty et al.

2007)

Tra

nscen

den

ce

Appearance and colour

combination; selection and

attractive use of media; audio-

visual effects; clarity and

readability of text.

Reliability

Accuracy of information; timely

updation; validity of contents;

accuracy in billing; delivering

product/service in time; website

links and pages working

properly.


137

Tim

e and tim

eliness

Freshness of information;

frequency of updation; updation

process; timeliness in delivery of

goods/services/refunds/payments

.

Ser

vicea

bility

Policy of the website for the

return of goods; prior

verification if possible (by 3rd

party); provision of toll free

number; order tracking process;

rectification/modification time in

billing; delivery; personal

contact; payment mode

preference; cost of transactions

on site for customer; website

links and pages working

properly and other bugs.

Sec

urity &

system

integrity

Privacy and security policy; laws

and regulations; credibility of

third party verification; use of

latest technologies such as SSL,

encryption algorithms; disaster

recovery mechanism/business

continuity plan.


138

Acc

essibility

Ease of search (search engine);

details present in the meta

tag/other metadata source for the

pages; availability; 24/7

availability; accessibility through

different browsers (can web site

be opened on different platforms

and browsers); communication

mode/channel supported (E.g:

mobile, palm top, etc); ease of

use.

Acc

ura

cy/clarity

Logical organization or structure

(whole project range on the main

page itself); maintenance of

links; information about stock

availability; warranty and

conditions of purchase;

additional taxes and currency

exchange information; time

standards for response;

audio/visuals and its relevance.

Responsiven

ess

Delivery of services; response

time/feedback time;

acknowledgement time; post sale

service support time.


139

Courtesy/empath

y

Unwanted banner ads and pop-

ups; giving a warning when a

link to an external site is clicked;

informing customer about

secondary/supplementary

charges; reporting transactional

statements; acknowledgement

after transaction/change/enquiry.

Communication &

feed

back

Emails response; order tracking;

readability; online help for using

the website; degree of

interaction; error reporting

mechanism; communication of

changes in usage policies.

Retriev

ability

Availability of information on

past transactions; time to retrieve

information; search facility;

hardware redundancy and

disaster recovery mechanism;

duplication of documents lost or

misplaced by customer.


140

Structure

Navigational ease; use of

keywords and headings;

classification of information in

groups; site map; ease of use.

Rep

utation/bra

nd

Familiarity of users with the

website; refunds/payment

delays; defaults (delivery,

payment/refund, query, service

support, brand).

W

ebsite intractability

E-commerce handling capability;

file size transfer capability;

interactive scripts usage.

Customization

Web page look; web page

presentation; customization of

products/services; ease of

changing user profile; tracking

visitors preferences and interests.

Usa

bility/navigability

Multiple language support;

simplicity in comprehending;

consistency in formats; ease of

navigation.


141

Availability of web

site

Downtime of web site.

In

tegrity &

tru

st

Privacy and security policy;

information sharing;

acknowledgement after

transaction/change/enquiry;

accuracy in billing; delivery of

services.

Functionality &

featu

res

Ease of searching of relevant

information; ease of navigation;

links to related websites;

grouping/clustering of

information; availability of

additional information sources;

comparative charts of the

products and services available

in the market.

Per

form

ance

Time lag to show the home page

and other linked pages clicked;

time to acknowledge after

transaction/change/enquiry.

Ser

vice differe

ntiation

Unique feature.


142

Objectivity

Availability of one line

detail/abstract for link/tag; the

links/tags convey the desired

meaning to reach to information

page.

Flexibility

Customization/personalization;

upgrade ability; compatibility

with newer software and

hardware.

Online

shopping

(Bauer et al.

2006)

Functionality/design

Efficiency of navigation;

accessibility of relevant content;

clarity of the web site; relevance

of information; timeliness of

information; visual appeal;

professional web site design.

Enjoymen

t Personalization of information

and offerings; fun of using the

web site; excitement when

shopping online; entertainment

provided the web site.


143

Pro

cess

Availability of the web site;

stability of data transmission;

efficiency of online order

processing; waiting time.

Reliability

Timeliness of order delivery;

accuracy of order delivery;

product availability; breadth and

depth of product range; encoding

of personal information;

confidentiality.

Responsiven

ess

Availability of alternative

communication channels; return

policy; availability of service

personnel; promptness of

reactions to requests.

Rec

reation

sport

(Ko and

Pastore 2004)

Range of pro

gra

ms

The variety and attractiveness of

classes/programs offered to

participants.


144

Oper

ating tim

e Whether classes start and finish

on time, and whether the

operating hours are convenient

to the customers.

In

form

ation

The ease of getting a variety of

up-to-date information about

programs and other services.

Clien

t-em

ployee

intera

ction

The customer’s subjective

perception of how the service is

delivered during the service

encounter in which the attitude,

behaviour, and expertise of

service personnel are

highlighted.

In

ter-client intera

ction

The customer’s subjective

perception of how the service is

delivered during the service

encounter in which the attitude

and behaviour of other clients

are highlighted.


145

Physica

l ch

ange

Consumers usually experience

physical change following the

consumption of the activity. In

other words, they experience the

tangible benefits after

consumption.

Valence

The consumers’ post

consumption evaluation whether

the service outcome was good or

bad, regardless of their

evaluation of any other aspect of

the service experience.

Sociability

The positive social experience

which resulted from the social

gratification of being with others

who enjoy the same activity.

Ambience

The non-visual aspects of the

service environment such as

temperature, lighting, noise,

scent, and music.


146

Design

The service facility’s layout or

architecture including functional

(E.g: practical) and aesthetic

(E.g: visually pleasing) nature.

Equipment

The devices utilized for the

maximization of sport

consumption.

E-R

etailing

(Collier and

Bienstock

2006)

Privacy

Companies not sharing

information with third parties

unless the customer gives

permission. It also includes the

security of sensitive information

between the customer and the

company. In addition, this

includes providing visual

symbols so customers know a

secure connection is being

achieved.


147

Design

Visual appearance and audible

applications of a site. This

includes factors such as uses of

colour, animation, pictures, text,

format, and sound.

In

form

ation acc

ura

cy

Information about a product or

service in a clear and concise

manner. Information accuracy

also includes the currency of

information presented on a web

site, as well as full disclosure of

policies, procedures, and any

charges that may occur during

the ordering process.

Ease of use

The ability of a customer to find

information or enact a

transaction with the least amount

of effort. Ease of use includes

the issue of navigation.

Navigation is having consistent

menus that lead to key pages on

a site. Ease of use also includes

effective search engines, the

ability to easily change or cancel


148

an order, and the ability to

inform customers of missing

information.

Functionality

A web site operates or executes

the commands of the customer.

Functionality includes quick

page loads, links that do not dead

end, and payment options.

Functionality also refers to the

ability to appeal to a universal

audience by multilingual

translations and disability access

and services.

Ord

er tim

eliness

Receiving the service within an

expected amount of time.

Ord

er acc

ura

cy

Processing the online order to

the exact specification of the

customer, which includes place

of receipt, quantity, and agreed

price of the service.

Ord

er condition

Product being free from damage

and decay.


149

In

tera

ctive fairness

The customer’s ability to locate

and interact with technology

support on a web site and how a

company’s employees treat the

customer. Interactive fairness

from a technology support

standpoint includes online

tutorials, frequently asked

questions, and an email address

where customers can voice a

problem or a concern. Interactive

fairness also includes easy

access to telephone numbers of

operators at the company that

can assist the customer. In

addition, interactive fairness

consists of how the company

interacts with the customer over

the phone or through email.

Pro

cedura

l fairness

The policies, procedures, and

responsiveness in the complaint

process.

Outcome fairness

Includes issues such as monetary

compensation, future free

services, or an apology.


150

Appendix C

- M

apping O

f Industries’ Service Q

uality D

imensions To The B

&C (2001)

Model’s Sub-dim

ensions

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social Factors

Waiting Time

Tangibles

Valence

Call C

enters (Dean 2002)

Adaptiven

ess

X Y

Assura

nce

X Y

Empath

y

XY

Auth

ority

Y

X

Web

-based Inform

ation Systems (W


Reliability

X Y

Responsiven

ess

X Y


151

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Acc

ess

Y

X

Flexibility

X Y

Ease of

navigation

X Y

Efficiency

X Y

Assura

nce

/

trust

X

Y

Sec

urity

X Y

Site aesth

etics

X Y

Customization /

per

sonaliza

tion

X Y

Quality of

inform

ation

X Y


152

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Aca

dem

ic L

ibra


Effec

t of serv

ice

(per

sonal)

Y

X

Libra

ry as ba

(place

)

Y

X

Collec

tion and

acc

ess

Y

X

Effec

t of serv

ice

(org

anizational)

X Y

E-ser

vice (Santos 2003)

Reliability

X Y

Efficiency

X

Y

Support

X Y

Communication

X Y

Sec

urity

X

Y


153

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

In

centive

Y

X

Educa


Aca

dem

ic

reputation

Y

X

Pro

gra

m issues

Y

X

Physica

l facilities

Y

X

Cost / tim

e

X Y

Loca

tion

Y

X

Care

er

opportunities

X Y

Oth

er

X

Y


154

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Banks And C

redit U


Reliability

X

Y

Responsiven

ess

Y

X

Competen

ce

X Y

Acc

ess

Y

X

Communication

X Y


Per

sonal

intera

ction

Y

X

Policy

Y

X

Physica

l

appea

rance

Y

X

Pro

mises

X Y

Pro

blem solving

Y

X

Conven

ience

X

Y


155

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Web

-based ser

vices (Li et al. 2002)

Responsiven

ess

X Y

Competen

ce

X Y

Quality of

inform

ation

Y

X

Empath

y

Y

X

W

eb assistance

X

Y

Callback

system

s

Y

X


156

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Condition

s Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Hea

lth (Dagger et al. 2007)

In

tera

ction

X Y

Relationsh

ip

X Y

Exper

tise

X Y

Outcome

X Y

Atm

osp

her

e

X Y

Tangibles

X Y

Tim

eliness

Y

X

Oper

ation

Y

X

Support

Y

X


157

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Electro

nic Ser

vices (Fassnacht and Koese 2006)

Gra

phic quality

X Y

Clarity of layout

X Y

Attra

ctiven

ess of

selection

Y

X

In

form

ation

quality

X Y

Ease of use

Y

X

Tec

hnical quality

Y

X

Reliability

X

Y

Functional ben

efit

X Y

Emotional ben

efit

X Y


158

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Condition

s Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Web

Sites (Loiacono et al. 2007)

In

form

ational fit-

to-task

X

Y

Tailore

d

inform

ation

X Y

Tru

st

Y

X

Response tim

e

XY

Ease of

under

standing

Y

X

In

tuitive

oper

ations

Y

X

Visual appea

l

X Y

In

novativen

ess

X Y

Emotional appea

l

Y

X

Consisten

t im

age

X Y


159

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

On-line

completeness

Y

X

Relative

advantage

X Y

E-tra

vel (Ho and Lee 2006)

In

form

ation

quality

Y

X

Sec

urity

X

Y

W

ebsite

functionality

Y

X

Customer

relationsh

ips

Y

X

Responsiven

ess

X Y


160

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Condition

s Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Automobile (Saravanan and Rao 2007)

Human asp

ects of

serv

ice deliver

y

X

Y

Core

ser

vice

Y

X

Social

resp

onsibility

X Y

System

atiza

tion of

serv

ice deliver

y

X Y

Tangibles of

serv

ice

(ser

vicesca

pes)

Y

X

Ser

vice mark

eting

X Y

E-B

usiness (Mohanty et al. 2007)

Tra

nscen

den

ce

Y

X

Reliability

X

Y

Tim

e and tim

eliness

X Y


161

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Ser

vicea

bility

X Y

Sec

urity &

system

integrity

X Y

Acc

essibility

Y

X

Acc

ura

cy/clarity

X Y

Responsiven

ess

XY

Courtesy/empath

y

Y

X


162

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Condition

s Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Communication

& fee

dback

Y

X

Retriev

ability

Y

X

Structure

X Y

Rep

utation/bra

nd

X Y

W

ebsite

intractability

Y

X

Customization

X Y

Usa

bility/navigabi

lity

X Y

Availability of

web

site

X

Y

In

tegrity &

tru

st

X Y

Functionality &

featu

res

X Y

Per

form

ance

XY


163

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Ser

vice

differe

ntiation

X Y

Objectivity

X Y

Flexibility

X Y

Online sh

opping (Bauer et al. 2006)

Functionality/desi

gn

X Y

Enjoymen

t

Y

X

Pro

cess

X Y

Reliability

X Y

Responsiven

ess

Y

X


164

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

Rec

reation sport (Ko and Pastore 2004)

Range of

pro

gra

ms

X Y

Oper

ating tim

e

Y

X

In

form

ation

Y

X

Clien

t-em

ployee

intera

ction

X

Y

In

ter-client

intera

ction

Y

X

Physica

l ch

ange

X

Y

Valence

X Y

Sociability

Y

X

Ambience

X Y

Design

X Y

Equipment

XY


165

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Sub-D

imen

sions

Unclassified

Attitude

Behavior

Expertise

Ambient

Conditions

Design

Social

Factors

Waiting

Time

Tangibles

Valence

E-R

etailing (Collier and Bienstock 2006)

Privacy

X Y

Design

X Y

In

form

ation

acc

ura

cy

Y

X

Ease of use

X Y

Functionality

X Y

Ord

er tim

eliness

XY

Ord

er acc

ura

cy

Y

X

Ord

er condition

X

Y

In

tera

ctive

fairness

Y

X

Pro

cedura

l

fairness

Y

X

Outcome fairness

Y

X

Legend

X - The candidate


166

Y - The candidate’s colleague

Mapping match (agreed upon) between candidate and his

colleague

Note: The industries’ SQ dimensional description can be found in Appendix B.


167

Appendix D

- M

apping O

f Industries’ Service Q

uality D

imensions To The B

&C (2001)

Model’s Primary Dim

ensions

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Call C

enters (Dean 2002)

Adaptiven

ess

XY

Assura

nce

XY

Empath

y

XY

Auth

ority

XY

Web

-based Inform

ation Systems (W


Reliability

XY

Responsiven

ess

XY

Acc

ess

Y

X

Flexibility

XY

Ease of navigation

XY

Efficiency

XY

Assura

nce

/ tru

st

X

Y

Sec

urity

XY


168

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Site aesth

etics

XY

Customization /

per

sonaliza

tion

XY

Quality of

inform

ation

XY

Aca

dem

ic L

ibra


Effec

t of serv

ice

(per

sonal)

Y

X

Libra

ry as ba

(place

)

XY

Collec

tion and

acc

ess

XY

Effec

t of serv

ice

(org

anizational)

XY


169

Industry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

E-ser

vice (Santos 2003)

Reliability

XY

Efficiency

XY

Support

XY

Communication

XY

Sec

urity

XY

In

centive

XY

Educa


Aca

dem

ic

reputation

Y

X

Pro

gra

m issues

Y

X

Physica

l facilities

XY

Cost / tim

e

XY

Loca

tion

XY

Care

er

opportunities

XY

Oth

er

X

Y


170

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Banks And C

redit U


Reliability

XY

Responsiven

ess

XY

Competen

ce

XY

Acc

ess

Y

X

Communication

XY


Per

sonal

intera

ction

XY

Policy

Y

X

Physica

l

appea

rance

Y

X

Pro

mises

XY

Pro

blem solving

XY

Conven

ience

X

Y


171

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Web

-based ser

vices (Li et al. 2002)

Responsiven

ess

X

Y

Competen

ce

XY

Quality of

inform

ation

Y

X

Empath

y

XY

W

eb assistance

XY

Callback

system

s Y

X

Hea

lth (Dagger et al. 2007)

In

tera

ction

XY

Relationsh

ip

XY

Exper

tise

XY

Outcome

XY

Atm

osp

her

e

XY

Tangibles

XY

Tim

eliness

XY

Oper

ation

Y

X

Support

Y

X


172

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Electro

nic Ser

vices (Fassnacht and Koese 2006)

Gra

phic quality

XY

Clarity of layout

XY

Attra

ctiven

ess of

selection

XY

In

formation

quality

XY

Ease of use

Y

X

Tec

hnical quality

Y

X

Reliability

X

Y

Functional ben

efit

XY

Emotional ben

efit

XY


173

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Web

Sites (Loiacono et al. 2007)

In

form

ational fit-to-

task

X

Y

Tailore

d

inform

ation

XY

Tru

st

Y

X

Response tim

e

XY

Ease of

under

standing

Y

X

In

tuitive oper

ations

Y

X

Visual appea

l

XY

In

novativen

ess

XY

Emotional appea

l

Y

X

Consisten

t im

age

XY

On-line

completeness

Y

X

Relative advantage

XY


174

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

E-tra

vel (Ho and Lee 2006)

In

form

ation quality

Y

X

Sec

urity

XY

W

ebsite

functionality

Y

X

Customer

relationsh

ips

Y

X

Responsiven

ess

XY

Automobile (Saravanan and Rao 2007)

Human asp

ects of

serv

ice deliver

y

X

Y

Core

ser

vice

XY

Social resp

onsibility

XY

System

atiza

tion of

serv

ice deliver

y

XY

Tangibles of serv

ice

(ser

vicesca

pes)

XY

Ser

vice mark

eting

XY


175

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

E-B

usiness (Mohanty et al. 2007)

Tra

nscen

den

ce

XY

Reliability

XY

Tim

e and tim

eliness

XY

Ser

vicea

bility

XY

Sec

urity &

system

integrity

XY

Acc

essibility

Y

X

Acc

ura

cy/clarity

XY

Responsiven

ess

XY

Courtesy/empath

y

XY

Communication &

feed

back

Y

X

Retriev

ability

Y

X

Structure

XY

Rep

utation/bra

nd

XY

W

ebsite

intractability

Y

X


176

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Customization

XY

Usa

bility/navigability

XY

Availability of web

site

X

Y

In

tegrity &

tru

st

XY

Functionality &

featu

res

XY

Per

form

ance

XY

Ser

vice differe

ntiation

XY

Objectivity

XY

Flexibility

XY

Online sh

opping (Bauer et al. 2006)

Functionality/design

XY

Enjoymen

t

Y

X

Pro

cess

XY

Reliability

XY


177

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

Rec

reation sport (Ko and Pastore 2004)

Range of

pro

gra

ms

XY

Oper

ating tim

e

XY

In

form

ation

XY

Clien

t-em

ployee

intera

ction

X

Y

In

ter-client

intera

ction

Y

X

Physica

l ch

ange

Y

X

Valence

XY

Sociability

XY

Ambience

XY

Design

XY

Equipment

XY


178

In

dustry

(Context)

Industry

SQ

Dim

ension

B&C (2001) M

odel’s Primary

Dim

ensions

Unclassified

Intera

ction

Quality

Physica

l Environmen

t

Quality

Outcome Quality

E-R

etailing (Collier and Bienstock 2006)

Privacy

XY

Design

XY

In

form

ation

acc

ura

cy

Y

X

Ease of use

XY

Functionality

XY

Ord

er tim

eliness

XY

Ord

er acc

ura

cy

Y

X

Ord

er condition

X

Y

In

tera

ctive

fairness

XY

Pro

cedura

l

fairness

Y

X

Outcome fairness

Y

X


179

Legend

X - The candidate

Y - The candidate’s colleague

Mapping match (agreed upon) between candidate and his colleague

Note: The industries’ SQ dimensional description can be found in Appendix B.


180

References

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social

Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Aldlaigan, A. H. and F. A. Buttle. 2002. SYSTRA-SQ: a new measure of bank

service quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13 (4): 362-

381.

Alexandris, K., P. Zahariadis, C. Tsorbatzoudis and G. Grouios. 2004. An empirical

investigation of the relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction and

psychological commitment in a health club context. European Sport Management

Quarterly, 4 (1): 36-52

Allport, G. W. 1935. Handbook Of Social Psychology: Clark University Press.

Allred, A. T. and H. L. Addams. 2000. Service quality at banks and credit unions:

what do their customers say? Managing Service Quality, 10 (1): 52-60.

Andaleeb, S. S. 2001. Service quality perceptions and patient satisfaction: a study of

hospitals in a developing country. Social Science & Medicine, 52 (9): 1359-1370.

Anderson, E. W. and M. W. Sullivan. 1993. The Antecedents and Consequences of

Customer Satisfaction for Firms. Marketing Science, 12 (2): 125-143.

archival analysis - Lexikon. 2006. The Psychology Lexicon http://www.psychology-

lexicon.com/lexikon/archival_analysis.htm (accessed 19th July, 2008).

Atilgan, E., S. Akinci and S. Aksoy. 2003. Mapping service quality in the tourism

industry. Managing Service Quality, 13 (5): 412-422.


181

Avkiran, N. K. 1994. Developing an instrument to measure customer service quality

in branch banking. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 12 (6): 10-18.

Babakus, E. and G. W. Boller. 1992. An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL

Scale. Journal of Business Research, 24 (3): 253-268.

Bateson, J. E. G. 1995. Managing Services Marketing: Text and Reading. 3rd ed.

Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press.

Bauer, H. H., T. Falk and M. Hammerschmidt. 2006. eTransQual: A transaction

process-based approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal of

Business Research, 59 (2006): 866-875.

Bennett, R. and A. Barkensjo. 2005. Relationship quality, relationship marketing,

and client perceptions of the levels of service quality of charitable organisations.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (1): 81-106.

Berry, L. L. 1980. Services Marketing Is Different. Business, 30 (May-June): 24-29.

Berry , L. L., A. Parasuraman and V. A. Zeithaml. 1994. Improving service quality

in America: lessons learned. Academy of Management Executive, 8 (2): 32-52.

Bitner, M. J. 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical

surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54 (2): 69-82.

Bitner, M. J. 1992. Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on

Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56 (2): 57-71.

Bitner, M. J. and A. R. Hubbert. 1994. Encounter satisfaction versus overall

satisfaction versus quality - The customer's voice. In Service Quality - 1ew


182

Directions In Theory And Practice, eds. R. T. Rust and R. L. Oliver: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Bolton, R. N. and J. H. Drew. 1991a. A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service

changes on customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 55: 1-9.

Bolton, R. N. and J. H. Drew. 1991b. A multistage model of customers' assessments

of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17: 375-384.

Booms, B. H. and M. J. Bitner. 1981. Marketing Strategies and Organization

Structures for Service Firms. In Marketing of Services47-52. Chicago: James H.

Donnelly and William R. George.

Bouman, M. and T. V. d. Wiele. 1992. Measuring service quality in the car service

industry: building and testing an instrument. Journal of Service Industry

Management, 3 (4): 4-16.

Brady, M. K. and J. J. J. Cronin. 2001. Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing

Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (3):

34-49.

Brady, M. K., G. A. Knight, J. J. Joseph Cronin, G. Tomas, M. Hult and B. D.

Keillor. 2005. Removing the contextual lens: A multinational, multi-setting

comparison of service evaluation models. Journal Of Retailing, 81 (3): 215-230.

Brady, M. K., C. M. Voorhees, J. J. Joseph Cronin and B. L. Bourdeau. 2006. The

good guys don't always win: the effect of valence on service perceptions and

consequences. Journal of Services Marketing, 20 (2): 83-91.

Braumandl, R., A. Kemper and D. Kossmann. 2003. Quality of service in an

information economy


183

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/945846.945847. ACM Transactions on Internet

Technology, 3 (4): 291-333.

Brogowicz, A. A., L. M. Delene and D. M. Lyth. 1990. A Synthesised Service

Quality Model with Managerial Implications. International Journal of Service

Industry Management, 1 (1): 27-45.

Burgers, A., K. D. Rutyer, C. Keen and S. Streukens. 2000. Customer Expectation

Dimensions of Voice-to-Voice Service Encounters: A Scale-Development Study.

Journal of Service Industry Management, 11 (2): 142-161.

Buttle, F. 1996. SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. European Journal

of Marketing, 30 (1): 8-32.

Carman, J. M. 1990. Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of

the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66 (1): 33-55.

Caro, L. M. and J. A. M. Garcia. 2007. Developing a multidimensional and

hierarchical service quality model for the travel agency industry. Tourism

Management, 29 (2008): 706-720.

The CHAOS report. 1994. Standish Group.

http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/chaos_1994_1.php (accessed April

28, 2007).

Chien, S.-W. and S.-M. Tsaur. 2007. Investigating the success of ERP systems: Case

studies in three Taiwanese high-tech industries. Computers in Industry, 58 (2007):

783-793.


184

Clark, G., R. Johnston and M. Shulver. 2000. Exploiting the service concept for

service design and development. In 1ew Service Design, eds. J. Fitzsimmons and M.

Fitzsimmons, 71-91. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cock, D., I. C. Adams, A. B. Ibbetson and P. Baugh. 2006. REFERQUAL: a pilot

study of a new service quality assessment instrument in the GP exercise referral

scheme setting. BMC Health Services Research, 6 (61): 1-6.

Cohen, J. B., M. Fishbein and O. T. Ahtola. 1972. The Nature and Uses of

Expectancy-Value Models in Consumer Attitude Research. Journal of Marketing

Research, 9: 456-460.

Collier, J. E. and C. C. Bienstock. 2006. Measuring Service Quality in E-Retailing.

Journal of Service Research, 8 (3): 260-275.

Cook, C., F. Heath and B. Thompson. 2001. Users' Hierarchical Perspectives on

Library Service Quality: A "LibQUAL+" Study. College & Research Libraries: 147-

153.

Cronin, J. J. J. and S. A. Taylor. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination

and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (3): 55-68.

Cronin, J. J. J. and S. A. Taylor. 1994. SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL:

Reconciling Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus-Expectation Measurement

of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 55-68.

Czepiel, J. A., M. R. Solomon and C. F. Surprenant. 1985. The Service Encounter:

Lexington Books.


185

Dabholkar, P. A. 1993. Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality: Two Constructs

or One? In Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, eds. D. W. Cravens

and P. R. Dickson. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Dabholkar, P. A. 1995a. The Coverage of Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality

Evaluations with Increasing Customer Patronage. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 8: 32-43.

Dabholkar, P. A. 1995b. A contingency framework for predicting causality between

satisfaction and service quality. Edited by F. R. Kardes and M. Sujan. Vol. 22,

Advances in Consumer Research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Dabholkar, P. A. and J. W. Overby. 2005. Linking process and outcome to service

quality and customer satisfaction evaluations. International Journal of Service

Industry Management, 16 (1): 10-27.

Dabholkar, P. A., C. D. Shepherd and D. I. Thorpe. 2000. A Comprehensive

Framework for Service Quality: An Investigation of Critical Conceptual and

Measurement Issues Through a Longitudinal Study. Journal Of Retailing, 76 (2):

139-173.

Dabholkar, P. A., D. I. Thorpe and J. O. Rentz. 1996. A Measure of Service Quality

for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 24 (1): 3-16.

Dagger, T. S., J. C. Sweeney and L. W. Johnson. 2007. A Hierarchical Model of

Health Service Quality. Journal of Service Research, 10 (2): 123-142.

Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi and P. R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer

technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8):

982-1003.


186

Dean, A. M. 2002. Service quality in call centres: implications for customer loyalty.

Managing Service Quality, 12 (6): 414-423.

DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean. 1992. Information Systems Success: The Quest

for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3 (1): 60-95.

DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean. 2003. The DeLone and McLean Model of

Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 19 (4): 9-30.

Dyke, T. P. V., L. A. Kappelman and V. R. Prybutok. 1997. Measuring Information

Systems Service Quality: Concerns on the Use of the SERVQUAL Questionnaire.

MIS Quarterly, 21 (2): 195-208.

Edvardsson, B. and J. Olsson. 1996. Key concepts for new service development. The

Service Industries Journal, 16: 140-164.

Ellis, R. S. and L. W. Johnson. 2002. Individual Differences In The Quality-

Satisfaction Relationship. In Proceedings Of The Australian And 1ew Zealand

Marketing Academy Conference. Melbourne, Australia.

Ennew, C. T., G. V. Reed and M. R. Binks. 1993. Importance-performance analysis

and the measurement of service quality. European Journal of Marketing, 27 (2): 59-

70.

Erto, P. and A. Vanacore. 2002. A probabilistic approach to measure hotel service

quality. Total Quality Management, 13 (2): 165-174.

Fassnacht, M. and I. Koese. 2006. Quality of Electronic Services. Conceptualizating

and Testing a Hierarchical Model. Journal of Service Research, 9 (1): 19-37.


187

Fisk, R. P., S. Gountas, M. Hume, J. Gountas, S. J. Grove and J. John. 2007.

Services Marketing. First Asia-Pacific Edition ed. Australia: John Wiley & Sons

Australia, Ltd 2007.

Freeze, R. D. and R. L. Raschke. 2007. An Assessment Of Formative And Reflective

Constructs In IS Research. In 15th European Conference on Information Systems.

Switzerland.

Frochot, I. and H. Hughes. 2000. HISOQUAL: the development of a historic houses

assessment scale. Tourism Management, 21: 157-167.

Gable, G. 2008. Information Systems Service Quality Measurement In Australia

Research Council Discovery Grant Proposal. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland

University of Technology.

Gable, G. G., D. Sedera and T. Chan. 2003. Enterprise Systems Success: A

Measurement Model. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on

Information Systems, 576-591. Seattle, Washington.

Gable, G. G., D. Sedera and T. Chan. 2008. Re-conceptualizing Information System

Success: The IS-Impact Measurement Model. Journal of the Association for

Information Systems, 9 (7): 377-408.

Gallouj, F. 2002. Innovation in the service economy: the new wealth of nations.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ghobadian, A., S. Speller and M. Jones. 1994. Service Quality Concepts and

Models. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11 (9): 43-66.


188

Giese, J. L. and J. A. Cote. 2000. Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Academy of

Marketing Science Review, 2000 (1): 1-24.

Gronroos, C. 1982. Strategic Management and Marketing in Service Sector.

Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Gronroos, C. 1984. A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications.

European Journal of Marketing, 18 (4): 36-44.

Gronroos, C. 1988. Service Quality: The Six Criteria Of Good Perceived Service

Quality. Review of Business, 9 (3): 10-13.

Gronroos, C. 1990. Service Management and Marketing. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books.

Gronroos, C. 1998. Marketing services: the case of a missing product. Journal of

Business & Industrial Marketing, 13 (4): 322-338.

Gronroos, C. 2000. Service management and marketing: a customer relationship

management approach. 2nd ed: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hernon, P. and D. A. Nitecki. 2001. Service Quality: A Concept Not Fully Explored.

Academic Research Library, 49 (4): 687-708.

Hightower, R., M. K. Brady and T. L. Baker. 2002. Investigating the Role of the

Physical Environment in Hedonic Service Consumption: An Exploratory Study of

Sporting Events Journal of Business Research, 55 (9): 697-707.

Hiidenhovi, H., K. Nojonen and P. Laippala. 2002. Measurement of outpatients'

views of service quality in a Finnish university hospital. Journal of Advanced

1ursing, 38 (1): 59-67.


189

Ho, C.-I. and Y.-L. Lee. 2006. The development of an e-travel service quality scale.

Tourism Management, 28 (2007): 1434-1449.

Iacobucci, D., K. A. Grayson and A. L. Omstrom. 1994. The calculus of service

quality and customer satisfaction: theoretical and empirical differentiation and

integration. In Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 3, eds. T. A.

Swartz, D. E. Bowen and S. W. Brown, 1-68. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Imrie, B. C., J. W. Cadogan and R. McNaughton. 2002. The service quality construct

on a global stage. Managing Service Quality, 12 (1): 10-18.

Jabnoun, N. and A. Khalifa. 2005. A customized measure of service quality in the

UAE. Managing Service Quality, 15 (4): 374-388.

Jarvinen, R. and U. Lehtinen. 2004. Services, e-Services and e-Service Innovations -

Combination of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge. Frontiers Of E-Business

Research, 1 (3): 78-89.

Jiang, J. J., G. Klein and C. L. Carr. 2002. Measuring Information System Service

Quality: SERVQUAL From The Other Side. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2): 145-166.

Jiang, J. J., G. Klein, D. Tesch and H.-G. Chen. 2003. Closing the User and Provider

Service Quality Gap. Communications Of The ACM, 46 (2): 72 - 76.

Johns, N. 1999. What is this thing called service? European Journal of Marketing,

33 (9/10): 958-973.

Johns, N. and P. Tyas. 1996. Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate

between foodservice outlets. The Service Industries Journal, 16 (3): 321-346.


190

Joseph, M. and B. Joseph. 1997. Service quality in education: a student perspective.

Quality Assurance in Education, 5 (1): 15-21.

Kang, G.-D. 2006. The hierarchical structure of service quality: integration of

technical and functional quality. Managing Service Quality, 16 (1): 37-50.

Kano, N., N. Seraku, F. Takahashi and S. Tsuji. 1984. Attractive and normal quality.

Quality 14 (2).

Kettinger, W. J. and C. C. Lee. 1994. Perceived Service Quality and User

Satisfaction with the Information Services Function. Decision Sciences, 25 (5,6):

737-766.

Kettinger, W. J. and C. C. Lee. 1997. Pragmatic Perspectives on the Measurement of

Information Systems Service Quality. MIS Quarterly, 21 (2): 223-240.

Kettinger, W. J. and C. C. Lee. 2005. Zones Of Tolerance: Alternative Scales For

Measuring Information Systems Service Quality. MIS Quarterly, 29 (4): 607-623.

Kilbourne, W. E., J. A. Duffy, M. Duffy and G. Giarchi. 2004. The applicability of

SERVQUAL in cross-national measurements of health-care quality. Journal of

Services Marketing, 18 (7): 524-533.

Kim, J., J. H. Park, S. Kim, D. G. Lee, Y. S. Kim and S. H. Jin. 2006 Customer-

centric service quality management for SK telecom's mobile packet service

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nem.630 International Journal of 1etwork Management,

16 (6 ): 413-427

Ko, Y. J. 2000. A multidimensional and hierarchical model of service quality in the

participant sport industry, Graduate School, Ohio State University.


191

Ko, Y. J. and D. L. Pastore. 2004. Current Issues and Conceptualizations of Service

Quality in the Recreation Sports Industry. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13 (2): 158-

166.

Kotler, P., S. Adam, L. Brown and G. Armstrong. 2003. Principles Of Marketing.

2nd ed. Australia: Prentice Hall.

Kunst, P. and J. Lemmink. 1996. Managing Service Quality. Vol. 2. London: Paul

Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Lai, J.-Y. 2006. Assessment of employees' perceptions of service quality and

satisfaction with e-business. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64:

926-938.

Lee, H., L. M. Delene and M. A. Bunda. 2000. Methods of measuring health-care

service quality. Journal of Business Research, 48 (3): 233-246.

Lee, H., Y. Lee and D. Yoo. 2000. The determinants of perceived service quality and

its relationship with satisfaction. The Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (3): 217-

231.

Lehtinen, U. and J. R. Lehtinen. 1991. Two Approaches to Service Quality

Dimensions. The Service Industries Journal, 11 (3): 287-303.

Lewis, B. R. 1993. Service quality measurement. Marketing Intelligence &

Planning, 11 (4): 4-12.

Lewis, R. C. and B. H. Booms. 1983. The marketing aspects of service quality. In

Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, eds. L. Berry, G. Shostack and G.

Upah, 99-107. Chicago, IL: American Marketing.


192

Li, Y. N., K. C. Tan and M. Xie. 2002. Measuring web-based service quality. Total

Quality Management, 13 (5): 685-700.

Lim, P. C. and N. K. H. Tang. 2000. A study of patients' expectations and

satisfaction in Singapore hospitals International Journal of Health Care Quality

Assurance, 13 (7): 290-299.

Lin, H.-F. 2007. Measuring Online Learning Systems Success: Applying the

Updated DeLone and McLean Model. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10 (6): 817-

820.

Liu, C.-M. 2005. The Multidimensional and Hierarchical Structure of Perceived

Quality and Customer Satisfaction. International Journal of Management, 22 (3):

426-508.

Loiacono, E. T., R. T. Watson and D. L. Goodhue. 2007. WebQual: An Instrument

for Consumer Evaluation of Web Sites. International Journal of Electronic

Commerce, 11 (3): 51-87.

Lovelock, C. H. and G. S. Yip. 1996. Developing Global Strategies for Service

Businesses. California Management Review, 38 (2): 64-86.

Mazis, B. Michael, O. T. Ahtola and R. E. Klippel. 1975. A Comparison of Four

Multi-Attribute Models in the Prediction of Consumer Attitudes. Journal of

Consumer Research, 2: 38-52.

Mels, G., C. Boshoff and D. Nel. 1997. The dimensions of service quality: the

original European perspective revisited. The Service Industries Journal, 17 (1): 173-

189.


193

Mersha, T. and V. Adlakha. 1992. Attributes of Service Quality: The Consumers'

Perspective. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3 (3): 34-45.

Mohanty, R. P., D. Seth and S. Mukadam. 2007. Quality Dimensions of E-

Commerce and their Implications. Total Quality Management, 18 (3): 219-247.

Nagata, H., Y. Satoh, S. Gerrard and P. Kytomaki. 2004. The dimensions that

construct the evaluation of service quality in academic libraries. Performance

Measurement and Metrics, 5 (2): 53-65.

Naveh, E. and A. Halevy. 2000. A hierarchical framework for a quality information

system. Total Quality Management, 11 (1): 87-111.

Oliver, R. L. 1981. Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail

Settings. Journal Of Retailing, 57 (Fall): 25-48.

Oliver, R. L. 1989. Processing of the satisfaction responses in consumption: a

suggested framework and research propositions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2: 1-16.

Oliver, R. L. 1993. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service Satisfaction:

Compatible Goals, Different Concepts. In Advances in Marketing and Management,

eds. T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen and S. W. Brown, 65-85. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,

Inc.

Oliver, R. L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer Boston,

MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill

Owlia, M. S. and E. M. Aspinwall. 1996. A framework for the dimensions of quality

in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4 (2): 12-20.


194

Owlia, M. S. and E. M. Aspinwall. 1998. A framework for measuring quality in

engineering education Total Quality Management, 9 (6): 501-518.

Parasuraman, A., L. L. Berry and V. A. Zeithaml. 1985. A Conceptual Model of

Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49:

41-50.

Parasuraman, A., L. L. Berry and V. A. Zeithaml. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-

Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of

Retailing, 64 (1): 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., L. L. Berry and V. A. Zeithaml. 1990. An Empirical Examination

of Relationships in an Extended Service Quality Model. Cambridge, MA: Marketing

Science Institute.

Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml and L. L. Berry 1991. Refinement and

reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal Of Retailing, 67 (4): 420-450.

Parasuraman, A., L. L. Berry and V. A. Zeithaml. 1993. Research Note: More on

Improving Quality Measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69 (1): 140-147.

Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml and L. L. Berry 1994. Reassessment of

expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for

future research. Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 111-124.

Pather, S., G. Erwin and D. Remenyi. 2003. Measuring E-Commerce Effectiveness:

A Conceptual Model. In Proceedings Of The 2003 Annual Research Conference Of

The South African Institute Of Computer Scientists And Information Technologists

On Enablement Through Technology. South Aferica: South African Institute Of

Computer Scientists And Information Technologists.


195

Philip, G. and S.-A. Hazlett. 2001. Evaluating the service quality of information

services using a new "P-C-P" attributes model. Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, 18 (8/9): 900-916.

Pitt, L. F., R. T. Watson and C. B. Kavan. 1995. Service Quality: A Measure of

Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2): 173-187.

Pitt, L. F., R. T. Watson and C. B. Kavan. 1997. Measuring Information Systems

Service Quality: Concerns for a Complete Canvas. MIS Quarterly, 21 (2): 209-221.

Rathmell, J. M. 1966. What Is Meant by Services? Journal of Marketing, 30 (4): 32-

36.

Riel, A. C. R. V., J. Semeijn and P. Pauwels. 2004. Online Travel Service Quality:

the Role of Pre-Transaction Services. Total Quality Management, 15 (4): 475-493.

Robinson, S. and M. Pidd. 1995 Service quality in the management of simulation

projects

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/224401.224757. In Proceedings of the 27th conference

on Winter simulation 952-959 Arlington, Virginia, United States

Roest, H. and R. Pieters. 1997. The nomological net of perceived service quality.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8 (4): 336-351.

Rose, R. C., J. Uli, M. Abdul and K. L. Ng. 2004. Hospital service quality: a

managerial challenge. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 17

(3): 146-159.

Rosen, L. D. and K. R. Karwan. 1994. Prioritizing the Dimensions of Service

Quality. An Empirical Investigation and Strategic Assessment. International Journal

of Service Industry Management, 5 (4): 39-52.


196

Rowley, J. 1998. Quality measurement in the public sector: Some perspectives from

the service quality literature. Total Quality Management, 9 (2 & 3): 321-333.

Rust, R. T. and R. L. Oliver. 1994. Service quality: new directions in theory and

practice. California: SAGE Publications.

Santos, J. 2002. From intangibility to tangibility on service quality perceptions: a

comparison study between consumers and service providers in four service

industries. Managing Service Quality, 12 (5): 292-302.

Santos, J. 2003. E-Service Quality: a model of virtual service quality dimensions.


Saravanan, R. and K. S. P. Rao. 2007. Measurement of Service Quality from the

Customer's Perspective - An Empirical Study. Total Quality Management, 18 (4):

435-449.

Sedera, D. 2006. E1TERPRISE SYSTEMS SUCCESS: A MEASUREME1T MODEL,

School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Seth, N., S. G. Deshmukh and P. Vrat. 2005. Service quality models: a review.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22 (9): 913-949.

Seth, N., S. G. Deshmukh and P. Vrat. 2006. A framework for measurement of

quality of service in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, 11 (1): 82-94.

Shostack, G. L. 1977. Breaking Free from Product Marketing. Journal of Marketing,

41 (2): 73-80.


197

Sigala, M. 2004. The ASP-Qual model: measuring ASP service quality in Greece.


Silvestro, R., R. Johnston, L. Fitzgerald and C. Voss. 1990. Quality Measurement in

Service Industries. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1 (2): 54

- 66.

Siu, N. Y. M. and J. T.-H. Cheung. 2001. A measure of retail service quality.

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19 (2): 88-96.

Spreng, R. A. and R. D. MacKoy. 1996. An empirical examination of a model of

perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal Of Retailing, 72 (2): 201-214.

Spreng, R. A. and A. K. Singh. 1993. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL

scale and the relationship between service quality and satisfaction. Michigan State

University, TN.

Stafford, T. F. 2003 E-Services

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/777313.777333 Communications Of The ACM 46 (6 ):

26-28

Sullivan, J. R. and K. A. Walstrom. 2001. Consumer perspectives on service quality

of electronic commerce web sites. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41 (3):

8-14.

Sundbo, J. and F. Gallouj. 1999. Innovation in Services in seven European

Countries. In Synthesis Report for the European Commission, DG XII, TSER-SI4S,:

Roskilde Universitetscenters trykkeri.


198

Sureshchandar, G. S., C. Rajendran and R. N. Anantharaman. 2002. Determinants of

customer-perceived service quality: a confirmatory factor analysis approach Journal

of Services Marketing, 16 (1): 9-34.

Syed, S. A. and K. B. Amiya. 1994. Technical complexity and consumer knowledge

as moderators of service quality: evaluation in the automobile service industry.

Journal Of Retailing, 70 (4): 367-381.

Tan, K. C. and A. P. Theresia. 2001. Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano's model into

QFD for service excellence development. Managing Service Quality, 11 (6): 418-

430.

Tan, K. C., M. Xie and Y. N. Li. 2003. A service quality framework for Web-based

information systems. The TQM Magazine, 15 (3): 164-172.

Taylor, P. 2000. IT projects: Sink or swim. In Computer Bulletin.

Teas, R. K. 1993b. Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived

service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8 (2): 33-53.

Teas, R. K. 1993a. Expectations, Performance Evaluation and Consumer's

Perception of Quality. Journal of Marketing, 57 (4): 18-34.

Thompson, B., C. Cook and F. Heath. 2000. The LibQUAL+ gap measurement

model: the bad, the ugly, and the good of gap measurement. Performance

Measurement and Metrics, 1 (3): 165-178.

Trewin, D. 2007. 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2007. Australian Bureau of

Statistics.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701

e/6c68be7e735b62ebca25723600045523!OpenDocument (accessed 05 June, 2007).


199

Tsang, N. and H. Qu. 2000. Service quality in China's hotel industry: a perspective

from tourists and hotel managers. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 12 (5): 316-326.

Tsitskari, E., D. Tsiotras and G. Tsiotras. 2006. Measuring Service Quality in Sport

Services. Total Quality Management, 17 (5): 623-631.

Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for

Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68 (1): 1-17.

Wang, H., M. Xie and T. N. Goh. 1999. Service quality of Internet search engines

Journal of Information Science, 25 (3): 499-507.

Watson, R. T., L. F. Pitt, C. J. Cunningham and D. Nel. 2001. User satisfaction and

service quality of the IS department: closing the gaps. Journal of Information

Technology, 8: 257-265.

Watson, R. T., L. F. Pitt and C. B. Kavan. 1998. Measuring Information Systems

Service Quality: Lessons From Two Longitudinal Case Studies. MIS Quarterly, 22

(1): 61-79.

Weiermair, K. and M. Fuchs. 1999. Measuring Tourist Judgment On Service

Quality. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (4): 1004-1021.

Whyte, G., A. Bytheway and C. Edwards. 1997. Understanding user perceptions of

information systems success. Strategic Information Systems, 6 (1): 35-68.

Wong, A., A. M. Dean and C. J. White. 1999. Analyzing service quality in the

hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 9 (2): 136-143.


200

Wong, A. and A. Sohal. 2002. Customers' perspectives on service quality and

relationship quality in retail encounters. Managing Service Quality, 12 (6): 424-433.

Woon, K. C. 2000. TQM implementation: comparing Singapore's service and

manufacturing leaders. Managing Service Quality, 10 (5): 318-331.

Yoon, S. and H. Suh. 2004. Ensuring IT Consulting SERVQUAL and User

Satisfaction: A Modified Measurement Tool. Information Systems Frontiers, 6 (4):

341-351.

Zeithaml, V. A. 1987. Defining and Relating Prices, Perceived Quality and

Perceived Value. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry and A. Parasuraman. 1991. The nature and

determinants of customer expectations of service. In Marketing Science Institute

Research Program Series.

Zeithaml, V. A., R. Paul and L. L. Berry 1990. Delivering Quality Service:

Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Zeithaml, V. A. and M. J. Bitner. 2003. Services marketing: Integrating customer

focus across the firm. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman and A. Malhotra. 2000. A conceptual framework

for understanding e-service quality: implications for future research and managerial

practice: Marketing Science Institute and Dellstar.

Documents

Revisiting The Conceptualization And Measurement Of Service Qualityeprints.qut.edu.au/28608/1/Zhi_Wei_Yap_Thesis.pdf · Revisiting The Conceptualization And Measurement Of Service