Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
quàn lý chất lượng dịch vụ
International Journal of Quality & Reliability ManagementEmerald Article: Service quality: implications for management developmentAtul Gupta, Injazz ChenArticle information:To cite this document: Atul Gupta, Injazz Chen, (1995),"Service quality: implications for management development", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss: 7 pp. 28 - 35Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510093538Downloaded on: 15-01-2013References: This document contains references to 7 other documentsCitations: This document has been cited by 9 other documentsTo copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThis document has been downloaded 2596 times since 2005. *Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *Atul Gupta, Injazz Chen, (1995),"Service quality: implications for management development", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss: 7 pp. 28 - 35http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510093538Atul Gupta, Injazz Chen, (1995),"Service quality: implications for management development", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss: 7 pp. 28 - 35http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510093538Atul Gupta, Injazz Chen, (1995),"Service quality: implications for management development", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss: 7 pp. 28 - 35http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510093538Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.*Related content and download information correct at time of download. IJQRM12,728Service quality: implicationsfor management developmentAtul Gupta and Injazz ChenDepartment of Quantitative Business Analysis, Cleveland StateUniversity, Cleveland, Ohio, USAIntroductionService quality is one of the major issues facing operations managers. Some ofthe reasons for the importance of service quality are:●The economy of the USA and other western nations has become a serviceeconomy. For example, in the USA service accounts for approximatelythree-quarters of the gross national product and nine of the ten jobs theeconomy creates.●In the first two years during which the much renowned MalcolmBaldrige National Quality Awards were granted to US companies, not asingle service company met the minimum quality standards established.However, recently Federal Express, a service company, was given theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.This article attempts to define perceived service quality, relate the concepts ofperceived service quality and its five dimensions in service operations, andprovide the implications of the relation between service quality and itsdimensions on management development.To the authors’ knowledge no one has yet attempted to assess theimplications of the relationship between service quality and its five dimensionsfor management development. This analysis will not only provide managerswith the information about the dynamics of service organizations but alsosuggest some solutions in terms of management development and training.Perceived service qualityThere are differences between services and goods in terms of how they areproduced, consumed, and evaluated. Table I, which is similar to that ofZemke[1], points to the characteristics that distinguish a service from a product.Services are performances, rather than objects. Chase and Tansik[2] classifiedservices based on consumer contact. The extent of consumer contact with theservice organizations was used as a means of differentiating types of servicesystems. Three types of services identified are:(1) Pure service. Organizations in which the customer must be present forservice production (e.g. fast-food restaurant, nursing home).(2) Mixed service. Organizations in which there is both face-to-face as well asback office contact with the customer (e.g. commercial airline).International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management,Vol. 12 No. 7, 1995, pp. 28-35,© MCB University Press,0265-671X Service quality29(3) Quasi-manufacturing service. Organizations in which there is no face-to-face contact with the customer (e.g. credit card, long distance telephonecompany).Most of the literature on quality is predominantly goods oriented, but a fewarticles have focused on service quality[3,4]. Moreover, the three characteristicsof services – intangibility, heterogeneity and inseparability – are also welldocumented[5]. As pointed out by Zeithaml et al.[6], the following three themesemerge from these studies:(1) Customers do not evaluate service solely on the outcome of a service;they also consider the process of service delivery.(2) It is more difficult for the customer to evaluate service quality than goodsquality. Zemke[1] points out that it is harder to create servicemeasurements that are effective. With a physical product, it is possible tomeasure quality in terms of specifications using engineeringmeasurement tools and techniques. The common standard for servicequality is customer perception. It is harder to measure customerperception because each customer has his/her own specification in mindfor each service experience. Moreover, because of service intangibility,firms may find it more difficult to understand how consumers perceiveservice quality.(3) The criteria consumers use for evaluating service quality are based onthe comparison of consumer expectations with the actual serviceperformance. Thus the perceived service quality is based on consumers’judgement about a service’s overall excellence or superiority. Perceivedservice quality is different from the actual goods quality because itinvolves a higher level of abstraction rather than a specific attribute of aTable I.Some differencesbetween a product anda serviceProduct ServiceThe customer owns the object The customer owns the memory with experienceswhich cannot be sold or passed onThe goal is to produce uniformity in The goal of service is uniquenessproductA product can be put into inventory A service cannot be stockpiledThe customer is an end user who is not The customer is a co-producer who is a partner ininvolved in the production process creating the serviceOne conducts quality control by Customers conduct quality control by comparingcomparing output to specifications expectations to experienceA defective product can be recalled or A bad or defective service cannot be recalledrejected IJQRM12,730product, and a judgement is usually made within a consumer’s evokedset.In a study of four consumer service industries, Parasuraman et al.[7] identifyfive quality dimensions which link specific service characteristics to consumerexpectations of quality. These five basic dimensions are:(1) Tangibles. Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel.(2) Reliability. Ability to perform the promised service dependably andaccurately.(3) Responsiveness. Willingness to help customers and provide promptservice.(4) Assurance. Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability toconvey trust and confidence.(5) Empathy. Caring, individualized attention provided to customers.SERVQUAL, an instrument for measuring service quality was developed on thebasis of the above five dimensions. SERVQUAL has been gaining acceptance asa platform for work in service quality.MethodologyThe five service dimensions of service quality were measured with aninstrument known as SERVQUAL[7]. SERVQUAL is a seven-point Likert scalewhich measures consumer expectations and perceptions of the service quality.Service quality is determined using gap analysis (i.e. the difference betweenexpectations and perceptions of quality) (see Figure 1). The SERVQUAL scorefor each statement pair, for each customer, is computed as follows:SERVQUAL score = perception score – expectation score.The SERVQUAL score along each dimension is obtained by adding theSERVQUAL scores on the statements pertaining to the dimension and thendividing the sum by the number of statements making up the dimension.SERVQUAL was used to collect data for all the three types of services: a fast-food restaurant for pure service, an airline for mixed service, and a long-distance telephone company for quasi-manufacturing service. A SERVQUALquestionnaire was given to 110 consumers for each of the three services. Of the110 questionnaires distributed, the response rate was as follows:Perception ofservice experience* * * *What customersperceive serviceprovider actuallyofferedExpectation ofservice experience* * * *What customersbelieve the serviceprovider should offerServicequality–=Figure 1.Measurement ofSERVQUAL servicequality Service quality31●long-distance telephone company: 78 (71 per cent);●fast-food restaurant: 65 (59 per cent);●airline: 69 (63 per cent).In addition to the 22 items on SERVQUAL, the respondents were asked to ratethe overall quality of service operations on a seven-point Likert scale. We useda seven-point Likert scale instead of a four-point one as used by Parasuramanet al.[7] because it will give a better normal spread of observations. The reasonfor having a separate question for measuring the overall quality is that usingthe average of measured gaps (SERVQUAL) will result in multi-collinearity. Theresult from the separate question on overall quality measurement was used forthe regression purposes.Data for each of the three services were then analysed by regressing thescores of the perceived quality of service by the consumer on five dimensions ofservice quality as defined by Parasuraman et al.[5] on a seven-point Likertscale.Further, an exploratory study was undertaken with two groups of humanresource managers from the three types of services under study. Theparticipants were specifically screened to make sure that each participant hadat least two years of association with the organizations in question. One of themembers of the research team served as a moderator for each focus group. Ourfindings were then shared with the members of the focus groups. Focus groupparticipants were then asked about their input in regard to the implications ofour findings for training and management development.ResultsThe results of the analysis are presented in Table II. The adjusted R2values arestatistically significant in all the three types of services. Out of the three typesof services, the pure service (long-distance telephone) has the highest R2,implying that this model accounts for more of the variance in service qualitythan the other two models.A striking result in terms of service quality dimensions is the statisticallysignificant relationship between perceived service quality and reliability for allthe three types of services. Reliability is the most important dimension indetermining service quality for all the three types of services. For example, inthe case of an airline, the consumer may have higher satisfaction if the airlineprovides dependability of flight arrivals and departures.Tangibles is the other important critical variable for the mixed service.Empathy is critical variable for the quasi-manufacturing services, implyingthat caring and individualized attention affect the customer’s perceivedsatisfaction. The results of the statistical analysis were then shared with themembers of two focus groups. The focus group members in turn shared theirviews in regard to what could be done in terms of training and managementdevelopment for the three types of services. IJQRM12,732It was found that this analysis is quite common to all the types of servicesbecause there was almost a consensus among the participants. Therefore thesummary of their discussion does not pinpoint a particular service type.Implications for management developmentMost of the participants agreed that training is a means of more competitiveperformance and an end in itself. In a fast-food restaurant, for example,managers regularly talk to the entry level employees about time management.These discussions contribute to the company’s ability to provide good servicebecause they emphasize how crucial it is for everyone to avoid wastage of time.They also add to the fast-food workers’ stock of knowledge as well as to theirpride in themselves and the importance of their work.The participants agreed that, before commencing the training sessions, it isessential to have certain service standards irrespective of service type. Thesestandards should be based mainly on customer satisfaction. The trainingprogramme must be used to develop awareness about customer expectationamong the employees. These training programmes will prevent wastefulemphasis on management expectations rather than customer expectations.Reward systems should also be based on customers’ satisfaction rather thanmanagement’s satisfaction. Participants also agreed that it is important toTable II.Relationship of fivedimensions withperceived qualityStandardized slope Significance Adjustedcoefficient level slope R2Pure service (fast food)Tangibles 0.1934 0.129Reliability 0.2891 0.020Responsiveness 0.1757 0.1861 0.3824Assurance 0.2191 0.1272Empathy 0.0498 0.6614Mixed service (airlines)Tangibles 0.2827 0.03Reliability 0.3049 0.04Responsiveness 0.0400 0.730 0.4557Assurance 0.1356 0.2623Empathy 0.1628 0.2192Quasi-manufacturing service(long-distance telephone)Tangibles 0.0114 0.899Reliability 0.5452 0.0001Responsiveness 0.0829 0.486 0.4924Assurance 0.1039 0.3305Empathy 0.2968 0.0132 Service quality33communicate these service standards as widely as possible to employees. Someactions which will facilitate the development of communication channels are:●planned group and team meetings;●increased customer awareness seminars to understand customer needsbetter;●desk signs;●posters.Participants suggested that it is essential to obtain feedback from theemployees regarding the company’s service standards. This feedback should beincorporated in the future service standard updates.Participants agreed that the training seminars, in addition to educating theemployees, should provide the context in which employees commit themselvesto the company and its service expectations. That is, training seminars shouldprovide an atmosphere in which employees can identify and improve theirattitudes towards service and customers. For example, they should watchvideos on the importance of body language, and engage in role playing to buildtheir enthusiasm for the company. Throughout, the emphasis of trainingseminars should be to help employees think and act like customers instead ofteaching them technical skills such as repairing the telephones or using theregisters.Participants suggested that the training programmes should be for everyone,not just for the new employees. They also felt that top management should alsobe included in these training programmes. Most participants agreed that topmanagers cannot limit themselves to go/no-go decisions based simply onquantifiable operational advantages assessed by means of a set of questionablejustification methods. Instead, as suggested by participants, it is topmanagement’s responsibility to decide the following:●the role that the combination of management and employees are to play;●how to resource the innovation and implementation of customersatisfaction techniques;●how to break down the boundaries between functional departments.One major outcome of the above responsibilities is the need for increasedknowledge about the customer on the part of top management.Training programmes for top managers should include managers fromdifferent departments, and the training should be given to them prior to that ofother employees. A top management training programme should begin with theassessment of the organizational issues critical to the improvement of servicequality. This assessment is designed to identify the gap between theorganization’s current state and its desired state. This analysis could helpmanagers develop a vision statement and an implementation plan in thebeginning. IJQRM12,734At the end of training, everyone should have the same definition of customersatisfaction and everyone should have a common language. This eliminatesnormal language barriers and misunderstandings which can cause delays andproblems. It is crucial for the success of service quality improvement effortsthat everyone’s vision and goals be the same. It is essential that managers spendabout 50 per cent of their time on the front line. The advantages of “hands-on”training by managers as identified by the participants are that it:●provides managers with the opportunity to model quality service to thefront-line workers;●provides managers with the first-hand feedback from the customers onthe quality of their operations;●opens lines of communication between them and other employees – itwill also give top managers a chance to discuss their philosophies andgoals with their subordinates in a relaxed setting, which will be atypicalin corporations where the most common form of communication is viamemos.Participants also agreed that teamwork is essential for delivering qualityservice. The demanding and idiosyncratic behaviour of customers is oftendemoralizing for the front-line employees. In such situations, peer supportcould be the only solution. Training seminars should encourage employees toshare successes and frustrations with their colleagues. Working as a mutuallyreinforcing team creates an environment where customer satisfaction can beincreased and employee motivation sustained.Participants also pointed out that at present in the service industry, thecustomer plays the role of quality control supervisor. Therefore, the trainingefforts should be focused on zero defect approach to service. That is, focusingon doing it right first time rather than fixing it later. Even if a problem occurs,the importance should be placed on resolving the problem quickly andeffectively.Limitations and future researchThe limitations of our study must also be considered in practice and futureresearch. Our study may lack generalizability because we considered only onetype of service setting for each service type. Second, our study was cross-sectional and therefore the time dependent constructs of expectation andperceived service outcome may be confounded. But the low correlation betweenexpectation and perception indicates that the cross-sectional nature may not bea problem.While this exploratory study is limited because it uses only one example foreach type of service, the findings do indicate that further research along theselines is warranted. It would be interesting to compare two service operations forthe same service type in terms of perceived service quality and its dimensionsor management development requirements. If these findings can be supported Service quality35by future research, service operations management will gain importantknowledge about what factors are important to quality determination invarying service type.References1. Zemke, R., “The emerging art of service management”, Training, January 1992, pp. 37-42.2. Chase, R.B. and Tansik, D.A., “The customer contact model for organization design”,Management Science, Vo1. 29 No. 9, 1983, pp. 1037-50.3. Gronroos, C., “A service-oriented approach to marketing of services”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 12 No. 8, 1978, pp. 588-601.4. Lewis, R.C. and Booms, B.H., “The marketing aspects of service quality”, in Berry, L.,Shostack, G. and Upah, G. (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, AmericanMarketing, Chicago, IL, 1983, pp. 99-107.5. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Autumn 1985, pp. 41-50.6. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L., Delivering Quality Service: BalancingCustomer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1990.7. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,Spring 1988, pp. 12-40. . & Reliability ManagementEmerald Article: Service quality: implications for management developmentAtul Gupta, Injazz ChenArticle information:To cite. Chen, (1995)," ;Service quality: implications for management development& quot;, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12