The SERVQUAL Model

Measuring the quality of a service can be a very difficult exercise. Unlike products where there are particular specifications such as length, depth, width, weight, colour, a service can have numerous intangible or qualitative specifications. In addition, there is the expectation of the customer with regard to the service, which can vary considerably based on a range of factors such as prior experience, personal needs and what other people may have told them.

SERVQUAL⁴ is the most popular method of service quality measurement in almost all the service industries. Service quality and satisfaction with the services provided are best under­stood when services are viewed via the Gaps Model of service quality. The model essentially points out the mismatch between the way customers perceive service quality and the way the service provider interprets/perceives customers’ expectations of service quality (Gap 1). This mismatch, when coupled with improper service designs and standards (Gap 2), inadequate ser­vice delivery (Gap 3) and mismatched external communication (Gap 4) adds up to total cus­tomer dissatisfaction (Figure 16.2).

Thus, essentially, service quality can be understood only by customer expectations and not by any other methodology. Services are intangible, perishable, inseparable and vari­able. Measurement of service quality requires models and methods that examine the various biases that come with human interaction.

Many service providers suffer from false illusions that they are giving the best service to the customers. They overlook the fact that there is always the threat of a competitor who might provide better services at a lesser cost. Customers can always switch over to new service pro­viders as services are not like products, which tend to create loyalty. Consumers falling under the laggard category far exceed the consumers who are first movers and innovators. It is dif­ficult for them to abandon their cherished products.

Services tend to be more homogeneous and can be easily switched over to, if a better ser­vice is offered. Service companies for the same reason use positioning strategies that focus more on intangible benefits and associations that a customer relates to when using their ser­vices. For example, a restaurant manager knows that customers need not come to his restau­rant every time as people tend to try out different places to eat. Thus, he has to think out of the box to retain the customers.

The concept of service quality gaps and SERVQUAL is an effective approach to study and analyse the differences between customer expectations and perceptions. Service specifica­tion form an integral part of the Service Quality (SERVQUAL) conceptual model shown in Figure 16.2. This model measures tangible and intangible service elements. It investigates discrepancies or gaps in the customer-supplier chain to highlight target areas where quality may be improved. The model shows that the customer expected service A-B-C-D-E, but at the end, as a result of the five gaps in the operations received A-F-G-H-I instead.

Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman and Leonard L. Berry propounded a model of ser­vice quality popularly known as the “Gap Model” in 1985. This model has five gaps between various elements in the design and delivery of a service. These gaps are the discrepancies or hurdles in the ultimate customer satisfaction. They are explained below:

Gap 1: Customers’ expectations versus management perceptions: This gap exists due to dif­ferences between consumer expectations and management perceptions of consumer expec­tations. This results from the lack of a marketing-research orientation, inadequate upward communication and too many layers of management.

Gap 2: Management perceptions versus service specifications: This gap exists due to dif­ferences between management perceptions of consumer expectations and service quality specifications. This is a result of inadequate management commitment to service quality, a perception of unfeasibility, inadequate task standardization and an absence of goal setting.

Gap 3: Service specifications versus service delivery: This gap exists due to differences between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered. These result from role ambiguity and conflict, poor employee-job fit and poor technology-job fit, inappropri­ate supervisory control systems, lack of perceived control and lack of teamwork.

Gap 4: Service delivery versus external communication: This gap exists due to differences between service delivery and what is communicated about the service to consumers. This is as a result of inadequate horizontal communication and propensity to over-promise.

Gap 5: The discrepancy between customer expectations and their perceptions of the service delivered: This gap exists due to the differences between consumer expectations and percep­tions. These result from the influences exerted from the customer’s side and the shortfalls (gaps) on the part of the service provider. In this case, customer expectations are influenced by the extent of personal needs, word of mouth recommendations and past service experiences.

Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman and Leonard L. Berry also suggest that the criteria used by consumers, which are important in moulding their expectation and perceptions of service fit ten dimensions:

1. Tangibles: Physical evidence.
2. Reliability: Getting it right the first time and honouring promises.
3. Responsiveness: Willingness, readings to provide service.
4. Communication: Keeping customers informed in a language they can understand.
5. Credibility: Honesty and trustworthiness.
6. Security: Physical, financial and confidentiality.
7. Competence: Possession of required skills and knowledge of all employees.
8. Courtesy: Politeness, respect and friendliness.
9. Understanding: Knowing the customer, his needs and requirements.
10. Access: Case of approach and contact.

These ten dimensions vary with respect to how easy (or difficult) it is to evaluate them. Some such tangible factors are known in advance, but most are criteria related to experience and can only be evaluated during or after consumption. Some factors such as competence and security may be difficult or impossible to evaluate, even after purchase. In general, cus­tomers rely on experience when evaluating services.

The SERVQUAL instrument has been the predominant method used to measure consum­ers’ perceptions of service quality. SERVQUAL is a questionnaire designed to measure the gap between the expectations and perceptions of a customer from a particular service. This questionnaire has the following five categories—tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assur­ance and empathy.

In the SERVQUAL instrument, 22 statements measure the performance across these five dimensions, using a seven-point Likert Scale measuring both customer expectations and perceptions. It is important to note that without adequate information on both the quality of services expected and perceptions of services received, feedback from customer surveys can be highly misleading from both a policy and an operational perspective. The following section discusses the application of the SERVQUAL approach in education.

1. SERVQUAL Applications in Education

Higher educational institutions have a multiplicity of customer’s expectations and percep­tions to consider. Teaching and learning plans for each individual module need to specify the aims and objectives, purpose, credit value and module level, weekly syllabus, delivery format, assessment format and reading list.

The benefits of service specification are wide reaching and are significant to all stakehold­ers. The stakeholder’s concept is important for service quality. The stakeholders in the case
of higher educational institutions are students, parents, sponsoring employers, and employ­ers of graduates, government bodies, franchise colleges, exchange colleges, academic staff, management, administration, professional bodies and other educational institutions. The five gaps in accordance with the SERVQUAL model are:

Gap 1: Between customers’ expectations and management’s perceptions of customer’s expec­tations: An example of this gap are courses requiring hands-on experience—such as com­puting and design—where students may, erroneously, expect a greater emphasis on practical and technical study at the expense of academic rigour.

Gap 2: Between management’s perceptions of customers’ expectations and service quality specifications: Here, both students and future employees are customers of the educational system. Students’ lack of understanding and employees’ particular focus and requirements may bias or limit the expectations of both.

Gap 3: Between service quality specifications and service delivery: In a modular system, it is not uncommon for a module to be designed by one member of the academia and taught by another member who may apply his/her interpretation or expertise to deliver to the specifi­cation. The contents of the module must be regularly reviewed and its continuous improve­ment should be encouraged.

Gap 4: Between service delivery and external communications to customers: In order to identify and minimize a chance of occurrence of this gap, it is necessary to develop a two­way informal and formal communication method and feedback system between the aca­demic institution and students.

Gap 5: Between customers’ expectations and perceived service: Students who use work­shops, laboratory and studio facilities during peak hours may perceive that facilities are inadequate. In reality, the facilities may be operating at 50 per cent capacity over the working week.

Almost all regular activities in the academic cycle may be analysed to determine which operations can benefit from improvement. Merely closing the gaps described above and sat­isfying the specifications does not constitute quality service. Quality is delighting the cus­tomer by continuously meeting and improving upon the agreed requirements.

2. Schools of Quality

Educators are beginning to realise that current systems of instruction do not encourage or in some cases even permit quality education. Many of them are now examining TQM as a possible workable philosophy to create new type of schools—schools of quality—which are based upon a way of schooling that better suits the imperative of the twenty-first century than the factory-model system of schooling currently practised in many parts of the world.

What are such “schools of quality” like? How do they differ from today’s schools? Schools of quality are grounded in four fundamental assumptions, which Bonstingl⁵ called the Four Pillars of Schools of Quality.

The first pillar is a customer-supplier focus. The entire organization must be dedicated to meeting human needs by building relationships of mutual support with people inside and outside the school. The role of a student is dual. As a worker, the student’s product is his personal growth and continuous improvement that he presents to teachers or future employers (customers). As a customer, he expects high quality teaching, security and care from the school staff (workers, suppliers). Satisfaction of customers in both cases is required.

This may not be fully symbolized by letters or grades. Marks, in fact, detract from the prime objective of education, which is developing young people’s sense of taking pride in a suc­cessfully completed job. In schools of quality, tests and other assessments are much more an indication of the teacher’s success through the success of their students.

The second pillar is a personal dedication by everyone to continuous improvement, little by little, day by day, within one’s sphere of influence. For instance, student groups and teacher groups might form support teams to provide mutual support in academic and personal mat­ters on a regular basis. Continuous improvement is much easier to integrate into operations if people interact and share experiences.

The third pillar is a process/systems approach. Deming has hypothesized that as much as 80 per cent of all things that go wrong in any organization are not entirely attributable to individuals, but rather to the system in which they work. In schools, teachers and students combine efforts to continuously improve the system of teaching and learning, as teachers and administrators work together to improve the system of rules, expectations, policies and other factors, which constitute the operational culture of the school. Parents, families, busi­ness leaders and the people of the community are invited to join this collaborative work for the long-term benefit of the young people and generations to follow.

The final pillar is consistent quality leadership. This is the most crucial of the four pillars. The ultimate success of the ongoing quality transformation is the responsibility of the top management and can only be achieved over time through constant dedication to the prin­ciples and practices of TQM. Leaders must construct fearless work environments in which coercion is set aside to permit risk-taking and temporary failures leading to continuous improvement. Consequently, the school management should encourage the design of inno­vative curriculums, the use of new teaching methods and more joint projects with external organizations and potential employers of the students.

Service quality is important in contemporary organizations because customer expecta­tions are demanding and competition is increasing. However, this is part of the modern day business environment. Organizations should see this trend as an opportunity rather than a threat.

3. SERPVAL Scale

Personal values are the final frontier in a purchase decision. As per the classic services mar­keting model, a customer looks at the following dimensions before making the purchase:

1. The service attributes: Core functional attributes or rather service attributes that define the basic usefulness of the service.
2. The service quality: This is the gap between the customer expectations and the actual performance of the service delivery.
3. Service value: Tradeoff between the perception of what is received and given.
4. Service personal values: They are the key elements that may make it possible to better understand consumer behaviour.

The SERPVAL scale is a multidimensional scale for measuring service personal values. It has three dimensions—service value to peaceful life, service value to social recognition and service value to social integration. The SERPVAL scale can be used to pursue highly service-oriented business strategy. It can be used for benchmarking purposes, as this scale can be used to identify whether or not a company’s marketing strategies are consistent with customer expectations. Managers by using this scale can also better understand the reasons behind service usage. Even consumers can examine whether the relationship with a service provider provides real value to their lives.

Source: Poornima M. Charantimath (2017), Total Quality Management, Pearson; 3rd edition.