| |
|
The Problem with Service Quality
We frequently hear that to be competitive in today's business environment, delivering high levels of service quality is vitally important. In fact, it is amazing how many firms claim to differentiate themselves based on service when in reality, few understand what it means from a customer perspective, even more alarming is that very few firms can legitimately claim to be better than the average. Paradoxically, the problem with defining and measuring service quality is the very thing which makes it a popular basis for developing a differentiated offer: it means different things to different people. Service quality is a construct that is abstract, something that is made up of a number of dimensions or attributes. For example, we all know a McDonalds when we see one, but how to describe the quality of service? Is it minimal queuing and fast service, accurate order taking, politeness and courtesy, or even a clean environment? For some people it may be all of these things , for others it maybe a combination of various service features. The key to delivering the appropriate level and type of service is in understanding what your customers truly value, and how they perceive your current service quality. One should also consider potential customers and future trends. The most well known research in this area is a framework of service quality (SERVQUAL) developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). The authors state that perceived quality is viewed as the degree of discrepancy between consumers' perceptions and expectations, representing a service gap. A 22 item questionnaire (using matched pair Likert scale items) is used to measure five dimensions of service quality:
Tangibles ¡V appearance of physical facilities, personnel etc
Reliability ¡V dependability and accuracy
Responsiveness ¡V helpful and prompt service
Assurance ¡V knowledgeable and courteous
Empathy ¡V caring, individualized attention
If perceived performance ratings are lower than expectations, this indicates poor service quality. The work of Parasuraman and colleagues has several important implications. The 22 item scale used by the authors has been extensively studied in various settings and cultures and been shown to be a robust measure. It provides a quantitative yardstick that can be used to assess various dimensions of service quality in an objective and systematic fashion. Additionally, it strongly suggests understanding what customers' value and
managing expectations appropriately is extremely important. The old management axiom that what gets measured is what gets done is exemplified by the example of a customer service call centre that rewards its staff based on length of time it spends on the phone with customers (the faster the better). Of course, it should not be surprising to find that the operators did all they could to get off the phone within the expected time limit. Unfortunately, even if it meant they had not solved the customers' problem. Did customers want speed of service? Probably yes, but what they wanted more was a solution to their problem handled by one person rather than a plethora of hand offs!!!

References:
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry , L (1988) SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp.12-40
|