Talk:Service quality

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

GA1
YaseminITÜ (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)What else can I do, to make it a good article? Help is desired :)

Suggestions for improving the article on service quality
Definitions of service quality

It would be useful if the article provided a little more in the way of concrete definitions and background to the problem of defining service quality. Ideally the article should mention that there is  widespread consensus  amongst  researchers and  practitioners  that  service  quality  is  an  elusive  and  abstract  concept  that  is  difficult  to  define  and  measure. It is believed to be a multidimensional construct, but there is little consensus as to what consistutes the specific dimensions. Indeed some researchers argue that the dimensions of service quality may vary from industry to industry and that no universal set of dimensions exists for all situations.

Conceptualisations of service quality

This article mentions the so called gaps model (model developed by PZB and formally called the model of service quality, but popularly known as the gaps model or occasionally the PZB model) in several places. This approach conceptualises service quality having five dimensions namely reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness (See SERVQUAL for detailed definitions. There is no question that this is the dominant model for measuring service quality and diagnosing problems. Wikipedia already has an article devoted to SERVQUAL which provides a fair explanation of this model and the associated measurement scale SERVQUAL. In fact, the PZB approach is just one of a number of models or conceptualisations of service quality. The PZB approach is often regarded as the American approach. The lead section needs to reflect the notion that there are many different conceptualisations of service quality rather than settle on one single model.

To clarify the article and to provide superior context, some discussion could be given to alternative concepts of service quality. This would serve to differentiate this article from the article on SERVQUAL and also would be a good fit with the broader title of service quality. Ideally, the various conceptualisations of service quality would serve as an organising framework for this article.

In my view this article needs to consider broader conceptualisations of service quality including:


 * The Nordic School (aka the Nordic model) of service quality: (exemplified by the work of Christian Grönroos, 1984, 1986, 1990).


 * The Nordic school was one of the earliest attempts to define and measure service quality. The Nordic  school  defines  service  quality  in terms of two broad aspects, namely of technical quality (what was delivered) and functional quality (how it was delivered).  The technical dimension can usually be measured - but the functional dimension is difficult to measure due to subjective interpretations which vary from customer to customer.


 * Performance only model (devised by Cronin and Taylor, 1992)


 * Cronin and Taylor developed a scale based on perceived performance only (i.e. excluded expectations). The scale is known as SERVPERF - is shorter and easier to administer and correlates well with SERVQUAL. Some theorists treat this as a variant of the 'gaps model' while others view it as an entirely different conceptualisation of service quality (SQ = P)

The preceding approaches - Nordic, SQ= P-E and SQ= P all come from a marketing tradition. A comprehensive article on service quality should possibly pay some attention to approaches within the management/ operations management perspective, notably


 * Total Quality Management (TQM) exemplified by the work of W. Edward Deming. (See Total quality management and W. Edwards Deming

Errors of fact

This article, in its current form, has both conceptual errors, factual errors and errors of interpretation. Here is my summary of the worst errors that must be addressed as a high priority:

(a) What the article says: The opening sentence states that SQ is a contemporary conceptualisation based on P and E.

Issue to be addressed: For the reasons outlined in the preceding section, the preceding statement is not stricly correct. The P-E approach is based on the so-called expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm and is only ONE of a number of conceptualisations of service quality. There are other conceptualisations of service quality - as outlined in the preceding section.

(b) What the article says: The article makes explicit mention of the "RATER model"

Issue to be addressed: There is no such thing as the RATER model. RATER is simply a useful memnonic device used by students of marketing to remember the dimensions of service quality in the PZB model. Serious academic articles or texts never refer to the RATER model.

(c) What the article says: The article says "Measuring service quality may involve both subjective and objective processes. In both cases, it is often some aspect of customer satisfaction which is being assessed. However, customer satisfaction is an indirect measure of service quality."

Issue to be addressed: The relationship betwen satisfaction and service quality is confused in this article. The current understanding is that satisfaction is an antecedent to service quality. In other words, consumers may be satisfied or dissatisfied with an individual service encounter, but service quality is something that accrues over multiple transactions. Thus, service quality and satisfaction are different concepts, defined in different ways and therefore measured in different ways. A good article on service quality would not confuse satisfaction and SQ in this way.

(d) What the article says: The article claims that there are '10 dimensions of service quality. However, this claim is entirely inconsistent with the PZB model of service quality - which incidentally appears to be the main source for the article. According to the PZB model, the dimensions of service quality number 5 in total (i.e. RATER).

(e) I do not understand this determination by editors to add the qualifier, perceived to expectations as in perceived expectations. (This editing amendment is also occuring on the article on SERVQUAL and demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the model's basics. Prospective customers have expectations which they match with perceived performance. But prior to consumption, their expectations are simply their expectations - they are real - not perceived. In terms of empirical research, there are a number of different operational definitions of expectations, namely forecast, expectations, normative expectations, ideal expectations, predictive expectations etc., but the literature does not discuss perceived expectations.

Other issues to be addressed

Referencing problems many problems identified - incomplete bibliographic citations; lack of references for key points, incomprehensible words in article titles etc.

Expression - would benefit from an overhaul in terms of expression and grammar

Capitalisation - inconsistent use of capitals

The conceptual issues need to be addressed before trying to refine grammar and expression. (There's little point in making sentences read well if they are factually incorrect or contain errors of interpretation and need to be amended). If any editors feel like picking up one or more of these issues; here are a few key references to seminal articles in the field, organised around the three popular conceptualisations of service quality:

SERVPERF

Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A., "Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and Extension," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, no. 3, 1992 pp 55-68.\

Cronin J.J., Steven, J. and Taylor, A., "SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance based and  perceptions-minus-expectations  measurement  of  service  quality," Journal  of  Marketing,  Vol. 58, January, 1994, pp. 125-131

NORDIC SCHOOL

Grönroos, C., "A service quality model and its marketing implications," European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1984, 36–44. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000004784

Grönroos, C., Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1990

GAPS model

Parasuraman, A, Ziethaml, V. and Berry, L.L., "SERVQUAL: A Multiple- Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality' Journal of Retailing, Vo. 62, no. 1, 1988, pp 12-40 

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A., “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, no. 4, 1991, pp 57-67

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L., Delivering Service Quality: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, N.Y., The Free Press, 1990

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V. A., "Understanding Customer Expectations of Service," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, no. 3, 1991, p. 39

And, there are a few images at Wiki commons that could be used to illustrate this article. See the following images (which will be displayed, but you can get the code to add to the article)





It would definitely be possible to get this to a good article status if these issues were addressed. It would also make it much more useful to students of marketing!

Here follows a couple of diagrams that could be integrated into the article:

BronHiggs (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)