IJQRM 14,3

260
Received November 1995 Revised March 1996

The measurement of service quality: a new P-C-P attributes model

George Philip and Shirley-Ann Hazlett
Management and Information Systems Division, School of Management, The Queens University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
An introduction The management and evaluation of service quality both financial and nonfinancial is assuming increasing importance throughout the world for a number of reasons. As the American Nurses Association puts it succinctly: A professions concern for the quality of its service constitutes the heart of its responsibility to the public[1]. Second, the service sector has become the major growth industry during the latter part of this century, and, according to one estimate, it constitutes around 67 per cent and 71 per cent of the GNP of Canada and the USA respectively[2]. Given the rapid growth in the service industry, improving service quality is of paramount importance to all organizations. Unfortunately, because of a lack of research, no reliable, universal yardstick has yet been established for the objective measurement of service quality. Third, a large number of services are provided by government bodies which constitute a major drain on financial resources, and, consequently, accountability and obtaining value for money, (in other words good quality service), have become issues of major concern. For example, in the UK the monitoring of quality is firmly on the political agenda, particularly with the publication of the Citizens Charter by the Prime Minister. Needless to say, in the corporations of the 1990s, quality, and indeed service quality, is coming to be viewed as the major strategic variable in the battle for market share and excellence of service is the critical corporate priority[3]. Indeed, one of the strategic routes seen to be the answer in gaining a competitive edge has been through an increased concentration on customer satisfaction courting and delighting the customer through a focus on service quality[4]. Expressed simply, companies providing high service quality as perceived by their customers, tend to be the most profitable companies. On the other hand, poor service has been identified as the primary reason why customers switch to competitors Unfortunately, despite the long history of a whole range of services, before the mid-1980s, relatively little interest was shown in the whole idea of assessing

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, 1997, pp. 260-286, MCB University Press, 0265-671X

This project was funded by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre (Project No. RDD/G/277)

service quality. However, following the pioneering work of Parasuraman et al.[5-7], this situation has quickly reversed, and service quality has become an intensive area of research on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. We have confirmed this point by estimating the number of papers which have been published in professional and academic journals on the subject. A search was carried out in the ABI/INFORM database using the DATA-STAR online service. As shown in Figure 1 there are at least 293 major publications since 1976 (1995 excluded) in which the concept service quality appears in either the title or the abstract of papers. However, if we include all papers on service quality that is, those in which the concept has appeared somewhere in the body of an article this figure shoots up beyond 4,000. Clearly there has been a profound interest among the academic community in developing tools for the assessment of service quality. To talk about better quality and improving service quality without first defining what it is, how it is perceived by the customer, and how it can be improved and enhanced, will be of little or no value in the service quality arena. Progress in designing and developing a generic framework within which to measure/assess service quality is certainly hampered by the inherent problems that are associated with adequately defining many of the key terms. This paper begins by focusing on the plethora of definitions and dimensions which are encompassed under the umbrella of service quality. It draws heavily on the wealth of service quality research to date, in an attempt to highlight many of the growing concerns with the current conceptualization of service quality, and in so doing, identifies the lessons which can be learned. Finally, after weighing up all the views, we discuss a possible way forward by detailing a new model of service quality that is currently being developed.

The measurement of service quality 261

Figure 1. Growth of publications on service quality

IJQRM 14,3

262

General characteristics of services Service is a critical management art still in its infancy[8], and evidence suggests that service organizations generally lag behind their manufacturing counterparts when it comes to embracing total quality management and continuous improvement strategies. This may be largely attributable to the inherent characteristics which are more commonly associated with services, namely the inseparability of production and consumption, the intangible nature of services, their perishability and their heterogeneity. Also, because of their impermanence, a customer can only refer back to his/her memory for future review of the experience. The extant service quality literature constantly refers to these characteristics (see for example [5, 9-11]) and it is these same characteristics which typically make services more difficult to evaluate than goods and certainly present unique quality problems and challenges. Another unique aspect of services is that both service personnel and consumers have a role to play in the production and delivery processes;
when it comes to service, people do it all. They design it, they deliver it, they buy it[8].

Services are consumed at the same time as they are produced, with the consumer playing an integral part as the whole process unfolds. In many services, the consumer is required to contribute information and/or effort before the service transaction can take place. And so, service productivity and quality depend not only on the performance of the service providers personnel, but also on the performance of the consumer. Further, as the relationship the consumer has with the organization continues to widen, anyone who interacts with the consumer is in a position to jeopardize or enhance that same relationship[12]. This in turn leads to the problem of standardization, which means that service quality can vary from one situation to another even within the same organization, making quality control in a service industry exceptionally difficult[13]. A related issue, which has so far been glossed over, or, perhaps overlooked in the literature, is the degree and nature of involvement of the customer in the delivery process. Depending on the sector, we might say that, services can have short-, medium- or long-term physical, emotional or mental impacts on the consumer. For example, in a hospital situation, an operation which is a service is performed on the customer that is, the customer becomes a physical object on which the service is carried out. Clearly these characteristics will have some bearing on the delivery of service quality and it is therefore, wrong, merely for the sake of convenience, to hang all services on the same, single peg. Definitions of service quality
Service quality need be neither illusory nor elusive, it can be measured and the elements which cause problems can be pinpointed and rectified[14].

This appears to be a very nave viewpoint, and finds little or no support in the service quality literature. Indeed, many researchers would take the opposite view[5, 15-18], that service quality is an elusive concept and there is

considerable debate in the literature about how best to conceptualize this phenomenon. An all-embracing definition of service quality is notoriously difficult to produce. Parasuraman et al. described it as:
the ability of the organization to meet or exceed customer expectations. Customer expectations may be defined as the desires and wants of consumers i.e. what they feel a service provider should offer rather than would offer[6].

The measurement of service quality 263

Definitions of service quality, therefore, focus on meeting the customers needs and requirements, and how well the service delivered matches the customers expectations of it. In recent years, greater emphasis has been placed on the need to understand the role of expectations[19], given the fact that consumers expectations of quality are increasing[20-24], and people are becoming more discerning and critical of the quality of service that they experience. Gone are the days when the consumer was merely a passive recipient in the whole service process. Expectations are, pre-trial beliefs about a product or service[25]; most consumers enter a service encounter with some form of expectations, ranging from the ill defined in unfamiliar situations to well defined in familiar situations. Whether or not these expectations are met will have a significant bearing on perceived service quality. Perceived service quality can therefore be defined as the discrepancy between what the customer feels a service provider should offer (i.e. expectations) and his/her perceptions of what the service firm actually offers[6]. Peters, in Lewis[9], suggests that,
the consumer perceives service in his/her own unique, idiosyncratic, end-of-the-day, emotional, irrational and totally human termsthere is no such thing as fact or reality. There is only what the customer thinks is reality

In effect, perceptions are reality as far as the customer and service quality are concerned[26]. Conceptual service quality models In an effort to understand the main concepts incorporated under the umbrella of service quality better, many conceptual quality models have been postulated. Obviously, service quality research has given the customer perspective a predominant role and these quality models have centred on measuring the gap between customer expectations and experiences as a determinant of satisfaction. However, despite the wealth of information which can be gleaned from these various service quality models (for a review of the main models see Dotchin and Oakland[21]), we still lack substantial knowledge as to how consumer evaluations of a particular service are really formed. Much of this recent research has been carried out within the framework of the Service Quality Gap Model of Parasuraman et al.[5]. This conceptual framework has made a substantial contribution to our understanding of the concept of service quality and the factors that influence it, by identifying four gaps which can occur in organizations. According to Parasuraman et al.[5], a gap represents a significant hurdle in achieving a satisfactory level of service quality. This model

IJQRM 14,3

264

is more of a diagnostic tool, which if used properly should enable management at all levels to identify service quality short-falls systematically. Since this model is externally focused it has the potential to assist management in identifying pertinent service quality factors from the perspective of the customer. These gaps can cause quality problems and it is these quality problems which give rise to a fifth gap the difference between the customers expectations of the service and his/her perceptions of the service that is actually received. The authors have defined this difference as Service Quality. In this respect, perceived service quality is the disconfirmation or disparity i.e. the mismatch, between the consumers expectations and perceived service performance. Without doubt, conceptual service quality models are useful in so much as they provide an overview of the factors which have the potential to influence the quality of an organization and its service offerings. They facilitate our understanding and can help organizations to clarify how quality shortfalls develop. However, they are almost invariably simplified versions of reality. They can be misleading in that they tend to suggest that there are simple relationships between complex phenomenon, and that systems operate by rules of cause and effect. However, human behaviour significantly affects the quality of an organization and its offerings, and this is more evident in service organizations. Dimensions of service quality It would be impossible to ensure service quality without first determining the salient aspects that are incorporated under this term. Again, this poses some difficulty and many possible attributes have been put forward in an attempt to capture the true meaning of service quality. Sasser et al.[27] list seven service attributes which they believe adequately embrace the concept of service quality. These include: security confidence as well as physical safety; consistency receiving the same each time; attitude politeness and social manners; completeness ancillary services available; condition of facilities; availability access, location and frequency; and training. On the other hand, Gronroos[28,29], believes that service quality is made up of three dimensions, that is the technical quality of the outcome, the functional quality of the encounter, and the company corporate image. Lehtinen and Lehtinen[30] also believe that service quality comprises three dimensions. These they define as the Physical Quality i.e. products and/or services, Corporate Quality, i.e. the company image, and Interactive Quality, where the

dimensions of quality originate in the interaction between the consumer and the service organization. They also argue that in examining the determinants of quality it is necessary to differentiate between quality associated with the process of service delivery and quality associated with the outcome of service, judged by the consumer after the service is performed. Johnston et al. [31] identified 15 dimensions of service quality which they categorized as Hygiene Factors, i.e. those factors which are expected by the customer and if they are not delivered will cause dissatisfaction; Enhancing Factors which will lead to customer satisfaction, but if they are not delivered will not necessarily lead to dissatisfaction; and Dual-Threshold Factors, where failure to deliver will cause dissatisfaction, but when delivered above a certain threshold, will enhance customers perceptions of service and lead to satisfaction. This idea is similar to research put forward by Cadotte and Turgeon[32], who investigated the key factors in guest satisfaction in the hotel industry, focusing on complaints and compliments, together with features which they label dissatisfiers which earn complaints if present, but no compliments if absent, and satisfiers which earn compliments if present, but no complaints if absent. Therefore, they believe that it is vital for organizations to identify elements of service which are potential satisfiers and/or dissatisfiers. Parasuraman et al.[5], offer the most widely reported set of service quality dimensions. They suggest that the criteria used by consumers that are important in moulding their expectations and perceptions of delivered service fit into ten dimensions: (1) tangibles; (2) reliability; (3) responsiveness; (4) communication; (5) credibility; (6) security; (7) competence; (8) courtesy; (9) understanding/knowing the customer; and (10) access. These were subsequently condensed into five dimensions of service performance known as SERVQUAL: (1) tangibles; (2) reliability; (3) responsiveness; (4) assurance; and (5) empathy. to which Gronroos added a sixth dimension recovery[28].

The measurement of service quality 265

IJQRM 14,3

With the plethora of different definitions of service quality perhaps Babakus and Boller[33] are correct in saying that service quality may be, an umbrella construct with distinct dimensions although, there is as yet no real consensus as to what these dimensions might be. The advent of SERVQUAL In 1985, Parasuraman et al. developed the SERVQUAL instrument (refined in 1988, 1991 and again in 1994)[5-7, 34], for the measurement of service quality. It has become one of the most renowned in the service quality domain.
The five SERVQUAL dimensionsare a concise representation of the core criteria that customers employ in evaluating service quality. As such it is reasonable to speculate that consumers would consider all five criteria to be quite important[6]

266

It was developed to measure perceived service quality as the key output variable and in its finalized form it has 22 pairs of Likert-type scales. The first 22 items are designed to measure customer expectations of service for a particular service industry (expectations), while the remaining 22 are intended to measure the perceived level of service provided by a particular service organization (perceptions). Service quality is then measured by calculating the difference in scores between the corresponding items (i.e. perceptions minus expectations). However, it is limited to current and past customers, because respondents need to have some knowledge and experience of the organization in order to be able to complete the scale. In the first instance, Parasuraman et al. administered SERVQUAL to four nationally known firms; a bank, credit-card issuer, appliance repair and maintenance firm, and, a long-distance telephone company, but they propose that SERVQUAL
has been designed to be applicable across a broad spectrum of services. As such, it provides a basic skeleton through its expectations/perceptions format encompassing statements for each of the five service-quality dimensions. The skeleton, when necessary, can be adapted or supplemented to fit the characteristics or specific needs of a particular organisation[5].

On first glance, it would therefore seem that this scale is very versatile and could be used to define/measure/monitor service quality in any setting. Indeed Parasuraman et al.[6] describe it as, a concise scale whose items would be meaningful to a variety of service settings. This general approach to measuring service quality has great intuitive appeal and has been widely used by researchers[14,35-38]; in a variety of service settings. Although the gap between expectations and experience is widely considered to be the primary source of service quality problems, it is not clear how the evaluation of expectations and experiences occur. The role of expectations in a measuring scale Since there is so much disagreement in the literature concerning the theoretical nature of service quality, it is inevitable that this is carried through into the development of tools designed to measure service quality. The question of

measuring expectations is bound up in the whole debate stemming from the inherent differences in service quality and customer satisfaction and the causal relationship between the two[9,33,39]. There is agreement among researchers that expectations serve as reference points in a customers assessment of service performance. In our view, expectations govern, and, to a certain extent, enable us to formulate rather than determine our perceptions. In other words, the mental processes involved in shaping our perceptions automatically make an adjustment for the gap that exists between our expectations and our actual experience of a service. Therefore, the logic behind the measurement of service quality as an arithmetic difference between expectations and perceptions is questionable. Let us look at this issue using an example. Suppose we had asked a consumer to rate his/her perception of a particular service on a scale from 1 to 7. He/she gave a rating of 5. The question we should now address is: How or why did this person decide on the rating 5? We suggest that s/he compared his/her expectations with his/her actual experience of the service and did a mental calculation to arrive at the figure 5. This being the case, perhaps a more appropriate scale for measuring service quality is the one proposed by Webster et al. (2 much less than I expected, to +2 much more than I expected etc.)[40]. Another flaw with the separate measurement of expectations and perceptions, as mentioned above, is the necessity for prior knowledge of the service one is asked to evaluate. Obviously, once a person has experienced the service and is satisfied with it, his expectations for the next encounter will be higher. How would one measure expectations, which, for all practical purposes, is a moving goalpost? Indeed, there is much debate about how best to incorporate expectations into service quality measurement[33,15] and the empirical usefulness of expectations in terms of their explanatory power[41,42] SERVQUAL and other satisfaction studies have attempted to measure expectations at the same time as perceptions. According to Carman[15] there is little if any theoretical evidence to support the notion of the P-E Gap[5-7], as the basis for measuring service quality. Indeed Cronin and Taylor[41] believe that there is considerable support for the superiority of simple performance based measures of service quality without the need to incorporate expectations into the measurement scale. They put forward the SERVPERF model which they believe better reflects long-term service quality attitudes than SERVQUAL, and does not include the measurement of expectations. Boulding et al.[25] also found that their results were incompatible withthe gap formation for service quality. Instead, we find that service quality is directly influenced only by perceptions of performance. However, Parasuraman et al.[34] hypothesize that service quality measurements which incorporate customer expectations provide richer information than those techniques that focus on perceptions alone. SERVQUAL, they suggest, may be more superior in pinpointing areas of deficiency within a company than any of the suggested alternatives: the superior diagnostic value of SERVQUAL more than offsets the loss in predictive power. However, recently Parasuraman et al. [43] have concluded that,

The measurement of service quality 267

IJQRM 14,3

268

formally assessing the practical usefulness of measuring expectations and the trade-offs involved in doing so is a fruitful avenue for further research. They also accept that there is a need for comparative studies which evaluate the paired-item difference-score formulation of SERVQUAL with direct formulations that use single items to measure customers perceptions relative to their expectations. And so the debate continues. General applicability of servqual: citation analysis Parasuraman et al.[6] continue to maintain that SERVQUAL is, a concise scale whose items would be meaningful to a variety of service firms, and the interest and impact that this work has had on the service sector continues to increase each year, as can be seen from the graph (Figure 2) showing the number of citations relating to both the 1985 and 1988 versions of SERVQUAL. Thus, as of June 1995, there were 130 citations including seven self-citations of Parasuraman et al s 1985 paper (found in 59 different journals), and 81 citations including six self-citations of the 1988 paper (found in 37 different journals). However, if we examine the pattern of citations (see Appendix 1 and 2) this notion of general applicability of SERVQUAL does not appear to be supported with any degree of conviction. Citation analyses of both the 1985 and 1988 SERVQUAL versions show that the plethora of all published work in this area can be found in the marketing and retailing sectors. Indeed, almost 37.7 per cent of all articles which make a reference to the 1985 version, and 39.5 per cent that refer to the 1988 version, can be found in just three journals, all of which relate to these two areas. This is hardly surprising since Parasuraman et al.s pioneering work focused predominantly in these sectors. We would suggest that the use of SERVQUAL as a means of measuring service quality throughout

Figure 2. Citation analyses of Parasuraman et al.s 1985 and 1988 papers

the marketing and retailing sectors may have been tested with some degree of success, but this may not be the case for other service industry sectors. While we do not dispute the fact that the marketing function is relevant to all organizations irrespective of service sector, we must question whether SERVQUAL can be effective in assessing the levels of service quality in other service industries such as database services, education, hospital/health care, libraries or information services. The citation analyses also show 41 (1985 paper) and 26 (1988 paper) single citations, relating to the use of SERVQUAL in other service industries. This would tend to indicate that so far the impact of SERVQUAL, outside the retail and marketing sectors, has been minimal. We have also looked more closely at papers in which SERVQUAL was a major theme, to study the nature of their reference. In order to achieve this, a search was performed in the ABI/INFORM database in which the term SERVQUAL appeared either in the title or abstract of papers. There were 22 outputs, of which ten were about the applicability of SERVQUAL in specific sectors, five were self citations, two were in review articles on service quality and five were highly critical of SERVQUAL. Again, one-quarter of the papers (and almost one-third if we exclude the five self-citations) tend to have serious reservations about SERVQUAL. Measurement problems with SERVQUAL Many researchers have examined the problems of measuring service quality[7,18,44], i.e. in trying to measure constructs which are not directly observable. Much of the current debate focuses on issues that are associated with SERVQUAL, since this is the most widely used service quality measurement technique. In the first instance, the literature looks at the inherent weaknesses of this measurement scale and suggests ways in which it might be improved; indeed Parasuraman et al.[7,43], have also put forward many of their own refinements in an attempt to improve the general applicability of the scale and make it universally acceptable. However, perhaps more importantly, there is growing concern and discontent that the current conceptualization of service quality and, as a result, its operationalization into the SERVQUAL scale is highly inadequate, and may in fact be flawed. Service quality versus customer satisfaction The literature is riddled with confusion and discontent as to the exact nature of service quality, how it can best be conceptualized, and how, if at all, it is related to customer satisfaction. Currently the literature appears to be at odds over this issue. Indeed there is even debate as to whether customer satisfaction and service quality are two separate constructs, and what is the exact nature of differences between them. There is some agreement that customer satisfaction is a transitory judgement made on the basis of a specific service encounter, whereas service quality is a global assessment based on a long-term attitude[6,18,44-46]. It has further been suggested that an accumulation of transaction-specific assessments (customer satisfaction) leads to a global

The measurement of service quality 269

IJQRM 14,3

270

assessment (service quality), indicating that the direction of the causal relationship may be from customer satisfaction to service quality. This issue is open to interpretation, and some critics would argue that the causal relationship is in fact from service quality to customer satisfaction. The literature appears very confused with constant assessments and reassessments put forward in an attempt to address these issues[31,41-43,47,48], issues that as yet remain unresolved. The dimensionality of SERVQUAL Doubts have been raised as to what SERVQUAL actually measures. Parasuraman et al. define it as the measurement of a specific long-term attitude (service quality?), at a single point in time (customer satisfaction?). Does it measure service quality or customer satisfaction? Some researchers suggest that it measures neither. Concerns have also been raised concerning the psychometric viability of operationalizing any construct (in this case service quality) as the difference between two other constructs (perceptions and expectations)[49]. This is especially so when there is so much debate as to the true nature and empirical value of measuring expectations. Babakus and Boller[33], and Carman[15], raise the question about the dimensionality of SERVQUAL. How many major dimensions does it actually assess? Is it the five attributes as Parasuraman et al. suggest, is it two (technical and functional quality) or is it three (to include corporate image). Without doubt, the items that Parasuraman et al. developed are useful as a starting point for further item generation, but how much do each of these items contribute to an overall evaluation of quality? Some studies have even suggested that service quality is a unidimensional construct, although the general consensus is that it is in fact multidimensional. Based on their findings from four industries (banking, pest control, dry cleaning and fast food), Cronin and Taylor[42], showed that when they applied the SERVQUAL scale, the results suggested that the five-component structure was not confirmed in any of their research sample. Carman[15] also suggests that a degree of caution should be exercised when using the SERVQUAL scale, as each service industry may reveal different and unique dimensions. If a factor is particularly important to customers, it may break down into sub-dimensions, and these sub-dimensions should, and must, be assessed separately. There is also a need to be sensitive to factors which are specific to the particular service that is being offered. According to Carman[15], validity checks suggest that the dimensions put forward in SERVQUAL by Parasuraman et al. are not so generic that users of these scales should not add items on new factors which they believe are important in the quality equation. Another difficulty is that all the variables in the SERVQUAL questionnaire are typically treated as equally important. This may be inappropriate as research has shown that determinants of service quality differ in their importance to individual respondents and throughout different service environments. The should responses to the expectations questions provide an

idea of the relative importance of elements, although traditional gap measurement is not weighted as a result of this information. Lewis and Mitchell[50] suggest that it ought to be, and Parasuraman et al. concede this point and have attempted to refine their original survey to include an additional question. Respondents are given 100 points to allocate between the five dimensions of quality for a particular organization, providing an indication of the relative importance. But is this really enough to rectify the problem? Problems with negative statements Negatively worded statements were included in the original SERVQUAL scale primarily to encourage respondents to read questions carefully and to eliminate bias or halo effects. However, in many instances this serves only to confuse the respondent and it takes some time to work out the logic behind each statement. As a result, replicated studies of SERVQUAL tend to avoid any negative wording and Parasuraman et al.[7] have also reworded statements into a more positive format, to enhance our understanding of the constructs. Problems with the rating scales What are the merits of adopting a seven-point Likert scale to measure expectations and perceptions and why have Parasuraman et al. [34,43], extended this scale to a nine-point version in their recent amendments (1994). Since the introduction of the Likert scale in 1932, researchers have attempted to find the number of scale points which maximize reliability. However, as Chang[51] notes, the findings from these studies are often contradictory; some have claimed that reliability is independent of the number of scale points, while others have maintained that reliability is maximized using seven-points, others five-points, four-points or even three-points. Parasuraman et al.[34,43] have maintained that they have increased their scale from seven to nine-points to offer respondents a wider range of rating choices in view of the need to capture two different expectation levels. But, how reliable is this method? The question must also be asked as to why there are only verbal tags for some of the points; most notably in the original scale it is only the extreme points, i.e. 1 and 7, which have verbal labels. As a result of this, respondents may actually be over-using the extremes of these scales which do have verbal anchors. Can Parasuraman et al. remain confident that all the respondents are interpreting the scale in the same way? It is possible that having verbal labels for all the scale points may make the whole procedure much less prone to bias and as such may record the respondents meaning much more accurately. A further issue of concern is that the use of the seven-point Likert scale may camouflage subtle variations in consumer expectations and perceptions[39], for example, a consumer may feel that their expectations lie between 4 and 5 on the scale, and that their perceptions lie somewhere between 5 and 6; however the recorded measurements would show no difference between expectations and perceptions, whereas there would be an actual difference. In order to overcome

The measurement of service quality 271

IJQRM 14,3

this accuracy problem Orledge (in Lewis[10]) suggested the use of a graphic scale as shown below: Indicate using a P, how well dressed the staff of company Z are. On the same scale indicate using E, how you can expect the staff of companies in this industry to be.

272

Smart.........................E................................P..................................Untidy The scale reduced the length of the questionnaire and made it faster and easier to complete. Orledge (in Lewis[10]) claims that the graphic scale is a slightly better predictor of overall satisfaction than SERVQUAL. His view has as yet to be endorsed by researchers. With all these seemingly irreconcilable problems which are associated with the SERVQUAL scale, Gilmore and Carson[39] reported, after the 1992 EIASM (Eurpoean Instute for Advanced Studies in Management) conference (Proceedings of the Second Workshop in Quality Management in Services)[53], that the time had now come to bury the SERVQUAL scale and attempt to reconstruct/redefine service quality from a new and different perspective a perspective that would incorporate the development of more applicable measurement techniques and lead us to a better understanding of the mechanisms that consumers adopt when they form perceptions of service quality. Babakus and Boller[33] suggest that it may not be fruitful to continue to pursue the development of a standard measurement scale that is applicable to a wide variety of services. Further, they propose that measures which are designed for specific industries may be a more viable research strategy to pursue. As it stands, the five dimensions of service quality embodied in SERVQUAL may not be a totally adequate instrument by which to assess the perceived quality of all services, but its impact in the service quality domain is undeniable. The research challenge into service quality is, and will continue to be, ongoing. There are many grey issues which must be resolved if our understanding of the whole service quality forum is to be improved. Perhaps the time has also come to break away from the SERVQUAL mould, the enormity of trying to find one emphatic measurement scale/model to encompass all the service sectors may have proved to be an impossible task. Surely the way forward is, as Babakus and Boller[33] suggest, to pursue the development of measurement scales for specific service industry sectors? And, it is against this back-drop that we propose a new model of service quality. The P-C-P model When it comes to measuring the service quality in a particular organization (as seen through the eyes of its customers), we propose a model that takes the form of a hierarchical structure based on three main classes of attributes Pivotal, Core and Peripheral. The basic premisses of our model hold that:

There is a growing need to develop service specific dimensions/attributes. The dimensions of SERVQUAL and other models do not adequately address some of the more critical issues associated with the assessment of individual services, e.g. patient care, the quality of information or the quality of education received from an organization. A combined (single) scale should be used to measure the gap between expectations and perceptions, as opposed to two separate scales. Individual dimensions should have different weights attached to them to indicate the importance with which they are held by the consumer. Before discussing our model, it is pertinent to revisit some of the peculiarities of services vis--vis products. Whereas the quality of virtually any product can be assured by conforming to national and/or international specifications, the same does not ring true for services. With a few notable exceptions, such as airlines or telecommunications, no predetermined or universal standards exist for the evaluation of the quality of a service that is, services are subject more to social, cultural and national boundaries. When one tries to design/develop a model that is intended to be used for the measurement of service quality, these boundaries must certainly be taken into account. One must also acknowledge that the inherent characteristics associated with services continue to ensure that there will never be any ready-made, off-the-shelf list of features appropriate to all services. In other words, we cannot be prescriptive, there is no magic recipe, formula or blueprint which can be applied to the service sector as a whole, a view which is supported by other researchers[33]; if there were, the evaluation of service quality would present as few problems as does the evaluation of product quality. The P-C-P model can best be described by examining Figure 3. According to the model, every service consists of three, albeit overlapping, areas where the vast majority of the dimensions and concepts which have thus far been used to define service quality can and will be included. These ranked levels can loosely be defined as the inputs, processes and outputs of a service organization. This notion is somewhat similar to the systems model of an organization and hence the division of the model into three hierarchical levels pivotal (outputs), core and peripheral (jointly representing inputs and processes). The pivotal attributes, located at the apex of the pyramid, are considered collectively to be the single most determining influence on why the consumer decided to approach a particular organization in the first instance, and consequently, it is logical to assume that they exert the greatest influence on the satisfaction levels, or otherwise, experienced from the whole service encounter. Thus, they are defined as the end product or output from the service encounter; in other words, what the consumer expects to achieve and receive, perhaps even take away, when the service process is duly completed. Core

The measurement of service quality 273

IJQRM 14,3

274

attributes, centred around the pivotal attributes, can best be described as the amalgamation of the people, processes and the service organizational structure through which consumers must interact and/or negotiate so that they can achieve/receive the pivotal attribute. Expressed simply, during a service encounter, if the consumer comes into contact with anyone or anything in the service organization, then these will essentially be considered to be core attributes. The third level of our model focuses on the peripheral attributes which can aptly be defined as the incidental extras or frills designed to add a roundness to the service encounter and make the whole experience for the consumer a complete delight.

Figure 3. Skeletal framework designed to aid the measurement of service quality

Relationship of the three attribute levels to service quality and customer satisfaction Having proposed this model, it is also pertinent to discuss the impact that we believe each of these attribute types may have on the satisfaction levels and hence, the service quality outcomes of a particular organization. We would suggest that when a consumer makes an evaluation about a service encounter, he/she inherently attaches more weight/importance to the achievement of the pivotal attribute/s. And so, if the service is experienced only once, and all the items embodied in the pivotal attribute/s are achieved (i.e. the key output met all the customers stated requirements, perhaps even exceeded them) with a lower degree of achievement of core and peripheral attributes, then the consumer can be expected to be reasonably satisfied. However, we realize that this may not always be the case; as the service is used more frequently, the core and peripheral attributes may begin to assume greater importance. If the pivotal feature of the service is delivered to a consistently high standard, then the consumer will begin to look more rigorously and thoroughly at the other features (core and peripheral) to see if they, too, come up to the same high standards; in many respects this infers a type of hierarchical ordering until all the service attributes have been critically assessed. Again, it must be emphasized that irrespective of the service, the customers satisfaction levels may depend more on the output (pivotal attribute) of the service, and (relatively) less on the personnel and the organizational structures (core and peripheral attributes) involved. The challenge facing any service, therefore, is to delight the customer in all three areas (pivotal, core and peripheral attributes) so that the service becomes 100 per cent satisfactory. Operationalizing the P-C-P model At the outset, any service sector or individual service organization which plans to adopt the P-C-P model should begin by asking itself the following three questions. 1. What are the outputs or deliverables from our service to our customers? By addressing this question the organization will be able to identify the Pivotal attributes that are relevant to its service operations. Let us illustrate the outputs or pivotal attributes using a variety of examples. Example 1: Telephone service. Correcting the fault to the satisfaction of the customer and having the normal telephone service restored is the key or pivotal attribute in this instance. And so, the consumer is not unduly concerned about the specific department in which the engineer works, whether he/she uses a BT vehicle, taxi or public transport to reach the customer, or whether the parts used to repair the fault are British or foreign made. These attributes assume secondary importance to the main outcome, i.e. restoring the telephone service. In attempting to gauge the consumers response to the pivotal attributes, questions might include:

The measurement of service quality 275

IJQRM 14,3

276

The fault in the service was completely restored. The repair was fixed within the agreed deadline. Example 2: An Insurance service. As long as the customers claim is settled quickly, in full, and without too much fuss, then the customer is not especially concerned as to whether he/she dealt with Sharon or Fred at the insurance company, or whether the insurance staff were smartly dressed. In this respect, questions focusing on the pivotal attributes might include: My insurance claim was settled in full. My insurance claim was accurately settled. My insurance claim was settled without undue delay. Example 3: Garage service. The customers evaluation of this service will depend more on whether the car was repaired to his/her satisfaction, at a reasonable cost and speed, than on the particular mechanic who carried out the repair work. This in no way implies that the courtesy and the reliability of the garage employees are unimportant. The successful repairing of the car is the key output variable, and all other variables assume a lesser importance. As such, questions relating to the pivotal attributes would include: My car was restored to full working order. My car was repaired within the agreed time frame. The cost of having the fault repaired was reasonable. Example 4: Business information providers. The pivotal attributes for a business information provider would centre around the acquisition of the necessary information, taking into account such facets as the accuracy of the information and whether or not it matched the need for which it was intended. When attempting to probe for the pivotal attributes such questions might include: The information I received was comprehensive. The information I received was accurate. The information I received matched exactly what I needed. Example 5: Rail service. The main concern to the customers in this instance focuses on the economic fare, i.e. value for money and the punctuality of the trains. The consumer is not worried as to whether the rail service is private or publicly owned. Questions targeted at this attribute level might include: The train ran on time/was punctual (according to the timetable). The cost of the train journey was reasonable. Even from these few brief examples, it is apparent that the pivotal attributes cannot, and will not, be the same across the whole service industry sector. By necessity, these attributes are service-sector specific, and focus on the outcomes from interactions with specific service providers.

2. Who are the personnel involved, and what are the organizational structures that have a role to play, in the del ivery of the service? Successfully understanding the role of the personnel and the organizational structures involved in the delivery of the service will enable the organization to recognize and isolate the core and peripheral attributes. The organization or service sector must look at all aspects pertinent to the successful delivery of the service which can be identified under these groupings. For example, for all services, the courtesy, empathy and the reliability of the employees will figure prominently in the evaluation and the satisfaction levels (core attributes) of the consumer. On the other hand, it is unreasonable for every customer to expect most services to be available 24 hours a day (with some exceptions) or at every location in the country (again, with some exceptions), and these features can therefore be regarded as peripheral attributes. Both these groupings (core and peripheral) have a key role to play in the successful delivery of the service encounter. The core attributes may remain the same across service organizations, although the peripheral attributes in one service sector may become the pivotal attributes in another sector. 3. How can we deal with the customers changing expectations as they repeatedly experience the same service? If we accept the premiss that quality management is a quest for continuous improvement, it is imperative that constant references are made back to the consumer the service organization, must become obsessed by listening frequently, systematically and navely to the customer[26]. A consumer approaches a service organization with certain needs that have to be addressed, and he/she will interact with that same service organization and its personnel in a unique manner that can never, and will never, be carbon-copied by any other customer-service personnel interaction. In this respect, the service organization cannot treat its customer base as one homogenous mass. The focal point is to begin by examining the number of previous service encounters each customer has had with the particular organization. A consumer who is experiencing the service for the first time may inherently attach more weight to the key/pivotal attributes than would a consumer who frequently uses the same service. Certainly this evaluation is influenced by the degree and nature of the contact that exists in the relationship between the consumer and the service providers personnel. For example, is this contact via the telephone, face-to-face or other correspondence? These issues must be addressed in order to accommodate the differing needs, and, consequently, the differing service quality evaluations, of the customer pool. In this respect, relevant questions include : (1) How many times have you used this particular service? First time. Second time. Three to five times. More than five times. Frequently

The measurement of service quality 277

IJQRM 14,3

278

(2) What type/nature of contact do you have most often with this provider? Telephone. Face-to-Face. Correspondence. Other. The answers to these questions can then be used to give some indication as to the relative importance of each of the three attribute groupings. The customer pool and indeed individual customers needs are not static entities which remain either consistent or constant over time and as such, these changes must be realized and addressed by refining the relative importance of the main dimensions of the model. These same questions must be repeatedly asked to give a longitudinal perspective of the changing expectations of the consumer. In this respect, the P-C-P model is a dynamic model with the potential for some attributes to assume greater importance the more the service is experienced and the more familiar the consumer becomes with the service delivery process. When we compare our model with SERVQUAL and indeed many of its alternatives, what we have proposed is relatively straightforward. We believe that what is needed is a uncomplicated, yet highly effective tool, which can accurately pinpoint or highlight potential areas for concern as seen through the eyes of the user/consumer. Obviously, this tool must be extensively tested under artificial conditions and perform equally well before it could be used in an everyday service setting. The scale which we propose to use is adopted from the scale put forward by Webster et al.[40] which relies on a single one-to-five-point scale for the combined measurement of the gap between expectations and perceptions. We believe that this should simplify the measurement of service quality without losing any of the effectiveness. We are currently in the process of using our model for the empirical analysis of the quality of information provided by government bodies such as the Industrial Development Board to the business community [52]. The pivotal, core and peripheral attributes for this sector are shown in Figure 4. The pivotal attributes centre around the information that the consumer wishes to acquire, and respondents are invited to assess the contact they have had with specific information providers critically. Therefore, questions relating to the pivotal attributes focus on issues pertaining to the information that is received. The following examples (taken directly from our empirical investigations) give an indication as to the features that are included in the acquisition of business information.
Please indicate the degree or extent to which you believe that each of the following criteria have been achieved, using the scale Far below my expectations 2 Below my expectations 1 Just as I expected 0 Above my expectations 1 Far above my expectations 2

With regard to my contact with this specific provider, I would say:

The information I received was comprehensive The accuracy of the information was The information matched exactly what I needed The information was the most up-to-date on the subject of my enquiry

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

The measurement of service quality 279

The core attributes incorporate some of the issues treated under the SERVQUAL dimensions namely, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. We have also adopted some of the questions relating to these dimensions from the original SERVQUAL scale. Issues such as the responsiveness of the staff to the consumers queries for help, including prompt service and individual attention are addressed. On first glance, this may appear

Figure 4. Proposed model indicating pertinent dimensions relevant to measuring service quality of business information providers

IJQRM 14,3

280

somewhat surprising since in the earlier part of this paper, we discuss many of the inherent problems associated with the SERVQUAL scale yet we are happy to include many of its dimensions in our own model. However, if we consider the fact that the SERVQUAL dimensions are all related to the importance of people in the service organization[9] we do not believe that this is a contradiction in terms. The peripheral attributes deal with some of the extraneous factors that go to make the service encounter a complete delight. In the case of the business information providers this centres around issues such as access i.e. operating hours, convenient location and tangibles such as visually appealing facilities, and well-dressed staff. An additional question measures the consumers overall satisfaction with the particular information provider, with a view to determining the relative influence of each of the attribute groupings on his/her satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels. The results of our empirical study will be described in the next paper in this series. Differences between SERVQUAL and the P-C-P model SERVQUAL makes no distinction between the deliverables or output of a service, and the personnel and organizational hierarchies involved in the provision of that same service. In the development of the P-C-P attributes model, this distinction is fundamental. If we explore this issue still further, our model holds that the personnel and organizational structures are only in place to allow the service to be delivered and the litmus test as to whether a service is satisfactorily delivered depends on whether the customer receives the output for which he/she originally approached the organization. To put it simply, courteous and reliable staff are meaningless if the customer perceives that he/she did not receive the insurance claim or the car repair, or the high standard of education (considered to be the outputs or the deliverables from an insurance company, a garage, or educational establishment respectively). SERVQUAL, in our view, does not enable a service organization to identify, in any great detail, the pitfalls which are associated with the outputs of a service and it takes a rather simplistic approach to the evaluation of widely differing service sectors. It treats the whole service industry as one homogeneous mass, which will inevitably pose more problems than it solves. The second distinction between the two models lies in the type of measurement scale that is adopted. The P-C-P attribute model does not rely on the separate measurement of consumer expectations and perceptions as does the SERVQUAL scale. For reasons which have previously been outlined in this paper, we believe that it is a more fruitful exercise to employ a single combined scale that embodies the integral link between these expectations and perceptions. This view is certainly backed up by other researchers in the field[25,41]. The third distinction deals with the idea of assigning differing importance weights to the service quality dimensions. The P-C-P model proposes to assign different weights to each of its three levels of attribute groupings, but the original SERVQUAL scale makes no distinction in the level of importance it

attaches to each of its five dimensions. In the P-C-P model, more weight is given to the achievement of the pivotal attributes, followed in turn by the core and peripheral attributes respectively. We are currently in the process of determining the degree of weightings that should be attributed to each of these three respective levels of attributes by the empirical analysis of the service quality of business information providers. We also believe that it is important to ask the number of times that the consumer has experienced the service as well as determining the type and the nature of this contact. The final question attempts to gauge the customers overall satisfaction with a service. The answers to these questions can then be correlated with the importance the consumer attaches to the three levels of attributes. We hold that this model has the ability to span any service organization since it is a skeletal framework within which to consider respective services. However, it does not and cannot provide working attributes for each of the three categories of attributes. Instead it is up to individual service sectors to decide, with internal reference to the service organization employees and external reference to the consumer, which attributes fit best into each of the three categories. Here, we are moving away from one all-encompassing measurement scale and pursuing the development of service-industry specific measurement scales. Conclusions While the substance and determinants of service quality may as yet be undefined and often the subject of considerable debate, its importance both to organizations and consumers alike remains unequivocal. The research challenge into service quality is, and will continue to be, ongoing; many grey issues will have to be addressed and resolved if our understanding of the whole service quality forum is to be improved. This article has focused heavily on one of the most renowned service quality measurement tools that has been developed namely SERVQUAL, in order to assess the problems that exist in trying to develop one emphatic measurement tool for the service industry as a whole. The enormity of such a task may have proved to be impossible. While the contribution of the SERVQUAL scale to the service quality literature remains irrefutable, we believe that its five dimensions do not adequately address some of the more critical issues associated with the assessment of individual services. Against this back-drop, we put forward our P-C-P model (Pivotal-Core-Peripheral model) which we believe has the ability to span any service sector. What we have proposed is akin to a skeletal framework within which to consider respective services. As such, it does not, and cannot, provide working dimensions for each of the three levels of attributes; instead, individual service sectors, with reference to the consumer, must decide which dimensions best fit into the model attributes. Here, we are beginning to move away from one all-embracing measurement scale and pursuing the development of a service-industry specific measurement scale. We firmly

The measurement of service quality 281

IJQRM 14,3

believe that the P-C-P model provides a simple, yet highly effective, general framework for assessing the service quality of any service sector.
References 1. American Nurses Association, Standards of Nursing Care ANA, Kansas City, KS/MO, 1975. 2. Quinn, J.B., Baruch, J.J., Paquette, P.C., Exploiting the manufacturing-services interface Sloan Management Review, Summer 1988, 45-55. 3. Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, M., Service quality concepts and models, International Journal Of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, 1994, pp. 43-66. 4. Carlzon, J., Moments-of-Truth. New Strategies for Todays Customer Driven Economy, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1989. 5. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L, A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal Of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall 1985, pp. 41-50 6. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No 1, Spring 1988, pp. 12-37. 7. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A., Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No 4, Winter 1991, pp. 420-50. 8. Jackson, D. and Humble, J., Service excellence the role of information technology, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 4 No 4, 1994, pp. 36-40. 9. Lewis, B.R., Quality in the service sector: a review, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 5, 1989, pp. 4-13. 10. Lewis, B.R., Service quality measurement, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 11 No. 4, 1993, pp. 4-12. 11. Lovelock, C.H., Classifying services to gain strategic insights, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer, 1983, pp. 9-20. 12. Potter-Brotman, J., The new role of service in customer retention, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 4 No. 4, 1994, pp. 53-6. 13. Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A and Parasuraman, A., Quality counts in services too, Business Horizons, May-June 1985, pp. 44-52. 14. Nel, D. and Pitt, L., Service quality in a retail environment: closing the gaps, Journal of General Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, Spring 1993, pp. 37-56. 15. Carman, J.M., Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, Spring 1990, pp. 33-55. 16. Mattsson, J., Improving service quality in person-to-person encounters: integrating findings from a multi-disciplinary review, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, January 1994, pp. 45-61. 17. Mattsson, J., Using service process models to improve service quality, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1994, pp. 47-52. 18. Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H., A multi-stage model of customers assessments of service quality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, March 1991, pp. 375-84. 19. Pitt, L.F. and Jeantrout, B., Management of customer expectations in service firms: a study and a checklist, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, April 1994, pp. 170-89. 20. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S., Total quality management in services. Part 1: understanding and classifying services, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1994, pp. 9-26. 21. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S., Total quality Management in services. Part 2: service quality, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1994, pp. 27-42.

282

22. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S., Total quality management in services. Part 3: distinguishing perceptions of service quality, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, 1994, pp. 6-28. 23. Schvaneveldt, S.J., Enkawa, T. and Miyakawa, M., Consumer evaluation perspectives of service quality evaluation factors and two-way model of quality, Total Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1991, pp. 149-61. 24. Haywood-Farmer, J. and Stuart, F.I., An instrument to measure the degree of professionalism in a professional service, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1990, pp. 336-47. 25. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A., A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, February, 1993, pp. 7-27. 26. Peters, T., Thriving on Chaos: A Handbook for a Management Revolution, Macmillan, New York, NY, 1988. 27. Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and Wyckoff, D.D., Management of Service Operations. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, 1978. 28. Gronroos, C., Service quality: the six criteria of good perceived service quality, Review of Business, Vol. 9 No. 3, 1988, pp. 10-13. 29. Gronroos, C., Strategic Management and Marketing In the Service Sector, Studentlitteratur-Chartwell-Bratt, Sweden, 1991. 30. Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R., Two approaches to service quality dimensions, The Service Industries Journal, Vol 11, July 1991, pp. 287-303. 31. Johnston, R., Silvestro, R., Fitzgerald, L. and Voss, C. (1990), Developing the determinants of service quality, in Langeard, E. and Eiglier, P. (Eds), Marketing, Operations and Human Resources Insights into Services, First International Research Seminar on Services Management, Institut dAdministration des Entreprises, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 373-400. 32. Cadotte, E.R. and Turgeon, N., Key factors in guest satisfaction, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, February 1988, pp. 44-51. 33. Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W., An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 253-68. 34. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., Alternative scales for measuring service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, 1994, pp. 201-30. 35. Babakus, E. and Mangold, W.G., Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services: an empirical investigation, Health Services Research, Vol. 26 No. 6, February 1992, pp. 767-86. 36. Brown, S.W. and Swartz, T.A., A gap analysis of professional service quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, April 1989, pp. 92-8. 37. Danaher, P.J. and Mattsson, J., Customer satisfaction during the service delivery process, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, 1994, pp. 5-16. 38. Smith, A.M., Elderly consumers evaluation of service quality, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 11 No. 4, 1993, pp. 13-19. 39. Gilmore, A. and Carson, D., European Journal of Marketing, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 10 No. 7, 1992, pp. 5-7. 40. Webster, C. and Hung, L.-C., Measuring service quality and promoting decentring, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 5, 1994, pp. 50-55. 41. Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A., Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July 1992, pp. 55-68. 42. Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A., SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performancebased and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January 1994, pp. 125-31.

The measurement of service quality 283

IJQRM 14,3

284

43. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January 1994, pp. 111-24. 44. Bitner, M.J., Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employees responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, 1990, pp. 69-82. 45. Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L., An assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumer purchase intentions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 2, 1994, pp. 163-78. 46. Brown, S.W. and Bond, E.U., The internal market/external market framework and service quality: toward theory in services marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, 1995, Vol. 11, pp. 25-39. 47. Teas, R.K., Expectations, performance evaluation and consumers perceptions of quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, October 1993, pp. 18-34. 48. Teas, R.K., Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an assessment of a reassessment, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January 1994, pp. 132-39. 49. Peter, J. P., Churchill, G.A. and Brown, T.J., Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, March 1993, pp. 655-62. 50. Lewis, B.R. and Mitchell, V.W., Defining and measuring the quality of customer service, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 8 No. 6, 1990, pp. 11-17. 51. Chang, L., A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 18 No. 3, September, 1994, pp. 205-15. 52. Philip, G. and Hazlett, S.A., Service quality of industrial information services, British Library Research and Innovation Report 32, British Library Research and Innovation Centre, London, 1996, 118 pp. 53. Proceedings of the Second Workshop in Quality Management in Services, EIA SM, Maastricht, May 1992. Appendix 1: citation patterns relating to Parasuraman et al.s 1985 paper Name of journal No. of citations Journal of Marketing 19 Journal of Business Research 11 Journal of Retailing 10 Industrial Marketing Management 9 Service Industrial Journal 7 Journal of Applied Psychology 4 Health Care Management Review 3 European Journal of Operational Research 3 Public Administration Review 3 Journal of Consumer Research 3 Journal of Marketing Research 3 Psychology & Marketing 2 Annals of Tourism Research 2 Academy of Management Review 2 Management Science 2 Hospital & Health Services Administration 2 Long Range Planning 2 Journal of Economic Psychology 2

Regional Studies Decision Sciences Public Money and Management Journal of Business & Psychology Special Libraries Journal of the American Dietetic Association International Journal of Operations & Production Management Ekonomiska Samfundets Tidskrift Tourism Management Forest Products Journal Social Science and Medicine International Journal of Nursing Studies Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences Health Policy International Journal of Information Management Public Opinion Journal of Advanced Nursing Journal of Information Technology Journal of Management Studies Journal of Rehabilitation Journal of Accounting & Public Policy Psychological Reports Human Resource Management Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Behavior & Information Technology Health Services Research Journal of Technical Writing & Communication Leisure Sciences Education for Information Bulletin of the Medical Library Association British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology Journal of Environmental Management Journal of Higher Education California Management Review Journal of Applied Social Psychology Academy of Management Journal Research of Organizational Behavior Journal of the Market Research Project Journal of Consumer Policy Journal of Product Innovation Management

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

The measurement of service quality 285

Appendix 2: citation patterns relating to Parasuraman et al.s 1988 paper Name of journal No. of citations Journal of Retailing 15 Journal of Marketing 11

IJQRM 14,3

286

Journal of Consumer Research Journal of Business Research Annals of Tourism Research Advances in Consumer Research Journal of Applied Psychology Health Care Management Review Decision Sciences Industrial Marketing Management Service Industries Journal Journal of Advertising European Journal of Operational Research Public Money & Management Special Libraries Tourism Management Health Care Management Review International Journal of Operations & Production Management Revue Canadienne des Sciences de ladministration Library and Information Science Research Journal of the American Dietetic Association Academy of Management Review Management Sciences International Journal of Nursing Studies Systems Research Hospital & Health Services Administration Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Advanced Nursing Strategic Management Journal Journal of Information Technology Journal of Marketing Research Organizational Science Human Resource Management Behavior & Information Technology Health Services Research Journal of Risk and Insurance Transportation Quarterly

6 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1