The

SERVQ
UAL

Model

By Group-3
Section-C
PGDM- Ist Year

Introduction

Service quality is an
processes in order to
customers & quality in
antecedent of customer

approach to manage business

ensure full satisfaction of the
service provided. It works as an
satisfaction.

If expectations are greater than performance, then

perceived quality is less than satisfactory and hence
customer dissatisfaction occurs.

SERVQUAL is a service quality framework, developed in

the eighties by Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry, aiming at
measuring the scale of Quality in the service sectors.

SERVQUAL was originally measured on 10 aspects of

service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence,
access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security,
understanding the customer, and tangibles, to measure
the gap between customer expectations and experience.

SERVQUAL as a Measuring Tool

In 1988 the 10 components were collapsed into five

dimensions
(RATER).
Reliability,
tangibles
and
responsiveness remained distinct, but the remaining seven
components collapsed into two aggregate dimensions,
assurance and empathy.

Parasuraman et al. developed a 22-scale instrument with

which to measure customers expectations and perceptions
(E and P) of the five RATER dimensions. Four or five
numbered items are used to measure each dimension.

The instrument is administered twice in different forms, first

to measure expectations and second to measure perceptions.
Dimensions

Scale

Reliability

Assurance

Tangibles

Empathy

Responsiveness

The Key Service Dimensions

The five SERVQUAL dimensions are: R-A-T-ER:

1. RESPONSIVENESS

- Willingness to
customers and provide prompt service

help

2. ASSURANCE

- Knowledge and courtesy of

employees and their ability to convey trust
and confidence

3. TANGIBLES

- Appearance of physical
facilities,
equipment,
personnel,
and
communication materials

4. EMPATHY

- Caring, individualized attention

the firm provides its customers

5. RELIABILITY

- Ability to perform the promised

service dependably and accurately

Conceptual Model of Service

Quality

GAP 1: Not knowing

what customers
expect

GAP 2: wrong service

quality standards

GAP 3: The service

performance gap

GAP 4: promises do
not match actual
delivery

GAP 5: The
difference between
customer perception
and expectation

The SERVQUAL Gaps

Gap 1
Commonly

M a na ge m e nt
P e r c e p t io n s
o f C u s to m e r
E x p e c t a t io n s

known as the management perception

gap
Gap

1 results from a difference between what

customers expect and what management perceives
these expectations to be.
It

indicates a problem with the understanding of the

market. This can occur, as a result of insufficient
research or communication failures.
E.g.

: Management of ABC Dry cleaning Ltd

perceives that a particular segment simply expects
low prices on its service, when in fact,
the
expectation is a value-for-money service.

E x p e c te d
S e r v ic e

The SERVQUAL Gaps

Gap 2
Commonly

S e r v ic e
Q u a lity
S p e c i f ic a t i o n s

known as quality specification gap.

Gap

2 results from a difference between management

perceptions of what customers expect and the
specifications that management draws up when
detailing the service quality delivery actions that are
required.
Service

design and performance standards are prerequisites for bridging this gap.
E.g.

: Most hotels do not do housekeeping in a room

on the day the customer is checking out. But has
management realised that the customer who is doing
a late checking out wants a clean room during that
day?

M a na ge m e nt
P e r c e p t io n s
o f C u s to m e r
E x p e c t a t io n s

The SERVQUAL Gaps

Gap 3
Commonly

S e r v ic e
D e liv e r y

known as the Service delivery gap.

Gap

3 results from a mismatch between the service delivery

specifications required by management and the actual
service that is delivered by front line staff.
It

is the difference between customer-driven service design

& standards, and the service delivery of the provider.
Managers

need to audit the customer experience that their

organization currently delivers in order to make sure it lives
up to the expected level.
E.g.

: Usually, all restaurants need to attend to every

request and orders of the customers. But very often when
customers place orders, they either do not receive the
orders at all or the waiter has confused it with that of
another customer.

S e r v ic e
Q u a lity
S p e c i f ic a t i o n s

The SERVQUAL Gaps

Gap 4

S e r v ic e
D e liv e r y

Commonly known as market communication gap.

This is the gap between the delivery of the customer

experience and what is communicated to customers, i.e.
the discrepancy between actual service and the promised
one

All too often organizations exaggerate what will be

provided to customers, or discuss the best case rather
than the likely case, raising customer expectations and
harming customer perceptions.

E.g. A company commercialising slimming products

boasts that customers may lose up to 4-5 kgs/week. But
they do not specify that a strict diet and regular exercise
must accompany the treatment for it to have the desired
effect.

E x te rn a l
C o m m u n ic a t io n s
to C u s to m e rs

The SERVQUAL Gaps

Gap 5

E x p e c te d
S e r v ic e

Commonly known as the perceived service quality

gap.

Gap 5 may be identified as the overall difference

between the expected service and the perceived
service experienced. Gap 5 results from the
combination of Gaps 1 to 4

Customers' expectations have been shaped by

word of mouth, their personal needs and their own
past service experiences.

Unless Gap 5 is kept under check, it may result in

lost customers, bad reputation, negative corporate
image.

P e r c e iv e d
S e r v ic e

Causes for the Gaps

GAP 1 - not knowing what customers expect
E.g. : XYZ Events Ltd organised a wedding with the
usual white and blue decorations, when the
customer had expected something new and original.
Causes:

Lack of a marketing orientation to quality

Poorly interpreted information about customers

expectations

Research not focused on demand quality

Too many layers between the front line personnel &

top level management

Causes for the Gaps

GAP 2 - The wrong service quality standards
E.g. : XYZ Events Ltd perceived that the customer
wanted a very nice reception with at least 2 waiters
at each table, but management eventually decided
otherwise to reduce costs.
Causes:

inadequate commitment to service quality

lack of perception of feasibility

inadequate task standardization

the absence of goal setting

Insufficient planning of procedures

Causes for the Gaps

GAP 3 - The service performance gap
E.g.

: XYZ Events Ltd had promised the most

exquisite catering and wedding cake, but the food
was not appreciable and the bride didnt like the
cake at all.
Causes:
Poor

employee or technology fit - the wrong person

or wrong system for the job
Deficiencies

in human resource policies such as

ineffective recruitment, role ambiguity, role conflict
Failure
Too

to match demand and supply

much or too little control

Lack

of teamwork within the organisation

Causes for the Gaps

GAP 4 - When promises do not match actual delivery
E.g. : XYZ Events Ltd promised to have a Mercedes
limousine for the entry of the groom, but eventually the
latter was given a simple Nissan Sunny.
Causes:
inadequate

horizontal communication

Over-promising
Failure
Failure

in external communication campaign

to manage customer expectations

to perform according to specifications given to

customers

Causes for the Gaps

GAP 5 - The difference between customer
perception of service and the expectation they
had
Usually the cause is the occurrence of the 4 other Gaps,
which results in a difference between customer
perception and the expectation they had. Ultimately the
grooms experience was way too far from what he had
expected, and thus results in dissatisfaction.
Other causes can be:
cultural

background, family lifestyle, personality,

demographics,

advertising, experience with similar

service
information

available online

Solution for the Gaps

No Solutions as such, but rather, measures that can be taken to minimize the gaps

Gap

Definitions

Measures

Customers expectations
versus management
perceptions

Use of good Customer Relationship Management Techniques to

profile & know customers expectations, tastes and needs
E.g: XYZ Events Ltd should conduct sample surveys to know what
customers expect nowadays

Management
perceptions versus
service specifications

Managers need to make sure the organization is defining the level

of service they believe is needed.
E.g.: XYZ Events Ltd could have offered pre-set wedding packages
at different prices with different services set.

Service specifications
versus service delivery

Managers need to audit the customer experience that their

organization currently delivers in order to make sure it lives up to
the expected level.
E,g.: XYZ Events Ltd needs to ask customers to give their post
experience feedbacks

Service delivery versus

external communication:

Use of good Communication skills and avoid ambiguous or

fraudulent terms to confuse or mislead the customer.
E.g.: XYZ Events Ltd should clearly inform the customer about
something that will not be possible to implement

The discrepancy
between customer
expectations and their
perceptions of the
service delivered

Application of all the above measures to make sure the service

delivered meets the expectations of the customer

Criticisms to SERVQUAL

It has been criticized that SERVQUAL's 5

dimensions (RATER) are not universals, and that
the model fails to draw on established economic,
statistical and psychological theory.

There is little evidence that customers assess

service quality in terms of Perception /
Expectation gaps.

SERVQUAL focuses on the process of service

delivery, not the outcomes of the service
encounter.

There is a high degree of intercorrelation between

the five RATER dimensions, thus the scores
obtained cannot be exact.

SERVQUAL; Good or Bad???

SERVQUAL remains the most complete attempt to

conceptualize and measure service quality Nyeck,
et al. (2002)

The main benefit to the SERVQUAL measuring tool is

the ability of researchers to examine numerous
service industries such as healthcare, banking,
financial services, and education

Nyeck et al. (2002) reviewed 40 articles that made

use of the SERVQUAL measuring tool and discovered
that few researchers concerned themselves with the
validation of the measuring tool, which means it is
well anchored as a trusted model.

Service Quality is widely regarded as a driver of

corporate marketing and financial performance

Advantages of
SERVQUAL

Enables assessing service

quality from the customers
perspective

We can track customer

expectations and perceptions
over time, together with the
discrepancies between them

Servqual enables comparison

to competitors on common
aspects
We
can
assess
the
expectations and perceptions
of internal customers e.g.
other
departments
or
services we deal with.

Disadvantages
of SERVQUAL

The uniform applicability

of the method for all
service sectors is difficult.

The use of expectations

in
measuring
service
quality
has
currently
come
under
a
lot
ofcriticism.

Does not measure service

outcome perceptions.

Methodology of SERVQUAL

The method essentially involves conducting a sample survey

of customers so that their perceived service needs are
understood.

For measuring their perceptions of service quality for the

organization in question, customers are asked to answer
numerous questions within each dimension that determines:

The relative importance of each attribute.

A measurement of performance expectations that would

relate to an excellent company.

A measurement of performance for the company in question.

This provides an assessment of the gap between desired and

actual performance.

This allows an organization to focus its resources where

necessary and to maximize service quality whilst costs are
controlled

Uses of SERVQUAL

To assess a company's service quality along each of the 5

SERVQAL dimensions. E.g. XYZ Events Ltd carries out the
servqual survey to know where it stands in the perception of
customers.

To track customer's expectations and perceptions over time.

E.g. XYZ Events Ltd wants to compare its score of last year
against that of the current year to know whether it has
improved or has to improve

To compare a company's SERVQUAL scores against

competitors. E.g.: XYZ Events Ltd wants to compare its score
against that of 1570 Events Ltd to see who is the best.

To identify and examine customer segments that differ

significantly in their assessment of a company's service
performance.

To assess internal
comparison)

service

quality

(interdepartmental

Applications of SERVQUAL

Service quality has become an important research

topic because of its apparent relationship to costs,
profitability, customer satisfaction, and customer
retention

SERVQUAL has been a keyword in 41 publications

which incorporate both theoretical discussions and
applications of SERVQUAL in a variety of industrial,
commercial and not-for-profit settings.

Some of the published studies include :

Hotels ,travel and tourism

Car servicing, business schools

Accounting firms, architectural services

Airline catering

Mobile Telecommunications in Macedonia

Conclusions

SERVQUAL is considered very complex, subjective and

statistically unreliable. The simplified RATER model
however is a simple and useful model for qualitatively
exploring
and
assessing
customers'
service
experiences

It is an efficient model in helping an organization

shape up their efforts in bridging the gap between
perceived and expected service

SERVQUAL is used to track customer's expectations

and perceptions over time to compare the company's
SERVQUAL scores against competitors.

Although SERVQUAL's face and construct validity are

in doubt, it is widely used in modified forms (RATER) to
measure customer expectations and perceptions of
service quality.