SERVQUAL Model of Service Quality

What is the SERVQUAL Model?

The renowned SERVQUAL Model, developed by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry in the 1980s, remains a highly esteemed framework for evaluating service quality. According to this model, the distance between a customer’s expectations and their actual perceptions greatly influences service quality. It encompasses five crucial dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Tangibles encompass the physical elements of service provision, such as facilities and equipment. Reliability focuses on the consistency and dependability of the service. Responsiveness concerns the ability to promptly and effectively assist customers. Assurance involves the conveyance of competence, courtesy, and credibility, building trust and confidence in customers. The concept of empathy is crucial in providing exceptional customer service, as it entails both understanding and compassion for the needs of customers.

Geeky Takeaways

• The SERVQUAL Model, developed in the 1980s, is a widely used framework for assessing service quality.
• It identifies five key dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
• These dimensions are crucial for determining the quality of service.
• This model is valuable for businesses seeking to enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty.

How SERVQUAL Model measure Service Quality?

1. Establishing Client Objectives: The first step in correctly utilizing the SERVQUAL model to evaluate service quality is to ascertain what customers anticipate receiving from the service they will shortly be receiving. Gathering client input via surveys, interviews, focus groups, and other techniques might help achieve this.

2. Evaluating Views of Actual Service Provision: After setting these expectations, it’s critical to find out how clients feel about the actual services they received. This involves assessing the impressions of the clients in five main domains: tangibles, assurance, responsiveness, dependability, and empathy.

3. Calculating the Gap: To ascertain the difference between customer expectations and perceptions, the SERVQUAL model considers both. This is accomplished by deducting the perceived degree of service received from the level anticipated for each aspect of service quality.

4. Evaluating and Understanding the Data: Organizations may thoroughly review the data to identify areas where there are significant discrepancies between consumer expectations and perceptions by computing the gap scores for each dimension. When the gap score is positive, it means that customers’ perceptions exceed their expectations, but when it is negative, it means that expectations are not being met.

5. Putting Improvements into Practice: Organizations may identify particular areas for improvement and create plans that effectively close the gap between customer expectations and perceptions by thoroughly analyzing gap scores. This can be putting new buildings or equipment into use, training employees, adopting changes to service delivery procedures, or enhancing customer communication.

6. Constant Monitoring and Feedback: The SERVQUAL model continually emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring and feedback since achieving excellent service quality is a constant endeavor. To maintain a high level of service and satisfy customers’ ever-changing requirements and expectations, firms should continually assess consumer expectations and perceptions, quantify the gap, and adjust as necessary.

Gaps of Service Quality

Through the lens of the SERVQUAL model, one can identify discrepancies between customer expectations and perceptions across the five dimensions of service quality. These gaps offer valuable insights into the areas where enhancements are necessary to elevate service delivery. The five primary gaps are:

Gap 1: Gap between Customer Expectations and Management Perceptions

The existence of this gap results from a lack of alignment between customer expectations and management‘s understanding of those expectations. This emphasizes the crucial role of accurately comprehending and aligning with customer expectations.

Gap 2: Gap between Management Perceptions and Service Quality Specifications

This gap signifies the contrast between how management perceives customer expectations and the service quality standards set by the organization. It emphasizes the necessity for open communication and alignment between management and frontline staff to ensure that service quality aligns with customer expectations.

Gap 3: Gap between Service Quality Specifications and Service Delivery

When organizations fail to meet their set standards of service quality, a gap is formed. This can be attributed to a variety of factors such as insufficient training, limited resources, or ineffective operations, emphasizing the critical role of properly implementing service standards.

Gap 4: Gap between Service Delivery and External Communications

This gap arises when the actual service received by customers differs from the organization’s external messaging, such as advertisements or brand guarantees. It underscores the importance of open and honest communication to establish trust and properly manage customer expectations.

Gap 5: Gap between Customer Expectations and Customer Perceptions

The last missing piece in the puzzle is the disparity between customers’ expectations and their experience of the service. This crucial element is the ultimate gauge of a service’s quality, underscoring the significance of meeting or surpassing customer expectations to foster satisfaction and loyalty.

Criticisms of the Model of Service Quality

1. Heavy Emphasis on Gaps: SERVQUAL’s primary goal is to identify any differences between customers’ perceptions and expectations. Some experts counter that this method overlooks other important aspects of service quality, such as client satisfaction, loyalty, and overall experience.

2. Personality and Insufficient Objectivity: SERVQUAL’s heavy dependence on customers’ subjective assessments, which might be impacted by their emotions, past interactions, and cultural factors, is another drawback. As a result, questions have been raised concerning the veracity and quality of the information gathered by SERVQUAL questionnaires.

3. Improper Service Quality Measurement: Some opponents express worry that SERVQUAL’s use of Likert scale answers to measure service quality may miss crucial aspects of the customer experience. They also note that the approach may not adequately address the emotional and intangible components of service quality due to its emphasis on concrete service features.

4. Execution Challenge: Using SERVQUAL surveys may be a laborious and resource-intensive procedure that requires a significant outlay of funds for planning, gathering, and evaluating data. Because of its intricacy, the model might not be successfully used by businesses, especially smaller ones.

5. Limited Scope: Because SERVQUAL is primarily focused on conventional service industries, it may not be as useful in other areas where service quality is equally important, such as manufacturing and technology. Furthermore, the model could not be broad enough to account for changing trends and behavioral adjustments in customers given its strong emphasis on consumer expectations and perceptions.

6. Fixed Aspect: Detractors argue that SERVQUAL’s fundamental premise of constant customer expectations and perceptions ignores the dynamic nature of consumer preferences, emphasizing the necessity for a more adaptable and dynamic method of evaluating service quality.

7. Lack of Practical Information: SERVQUAL’s capacity to pinpoint service quality shortcomings is one area of concern. Opponents contend that this instrument could not provide workable answers, simply highlighting areas that need development. Consequently, entities may encounter challenges while attempting to apply efficacious tactics to improve their provision of services.

8. Results Inconsistencies: Moreover, studies have shown inconsistent results from SERVQUAL questionnaires, casting doubt on the validity and reliability of the tool in a variety of settings and sectors.

How was the Model of Service Quality Developed

1. Literature Review: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry carefully read through a large body of prior research before delving into the field of service quality and customer satisfaction. In their thorough analysis, they found gaps and inconsistencies in the theories and studies that are currently being conducted, with an emphasis on quantifying the quality of services.

2. Qualitative Studies: The three researchers conducted several qualitative studies to learn more about the perceptions and preferences of consumers about service quality across various sectors. They established the foundation for SERVQUAL through enlightening interviews and stimulating focus groups.

3. Formulation of Service Quality Characteristics: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry identified five crucial characteristics of service quality: tangibles, assurance, responsiveness, empathy, and reliability after examining the qualitative study. These elements were thought to be crucial for comprehending the customer’s viewpoint and overall service encounter.

4. Creation of Measurement Instrument: The researchers designed an extensive questionnaire with several items to measure each dimension efficiently. Customers’ actual opinions on the service they received as well as their expectations about the quality of the service were assessed using this questionnaire.

5. Pilot Analysis: To confirm its validity and reliability, the SERVQUAL questionnaire underwent preliminary pilot testing. To fine-tune the measuring instrument, this entailed delivering the questionnaire to a specific sample of clients and closely examining their answers.

6. Validation Experiments: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry carried out further validation experiments on the SERVQUAL questionnaire to bolster its validity. These thorough studies sought to verify the validity and reliability of the instrument across a range of contexts, including industry and cultural situations.

7. Improvement and Iteration: The researchers conducted validation studies and pilot testing before making the required modifications to the SERVQUAL questionnaire to improve its applicability and efficacy. This required changing the questionnaire’s items, perfecting the answer scales, and confirming the validity of the results in various settings.

8. Publication and Verbalization: The results of these initiatives were published in academic journals such as the Journal of Retailing and the Journal of Marketing, which helped SERVQUAL gain acceptance as a standard gauge of service excellence across a range of industries.

Also refer to SERVQUAL Model: Dimensions, Applications and Pros & Cons and SERVQUAL Model Case Study