a conceptual model of service quality

7/30/2019 A Conceptual Model of Service Quality

1/11

A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future ResearchAuthor(s): A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. BerrySource: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 41-50Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251430 .

Accessed: 25/06/2013 09:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1251430?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1251430?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama


2/11

A. Parasuraman,ValarieA. Zeithaml, & LeonardL. BerryA Conceptualode l o f ServiceQuality a n d I t s Implications

f o r Future ResearchThe attainment of quality in products and services has become a pivotal concern of the 1980s. Whilequality in tangible goods has been described and measured by marketers, quality in services is largelyundefined and unresearched. The authors attempt to rectify this situation by reporting the insights ob-tained in an extensive exploratory investigation of quality in four service businesses and by developinga model of service quality. Propositions and recommendations to stimulate future research about servicequality are offered.

"Peoplewantsomewise andperceptivetatementike,'Quality s ballet, not hockey.'"-Philip Crosby(1979)UALITY s an elusive andindistinct onstruct.Often mistaken for imprecise adjectives like"goodness,or luxury,or shininess,or weight"(Crosby

1979), qualityand its requirementsare not easily ar-ticulatedby consumers(Takeuchiand Quelch 1983).Explicationand measurementof quality also presentproblems or researchersMonroeandKrishnan1983),who often bypass definitionsand use unidimensionalself-reportmeasures to capturethe concept (Jacoby,Olson, andHaddock 1973; McConnell 1968; Shapiro1972).While the substance and determinants of qualitymay be undefined, its importance to firms and con-sumers s unequivocal.Researchhas demonstrated hestrategicbenefits of quality in contributing o marketshare and returnon investment (e.g., Anderson andZeithaml1984;Phillips, Chang, andBuzzell 1983) aswell as in loweringmanufacturing osts and improv-

A.ParasuramanndValarie .ZeithamlreAssociate rofessorsfMarketing,ndLeonard.Berrys Foley's/Federatedrofessorf Re-tailingndMarketingtudies, exasA&M niversity.heresearche-portednthisarticle asmadepossible yagrantromheMarketingSciencenstitute,ambridge,A.

Journal of MarketingVol. 49 (Fall 1985), 41-50.

ingproductivityGarvin 1983). The search for qualityis arguably he most important onsumertrend of the1980s (Rabin1983)as consumersare now demandinghigherqualityin productsthan ever before (Leonardand Sasser 1982, Takeuchi and Quelch 1983).Few academic researchershave attemptedto de-fine and model qualitybecause of the difficulties in-volved in delimiting and measuring the construct.Moreover,despitethe phenomenalgrowthof the ser-vice sector, only a handful of these researchershavefocusedon service quality.We attempt o rectify thissituationby (1) reviewingthe small numberof studiesthathave investigated ervicequality,(2) reportingheinsightsobtained in an extensive exploratory nvesti-gation of quality in four service businesses, (3) de-velopinga model of service quality, and (4) offeringpropositions o stimulatefuture researchabout qual-

ity.

Existing Knowledge aboutService QualityEffortsin defining and measuringqualityhave comelargelyfrom the goods sector. Accordingto the pre-vailing Japanese philosophy, quality is "zero de-fects-doing it right the first time." Crosby (1979)

AConceptualModel f ServiceQuality 41

This content downloaded from 27.251.26.2 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:42:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

defines quality as "conformance to requirements."Garvin(1983) measures quality by counting the in-cidence of "internal"ailures (those observedbeforea product eaves the factory)and "external" ailures(those incurred n the field after a unit has been in-stalled).Knowledge about goods quality, however, is in-sufficientto understand ervice quality. Three well-documented haracteristics f services-intangibility,heterogeneity,and inseparability-must be acknowl-edged for a full understanding f service quality.First,most services are intangible(Bateson 1977,Berry1980, Lovelock 1981, Shostak 1977). Becausethey are performancesrather than objects, precisemanufacturingpecificationsoncerninguniformqualitycan rarelybe set. Most services cannot be counted,measured, nventoried, ested, andverified in advanceof sale to assurequality.Because of intangibility,thefirm may find it difficult to understandhow con-sumers perceive their services and evaluate servicequality(Zeithaml1981).Second, services, especially those with a high la-borcontent,areheterogeneous:heirperformanceftenvaries from producerto producer,from customer tocustomer, and from day to day. Consistency of be-haviorfrom service personnel(i.e., uniformquality)is difficult to assure(Booms andBitner1981)becausewhat the firm intends to deliver may be entirelydif-ferentfrom what the consumerreceives.Third, productionand consumptionof many ser-vices are inseparable(Carmen and Langeard1980,Gronroos1978, Regan 1963, Upah 1980). As a con-sequence, qualityin services is not engineeredat the

manufacturing lant, thendeliveredintact to the con-sumer.In laborintensiveservices, for example, qual-ity occurs during service delivery, usually in an in-teraction etween heclientandthecontactperson romthe service firm (Lehtinenand Lehtinen 1982). Theservice irmmayalsohave less managerialontroloverquality n serviceswhereconsumerparticipations in-tense (e.g., haircuts,doctor'svisits)becausethe clientaffectstheprocess. Inthesesituations,theconsumer'sinput(descriptionof how the haircutshouldlook, de-scriptionof symptoms)becomes criticalto the qualityof service performance.Servicequalityhas been discussed in only a hand-ful of writings (Gronroos1982; Lehtinen and Lehti-nen 1982;Lewis andBooms 1983;Sasser, Olsen, andWyckoff 1978).Examinationf thesewritingsandotherliteraturen servicessuggeststhreeunderlyinghemes:* Service quality is more difficult for the con-sumer to evaluatethangoods quality.* Service qualityperceptionsresult from a com-parison of consumer expectations with actualservice performance.

* Qualityevaluationsare not made solely on theoutcomeof a service; they also involve evalu-ationsof theprocess of service delivery.Service QualityMore Difficultto EvaluateWhenpurchasinggoods, the consumeremploysmanytangiblecues to judge quality:style, hardness, color,label, feel, package, fit. When purchasingservices,fewertangiblecues exist. In most cases, tangibleevi-denceis limitedto the service provider'sphysical fa-cilities, equipment,andpersonnel.In the absence of tangibleevidence on which toevaluatequality,consumersmustdependon othercues.The natureof these othercues has not been investi-gated by researchers,although some authors havesuggestedthat price becomes a pivotal quality indi-cator in situations where other informationis notavailable(McConnell 1968, Olander1970, Zeithaml1981). Because of service intangibility,a firm mayfind it more difficult to understandhow consumersperceive services and service quality. "Whena ser-vice providerknows how [the service] will be eval-uatedby the consumer, we will be able to suggesthow to influencethese evaluations n a desireddirec-tion"(Gronroos1982).QualityIs a ComparisonbetweenExpectations and PerformanceResearchers ndmanagersof service firmsconcurthatservicequalityinvolves a comparisonof expectationswithperformance:

Servicequality s a measureof how well the servicelevel deliveredmatchescustomerexpectations.De-liveringqualityservice means conforming o cus-tomerexpectations n a consistentbasis. (LewisandBooms1983)In line with this thinking,Gronroos 1982) developeda modelin whichhe contendsthatconsumerscomparetheservicetheyexpectwithperceptionsof the servicethey receive in evaluatingservice quality.Smithand Houston(1982) claimed that satisfac-tion with services is related to confirmationor dis-confirmation of expectations. They based their re-search on the disconfirmation paradigm, whichmaintainsthat satisfactionis relatedto the size anddirectionof thedisconfirmationxperiencewheredis-confirmations relatedto the person's initial expec-tations(Churchilland Suprenaut1982).QualityEvaluationsInvolve Outcomes andProcessesSasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978) discussed threedifferentdimensionsof serviceperformance:evels ofmaterial, acilities, andpersonnel.Impliedin this tri-chotomys thenotion hatservicequality nvolvesmorethan outcome; it also includes the manner in which

42 / Journal f Marketing,all1985



4/11

the service is delivered. This notion surfaces in otherresearchon service qualityas well.Gronroos,for example, postulatedthat two typesof service quality exist: technical quality, which in-volves what the customer is actually receiving fromtheservice, and unctionalquality,whichinvolves themanner in which the service is delivered (Gronroos1982).Lehtinen and Lehtinen's (1982) basic premise isthatservice qualityis producedin the interactionbe-tween a customer and elements in the service orga-nization.They use threequalitydimensions:physicalquality,whichincludesthephysical aspectsof the ser-vice (e.g., equipmentor building);corporatequality,which involves the company's image or profile; andinteractivequality, whichderives fromthe interactionbetween contactpersonneland customersas well asbetween some customers and other customers. Theyfurther ifferentiate etween the qualityassociatedwiththe process of service delivery and the quality asso-ciatedwith the outcome of the service.ExploratoryInvestigationBecausethe literature n servicequalityis not yet richenoughto providea sound conceptual foundationforinvestigatingservice quality, an exploratoryqualita-tive study was undertaken o investigatethe conceptof service quality. Specifically, focus group inter-views with consumers and in-depth interviews withexecutives were conducted to develop a conceptualmodel of service quality. The approachused is con-sistent with proceduresrecommendedfor marketing

theory developmentby several scholars (Deshpande1983;PeterandOlson 1983;Zaltman,LeMasters,andHeffring 1982).In-depthinterviews of executives in four nation-ally recognizedservice firms and a set of focus groupinterviewsof consumers were conductedto gain in-sights aboutthe following questions:* Whatdo managersof service firms perceive tobe the key attributesof service quality?Whatproblemsand tasks are involved in providinghigh qualityservice?* What do consumersperceive to be the key at-tributesof qualityin services?* Do discrepanciesexist between the perceptionsof consumersand service marketers?* Can consumer and marketer perceptions becombined in a generalmodel that explains ser-vice qualityfrom the consumer's standpoint?

Service Categories InvestigatedFourservicecategorieswere chosen for investigation:retailbanking, credit card, securitiesbrokerage,and

productrepairandmaintenance.While this set of ser-vice businesses is notexhaustive,it representsa cross-section of industrieswhichvaryalong key dimensionsused to categorize services (Lovelock 1980, 1983).For example, retailbankingand securitiesbrokerageservicesaremore"highcontactservices" hantheothertwo types. The natureand results of the service actaremoretangible for productrepairand maintenanceservices than for the other three types. In terms ofservicedelivery,discrete ransactionsharacterizereditcardservicesandproductrepairandmaintenanceser-vices to a greaterextent than the othertwo types ofservices.Executive InterviewsA nationallyrecognized company from each of thefour service businesses participatedn the study. In-depth personal interviews comprised of open-endedquestionswere conducted with three or four execu-tives in each firm. The executives were selected frommarketing,operations,senior management,and cus-tomerrelationsbecauseeachof theseareascouldhaveanimpacton quality n servicefirms. Therespondentsheldtitles such as president,seniorvice president,di-rector of customer relations, and manager of con-sumermarketresearch.Fourteenexecutives were in-terviewedabouta broadrangeof servicequality ssues(e.g., what they perceivedto be service qualityfromthe consumer'sperspective, what steps they took tocontrolor improveservicequality, andwhatproblemsthey faced in deliveringhigh qualityservices).Focus GroupInterviewsA total of 12 focus groupinterviewswas conducted,threefor each of the four selected services. Eight ofthe focus groupswere held in a metropolitanarea inthe southwest.The remaining our were conducted nthe vicinityof the participating ompanies'headquar-tersandwere thereforespreadacrossthe country:oneon the West Coast, one in the Midwest, and two inthe East.The focus groupswere formedin accordancewithguidelinestraditionally ollowed in the marketingre-search field (Bellenger, Berhardt,and Goldstucker1976). Respondentswere screened to ensurethattheywerecurrentor recent users of the service in question.To maintainhomogeneityand assure maximumpar-ticipation,respondentswere assignedto groupsbasedon age and sex. Six of the twelve groups includedonly males and six included only females. At leastone male group and one female group were inter-viewed for each of the four services. Consistency inage was maintainedwithin groups;however, age di-versity across groups for each service category wasestablished o ascertainhe viewpointsof a broadcrosssectionof consumers.




5/11

Identitiesof participatingirms were not revealedto focus groupparticipants.Discussion aboutqualityof a given service centeredon consumerexperiencesandperceptionsrelatingto that service in general, asopposed o the specificserviceof the participatingirmin thatservicecategory.Questionsaskedby the mod-eratorcoveredtopics such as instancesof andreasonsfor satisfactionand dissatisfactionwith the service;descriptionsof an ideal service (e.g., ideal bank oridealcreditcard);the meaningof servicequality;fac-tors important n evaluating service quality; perfor-mance expectationsconcerningthe service; and therole of price in service quality.

Insights from ExploratoryInvestigationExecutive InterviewsRemarkably onsistentpatterns mergedfromthe foursets of executive interviews.While some perceptionsabout service quality were specific to the industriesselected, commonalities among the industries pre-vailed. The commonalities are encouragingfor theysuggestthata generalmodel of servicequalitycan bedeveloped.Perhaps he most importantnsight obtainedfromanalyzingthe executive responsesis the following:

A set of key discrepancies or gaps exists re-garding executive perceptions of service qual-ity and the tasks associated with service de-livery to consumers. These gaps can be majorhurdles in attemptingto deliver a service whichconsumers would perceive as being of highquality.

The gaps revealedby the executive interviewsareshown in the lower portion (i.e., the MARKETERide)of Figure 1. This figure summarizes he key insightsgained(through he focus group as well as executiveinterviews)about the concept of service quality andfactorsaffectingit. The remainderof this section dis-cusses the gaps on the service marketer'sside (GAPI,GAP2, GAP3, and GAP4) and presentspropositions m-plied by those gaps. The consumer'sside of the ser-vice qualitymodel in Figure I is discussedin the nextsection.

Consumer expectation-management perception gap(GAPI): Many of the executive perceptions about whatconsumersexpect in a qualityservice were congruentwith the consumerexpectationsrevealedin the focusgroups. However, discrepancies between executiveperceptionsandconsumerexpectationsexisted, as il-lustratedby the following examples:

FIGUREService Quality ModelCONSUMER

* Privacy or confidentialityduring transactionsemergedas a pivotal quality attribute n everybankingand securitiesbrokeragefocus group.Rarelywas this considerationmentionedin theexecutive interviews.* Thephysicalandsecurity eaturesof creditcards

(e.g., the likelihood that unauthorizedpeoplecould use the cards) generatedsubstantialdis-cussion in the focus group interviews but didnot emerge as critical in the executive inter-views.* Theproduct epairandmaintenanceocus groupsindicatedthat a large repairservice firm wasunlikely to be viewed as a high quality firm.Small independent repair firms were consis-tentlyassociatedwith high quality. In contrast,mostexecutivecomments ndicated hat a firm'ssize would signal strength n a qualitycontext.

In essence, service firm executives may not alwaysunderstandwhatfeaturesconnote high qualityto con-sumers n advance, what features a service musthavein orderto meet consumerneeds, and what levels ofperformanceon those featuresare needed to deliverhigh quality service. This insight is consistent withpreviousresearch n services, whichsuggests thatser-vice marketersmay not always understandwhat con-sumersexpect in a service (Langeardet al. 1981, Pa-rasuraman nd Zeithaml 1982). This lack of under-

44 / Journalf Marketing,all1985

I



6/11

standingmay affectquality perceptionsof consumers:Proposition1: The gap between consumerexpectationsand managementperceptionsof those expecta-tions will have an impact onthe consumer's evaluation ofservice quality.Management perception-service quality specifi-

cation gap (GAP2):A recurring theme in the executiveinterviewsin all four service firms was the difficultyexperienced in attempting to match or exceed con-sumerexpectations.Executivescited constraintswhichpreventthem from deliveringwhat the consumerex-pects. As an example, executives in the repairservicefirm were fully awarethatconsumersview quick re-sponse to appliancebreakdownsas a vital ingredientof highqualityservice. However, they find it difficultto establish specifications to deliver quick responseconsistentlybecause of a lack of trainedservice per-sonnel and wide fluctuations in demand. As one ex-ecutive observed, peak demandfor repairingair con-ditioners and lawnmowersoccurs duringthe summermonths, precisely when most service personnel wantto go on vacation. In this and numerousother situa-tions, knowledge of consumerexpectationsexists butthe perceivedmeansto deliver to expectationsappar-ently do not.Apart from resource and marketconstraints,an-otherreasonfor the gap betweenexpectationsandtheactualset of specificationsestablished for a service isthe absence of total managementcommitmentto ser-vice quality. Although the executive interviewsindi-cated a genuine concern for quality on the part ofmanagers nterviewed,this concernmay not be gen-eralizableto all service firms. In discussing productquality, Garvin (1983) stated: ". .. the seriousnessthat managementattachedto quality problems [var-ies]. It's one thing to say you believe in defect-freeproducts,but quite anotherto take time from a busyschedule to act on that belief and stay informed"(p.68). Garvin'sobservationsare likely to apply to ser-vice businesses as well.In short, a variety of factors-resource con-straints,market conditions, and/or management in-difference-may result in a discrepancy betweenmanagement erceptions f consumerexpectationsandtheactualspecificationsestablishedfora service. Thisdiscrepancy s predictedto affect qualityperceptionsof consumers:

Proposition2: The gap betweenmanagementperceptions of consumer ex-pectationsand the firm's ser-vice qualityspecificationswillaffect service qualityfrom theconsumer's viewpoint.

Service quality specifications-service delivery gap(GAP3): Even when guidelines exist for performingservices well and treatingconsumers correctly, highqualityservice performancemay not be a certainty.Executivesrecognizethat a service firm's employeesexert a strong influence on the service quality per-ceived by consumersand thatemployee performancecannot always be standardized.When asked whatcauses service quality problems, executives consis-tentlymentioned he pivotalroleof contactpersonnel.In the repairand maintenance irm, for example, oneexecutive's immediateresponse to the source of ser-vice quality problems was, "Everythinginvolves aperson-a repairperson. It's so hard o maintainstan-dardizedquality."Each of the four firms had formal standardsorspecificationsfor maintainingservice quality (e.g.,answer at least 90% of phone calls from consumerswithin 10 seconds; keep errorrates in statementsbe-low 1%). However, each firm reported difficulty inadheringto these standardsbecause of variabilityinemployeeperformance.This problemleads to a thirdproposition:

Proposition3: The gap betweenservice qual-ity specifications and actualservice delivery will affectservice quality from the con-sumer's standpoint.Service delivery-external communications gap

(GAP4): Media advertising and other communicationsby a firmcan affect consumerexpectations.If expec-tationsplay a majorrole in consumerperceptionsofservice quality (as the services literaturecontends),the firmmustbe certainnot to promise more in com-munications han it can deliver in reality. Promisingmorethancan be deliveredwill raise initial expecta-tions butlowerperceptionsof qualitywhen the prom-ises are not fulfilled.The executive interviewssuggest anotherperhapsmore intriguingway in which externalcommunica-tions could influence service quality perceptionsbyconsumers. This occurs when companies neglect toinformconsumersof special efforts to assure qualitythatare not visible to consumers. Commentsof sev-eralexecutivesimpliedthatconsumersarenot alwaysawareof everythingdone behindthe scenes to servethem well.For instance, a securities brokerage executivementioned "48-hour ule"prohibitingmployeesfrombuyingor selling securitiesfor theirpersonalaccountsfor the first 48 hoursafterinformation s suppliedbythe firm. The firm did not communicatethis infor-mation o its customers,perhapscontributingo a per-ceptionthat "all the good deals areprobablymadebythe brokersfor themselves"(a perceptionwhich sur-




7/11

faced in the securitiesbrokeragefocus groups). Onebank executive indicated that consumers were un-awareof the bank's behindthe counter,on-line tellerterminalswhich would "translate nto visible effectson customer ervice."Makingconsumersawareof notreadilyapparent ervicerelatedstandards uch as thesecouldimproveservicequalityperceptions.Consumerswho are aware thata firm is taking concretesteps toserve theirbest interestsare likely to perceive a de-liveredservice in a more favorableway.In short, externalcommunicationscan affect notonly consumerexpectationsabout a service but alsoconsumerperceptionsof the deliveredservice. Alter-natively, discrepanciesbetween service delivery andexternalcommunications-in the formof exaggeratedpromisesand/or theabsenceof informationaboutser-vice delivery aspects intended to serve consumerswell-can affect consumer perceptions of servicequality.Proposition4: The gap between actual ser-vice delivery and externalcommunicationsaboutthe ser-vice will affect service qualityfroma consumer'sstandpoint.

Focus GroupInterviewsAs was trueof theexecutiveinterviews,theresponsesof focus groupparticipants boutservicequalitywereremarkably onsistent across groups and across ser-vice businesses. While some service-specific differ-ences were revealed, common themes emerged-themes which offer valuable insights about servicequalityperceptionsof consumers.

Expected service-perceived service gap (GAP5):Thefocusgroupsunambiguously upported he notionthatthe key to ensuringgood service qualityis meet-ing orexceedingwhatconsumersexpect fromthe ser-vice. Onefemaleparticipantescribeda situationwhena repairmannot only fixed her brokenappliancebutalsoexplainedwhathadgone wrongandhow shecouldfix it herself if a similarproblemoccurred n the fu-ture.She rated hequalityof this serviceexcellentbe-cause it exceeded her expectations.A male respond-ent in a bankingservices focus group describedthefrustrationhe felt when his bank would not cash hispayrollcheck from a nationallyknown employer be-cause it was postdatedby one day. When someoneelse in the group pointed out legal constraintspre-venting the bank from cashing his check, he re-sponded,"Well,nobody in the bankexplainedthat tome!" Not receiving an explanationin the bank, thisrespondent erceived hatthebankwas unwillingratherthanunable to cash the check. This in turnresultedin a perceptionof poor service quality.Similarexperiences, both positive and negative,

were describedby consumers n every focus group. Itappearshat udgmentsof high andlow servicequalitydependon how consumersperceivethe actualserviceperformancen the context of what they expected.Proposition5: The quality that a consumerperceives in a service is afunctionof the magnitudeanddirection of the gap between

expected service and per-ceived service.A Service Quality Model

Insights obtained from the executive interviews andthe focus groups form the basis of a model summa-rizing the natureand determinantsof service qualityas perceived by consumers. The foundation of thismodel is the set of gaps discussedearlierand shownin Figure 1. Service quality as perceived by a con-sumerdependson thesize anddirection f GAP5which,in turn,dependson the natureof the gaps associatedwith the design, marketing,and deliveryof services:services:

Proposition : GAPS = f(GAPl,GAP2,GAP3,GAP4)It is important o note that the gaps on the mar-keterside of the equation can be favorableor unfa-vorablefrom a service quality perspective. That is,the magnitudeand directionof each gap will have animpact on service quality. For instance, GAP3 will befavorablewhen actual service delivery exceeds spec-ifications;it will be unfavorablewhen service speci-

ficationsare not met. While proposition6 suggests arelationshipbetween service quality as perceived byconsumersand the gaps occurringon the marketer'sside, the functionalform of the relationshipneeds tobe investigated.This point is discussedfurther n thelast section dealing with futureresearchdirections.The Perceived Service Quality ComponentThefocus groupsrevealedthat, regardlessof the typeof service, consumersused basically similar criteriain evaluatingservice quality. These criteriaseem tofall into 10 key categorieswhich are labeled "servicequalitydeterminants" nd describedin Table 1. Foreach determinant,Table 1 providesexamples of ser-vice specificcriteria hatemerged n thefocus groups.Table 1 is not meant to suggest that the 10 determi-nantsare non-overlapping.Because the researchwasexploratory,measurementof possible overlap acrossthe 10 criteria(as well as determinationof whethersome can be combined) must await future empiricalinvestigation.The consumer'sview of service quality is shownin the upperpartof Figure 1 andfurtherelaborated n




8/11

TABLE 1Determinants of Service QualityRELIABILITYnvolves consistency of performance and dependability.It means that the firm performs the service right the first time.It also means that the firm honors its promises. Specifically, it involves:-accuracy in billing;-keeping records correctly;-performing the service at the designated time.RESPONSIVENESS concerns the willingness or readiness of employees to provide service. It involves timeliness of ser-

vice:-mailing a transaction slip immediately;-calling the customer back quickly;-giving prompt service (e.g., setting up appointments quickly).COMPETENCE eans possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service. It involves:-knowledge and skill of the contact personnel;-knowledge and skill of operational support personnel;-research capability of the organization, e.g., securities brokerage firm.ACCESSnvolves approachability and ease of contact. It means:-the service is easily accessible by telephone (lines are not busy and they don't put you on hold);-waiting time to receive service (e.g., at a bank) is not extensive;-convenient hours of operation;-convenient location of service facility.COURTESYnvolves politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel (including receptionists,telephone operators, etc.). It includes:-consideration for the consumer's property (e.g., no muddy shoes on the carpet);-clean and neat appearance of public contact personnel.COMMUNICATIONeans keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them. It maymean that the company has to adjust its language for different consumers-increasing the level of sophisticationwith a well-educated customer and speaking simply and plainly with a novice. It involves:-explaining the service itself;-explaining how much the service will cost;-explaining the trade-offs between service and cost;-assuring the consumer that a problem will be handled.CREDIBILITYnvolves trustworthiness, believability, honesty. It involves having the customer's best interests at heart.Contributingto credibility are:-company name;

-company reputation;-personal characteristics of the contact personnel;-the degree of hard sell involved in interactions with the customer.SECURITY is the freedom from danger, risk, or doubt. It involves:-physical safety (Will I get mugged at the automatic teller machine?);-financial security (Does the company know where my stock certificate is?);-confidentiality (Are my dealings with the company private?).UNDERSTANDING/KNOWING THE CUSTOMER involves making the effort to understand the customer's needs. It involves:-learning the customer's specific requirements;-providing individualizedattention;-recognizing the regular customer.TANGIBLESnclude the physical evidence of the service:-physical facilities;

-appearance of personnel;-tools or equipment used to provide the service;-physical representations of the service, such as a plastic credit card or a bank statement;-other customers in the service facility.Figure 2. Figure 2 indicates that perceived service portance vis-a-vis consumer perceptions of the deliv-quality is the result of the consumer's comparison of ered service. However, the general comparison of ex-expected service with perceived service. It is quite pections with perceptionswas suggested in past researchpossible that the relative importance of the 10 deter- on service quality (Gronroos 1982, Lehtinen and Leh-minants in molding consumer expectations (prior to tinen 1982) and supported in the focus group inter-service delivery) may differ from their relative im- views with consumers. The comparison of expected

A ConceptualModel of ServiceQuality 47



9/11

FIGUREDeterminants of Perceived Service Quality

andperceivedservice is not unlike thatperformedbyconsumerswhen evaluating goods. Whatdiffers withservices s the natureof the characteristicsponwhichthey are evaluated.One frameworkfor isolating differences in eval-uation of qualityfor goods and services is the clas-sificationof propertiesof goods proposed by Nelson(1974) and Darby and Karni (1973). Nelson distin-guishedbetweentwo categoriesof propertiesof con-sumer goods: search properties, attributeswhich aconsumer can determinepriorto purchasinga prod-uct, and experienceproperties, attributeswhich canonly be discerned afterpurchaseor duringconsump-tion. Searchpropertiesnclude attributes uch as color,style, price, fit, feel, hardness,and smell, while ex-periencepropertiesncludecharacteristicsuch as taste,wearability,anddependability.Darby and Kari (1973) added to Nelson's two-way classificationsystem a thirdcategory, credenceproperties-characteristics which the consumer mayfind impossible to evaluate even after purchase andconsumption.Examplesof offeringshigh in credencepropertiesncludeappendectomiesandbrakereliningson automobiles. Few consumers possess medical ormechanicalskills sufficientto evaluatewhethertheseservicesarenecessaryor areperformedproperly,evenafterthey have been prescribedand producedby theseller.Consumers n the focus groupsmentionedsearch,experience, and credence propertieswhen asked todescribeanddefine service quality. These aspects ofservicequalitycan be categorizedinto the 10 servicequalitydeterminantshown in Table 1 andcan be ar-rayedalong a continuumrangingfrom easy to eval-uate to difficultto evaluate.

In general,offerings high in searchpropertiesareeasiest to evaluate,thosehighin experiencepropertiesmoredifficult to evaluate,andthose high in credencepropertieshardestto evaluate. Most services containfew searchpropertiesand are high in experienceandcredenceproperties,makingtheirqualitymore diffi-cult to evaluate hanqualityof goods (Zeithaml1981).Only two of the ten determinants-tangibles andcredibility-can be known in advance of purchase,therebymakingthe numberof searchproperties ew.Most of the dimensions of service qualitymentionedby the focus group participantswereexperience prop-erties: access, courtesy, reliability, responsiveness,understanding/knowing he customer, and commu-nication.Eachof thesedeterminantsanonlybe knownas the customer is purchasingor consuming the ser-vice. Whilecustomersmay possess some informationbased on theirexperienceor on othercustomers' eval-uations, they are likely to reevaluatethese determi-nants each time a purchase is made because of theheterogeneityof services.Two of the determinants hatsurfaced n the focusgroup interviews probably fall into the category ofcredenceproperties,those which consumers cannotevaluate even afterpurchaseandconsumption.Theseinclude ompetence thepossessionof therequiredkillsand knowledge to performthe service) and security(freedom romdanger,risk, or doubt).Consumersareprobablynever certain of these attributes,even afterconsumptionof the service.Because few searchpropertiesexist with servicesand because credence propertiesare too difficult toevaluate,the following is proposed:Proposition7: Consumers typically rely onexperience properties whenevaluatingservice quality.

Based on insights from the present study, per-ceived servicequalityis furtherpositedto exist alonga continuumrangingfrom ideal qualityto totally un-acceptablequality, with some pointalong the contin-uumrepresenting atisfactoryquality.The positionofa consumer'sperceptionof servicequalityon the con-tinuumdependson the nature of the discrepancybe-tweentheexpectedservice (ES) andperceivedservice(PS):

Proposition8: (a) When ES > PS, perceivedquality s less thansatisfactoryand will tend toward totallyunacceptablequality, with in-creased discrepancy betweenES andPS; (b) when ES = PS,perceived quality is satisfac-tory; (c) when ES < PS, per-ceived quality is more than




10/11

satisfactoryand will tend to-ward ideal quality, with in-creased discrepancy betweenES and PS.Directionsfor Future Research

The proposed service quality model (Figure 1) pro-vides a conceptualframework n an area where littlepriorresearchhas been done. It is based on an inter-pretation f qualitativedatagenerated hrougha num-berof in-depthexecutive interviewsand consumerfo-cus groups-an approachconsistentwith proceduresrecommended or marketing heorydevelopment.Theconceptualmodel andthe propositionsemergingfromit imply a rich agendafor furtherresearch.First,there s a need andanopportunity o developa standard nstrument o measure consumers' servicequalityperceptions.The authors'exploratoryresearchrevealed 10 evaluative dimensions or criteriawhichtranscenda varietyof services (Table 1). Researchisnow needed to generateitems or statements to fleshout the 10 dimensions, to devise appropriateratingscales to measureconsumers'perceptionswith respectto each statement, and to condense the set of state-ments to producea reliable and comprehensive butconcise instrument.Further, he statementsgeneratedshouldbe such that with appropriatehanges in word-ing, the same instrument an be used to measureper-ceived qualityfor a varietyof services.Second,themainthesis of the servicequalitymodelis thatconsumers' quality perceptionsare influencedby a series of distinctgaps occurringon the market-ers' side. A key challengefor researchers s to devisemethodsto measure these gaps accurately. Reliableandvalidmeasuresof these gaps will be necessaryforempirically testing the propositions implied by themodel.Third, research is needed to examine the natureof the association between service quality as per-ceived by consumersand its determinantsGAPS1-4).Specifically, are one or more of these gaps more crit-ical thanthe othersin affectingquality?Cancreatingone "favorable"gap-e.g., making GAP4favorableby employing effective external communications tocreaterealisticconsumerexpectationsandto enhanceconsumer perceptions-offset service quality prob-lems stemmingfromothergaps?Are theredifferences

across service industriesregardingthe relative seri-ousness of service qualityproblemsand their impacton qualityas perceivedby consumers? In addition tooffering valuable managerial insights, answers toquestions like these may suggest refinements to theproposedmodel.Fourth, the usefulness of segmenting consumerson the basis of their service quality expectations isworthexploring. Although the focus groups consis-tently revealed similar criteria for judging servicequality, the group participants differed on the relativeimportance of those criteria to them, and their expec-tations along the various quality dimensions. Empir-ical research aimed at determiningwhetherdistinct,identifiable service quality segments exist will bevaluable from a service marketer'sviewpoint. In thisregard, t will be useful to build into the service qual-ity measurement nstrument ertain statements or as-certainingwhether, and in what ways, consumerex-pectationsdiffer.Fifth, as shown by Figure 1, expected service-acritical component of perceived service quality-inadditionto being influenced by a marketer'scom-munications, is shaped by word-of-mouthcommuni-cations, personal needs, and past experience. Re-search ocusingon the relativeimpactof these factorson consumers' service expectations,within as well asacrossservicecategories,will have useful managerialimplications.

SummaryThe exploratoryresearch(focus group and in-depthexecutive interviews) reportedin this article offersseveral insights and propositions concerning con-sumers' perceptionsof service quality. Specifically,the research revealed 10 dimensions that consumersuse in forming expectationsabout and perceptionsofservices, dimensions that transcenddifferenttypes ofservices. The researchalso pinpointedfour key dis-crepanciesor gaps on the service provider'sside thatare likely to affect service quality as perceived byconsumers.The major nsights gained through he re-searchsuggest a conceptualservicequalitymodel thatwill hopefully spawn both academic and practitionerinterest n service quality and serve as a frameworkfor furtherempiricalresearch n this importantarea.

REFERENCESAnderson, Carl and Carl P. Zeithaml (1984), "Stage of theProduct Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Per- formance," Academy of Management Journal,

27 (March),5-24.

AConceptualodelfServiceQuality49



11/11

Bateson, John E. G. (1977), "Do We Need Service Market-ing?," in Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights,Cambridge, MA: MarketingScience Institute, Report #77-115.Bellenger, Danny N., Kenneth L. Berhardt,and Jac L. Gold-stucker (1976), Qualitative Research in Marketing, Chi-cago: American Marketing.Berry, LeonardL. (1980), "Services MarketingIs Different,"Business, 30 (May-June), 24-28.Booms, Bernard H. and Mary J. Bitner (1981), "Marketing

Strategiesand OrganizationStructures for Services Firms,"in Marketingof Services, J. Donnelly and W. George, eds.,Chicago: American Marketing, 47-51.Carmen, James M. and Eric Langeard(1980), "GrowthStrat-egies of Service Firms," Strategic Management Journal, 1(January-March), 7-22.Churchill, G. A., Jr., and C. Suprenaut (1982), "An Inves-tigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 19 (November), 491-504.Crosby, Philip B. (1979), Quality Is Free: The Art of MakingQuality Certain, New York: New American Library.Darby, M. R. and E. Karni (1973), "Free Competition andthe Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Eco-nomics, 16 (April), 67-86.Deshpande, Rohit (1983), "'Paradigms Lost': On Theory andMethod in Research in Marketing," Journal of Marketing,47 (Fall), 101-110.Garvin, David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," HarvardBusiness Review, 61 (September-October), 65-73.Gronroos, Christian(1978), "A Service-Oriented ApproachtoMarketing of Services," European Journal of Marketing,12 (no. 8), 588-601.(1982), Strategic Managementand Marketing in theService Sector, Helsingfors: Swedish School of Economicsand Business Administration.

Jacoby, Jacob, JerryC. Olson, and Rafael A. Haddock(1973),"Price, Brand Name and Product Composition Character-istics as Determinants of Perceived Quality," Journal ofApplied Psychology, 55 (no. 6), 570-579.Langeard, Eric, John E. G. Bateson, Christopher H. Love-lock, and Pierre Eiglier (1981), Service Marketing: NewInsightsfrom Consumers and Managers, Cambridge, MA:MarketingScience Institute.Lehtinen, Uolevi and Jarmo R. Lehtinen (1982), "ServiceQuality: A Study of Quality Dimensions," unpublishedworking paper, Helsinki: Service Management Institute,Finland OY.Leonard, Frank S. and W. Earl Sasser (1982), "The Inclineof Quality,"HarvardBusiness Review, 60 (September-Oc-tober), 163-171.Lewis, Robert C. and Bernard H. Booms (1983), "The Mar-keting Aspects of Service Quality," in Emerging Perspec-tives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G. Shostack, andG. Upah, eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 99-107.Lovelock, ChristopherH. (1980), "Towards a Classificationof Services," in Theoretical Developments in Marketing,C. Lamb and P. Dunne, eds., Chicago: American Market-ing, 72-76.(1981), "Why Marketing Management Needs to be

Different for Services," in Marketing of Services, J. Don-nelly andW. George, eds., Chicago: American Marketing,5-9.(1983), "Classifying Services to Gain StrategicMarketingInsights," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer),9-20.

McConnell, J. D. (1968), "Effect of Pricing on Perception ofProductQuality," Journal of Applied Psychology, 52 (Au-gust), 300-303.Monroe, Kent B. and R. Krishnan(1983), "The Effect of Priceon Subjective Product Evaluations," Blacksburg: VirginiaPolytechnic Institute, working paper.Nelson, P. (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal ofPolitical Economy, 81 (July/August), 729-754.Olander, F. (1970), "The Influence of Price on the Consum-er's Evaluationof Products,"in Pricing Strategy, B. TaylorandG. Wills, eds., Princeton, NJ: Brandon/Systems Press.Parasuraman,A. and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1982), "Differ-ential Perceptionsof Suppliersand Clients of IndustrialSer-vices," in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing,L. Berry, G. Shostack, and G. Upah, eds., Chicago: Amer-ican Marketing, 35-39.Peter, J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson (1983), "Is Science Mar-keting?," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 111-125.Phillips, Lynn W., Dae R. Chang, and Robert D. Buzzell(1983), "ProductQuality, Cost Position, and Business Per-formance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses," Journal ofMarketing, 47 (Spring), 26-43.Rabin, Joseph H. (1983), "Accent Is on Quality in ConsumerServices This Decade," MarketingNews, 17 (March4), 12.Regan, William J. (1963), "The Service Revolution," Journalof Marketing, 27 (July), 57-62.Sasser, W. Earl, Jr., R. Paul Olsen, and D. Daryl Wyckoff(1978), Managementof Service Operations:Textand Cases,Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Shapiro,Bensen (1972), "The Price of Consumer Goods: The-ory and Practice," Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science In-stitute, working paper.Shostack, G. Lynn (1977), "BreakingFree from ProductMar-keting," Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 73-80.Smith, Ruth A. and Michael J. Houston (1982), "Script-BasedEvaluations of Satisfaction with Services," in EmergingPerspectives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G. Shos-tack, and G. Upah, eds., Chicago: American Marketing,59-62.

Takeuchi, Hirotaka and John A. Quelch (1983), "Quality IsMore Than Making a Good Product," Harvard BusinessReview, 61 (July-August), 139-145.Upah, Gregory D. (1980), "Mass Marketing in Service Re-tailing:A Review and Synthesis of Major Methods," Jour-nal of Retailing, 56 (Fall), 59-76.Zaltman, Gerald, Karen LeMasters, and Michael Heffring(1982), Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thoughton Thinking, New York: Wiley.Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1981), "How ConsumerEvaluation Pro-cesses Differ between Goods and Services," in Marketingof Services, J. Donnelly and W. George, eds., Chicago:American Marketing, 186-190.

50 / JournalfMarketing,all 985

a conceptual model of service quality

Documents