DIMENSI KUALITAS JASA

7/21/2019 DIMENSI KUALITAS JASA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dimensi-kualitas-jasa-56d99b3c39869 1/20

Managing Service Quality: An International JournalPrioritizing service quality dimensions

Nimit Chowdhary Monika PrakashArticle in format ion:

To cite this document:Nimit Chowdhary Monika Prakash, (2007),"Prioritizing service quality dimensions", Managing ServiceQuality: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp. 493 - 509Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520710817325

Downloaded on: 14 February 2015, At: 05:22 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 21744 times since 2007*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Shirshendu Ganguli, Sanjit Kumar Roy, (2010),"Service quality dimensions of hybridservices", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 404-424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521011073713

Gi-Du Kang, Jeffrey James, (2004),"Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grönroos’s servicequality model", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 4 pp. 266-277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520410546806

Abby Ghobadian, Simon Speller, Matthew Jones, (1994),"Service Quality: Concepts and Models",International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 Iss 9 pp. 43-66 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719410074297

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 601976 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight .com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company

manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520710817325

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520710817325



Prioritizing service qualitydimensions

Nimit Chowdhary and Monika PrakashSchool of Management, University, Mizoram, Aizawl, India

Abstract

Purpose – The study was undertaken with a purpose to investigate if any generalization inimportance of service quality dimensions is possible. Service providers are often not sure of theamount of tangibilisation necessary and the right mix of other service quality dimensions – reliability,assurance, empathy, responsiveness, and the role of price-added by researcher.

Design/methodology/approach – A two stage analysis was deployed. First free listing of important service quality concerns for 16 services across the four service types (as suggested byLovelock) was done to see if any rank correlation was possible. This was followed by two-step cluster

analysis to reveal natural grouping (or clusters) within a data set for each service quality dimensionthat would otherwise not be apparent.

Findings – Generalization of quality dimensions was not possible among all types of services takentogether, however important insights were available pertaining to each service type.

Practical implications – Some generalizations within the service types were possible for differentservices. Thus, service providers can consider these finding when designing service delivery.

Originality/value – Considering the two important dimensions – tangibility of service act andwhether such an action is targeted at the customer or their possessions, the paper details what servicequality issues are important for which service type.

Keywords Service quality assurance, Service levels

Paper type Research paper

In the “age of customer” delivering quality service is considered an essential strategyfor success and survival in today’s competitive environment (Dawkins and Reichheld,1990; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Zeithaml et al., 1990). Whatconstitutes service quality has attracted the attention of researchers all over the world.The debate continues.

Even as researchers continue to debate the determinants of service quality a fewimportant issues remain unanswered. Is there a universal set of determinants thatdetermine the service quality across a section of services? Does the servicecharacteristic gets reflected in what customers expect out of delivery of a particularservice? Is there an inherent difference in services because they must be delivered in aparticular way and does that have a bearing on what becomes important for thecustomer? Practitioners continue to look for advice and suggestion as to what

constitute service quality for their offers and furthermore, if they tend to repositiontheir offers by varying some characteristics of their offers, for example, by increasingor reducing tangibility or customer contact, etc. What are the operating characteristicsof determinants as they together constitute the service quality? This paper is anattempt to generate evidence if difference in services that result into peculiar servicecharacteristics returns customers with a unique set of expectations – those differentfrom other service types. The paper also intends to examine if the determinants of service quality show some predictable behavior as service type tend to differ based on

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

Prioritizingservice quality

dimensions

493

Managing Service Quality

Vol. 17 No. 5, 2007

pp. 493-509

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0960-4529

DOI 10.1108/09604520710817325

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm



some criterion. This paper therefore first, goes through the discussion on determinantsof service quality and then, there is a small discussion on service classifications whichcan serve as basis for difference in service nature.

Johnston (1995) suggests that one of the pressing issues before services research

concerns the identification of the determinants of service quality. This should be acentral concern for service management academics and practitioners, as theidentification of the determinants of service quality is necessary in order to be ableto specify measure, control and improve customer perceived service quality.

Early studies during 1980s focused on determining what service quality meant tocustomers and developing strategies to meet customer expectations (Parasuramanet al., 1985). The early pioneers of services marketing in Europe, especially the NordicSchool, argued that service quality consists of two or three underlying dimensions.Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1985) referred to physical and interactive quality whileGronroos (1984) identified a technical dimension, a functional dimension and the firm’simage as a third dimension. In later years, Parasuraman et al. (1988) publishedempirical evidence from five service industries that suggested that five dimensionsmore appropriately capture the perceived service quality construct. Building on thepioneering work of the Nordic School of services management and particularlyChristian Gronroos, they established service quality as the core of services marketing.Their landmark article in 1985 conceptualized service quality as a gap betweenconsumers’ expectations and perceptions (Parasuraman et al., 1985) and inspired manyother researchers to examine the services quality construct within a marketingpremise(Berry et al., 1985). However, their contribution has not gone unchallenged.Much of this interest has centered on the controversy generated by their service qualitygaps model (Parasuraman et al., 1985), and particularly the SERVQUAL instrumentdeveloped to measure service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Many researchers whohave used the SERVQUAL instrument have been critical of its paradigmatic

foundation, its convergent and discriminant validity, the use of difference scores andthe use of negatively phrased items (Carman, 1990; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Peteret al., 1993; Buttle, 1995).

Variations from unidimensionality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992)to two,three, four, six andeight factor structures have been reported (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brensingerand Lambert, 1990; Carman, 1990; Cliff and Ryan, 1994; Schneider et al., 1992). Spreng andSingh (1993) have hinted at the possible combination of some of the five dimensions due tohigh inter-correlations. Johnston and Silvestro (1990) went on to add the customer’sperspective to the 12 service quality characteristics. This led to the identification of anadditional five service quality determinants: attentiveness/helpfulness, care, commitment,functionality, integrity; it also led to a refining of some of the other definitions.

A number of other authors have also postulated their own determinants of service

quality, though in some cases they appear to have been based on Berry et al.’s (1985)well publicized work.

Lately, even the developers of the instrument have produced evidence confirmingthe doubts expressed about the five-dimensional configuration. Thus, despite the“many” studies which have analyzed the dimensions measured by SERVQUAL,“there is no clear consensus on the number of dimensions and their interrelationships.”This uncertainty hampers our understanding of service quality and casts doubts overthe use of the SERVQUAL instrument in future research. It also shows that a

MSQ17,5

494



considerable amount of research still needs to be done concerning the dimensionality of perceived service quality in general and SERVQUAL in particular, as called for by itsdevelopers (Parasuraman et al., 1994).

Chowdhary and Prakash (2001) have suggested a two factors’ theory – that a more

detailed approach is required wherein each factor needs to be considered independentlyand not as an aggregate dimension. They report evidence to support two-factor theoryfor services that was discarded by earlier researchers. They argue to differentiatebetween the factors and the outcome of performance along these factors. The studydescribes the two factors as “vantage factors” and “qualifying factors.” Marketers needto be selective in that certain factors behave as vantage factors while others asqualifying factors. The two are different in nature and require a differential treatment.

Relative importance of dimensionsParasuraman et al. (1988) have observed that their instrument (SERVQUAL) can beused to evaluate the relative importance of the dimensions of quality in influencing

customers’ overall perceptions of a service. The relative weight that customers seem togive to each quality dimension can be determined. One of the important results thathave been reported in the early studies of relative importance is that customers arequite consistent in both their imputed and their direct rankings of the importance of theservice quality attributes. In one key study (Parasuraman et al., 1988), reliability wasdemonstrated to be the most important dimension and empathy (a composite of understanding and access) the least important across a seemingly wide array of servicetypes. Zeithaml et al. (1990) also report, using a variation of SERVQUAL that tangiblesproves to be consistently unimportant. A pertinent question here is that whether such ageneralization is possible. Chowdhary (2000) suggest that generalizations are difficultto make because of variation in the basic nature of services (labor or capital intensity)and that the type of industry affect the design of service. It was seen that empathy and

responsiveness were found to be more important for labor intensive industry whiletangibles and reliability affected the assessment of quality dimensions in case of capital intensive services. This was also confirmed by the results from a similar studydone for “Management Education” where the single most important dimension was theknowledge of the teacher (assurance).

Services unique selling proposition can be woven around different criteria(tangibility, customization, labor intensity, etc.). This criterion in turn could be the keyperformance dimension. Different user groups can see each type of service in turn asperforming on a number of factors across different dimensions. From among thesefactors, some are the key factors (KFs) and are relatively more important for theconsumer. A number of these KFs could be simultaneously important for these usergroups, though the relative importance of these dimensions may vary from one user

group to another. There may also be a general shift in consumer preference for adimension, for example, from “medical-care” through “patient-care” to “hospital-care,”incase of the consumers of healthcare. Their importance may also vary from oneconsumer to another.

Service typesService classifications have been offered since early 1980s. Different authors havesuggested different taxonomies based on different criterions. Of these four are not


dimensions

495



worthy – Chase (1978), Chase and Tansik (1983), Schmenner (1986), Wemmerlov (1990)and Lovelock (1983). Chase segments by the extent of customer contact in the deliveryof the service. Schmenner classifies services using two dimensions, with the degrees of interaction (generalized from “contact”) and customization on one axis and the degree

of labor intensity on the other. Wemmerlov (1990) more recently proposed aclassification scheme where the variables of differentiation are the degree of routinization of the process, the “object” of the service process, and customer contact.His operationalization of contact differs from both Chase and Schmenner in that heredefines it to be “direct” “indirect” or “no” contact with the customer, rather thansimply as “high” or “low”. Lovelock (1983) has suggested categorizing services intofour distinctive categories based on what a service organization is actually processingand how does it perform that task. A service organization may be servicing individualcustomers or alternatively it may be servicing their possessions. Further, the servicingmay be physical as in case of hair cutting or a travel by train. Alternatively, theservicing may be intangible as in case of education, entertainment or consultancy. Hetherefore suggests a 2 £ 2 classification of service processes.

This scheme elaborates on how and what benefits the customer in a servicetransaction. This classification has tangibility of offer across the recipient of services.Why tangibility answers what benefits the customer – a tangible action or anintangible one? The second issue answers how the service benefits the customer – byservice his self or his possessions. This in turn determines what the nature of a serviceoffer is.

It answers an important question whether the customers need to be mentally orphysically present to receive such services. For example, the services targeted at peoplethemselves require the presence. While tangible services require the physical presence,the intangibles can be restructured to be delivered through alternative media or atleast the alternate media can be used to support the core service. Similarly, we witness

the intangible services directed at possessions having greater propensity to be offeredthru electronic media. Services directed at possession do not necessarily require thepresence of the customer as a must. Therefore, even the tangible actions directed atpossession can be redesigned as pickup services – where possessions can be picked upfrom customers’ location, served and returned. This eliminates the need for customers’entry into providers’ space and thus such services can be located in low cost obscurelocations as against a high-presence venue. Presence (or absence) of the customer willalso affect the demand and supply issue (Chowdhary and Chowdhary, 2005).

MethodologyThe above cited literature review has discussed the service dimension and the tools toevaluate service quality. Yet it is insufficient is establishing any generic relative

importance of service dimensions. Researcher believes that such a generalization maynot be possible across all service types. This study seeks to make out whether somegeneralization is possible within service types and does that vary with classificationvariables. For the purpose of investigation, researcher has used Lovelock’s (1983)classification.

The pertinent research question was whether the different categories of serviceprocesses show a pattern vis-a -vis the importance of different determinants of servicequality (the five dimensions suggested by Parasuraman et al. ). The objective was to

MSQ17,5

496



Null hypothesis. There is no rank correlation in the population; that is, different types of services have dimensions (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy,and fees) having different priorities (ranks).

H 0 . r s – 0.

Alternative hypothesis. There is population rank correlation; that is, irrespective of theservice types, dimensions have similar priorities (ranks).

Thus, if the null hypothesis is accepted it would mean that for different servicetypes the customer priorities of determinants of service quality are different. Thiswould mean that the service providers must understand the expectations of theircustomers instead of relying on some kind of generalization about the servicedimension priorities. If the alternative hypothesis is accepted then irrespective of service type some generalization about relative importance of determinants of servicequality could be made.

For small values of n ( n ¼ 6), we use Spearman’s rank correlation test tables thatgive values for combined areas in both tails (Tables V and VI).

Thus, null hypothesis was accepted at all the abovementioned levels of significance.It can therefore be concluded that for different service types, consumers rate servicequality dimensions differently. This supports Rosen and Karwan’s (1994) study thatthe proposition that one can generically order the quality dimensions (in terms of relative importance as suggested by Parasuraman et al., 1985) for any firm isappealing, but is not likely to be supportable. The reasons for this are intuitive from astrategic operations perspective and are observable when conducting the tests for“relative importance” across a truly broad sample of service types.

Subsequently, two-step cluster analysis procedure (Table VII) was deployed toreveal natural grouping (or clusters) within a data set for each service qualitydimension that would otherwise not be apparent. Similarity between clusters was

( A ) People processing ( 279 )Hospitals and nursing homes 85Hotel and restaurants 72Beauty salons 61Fitness centers 61( B ) Possession processing ( 240 )Freight transport 61Repair and maintenance 60Retail outlets 58Laundry and dry-cleaning 61( C ) Mental stimuli processing ( 215 )Telephone companies 56Management consultancy 49Management education (MBA) 54Cable operators 56( D ) Information processing ( 253 )Accounting firms 57

Banks 68Insurance companies 68Legal companies 60Total free-list items ¼ 989

Table II.Free-listed items

MSQ17,5

498



H o s p i t a l s a n d

n u r s

i n g h o m e s

( P e r c e n t a g e

s c o r e s )

H o t e l s / r e s t a u r a n t s


s c o r e s )

B e a u t y

s a l o n s


s c o r e s )

F i t n e s s

c e n t e r s

( P e r c e n

t a g e

s c o r e s )

T o t a l

T a n g i b l e s

2 1

2 4 . 7

1

2 2

3 0 . 5

6

2 9

4 7 . 5

4

3 4

5 5 . 7 4

1 0 6

R e l i a b i l i t y

8

9 . 4

1

3

4 . 1

7

1

1 . 6

4

2

3 . 2 8

1 4

R e s p o n s i v e n e s s

1 0

1 1 . 7

6

1 0

1 3 . 8

9

1

1 . 6

4

2

3 . 2 8

2 3

A s s u r a n c e

2 1

2 4 . 7

1

1 7

2 3 . 6

1

1 5

2 4 . 5

9

1 0

1 6 . 3 9

6 3

E m p a t h y

1 8

2 1 . 1

8

1 4

1 9 . 4

4

7

1 1 . 4

8

9

1 4 . 7 5

4 8

F e e s

7

8 . 2

4

6

8 . 3

3

8

1 3 . 1

1

4

6 . 5 6

2 5

8 5

1 0 0

7 2

1 0 0

6 1

1 0 0

6 1

1 0 0

2 7 9

Table III.Example of free-listing

analysis for peopleprocessing services


dimensions

499



T Y P E

T A N G I B I L

R E L I A B I L

R E S P O N S I

A S S U R A N C

E M P A T H Y

F E E S

P e o p l e p r o c e s s i n g

M e a n

3 9 . 6

3 7 5

4 . 6

2 5 0

7 . 6

4 2 5

2 2 . 3

2 5 0

1 6 . 7

1 2 5

9 . 0

6 0 0

N

4

4

4

4

4

4

S t d d e v i a t i o n

1 4 . 4

5 6 5 0

3 . 3

5 7 7 0

6 . 0

8 4 0 4

3 . 9

8 7 2 3

4 . 4

2 0 7 2

2 . 8

2 0 0 4

P o s s e s i o n s p r o c e s s i n g

M e a n

1 9 . 7

4 5 0

3 5 . 3

1 0 0

6 . 6

5 7 5

1 7 . 4

3 0 0

8 . 4

3 0 0

1 2 . 4

4 7 5

N

4

4

4

4

4

4


9 . 8

2 4 0 4

8 . 7

0 9 9 3

2 . 2

2 8 9 7

8 . 8

4 7 7 4

5 . 9

2 1 6 6

5 . 4

9 0 1 3

M e n t a l s t u m l i p r o c e s s i n g

M e a n

8 . 3

4 2 5

3 1 . 2

2 7 5

8 . 2

5 7 5

2 8 . 4

2 0 0

1 1 . 6

7 2 5

1 2 . 0

7 0 0

N

4

4

4

4

4

4


5 . 3

6 9 0 7

2 . 1

8 0 1 3

5 . 4

0 4 4 3

4 . 7

7 8 4 4

2 . 4

9 0 9 0

2 . 9

3 1 1 3

I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g

M e a n

6 . 1

9 2 5

3 6 . 1

2 5 0

9 . 6

1 7 5

1 9 . 3

5 7 5

2 3 . 1

9 2 5

5 . 5

1 0 0

N

4

4

4

4

4

4


7 . 0

0 3 8 2

1 0 . 5

4 6 4 4

4 . 3

6 8 8 2

4 . 6

0 1 6 0

8 . 0

5 7 3 0

5 . 4

0 0 8 1

T o t a l

M e a n

1 8 . 4

7 9 4

2 6 . 8

2 1 9

8 . 0

4 3 8

2 1 . 8

8 3 1

1 5 . 0

0 1 9

9 . 7

7 1 9

N

1 6

1 6

1 6

1 6

1 6

1 6


1 6 . 2

5 2 4 1

1 4 . 8

1 4 8 2

4 . 3

9 1 3 2

6 . 7

8 7 7 7

7 . 6

3 4 7 8

4 . 8

4 4 2 8

Table IV.Summary of results of free-listing

MSQ17,5

500



computed on the basis of log-likelihood method. The likelihood measure places aprobability distribution on the variables. Continuous variables (tangibility, reliability,responsiveness, assurance, empathy and fees) were assumed to be normallydistributed, while categorical variable (service type) are assumed multinomial.

Further, all variables are assumed to be independent. Empirical internal testingindicates that the procedure is fairly robust to violations of both the assumption of independence and the distributional assumptions. One important observation is thattwo-way cluster analysis in almost all cases (5 out of 6, barring reliability) resulted in2 £ 2 distributions of service types.

Once the clusters were obtained, based on Euclidean measure of distance test of differences between cluster means for small sample sizes was applied to ensure if thedifference in cluster means in significant or not at a ¼ 0.05. Results are summarized inTable VIII.

Tangibility is clearly an important issue with services that require a more visibleaction that is people-processing ( A ) and possession-processing ( B ) services. Perhaps,tangible cues buttress tangible actions for these cases. Customers need more tangibility

to identify with services where value is created in their physical presence on the serviceprocess. Since, the presence of customer is not a concern in case of services with anintangible action, customers of mental-stimuli ( C ) and information processing ( D ) haverated tangibles as low on expectations. Still it must be noted that need for tangibility ishigher as we move from services targeted at possessions to services those are targetedat people (39.64 ( A ) . 19.758 ( B ); 8.34 ( C ) . 6.19 ( D )). Tangibility, therefore, is moreimportant an issue for universities and cinema halls than for insurance companies andaccounting firms. Thus, tangibility is most important for people processing servicesfollowed by possession processing, mental-stimuli processing and informationprocessing services in that order.

Respondents from the services selected for the study rated reliability as the mostimportant service dimension. As in most cases of services, only a post purchaseevaluation is possible, customers expect service processes to be reliable to match theirexpectations. In case of this dimension, two-step cluster analysis resulted into twoclusters with people processing services as one cluster and the other three beingincluded in the second cluster. Respondents for cluster one, are relatively lessconcerned about reliability perhaps because tangibility serves as a surrogate for it. Allthe others in cluster two rate it as quite important (Mean ¼ 34.22, SD ¼ 7.12).

Peopleprocessing

Possessionprocessing Mental-stimuli-processing

Informationprocessing

People processing 1.00 20.03 20.47 20.31

Possession processing 1.00 0.56 0.26Mental stimuli processing 1.00 0.53Information processing 1.00

Table V.Spearman’s rank

correlation ( r s ) test

N 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.016 0.6000 0.7714 0.8286 0.8857 0.9429

Table VI.Spearman’s rank

correlation test tables


dimensions

501



P e o p l e p r

o c e s s i n g

P o s s e s i o n s

p r o c e s s i n g

M e n t a l s t u m l i

p r o c e s s i n g

I n f o

r m a t i o n

p r o c e s s i n g

F r e q u e n c y

P e r c e n t

F r e q u e n c y

P e r c e n t

F r e q u e n c y

P e r c e n t

F r e q u e n c

y

P e r c e n t

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n t a n g i b

i l i t y

1

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

2

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C o m b i n e d

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n r e l i a b i l i t y

1

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

2

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C o m b i n e d

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n r e s p o n

s i v e n e s s

1

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

0

0 . 0

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

0

0 . 0

2

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C o m b i n e d

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n a s s u r a

n c e

1

4

1 0 0 . 0

a

0 a

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

2

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

0

0 . 0

C o m b i n e d

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n e m p a t h y

1

4

1 0 0 . 0

a

0 a

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

2

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

0

0 . 0

C o m b i n e d

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n f e e s

1

4

1 0 0 . 0

a

0 a

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

4 a

1 0 0 . 0

a

2

0

0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

0

0 . 0

C o m b i n e d

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

4

1 0 0 . 0

N o t e s : a C l u s t e r 1 , o t h e r s

C l u s t e r 2 f o r e a c h s e r v i c e d i m e n s i o n

Table VII.Clustering of servicetypes based on servicedimensions

MSQ17,5

502



Further, as we move towards services that are targeted at possessions of customers,whereby the presence of customer on the process is not necessary and the services arecarried out largely in back-offices, there is a greater need for reliability of serviceprocess. More reliability is expected as services include intangible actions. Thus,

reliability is very important for information processing services (ATM-deposit, orability of your lawyer) followed by possession processing, mental-stimuli processingand least important in case of people processing services.

Cluster analysis clubbed people- and information-processing as one cluster; andpossession- and mental-stimuli-processing as the second cluster, for “assurance”dimension. Test of difference between means of two clusters was administered toascertain if there was a significant difference in the means of two clusters. Analysissuggested null hypothesis to be accepted (Table VIII), that is there was no significantdifference in the means. Subsequently, two clusters (( A, C ) and ( B , D )) based ondistance of mean values of four service-types were formed and the test for differenceswas applied. A t -value of 2.38 ( .2.145 the critical value) was obtained and the alternatehypothesis was accepted. The difference in means was significant at a ¼ 0.05 for onetailed test (Table IX).

Assurance, the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to conveytrust and confidence (competence, courtesy, credibility, security) was important forservices targeted at the individual customers necessitating considerable contactbetween the employees and customers (( A ¼ 22.33) and ( C ¼ 28.42)). Further, asthe nature of service act grows more intangible the need for greater assurance was felt( C (28.42) . A (22.33) and D (19.36) . B (17.43)) to reinforce the confidence of customer. Thus, customers of mental-stimuli-processing services ( C ) that requiremeaningful customer contact and are largely intangible (MBA teaching, managementconsulting, etc.), expect greater assurance from service providers. Subsequently, theimportance of assurance decreases in the order: people-processing, information

processing and last the possession processing.Test of difference of means based on both, the two-step cluster analysis and

distance, for responsiveness, suggested accepting null hypothesis. That is no groupingof service types was available that results into significant difference to suggest thatresponsiveness was more important in any one of service types or groups. Infact, responsiveness was uniformly considered as less important service dimension byrespondents of all service types (Figure 1). In these times of transition, ours is still adeficit market economy. The customers are less expectants and waiting time is oftennot a big consideration. The customer therefore accepts slothfulness and lessspontaneity in service delivery. This may change as markets mature over time andcustomers need to be lured and pampered.

Two-step cluster analysis identified people-processing ( A ¼ 16.71) and

information-processing ( D ¼ 23.19) services as one cluster (Mean ¼ 19.95,SD ¼ 6.5) where empathy is considered important. In people-processing servicesthe presence of customer is substantial that requires service providers to make an extraeffort to understand his/her needs and make the stay pleasant. At the other extreme is alargely intangible service (information processing) to be carried out in back-office awayfrom the customer. The customer’s concern is higher-that service be explained tohim/her, and he/she may be understood well before the provider sets out to create theservice. A tangible (visible) service is more certain. Further, if it is targeted at a


dimensions

503



H y

p o t h e s i s

C l u s t e r

C l u s t e r

m e m b

e r s

a

M e a n

n

S t a n d a r d

d e v i a t i o n

P o o l e d

S D

S

t a n d a r d

e r r o r

b

t

s t a t i s t i c s

R e m a r k s

C l u s t e r s b a s e d o n

H o : m 1

¼

m 2

C l u s t e r 1

A ,

B

2 9 . 7

0

8

1 2 . 3

6

A c c e p t t h e a l t e r n

a t i v e

t a n g i b i l i t y

H 1 : m 1

.

m 2

C l u s t e r 2

C ,

D

7 . 2

7

8

6 . 2

4

9 . 7

9

4 . 9

0

4 . 5

8

h y p o t h e s i s

C o m b i n e d

1 8 . 0

7


H o : m 1

¼

m 2

C l u s t e r 1

A

4 . 6

3

4

3 . 3

6


a t i v e

r e l i a b i l i t y

H 1 : m 1

.

m 2

C l u s t e r 2

B ,

C , D

3 4 . 2

2

1 2

7 . 1

2

6 . 5

0

3 . 7

5

7 . 8

9

h y p o t h e s i s

C o m b i n e d

2 6 . 8

9


H 0 : m 1

¼

m

C l u s t e r 1

A ,

C

7 . 9

5

8

5 . 7

6

A c c e p t n u l l h y p o

t h e s i s ; t e s t f o r

r e s p o n s i v e n e s s

H 1

: m 1

.

m 2

C l u s t e r 2

B ,

D

8 . 1

4

8

3 . 4

7

4 . 7

5

2 . 3

8

0 . 4

3

m e a n s i n d e s c e n d

i n g o r d e r

C o m b i n e d

8 . 1

9


H o : m 1

¼

m 2

C l u s t e r 1

A ,

D

2 0 . 8

5

8

4 . 3

1

A c c e p t n u l l h y p o

t h e s i s ; t e s t f o r

a s s u r a n c e

H 1

: m 1

.

m 2

C l u s t e r 2

B ,

C

2 2 . 9

2

8

7 . 1

2

5 . 8

6

2 . 9

3

0 . 7

0 6

m e a n s i n d e s c e n d

i n g o r d e r

C o m b i n e d


H o

: m 1

¼

m 2

C l u s t e r 1

A ,

D

1 9 . 9

5

8

6 . 5

0


a t i v e

e m p a t h y

H 1

: m 1

.

m 2

C l u s t e r 2

B ,

C

1 0 . 0

5

8

4 . 5

4

5 . 6

2 . 8

3 . 5

4

h y p o t h e s i s

C o m b i n e d


H o

: m 1

¼

m 2

C l u s t e r 1

B ,

C

1 2 . 2

6

8

4 . 4

0


a t i v e

f e e s

H 1

: m 1

.

m 2

C l u s t e r 2

A ,

D

7 . 2

9

8

4 . 3

1

4 . 3

6

2 . 1

8

2 . 2

8

h y p o t h e s i s

C o m b i n e d

N o t e s : a A s s h o w n i n T a b l e I , b e s t i m a t e d s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f t h e

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t w o s a m p l e m e a n s

2 9 . 7

0 , c r i t i c a l v a l u e o f t s t a t i s t i c a t a

¼

0 . 0

5 ,

f o r

g ¼

1 4 ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o

m ) w a s 2 . 1

4 5

Table VIII.Cluster details and test of difference of means

MSQ17,5

504



customer’s possession the trepidation is less. A video repair service engineer may beless empathic than a lawyer who must appreciate a customer’s concern and viewpoint.

Similarly, an hotelier must be more conscious of a customer’s preferences as he/shestays with him. Thus, empathy is least with possession-processing services ( B ¼ 8.43).Mental-stimuli-processing ( C ¼ 11.67) occupies an intermediate position.

In absence of risk of personal well being (people-processing) or the risk of information processing the other services are generally available in standardizedmodes in near perfect markets (cable operators, telephone companies, retail outlets, drycleaning, etc.) The choice of provider therefore gets associated with the monetary costof obtaining the service. Prices for information-processing services are verycompetitive (bank rates or insurance premium) and therefore the prices of thesehave a limited affect on purchase decision making ( A ¼ 9.06). On the other hand, theconcern for well-being of self is paramount in case of people-processing services and sothe cost of contentment takes a low priority ( D ¼ 5.4).

ConclusionOne of the major conclusions that can be drawn from this research is that no simplegeneralization of relative importance of determinants of service quality is possible.Thus, it must be noted that importance of determinants of quality for customers wouldvary across different service types. This could be expected because different servicesare structured and delivered in different contexts and providers consciously positionthem at different levels of variables of concern. It may be noted that these variables of concern are the criterion for classification of services. In this study, these variableswere “recipient of service” and “the nature of service act.” It could well be membership(formal membership vs no formal membership), nature of service delivery (continuous

vs discrete), customization, judgment by contact staff, demand fluctuation, or any otheras deployed by service provider (Chowdhary and Chowdhary, 2005).

As the service providers tend to reposition their service offer along the chosenvariable they must be cautious of the fact that the expectations of their customersmight have changed because of the new promise and structure of service offer. Thoughcertain trends are visible, yet the researcher would like to draw attention to some of theprecincts of this study. Given the state of competition and market within the differentservice industries, following can be concluded:

Figure 1.Relative importance of service dimensions

MSQ17,5

506

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/09604520710817325&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=289&h=127



. Tangibility is more important for services with more tangible actions. Further,

the importance reduces as one shifts from services targeted at people to service

targeted at possessions.

.

Need for reliability is more for services with intangible nature of service act.Services targeted at possessions of the customers will also require more

reliability.

. Services targeted at the customer require more assurance than those targeted at

their possessions. Further, more assurance will be needed for services with

intangible act.

. Responsiveness did not allow for any kind of clustering. Customers ranked it last

on priority across different service types. Perhaps, they are less expectant for this

service dimension.

. Information- and people-processing services require more empathy as compared

to other two types.

. Prices were considered relatively more important by consumers of possession-

and mental-stimuli processing services.

Finally, ranks of service dimensions for different service types are given below in

Table X.

It may however be noted that in most cases, the notions of most of the concepts

vary. Different respondents had different connotations of the same word. Say –

safety/security; reliability, credibility and assurance; location, accessibility, etc. were

often used interchangeably. Ranking of dimensions also depended on the current state

of the competition in a particular industry and varied from industry to industry within

a service type. While markets have matured for some industries, they are not very

competitive for others. Some, for example, the cable operators, telephony and insurance

till recently, have monopolistic tendencies.

The findings of this study are based on responses of customers from 16 service

types across the four categories. The relative importance of determinants may vary for

different service types but the fact remains that they cannot be generalized. Further,

different service providers may study the relative importance of determinants of

quality for their services as they reposition their offers along criterions other than those

used in this study (Lovelock’s (1983) criterions).

Service quality dimension

People

processing

Possession

processing Mental-stimuli processing

Information

processing

RanksTangibility 1 2 5.5 5Reliability 6 1 1 1Responsiveness 5 6 5.5 4Assurance 2 3 2 3Empathy 3 5 4 2Fees 4 4 3 6

Table X.Relative ranks of service

quality dimensions


dimensions

507



References

Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.

Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1985), “Quality counts in services, too”,

Business Horizons, May-June, pp. 44-52.

Brensinger, R.P. and Lambert, D.M. (1990), “Can the SERVQUAL scale be generalized tobusiness-to-business services?”, paper presented at the Summer Marketing Educator’sConference, American Marketing Association.

Buttle, F.A. (1995), “What future SERVQUAL”, Proceedings of the 24th European Marketing Academy Conference, Paris, pp. 211-30.

Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUALdimensions”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.

Chase, R.B. (1978), “Where does the customer fit into the service operation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56, pp. 37-42.

Chase, R.B. and Tansik, D.A. (1983), “The customer contact model for organizational design”,

Management Science, Vol. 1, pp. 037-50.Chowdhary, N. (2000), “Two factors theory: quasi experiments with service quality”, in

Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W. et al. (Eds), QUIS 7- Service Quality in the New Economy: Interdisciplinary and International Dimension, International Service Quality AssociationInc., New York, NY.

Chowdhary, N. and Chowdhary, M. (2005), A Textbook of Marketing of Services – The Indian Experience, Macmillan Indian Ltd, New Delhi.

Chowdhary, N. and Prakash, M. (2001), “Service quality: revisiting the two factors theory”, Proceeding of The First International Conference on Electronic Business, Hong Kong, December 19-21.

Cliff, A. and Ryan, C. (1994), “Do travel agencies measure up to customer expectation? Anempirical investigation of travel agencies, service quality as measured by SERVQUAL”,

Proceedings of the Tourism Down under Conference, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, December , pp. 55-78.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 56, pp. 55-68.

Dawkins, P. and Reichheld, F. (1990), “Customer retention as a competitive weapon”, Directorsand Boards, Vol. 14, pp. 42-7.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Johnston, R. (1995), “The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers”, International Journal of Service Industry Management , Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 53-71.

Johnston, R. and Silvestro, R. (1990), “The determinants of service quality – a customer-based

approach”, The Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute Conference, San Diego, CA, November .

Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1985), “Service quality: a study of quality dimensions”, paperpresented at the Second World Marketing Congress, University of Stirling, Stirling.

Lovelock, C. (1983), “Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 47, pp. 9-20.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.

MSQ17,5

508

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0148-2963%2892%2990022-4


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252296

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000004784


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09564239510101536















Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Alternative scales for measuring service

quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-30.

Peter, J., Churchill, G. and Brown, T. (1993), “Caution in the use of difference scores in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 655-62.

Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.L. Jr (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-11.

Rosen, L.D. and Karwan, K.R. (1994), “Prioritizing the dimensions of service quality: an empiricalinvestigation and strategic assessment”, International Journal of Service Industry

Management , Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 39-52.

Schmenner, R.W. (1986), “How can service businesses survive and prosper”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 21-32.

Schneider, B., Wheeler, J.K. and Cox, J.F. (1992), “A passion for service: using content analysis toexplicate service climate themes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 705-16.

Spreng, R.A. and Singh, A.K. (1993), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale and therelationship between service quality and satisfaction”, unpublished paper, Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, MI.

Wemmerlov, U. (1990), “A taxonomy for service processes and its implications for systemdesign”, International Journal of Service Industry Management , Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 20-40.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Appendix. Definition of service quality dimensionsTangibles (TANGIBIL). Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and

communication material, location, access. Reliability (RELIABIL). Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately. Responsiveness (RESPONSI). Willingness to help customers and provide prompt services. Assurance (ASSURANC). Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey

trust and confidence (competence, courtesy, credibility, security). Empathy (EMPATHY). Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers

(access, communication and understanding of customer). Fees (FEES). Direct monetary cost of the service.

About the authorsNimit Chowdhary is presently Professor andHead at School of Management at Mizoram University,Aizawl. He researches extensively in services and small business. Nimit Chowdhary is the

corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Prakash is Assistant Professor at School of Management at Mizoram University,

Aizawl.


dimensions

509

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints






http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.77.5.705

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system-d=10.1108%2F09564239010002126

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.77.5.705




http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system-d=10.1108%2F09564239010002126




This article has been cited by:

1. Muahmmad Kashif, Sharifah Suzana Wan Shukran, Mohsin Abdul Rehman, Syamsulang Sarifuddin.2015. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian Islamic banks:a PAKSERV investigation.International Journal of Bank Marketing 33:1, 23-40. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Amitava MitraPremium for Service Contracts for Damage Protection 73-87. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF][PDF]3. Aki Jääskeläinen, Harri Laihonen, Antti Lönnqvist. 2014. Distinctive features of service performance

measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:12, 1466-1486. [ Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

4. Olgun Kitapci, Ceylan Akdogan, İbrahim Taylan Dortyol. 2014. The Impact of Service Quality Dimensions on Patient Satisfaction, Repurchase Intentions and Word-of-Mouth Communication in thePublic Healthcare Industry . Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 148, 161-169. [CrossRef ]

5. S. Ibrahim, M. Othman. 2014. Developing and Validating Halal Service Quality Instrument for Malaysia nFood Service Establishments: A Conceptual Paper. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, 400-408.

[CrossRef ]6. Prodromos Chatzoglou, Dimitrios Chatzoudes, Eftichia Vraimaki, Eleni Leivaditou. 2014. Measuring

Citizen Satisfaction Using the SERVQUAL Approach: The Case of the ‘Hellenic Post’. ProcediaEconomics and Finance 9, 349-360. [CrossRef ]

7. Noor’ain Mohamad Yunus, Dilla Syadia Ab Latiff, Suryani Che Din, Siti Noorsuriani Ma’on. 2013.Patient Satisfaction with Access to 1Malaysia Clinic. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 91, 395-402.[CrossRef ]

8. Prabha Ramseook-Munhurrun, Pushpa Nundlall. 2013. Service quality measurement for secondary schoolsetting. Quality Assurance in Education 21:4, 387-401. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. David Muturi, Jackline Sagwe, Thomas K. Cheruiyot, Loice C. Maru. 2013. Service quality and relative

performance of public universities in East Africa. The TQM Journal 25:5, 533-546. [ Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]10. Dr Haris Doukas, Assistant, Professor Alexandros Flamos, Professor John Psarras, Gilbert E. Chodzaza,

Harry S.H. Gombachika. 2013. Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty among industrialcustomers of a public electricity utility in Malawi. I nternational Journal of Energy Sector Management 7:2,269-282. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Lova Rajaobelina, Isabelle Brun, Élissar Toufaily. 2013. A relational classification of online banking customers. Inte rnational Journal of Bank Marketing 31:3, 187-205. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

12. Olgun Kitapci, Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol, Zührem Yaman, Mustafa Gulmez. 2013. The paths from servicequality dimensions to customer loyalty. Management Research Review 36:3, 239-255. [ Abstract] [Full

Text] [PDF]13. Muhammad Usman Awan, Khalid Mahmood. 2013. Development of a service quality model for academic

libraries. Quality & Quantity 47:2, 1093-1103. [CrossRef ]14. Alet C. Erasmus, Andrea Grabowski. 2013. Female customers' expectation of the service offering and

their perception of the service quality in an emerging clothing market. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:1, 2-12. [CrossRef ]

15. P. González-Redondo, P. García-Domínguez. 2012. Typification and characterisation of the pheasant(Phasianus colchicus) game farms in Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10:4, 1005. [CrossR ef ]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01052.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9587-x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/01409171311306391

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/01409171311306391

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171311306391

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-02-2013-0003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJESM-02-2013-0003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJESM-02-2013-0003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2012-0103

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00036-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.047

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2013-0067

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2013-0067

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016


http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012104-403-11

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01052.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9587-x




http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171311306391



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652321311315294

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJESM-02-2013-0003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJESM-02-2013-0003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-02-2013-0003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/TQM-11-2012-0103

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/TQM-11-2012-0103

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2012-0103

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00036-7



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2013-0067

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2013-0067

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2013-0067

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1477-407020140000010016

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJBM-08-2013-0084

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJBM-08-2013-0084

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-08-2013-0084



16. Abdul Rahman Jumat, Vaughan Coffey, Martin Skitmore. 2012. Stakeholder service delivery expectationsof military facilities management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 2:2, 146-166.[ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. Ieva Meidutė, Michail Litvinenko, Artūras Aranskis. 2012. Logistics Cooperation: Integrated LogisticsServices. Verslas: teorija ir praktika 13:4, 343-351. [CrossRef ]

18. K. Kiran, S. Diljit. 2012. Modeling Web-based library service quality. Library & Information Science Research 34:3, 184-196. [CrossRef ]

19. Jotham Mbiito Byarugaba, Aihie Osarenkhoe. 2012. Service Quality Perceptions: A Case of UgandanTelephony Users. Journal of Relationship Marketing 11:3, 149-171. [CrossRef ]

20. Beomjoon Choi, Dennis L. Rosen, Suna La. 2012. The Use of Portraits and Performance Statements of Service Providers in Marketing Communications. Services Marketing Quarterly 33:1, 1-15. [CrossRef ]

21. S.I. Lao, K.L. Choy, G.T.S. Ho, Y.C. Tsim, N.S.H. Chung. 2011. Determination of the success factorsin supply chain networks: a Hong Kong‐based manufacturer's perspective. Measuring Business Excellence 15:1, 34-48. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Ghazali Musa, Thinaranjeney Thirumoorthi. 2011. Red Palm: exploring service quality and servicescape

of the best backpacker hostel in Asia. Current Issues in Tourism 14:2, 103-120. [CrossRef ]23. Barry L.M. Mak. 2011. ISO certification in the tour operator sector. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management 23:1, 115-130. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]24. Angelos Pantouvakis. 2010. The relative importance of service features in explaining customer satisfaction.

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 20:4, 366-387. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]25. S.T. Akinyele, K. Olorunleke. 2010. Technology and Service Quality in the Banking Industry: An

Empirical Study of Various Factors in Electronic Banking Services. International Business Management 4:4, 209-221. [CrossRef ]

26. Niaz Ahmad, Muhammad Usman Awan, Abdul Raouf, Leigh Sparks. 2009. Development of a servicequality scale for pharmaceutical suppl y chains. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing 3:1, 26-45. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

27. Birgit Leisen Pollack. 2008. The nature of the service quality and satisfaction relationship. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 18:6, 537-558. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

28. Stephen Graham Saunders. 2008. Measuring and applying the PAKSERV service quality construct.Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 18:5, 442-456. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520810920059

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520810920059

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520810920059






http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506120910948494



http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2010.209.221

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521011057496

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521011057496

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111111101706







http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520810898820



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520810920059



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506120910948494

http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2010.209.221



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521011057496



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111111101706

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500903511125



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683041111113231

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2012.633413

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2012.705250

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.02.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/btp.2012.36



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20441241211280891

DIMENSI KUALITAS JASA

Documents

Transcript of DIMENSI KUALITAS JASA