New Ways of Listening to Library Users: New Tools for Measuring Service Quality

1. New Ways of Listening to Library Users: New Tools for Measuring Service Quality A. Parasuraman University of Miami Washington, DC November 4, 2005

2. Defining, Assessing, and Measuring Service Quality: A Conceptual Overview 2 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

3. Multi-Phase, Multi-Sector, Multi-Year Program of Research to Address the Following Issues • How do customers perceive and evaluate service quality? • What are managers’ perceptions about service quality? • Do discrepancies exist between the perceptions of customers and those of managers? • Can customers’ and managers’ perceptions be combined into a general model of service quality? • How can service organizations improve customer service and achieve excellence? 3 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

4. Determinants of Perceived Service Quality Word of Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience External Communication to Customers Expected Service Service Quality Gap Perceived Service Quality Perceived Service 4 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

5. Organization’s Understanding of Expectations Market Information Gap Service Standards Gap Organization’s Service Standards GAP 1 GAP 2 Service Quality Gap Service Performance Gap GAP 3 GAP 4 Organization’s Service Performance Internal Communication Gap Organization’s Communications to Customers A “GAPS” MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY CUSTOMER SERVICE ORGANIZATION Customers’ Service Expectations GAP 5 Customers’ Service Perceptions 5 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

6. POTENTIAL CAUSES OF INTERNAL SERVICE GAPS [GAPS 1 - 4] 6 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

7. Lack of “Upward Communication” Management Perceptions of Customer Expectations GAP 1 Customer Expectations Key Factors: • Insufficient marketing research • Inadequate use of marketing research • Lack of interaction between • management and customers • Insufficient communication between • contact employees and managers 7 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

8. GAP 2 Management Perceptions of Customer Expectations Key Factors: • Inadequate management commitment • to service quality • Absence of formal process for setting • service quality goals • Inadequate standardization of tasks • Perception of infeasibility -- that • customer expectations cannot be met Service Quality Specifications 8 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

9. GAP 3 Service Quality Specifications Key Factors: • Lack of teamwork • Poor employee - job fit • Poor technology - job fit • Lack of perceived control (contact personnel) • Inappropriate evaluation/compensation system • Role conflict among contact employees • Role ambiguity among contact employees Service Delivery 9 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

10. GAP 4 Lack of “Horizontal Communication” Service Delivery Key Factors: • Inadequate communication between • salespeople and operations • Inadequate communication between • advertising and operations • Differences in policies and procedures • across branches or departments • Puffery in advertising & personal selling External Communications to Customers 10 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

11. SUGGESTIONS FOR CLOSING INTERNAL SERVICE GAPS [GAPS 1 - 4] 11 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

12. Suggestions for Closing the Market Information Gap • Conduct systematic marketing research • Make senior managers interact with customers • Make senior managers occasionally perform customer-contact roles • Encourage upward communication from customer-contact employees 12 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

13. Suggestions for Closing the Service Standards Gap • Make a blueprint of the service and standardize as many components of it as possible • Institute a formal, ongoing process for setting service specifications • Eliminate “perception of infeasibility” on the part of senior managers • Make a true commitment to improving service quality 13 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

14. Suggestions for Closing the Service Performance Gap • Invest in ongoing employee training • Support employees with appropriate technology and information systems • Give customer-contact employees sufficient flexibility • Reduce role conflict and role ambiguity among customer-contact employees • Recognize and reward employees who deliver superior service 14 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

15. Suggestions for Closingthe Internal Communication Gap • Facilitate effective horizontal communication across functional areas (e.g., marketing and operations) • Have consistent customer-related policies and procedures across branches or departments • Resist the temptation to promise more than the organization can deliver 15 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

16. Process Model for Continuous Measurement and Improvement of Service Quality Do your customers perceive your offerings as meeting or exceeding their expectations? YES Continue to monitor customers’ expectations and perceptions NO Do you have an accurate understanding of customers’ expectations? NO Take corrective action YES Are there specific standards in place to meet customers’ expectations? NO Take corrective action YES Do your offerings meet or exceed the standards? NO Take corrective action YES NO Is the information communicated to customers about your offerings accurate? Take corrective action YES 16 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

17. SERVQUAL: Development, Refinement, and Empirical Findings 17 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

18. Determinants of Perceived Service Quality Dimensions of Service Quality 1. Access 2. Communication 3. Competence 4. Courtesy 5. Credibility 6. Reliability 7. Responsiveness 8. Security 9. Tangibles 10. Understanding/Knowing the Customer Word of Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience External Communication to Customers Expected Service Perceived Service Quality Service Quality Gap Perceived Service 18 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

19. Correspondence between SERVQUAL Dimensions and Original Ten Dimensions for Evaluating Service Quality SERVQUAL Dimensions Original Ten Dimensions for Evaluating Service Quality TANGIBLES RELIABILITY RESPONSIVENESS ASSURANCE EMPATHY TANGIBLES RELIABILITY RESPONSIVENESS COMPETENCE COURTESY CREDIBILITY SECURITY ACCESS COMMUNICATION UNDERSTANDING/ KNOWING THE CUSTOMER 19 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

20. Definitions of theSERVQUAL Dimensions • Tangibles: Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials. • Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately. • Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. • Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence. • Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers. 20 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

21. Relative Importance of Service Dimensions When Respondents Allocate 100 Points [Study 1] RELIABILITY 32% TANGIBLES 11% RESPONSIVENESS 22% EMPATHY 16% ASSURANCE 19% 21 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

22. Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions [Study 2] Mean Number of Points Allocated out of 100 Points 37 9 23 13 18 Computer Manufacturer All Companies Retail Chain Auto Insurer Life Insurer Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles 22 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

23. Mean SERVQUAL Scores by Service Dimension [Study 1] 1.00 0.00 -1.00 -2.00 Tangibles Reliability Responsive- ness Assurance Empathy 23 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

24. Nature of Service Expectations Level Customers Believe Can and Should Be Delivered Desired Service Zone of Tolerance Minimum Level Customers Are Willing to Accept Adequate Service 24 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

25. The Two Levels of Expectations Imply Two Corresponding Measures of GAP 5: Measure of Service Adequacy (MSA) Perceived Service Adequate Service - = Measure of Service Superiority (MSS) Perceived Service Desired Service - = 25 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

26. TWO APPROACHES FOR MEASURINGMSAANDMSS • Two-Column Format Questionnaire • Direct measures of MSA and MSS • Three-Column Format Questionnaire • Difference-score measures of MSA and MSS 26 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

27. 27 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

28. 28 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

29. Measurement Error: Percent of Respondents Answering Incorrectly Type of Company 29 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

30. Mean Service Quality Scores (Combined Across All Companies) SERVQUAL Dimensions 30 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

31. Revised SERVQUAL Items Reliability 1. Providing services as promised 2. Dependability in handling customers' service problems 3. Performing services right the first time 4. Providing services at the promised time 5. Keeping customers informed about when services will be performed Responsiveness 6. Prompt service to customers 7. Willingness to help customers 8. Readiness to respond to customers' requests Tangibles 17. Modern equipment 18. Visually appealing facilities 19. Employees who have a neat, professional appearance 20. Visually appealing materials associated with the service 21. Convenient business hours Assurance 9. Employees who instill confidence in customers 10. Making customers feel safe in their transactions 11. Employees who are consistently courteous 12. Employees who have the knowledge to answer customer questions Empathy 13. Giving customers individual attention 14. Employees who deal with customers in a caring fashion 15. Having the customer's best interest at heart 16.Employees who understand the needs of their customers 31 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

32. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension Computer Manufacturer 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception 32 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

33. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension Computer Manufacturer 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception 33 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

34. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension On-Line Services 9 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.3 8 7.5 7.0 7.0 7 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.8 6 5.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception 34 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

35. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension Tech-Support Services 9 8.5 8.4 8.3 8 8.1 7 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6 6.3 6.3 6.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception 35 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

36. LIBQUAL+: An Adaptation of SERVQUAL © Association of Research Libraries, Washington DC (2003) 36 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

37. MULTIPLE METHODS OF LISTENING TO CUSTOMERS • Transactional surveys* • Mystery shopping • New, declining, and lost-customer surveys • Focus group interviews • Customer advisory panels • Service reviews • Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture • Total market surveys* • Employee field reporting • Employee surveys • Service operating data capture • *A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods 37 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

38. The Role Of Technology In Service Delivery: Electronic Service Quality (e-SQ) and Technology Readiness (TR) 38 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

39. Technology’s Growing Role in Marketing to and Serving Customers: Pyramid Model Company Internal Marketing External Marketing Technology Employees Customers Interactive Marketing 39 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

40. Ongoing Research on e-Service Quality: Conceptual Framework and Preliminary Findings 40 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

41. Research Phases and Questions PHASE 1: • What is good service on the Web? • What are the underlying dimensions of superior electronic service quality (e-SQ?) • How can e-SQ be conceptualized? PHASE 2: • How do these dimensions compare to those of traditional service quality? • How can e-SQ be measured and thereby assessed? 41 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

42. Definition of e-Service Quality (e-SQ) e-SQ is the extent to which a Website facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing and delivery of products and services 42 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

43. Access Ease of Navigation Efficiency Customization/ Personalization Security/Privacy Responsiveness Assurance/Trust Price Knowledge Site Aesthetics Reliability Flexibility Dimensions of e-Service Quality from Focus Groups 43 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

44. SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES Site does not crash Accurate billing Accuracy of order Accuracy of account information Having items in stock Truthful information Merchandise arrives on time Reliability DEFINITION Correct technical functioning of the site and the accuracy of service promises, billing and product information. 44 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

45. SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES Site is well organized Site is simple to use Site provides information in reasonable chunks Site allows me to click for more information if I need it DEFINITION The site is simple to use, structured properly, and requires a minimum of information to be input by the customer. Efficiency 45 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

46. Perceptual Attributes Higher-level Abstractions Concrete Cues Dimensions SPECIFIC/ CONCRETE ABSTRACT Means-End Model 46 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

47. Perceptual Attributes Higher-Level Abstractions Concrete Cues Dimensions Tab Structuring Easy to Maneuver through Site Site Map Ease of Navigation Easy to Find What I Need Search Engine Speed of Checkout One-click Ordering Means-End Model of e-Service Quality 47 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

48. Concrete Cues Perceptual Attributes Higher-Level Abstractions Dimensions Access Ease of Navigation Efficiency Flexibility Reliability Perceived e-Service Quality Personali- zation Security/ Privacy Responsive- ness Assurance/ Trust Site Aesthetics Price Knowledge 48 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

49. Purchase Loyalty W.O.M Means-End Model of e-Service Quality Behaviors Higher-Level Abstractions Dimensions Perceived Convenience Perceptual Attributes Perceived e-Service Quality Concrete Cues Perceived Control Perceived Value Perceived Price 49 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

50. Conceptual Model for Understanding and Improving e-Service Quality Customer Fulfillment Gap Customer Web site Requirements Customer Web site Experiences Perceived e-SQ Perceived Value Purchase/ Repurchase Information Gap Company Marketing of the Web site Design and Operation of the Web site Management’s Beliefs about Customer Requirements Communication Gap Design Gap 50 © A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission