A Conceptual Model Of Service Quality And Its Implications For Future Research
0 likes194 views
This document summarizes a research article that develops a conceptual model of service quality. The authors conducted an exploratory study of service quality across four industries. They found that service quality is difficult for consumers to evaluate due to its intangible nature. The authors propose that perceptions of service quality result from comparing expectations of service to actual service performance. Additionally, evaluations of service quality involve both the outcome of the service and the process of service delivery. Based on these findings, the authors develop a conceptual model of service quality to further research in this area.
![defines quality as "conformanceto requirements."
Garvin(1983) measuresquality by counting the in-
cidence of "internal"failures (those observedbefore
a productleaves the factory) and "external"failures
(those incurredin the field after a unit has been in-
stalled).
Knowledge about goods quality, however, is in-
sufficient to understandservice quality. Three well-
documentedcharacteristics
of services-intangibility,
heterogeneity,and inseparability-must be acknowl-
edged for a full understanding
of service quality.
First,most services areintangible(Bateson 1977,
Berry1980, Lovelock 1981, Shostak1977). Because
they are performancesrather than objects, precise
manufacturing
specifications
concerning
uniformquality
can rarelybe set. Most services cannot be counted,
measured,inventoried,tested, andverifiedin advance
of sale to assurequality.Because of intangibility,the
firm may find it difficult to understandhow con-
sumers perceive their services and evaluate service
quality(Zeithaml1981).
Second, services, especially those with a high la-
borcontent,areheterogeneous:
theirperformance
often
varies from producerto producer,from customerto
customer, and from day to day. Consistency of be-
haviorfrom service personnel(i.e., uniformquality)
is difficultto assure(Booms andBitner1981)because
whatthe firm intendsto deliver may be entirelydif-
ferentfrom what the consumerreceives.
Third, productionand consumptionof many ser-
vices are inseparable(Carmenand Langeard 1980,
Gronroos1978, Regan 1963, Upah 1980). As a con-
sequence, qualityin services is not engineeredat the
manufacturing
plant, thendeliveredintactto the con-
sumer.In laborintensiveservices, for example, qual-
ity occurs during service delivery, usually in an in-
teraction
betweentheclientandthecontactpersonfrom
the service firm (Lehtinenand Lehtinen 1982). The
servicefirmmayalsohaveless managerial
controlover
qualityin serviceswhereconsumerparticipation
is in-
tense(e.g., haircuts,doctor'svisits) becausethe client
affectstheprocess. Inthesesituations,theconsumer's
input(descriptionof how the haircutshouldlook, de-
scriptionof symptoms)becomes criticalto the quality
of service performance.
Servicequalityhasbeen discussedin only a hand-
ful of writings (Gronroos1982; Lehtinenand Lehti-
nen 1982;Lewis andBooms 1983;Sasser,Olsen, and
Wyckoff1978).Examination
of thesewritingsandother
literature
on servicessuggeststhreeunderlying
themes:
* Service quality is more difficult for the con-
sumerto evaluatethangoods quality.
* Service qualityperceptionsresult from a com-
parison of consumer expectations with actual
service performance.
* Qualityevaluationsare not made solely on the
outcome of a service; they also involve evalu-
ationsof theprocess of service delivery.
Service QualityMore Difficultto Evaluate
Whenpurchasinggoods, the consumeremploysmany
tangiblecues to judge quality:style, hardness,color,
label, feel, package, fit. When purchasingservices,
fewertangiblecues exist. In mostcases, tangibleevi-
denceis limitedto the service provider'sphysical fa-
cilities, equipment,andpersonnel.
In the absence of tangible evidence on which to
evaluatequality,consumers
mustdependon othercues.
The natureof these othercues has not been investi-
gated by researchers, although some authors have
suggestedthat price becomes a pivotal quality indi-
cator in situations where other information is not
available(McConnell 1968, Olander1970, Zeithaml
1981). Because of service intangibility, a firm may
find it more difficult to understandhow consumers
perceive services and service quality. "Whena ser-
vice providerknows how [the service] will be eval-
uatedby the consumer, we will be able to suggest
how to influencethese evaluationsin a desireddirec-
tion"(Gronroos1982).
QualityIs a Comparisonbetween
Expectationsand Performance
Researchers
andmanagersof servicefirmsconcurthat
servicequalityinvolves a comparisonof expectations
with performance:
Servicequalityis a measureof how well theservice
level deliveredmatchescustomerexpectations.De-
liveringqualityservice means conformingto cus-
tomerexpectations
on a consistentbasis.(Lewisand
Booms1983)
Inline withthisthinking,Gronroos(1982) developed
a modelin whichhe contendsthatconsumerscompare
theservicetheyexpectwithperceptionsof the service
they receive in evaluatingservice quality.
Smith and Houston (1982) claimed that satisfac-
tion with services is related to confirmationor dis-
confirmationof expectations. They based their re-
search on the disconfirmation paradigm, which
maintainsthat satisfactionis relatedto the size and
directionof thedisconfirmation
experiencewheredis-
confirmationis relatedto the person's initial expec-
tations(Churchilland Suprenaut1982).
QualityEvaluationsInvolve Outcomes and
Processes
Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978) discussed three
differentdimensionsof serviceperformance:
levels of
material,facilities, andpersonnel.Impliedin this tri-
chotomyis thenotionthatservicequalityinvolvesmore
thanoutcome;it also includes the mannerin which
42 / Journal
ofMarketing,
Fall1985](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/aconceptualmodelofservicequalityanditsimplicationsforfutureresearch-230805164515-c914c789/85/A-Conceptual-Model-Of-Service-Quality-And-Its-Implications-For-Future-Research-3-320.jpg)
![standingmay affectqualityperceptionsof consumers:
Proposition1: The gap between consumer
expectationsand management
perceptionsof those expecta-
tions will have an impact on
the consumer's evaluation of
service quality.
Management perception-service quality specifi-
cation gap (GAP2):A recurring theme in the executive
interviewsin all four service firms was the difficulty
experienced in attemptingto match or exceed con-
sumerexpectations.Executivescited constraints
which
preventthem from delivering what the consumerex-
pects. As an example, executives in the repairservice
firm were fully awarethatconsumersview quick re-
sponse to appliancebreakdownsas a vital ingredient
of highqualityservice. However, they find it difficult
to establish specifications to deliver quick response
consistentlybecause of a lack of trainedservice per-
sonnel and wide fluctuationsin demand. As one ex-
ecutive observed, peak demandfor repairingair con-
ditionersand lawnmowersoccurs duringthe summer
months, precisely when most service personnelwant
to go on vacation. In this and numerousother situa-
tions, knowledgeof consumerexpectationsexists but
the perceivedmeansto deliverto expectationsappar-
ently do not.
Apartfrom resource and marketconstraints,an-
otherreasonfor the gap betweenexpectationsandthe
actualset of specificationsestablishedfor a service is
the absenceof total managementcommitmentto ser-
vice quality. Althoughthe executive interviewsindi-
cated a genuine concern for quality on the part of
managersinterviewed,this concern may not be gen-
eralizableto all service firms. In discussing product
quality, Garvin (1983) stated: ". .. the seriousness
that managementattachedto quality problems [var-
ies]. It's one thing to say you believe in defect-free
products,but quite anotherto take time from a busy
scheduleto act on thatbelief and stay informed"(p.
68). Garvin'sobservationsare likely to apply to ser-
vice businessesas well.
In short, a variety of factors-resource con-
straints,marketconditions, and/or managementin-
difference-may result in a discrepancy between
management
perceptions
of consumerexpectationsand
theactualspecificationsestablishedfora service. This
discrepancyis predictedto affect qualityperceptions
of consumers:
Proposition2: The gap between management
perceptions of consumer ex-
pectations and the firm's ser-
vice qualityspecificationswill
affect service qualityfrom the
consumer'sviewpoint.
Service quality specifications-service delivery gap
(GAP3): Even when guidelines exist for performing
services well and treatingconsumerscorrectly, high
quality service performancemay not be a certainty.
Executivesrecognizethata service firm's employees
exert a strong influence on the service quality per-
ceived by consumersand thatemployee performance
cannot always be standardized. When asked what
causes service quality problems, executives consis-
tentlymentionedthe pivotalroleof contactpersonnel.
Inthe repairand maintenancefirm, for example, one
executive's immediateresponse to the source of ser-
vice quality problems was, "Everythinginvolves a
person-a repairperson.It's so hardto maintainstan-
dardizedquality."
Each of the four firms had formal standardsor
specifications for maintainingservice quality (e.g.,
answerat least 90% of phone calls from consumers
within 10 seconds; keep errorrates in statementsbe-
low 1%). However, each firm reported difficulty in
adheringto these standardsbecause of variabilityin
employeeperformance.This problemleads to a third
proposition:
Proposition3: The gap betweenservice qual-
ity specifications and actual
service delivery will affect
service quality from the con-
sumer's standpoint.
Service delivery-external communications gap
(GAP4): Media advertising and other communications
by a firmcan affect consumerexpectations.If expec-
tationsplay a majorrole in consumerperceptionsof
service quality (as the services literaturecontends),
the firmmustbe certainnot to promisemore in com-
municationsthan it can deliver in reality. Promising
morethancan be deliveredwill raise initialexpecta-
tionsbutlowerperceptionsof qualitywhen the prom-
ises arenot fulfilled.
The executive interviewssuggest anotherperhaps
more intriguingway in which external communica-
tions could influence service quality perceptionsby
consumers.This occurs when companies neglect to
informconsumersof special efforts to assurequality
thatare not visible to consumers.Commentsof sev-
eralexecutivesimpliedthatconsumersarenot always
awareof everythingdone behindthe scenes to serve
themwell.
For instance, a securities brokerage executive
mentioned
a "48-hour
rule"prohibiting
employeesfrom
buyingor selling securitiesfor theirpersonalaccounts
for the first48 hoursafterinformationis suppliedby
the firm. The firm did not communicatethis infor-
mationto its customers,perhapscontributingto a per-
ceptionthat"allthe good deals areprobablymadeby
the brokersfor themselves"(a perceptionwhich sur-
AConceptual
Model
ofService
Quality
/ 45](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/aconceptualmodelofservicequalityanditsimplicationsforfutureresearch-230805164515-c914c789/85/A-Conceptual-Model-Of-Service-Quality-And-Its-Implications-For-Future-Research-6-320.jpg)
A Conceptual Model Of Service Quality And Its Implications For Future Research
- 1. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research Author(s): A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, Leonard L. Berry Source: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 41-50 Published by: American Marketing Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251430 Accessed: 23/11/2010 00:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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 support@jstor.org. American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Marketing. http://www.jstor.org
- 2. A. Parasuraman,ValarieA. Zeithaml, & LeonardL. Berry A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research The attainment of quality in products and services has become a pivotal concern of the 1980s. While quality in tangible goods has been described and measured by marketers, quality in services is largely undefined 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 developing a model of service quality. Propositions and recommendations to stimulate future research about service quality are offered. "People wantsomewiseandperceptive statement like, 'Qualityis ballet, not hockey.'"-Philip Crosby(1979) UALITYis an elusiveandindistinct construct. 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 present problemsfor researchers (MonroeandKrishnan1983), who often bypass definitionsand use unidimensional self-reportmeasuresto capturethe concept (Jacoby, Olson, andHaddock1973; McConnell 1968; Shapiro 1972). While the substance and determinants of quality may be undefined, its importance to firms and con- sumersis unequivocal.Researchhas demonstrated the strategicbenefits of qualityin contributingto market shareand returnon investment(e.g., Anderson and Zeithaml1984;Phillips, Chang, andBuzzell 1983) as well as in lowering manufacturing costs and improv- A.Parasuraman andValarie A.Zeithaml areAssociate Professors of Marketing, andLeonard L.Berry is Foley's/Federated Professor of Re- tailing andMarketing Studies, Texas A&M University. Theresearch re- ported inthisarticle wasmade possible byagrant from theMarketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Journal of Marketing Vol. 49 (Fall 1985), 41-50. ingproductivity(Garvin1983). The searchforquality is arguablythe most importantconsumertrendof the 1980s(Rabin1983)as consumersarenow demanding higherqualityin productsthanever before (Leonard and Sasser 1982, Takeuchiand Quelch 1983). Few academicresearchershave 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 handfulof these researchershave focusedon service quality. We attemptto rectifythis situationby (1) reviewingthe smallnumberof studies thathaveinvestigatedservicequality,(2) reporting the insightsobtainedin an extensive exploratoryinvesti- gation of quality in four service businesses, (3) de- veloping a model of service quality, and (4) offering propositionsto stimulatefutureresearchabout qual- ity. Existing Knowledge about Service Quality Effortsin defining and measuringqualityhave come largelyfrom the goods sector. Accordingto the pre- vailing Japanese philosophy, quality is "zero de- fects-doing it right the first time." Crosby (1979) AConceptual Model of Service Quality / 41
- 3. defines quality as "conformanceto requirements." Garvin(1983) measuresquality by counting the in- cidence of "internal"failures (those observedbefore a productleaves the factory) and "external"failures (those incurredin the field after a unit has been in- stalled). Knowledge about goods quality, however, is in- sufficient to understandservice quality. Three well- documentedcharacteristics of services-intangibility, heterogeneity,and inseparability-must be acknowl- edged for a full understanding of service quality. First,most services areintangible(Bateson 1977, Berry1980, Lovelock 1981, Shostak1977). Because they are performancesrather than objects, precise manufacturing specifications concerning uniformquality can rarelybe set. Most services cannot be counted, measured,inventoried,tested, andverifiedin advance of sale to assurequality.Because of intangibility,the firm may find it difficult to understandhow con- sumers perceive their services and evaluate service quality(Zeithaml1981). Second, services, especially those with a high la- borcontent,areheterogeneous: theirperformance often varies from producerto producer,from customerto customer, and from day to day. Consistency of be- haviorfrom service personnel(i.e., uniformquality) is difficultto assure(Booms andBitner1981)because whatthe firm intendsto deliver may be entirelydif- ferentfrom what the consumerreceives. Third, productionand consumptionof many ser- vices are inseparable(Carmenand Langeard 1980, Gronroos1978, Regan 1963, Upah 1980). As a con- sequence, qualityin services is not engineeredat the manufacturing plant, thendeliveredintactto the con- sumer.In laborintensiveservices, for example, qual- ity occurs during service delivery, usually in an in- teraction betweentheclientandthecontactpersonfrom the service firm (Lehtinenand Lehtinen 1982). The servicefirmmayalsohaveless managerial controlover qualityin serviceswhereconsumerparticipation is in- tense(e.g., haircuts,doctor'svisits) becausethe client affectstheprocess. Inthesesituations,theconsumer's input(descriptionof how the haircutshouldlook, de- scriptionof symptoms)becomes criticalto the quality of service performance. Servicequalityhasbeen discussedin only a hand- ful of writings (Gronroos1982; Lehtinenand Lehti- nen 1982;Lewis andBooms 1983;Sasser,Olsen, and Wyckoff1978).Examination of thesewritingsandother literature on servicessuggeststhreeunderlying themes: * Service quality is more difficult for the con- sumerto evaluatethangoods quality. * Service qualityperceptionsresult from a com- parison of consumer expectations with actual service performance. * Qualityevaluationsare not made solely on the outcome of a service; they also involve evalu- ationsof theprocess of service delivery. Service QualityMore Difficultto Evaluate Whenpurchasinggoods, the consumeremploysmany tangiblecues to judge quality:style, hardness,color, label, feel, package, fit. When purchasingservices, fewertangiblecues exist. In mostcases, tangibleevi- denceis limitedto the service provider'sphysical fa- cilities, equipment,andpersonnel. In the absence of tangible evidence on which to evaluatequality,consumers mustdependon othercues. The natureof these othercues has not been investi- gated by researchers, although some authors have suggestedthat price becomes a pivotal quality indi- cator in situations where other information is not available(McConnell 1968, Olander1970, Zeithaml 1981). Because of service intangibility, a firm may find it more difficult to understandhow consumers perceive services and service quality. "Whena ser- vice providerknows how [the service] will be eval- uatedby the consumer, we will be able to suggest how to influencethese evaluationsin a desireddirec- tion"(Gronroos1982). QualityIs a Comparisonbetween Expectationsand Performance Researchers andmanagersof servicefirmsconcurthat servicequalityinvolves a comparisonof expectations with performance: Servicequalityis a measureof how well theservice level deliveredmatchescustomerexpectations.De- liveringqualityservice means conformingto cus- tomerexpectations on a consistentbasis.(Lewisand Booms1983) Inline withthisthinking,Gronroos(1982) developed a modelin whichhe contendsthatconsumerscompare theservicetheyexpectwithperceptionsof the service they receive in evaluatingservice quality. Smith and Houston (1982) claimed that satisfac- tion with services is related to confirmationor dis- confirmationof expectations. They based their re- search on the disconfirmation paradigm, which maintainsthat satisfactionis relatedto the size and directionof thedisconfirmation experiencewheredis- confirmationis relatedto the person's initial expec- tations(Churchilland Suprenaut1982). QualityEvaluationsInvolve Outcomes and Processes Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978) discussed three differentdimensionsof serviceperformance: levels of material,facilities, andpersonnel.Impliedin this tri- chotomyis thenotionthatservicequalityinvolvesmore thanoutcome;it also includes the mannerin which 42 / Journal ofMarketing, Fall1985
- 4. the service is delivered. This notion surfacesin other researchon service quality as well. Gronroos,for example, postulatedthattwo types of service quality exist: technical quality, which in- volves what the customeris actually receiving from theservice, andfunctionalquality,whichinvolves the mannerin which the service is delivered (Gronroos 1982). Lehtinenand Lehtinen's (1982) basic premise is thatservice qualityis producedin the interactionbe- tween a customerand elements in the service orga- nization.They use threequalitydimensions:physical quality,whichincludesthephysicalaspectsof the ser- vice (e.g., equipmentor building);corporatequality, which involves the company's image or profile; and interactivequality,whichderivesfromthe interaction between contact personnel and customersas well as between some customersand other customers. They further differentiate betweenthe qualityassociatedwith the process of service delivery and the quality asso- ciatedwith the outcome of the service. ExploratoryInvestigation Becausethe literature on servicequalityis not yet rich enoughto providea soundconceptualfoundationfor investigatingservice quality, an exploratoryqualita- tive study was undertakento investigate the concept of service quality. Specifically, focus group inter- views with consumers and in-depth interviews with executives were conducted to develop a conceptual model of service quality. The approachused is con- sistent with proceduresrecommendedfor marketing theory development by several scholars (Deshpande 1983;PeterandOlson 1983;Zaltman,LeMasters,and Heffring 1982). In-depthinterviews of executives in four nation- ally recognizedservice firms anda set of focus group interviewsof consumerswere conductedto gain in- sights aboutthe following questions: * Whatdo managersof service firms perceive to be the key attributesof service quality? What problems and tasks are involved in providing high quality service? * Whatdo consumersperceive to be the key at- tributesof qualityin services? * Do discrepanciesexist between the perceptions of consumersand service marketers? * Can consumer and marketer perceptions be combinedin a generalmodel thatexplains ser- vice qualityfrom the consumer's standpoint? Service Categories Investigated Fourservicecategorieswere chosen for investigation: retailbanking, credit card, securitiesbrokerage,and productrepairandmaintenance.While this set of ser- vice businessesis notexhaustive,it representsa cross- sectionof industrieswhichvaryalongkey dimensions used to categorize services (Lovelock 1980, 1983). Forexample, retailbankingand securitiesbrokerage servicesaremore"highcontactservices"thantheother two types. The natureand results of the service act aremoretangiblefor productrepairand maintenance services than for the other three types. In terms of servicedelivery,discretetransactions characterize credit cardservicesandproductrepairandmaintenanceser- vices to a greaterextent than the othertwo types of services. ExecutiveInterviews A nationallyrecognized company from each of the four service businesses participatedin the study. In- depth personal interviews comprised of open-ended questionswere conductedwith three or four execu- tives in each firm. The executives were selected from marketing,operations,senior management,and cus- tomerrelationsbecauseeachof theseareascouldhave animpacton qualityin servicefirms.Therespondents heldtitles suchas president,seniorvice president,di- rector of customer relations, and manager of con- sumermarketresearch.Fourteenexecutives were in- terviewedabouta broadrangeof servicequalityissues (e.g., whatthey perceivedto be service qualityfrom the consumer'sperspective, what steps they took to controlorimproveservicequality,andwhatproblems they faced in deliveringhigh qualityservices). Focus GroupInterviews A total of 12 focus groupinterviewswas conducted, threefor each of the four selected services. Eight of the focus groupswere held in a metropolitanareain the southwest.The remainingfourwere conductedin the vicinityof the participating companies'headquar- tersandwerethereforespreadacrossthe country:one on the West Coast, one in the Midwest, and two in the East. The focus groupswere formedin accordancewith guidelinestraditionallyfollowed in the marketingre- search field (Bellenger, Berhardt, and Goldstucker 1976). Respondentswere screenedto ensurethatthey werecurrentorrecentusersof the servicein question. To maintainhomogeneity and assure maximumpar- ticipation,respondentswere assignedto groupsbased on age and sex. Six of the twelve groups included only males and six included only females. At least one male group and one female group were inter- viewed for each of the four services. Consistencyin age was maintainedwithin groups;however, age di- versity across groups for each service category was established to ascertain the viewpointsof a broadcross section of consumers. AConceptual Model of Service Quality / 43
- 5. Identitiesof participatingfirms were not revealed to focus groupparticipants.Discussion aboutquality of a given service centeredon consumerexperiences andperceptionsrelatingto thatservice in general, as opposedto the specificserviceof the participating firm in thatservicecategory.Questionsaskedby the mod- eratorcoveredtopics suchas instancesof andreasons for satisfactionand dissatisfactionwith the service; descriptionsof an ideal service (e.g., ideal bank or idealcreditcard);the meaningof servicequality;fac- tors importantin evaluating service quality; perfor- mance expectationsconcerning the service; and the role of price in service quality. Insights from Exploratory Investigation ExecutiveInterviews Remarkably consistentpatternsemergedfromthe four sets of executive interviews. While some perceptions about service quality were specific to the industries selected, commonalities among the industries pre- vailed. The commonalitiesare encouragingfor they suggestthata generalmodelof servicequalitycan be developed. Perhapsthe most importantinsightobtainedfrom analyzingthe 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 major hurdles in attemptingto deliver a service which consumers would perceive as being of high quality. The gaps revealedby the executive interviewsare shown in the lower portion (i.e., the MARKETER side) of Figure 1. This figure summarizesthe key insights gained(throughthe focus groupas well as executive interviews)about the concept of service quality and factorsaffectingit. The remainderof this section dis- cusses the gaps on the service marketer'sside (GAPI, GAP2, GAP3, and GAP4) and presentspropositionsim- plied by those gaps. The consumer'sside of the ser- vice qualitymodelin Figure I is discussedin the next section. Consumer expectation-management perception gap (GAPI): Many of the executive perceptions about what consumersexpect in a qualityservice were congruent with the consumerexpectationsrevealedin the focus groups. However, discrepancies between executive perceptionsandconsumerexpectationsexisted, as il- lustratedby the following examples: FIGURE 1 Service Quality Model CONSUMER * Privacy or confidentiality during transactions emergedas a pivotal quality attributein every bankingand securitiesbrokeragefocus group. Rarelywas this considerationmentionedin the executive interviews. * Thephysicalandsecurityfeaturesof creditcards (e.g., the likelihood that unauthorizedpeople could use the cards) generatedsubstantialdis- cussion in the focus group interviews but did not emerge as critical in the executive inter- views. * Theproduct repairandmaintenance focusgroups indicatedthat a large repairservice firm was unlikely to be viewed as a high quality firm. Small independentrepair firms were consis- tentlyassociatedwith high quality. In contrast, mostexecutivecommentsindicatedthata firm's size would signal strengthin a qualitycontext. In essence, service firm executives may not always understand whatfeaturesconnotehigh qualityto con- sumersin advance,whatfeaturesa service musthave in orderto meet consumerneeds, and what levels of performanceon those featuresare needed to deliver high quality service. This insight is consistent with previousresearchin services, whichsuggeststhatser- vice marketersmay not always understandwhatcon- sumersexpect in a service (Langeardet al. 1981, Pa- rasuraman and Zeithaml 1982). This lack of under- 44 / Journal ofMarketing, Fall1985 I
- 6. standingmay affectqualityperceptionsof consumers: Proposition1: The gap between consumer expectationsand management perceptionsof those expecta- tions will have an impact on the consumer's evaluation of service quality. Management perception-service quality specifi- cation gap (GAP2):A recurring theme in the executive interviewsin all four service firms was the difficulty experienced in attemptingto match or exceed con- sumerexpectations.Executivescited constraints which preventthem from delivering what the consumerex- pects. As an example, executives in the repairservice firm were fully awarethatconsumersview quick re- sponse to appliancebreakdownsas a vital ingredient of highqualityservice. However, they find it difficult to establish specifications to deliver quick response consistentlybecause of a lack of trainedservice per- sonnel and wide fluctuationsin demand. As one ex- ecutive observed, peak demandfor repairingair con- ditionersand lawnmowersoccurs duringthe summer months, precisely when most service personnelwant to go on vacation. In this and numerousother situa- tions, knowledgeof consumerexpectationsexists but the perceivedmeansto deliverto expectationsappar- ently do not. Apartfrom resource and marketconstraints,an- otherreasonfor the gap betweenexpectationsandthe actualset of specificationsestablishedfor a service is the absenceof total managementcommitmentto ser- vice quality. Althoughthe executive interviewsindi- cated a genuine concern for quality on the part of managersinterviewed,this concern may not be gen- eralizableto all service firms. In discussing product quality, Garvin (1983) stated: ". .. the seriousness that managementattachedto quality problems [var- ies]. It's one thing to say you believe in defect-free products,but quite anotherto take time from a busy scheduleto act on thatbelief and stay informed"(p. 68). Garvin'sobservationsare likely to apply to ser- vice businessesas well. In short, a variety of factors-resource con- straints,marketconditions, and/or managementin- difference-may result in a discrepancy between management perceptions of consumerexpectationsand theactualspecificationsestablishedfora service. This discrepancyis predictedto affect qualityperceptions of consumers: Proposition2: The gap between management perceptions of consumer ex- pectations and the firm's ser- vice qualityspecificationswill affect service qualityfrom the consumer'sviewpoint. Service quality specifications-service delivery gap (GAP3): Even when guidelines exist for performing services well and treatingconsumerscorrectly, high quality service performancemay not be a certainty. Executivesrecognizethata service firm's employees exert a strong influence on the service quality per- ceived by consumersand thatemployee performance cannot always be standardized. When asked what causes service quality problems, executives consis- tentlymentionedthe pivotalroleof contactpersonnel. Inthe repairand maintenancefirm, for example, one executive's immediateresponse to the source of ser- vice quality problems was, "Everythinginvolves a person-a repairperson.It's so hardto maintainstan- dardizedquality." Each of the four firms had formal standardsor specifications for maintainingservice quality (e.g., answerat least 90% of phone calls from consumers within 10 seconds; keep errorrates in statementsbe- low 1%). However, each firm reported difficulty in adheringto these standardsbecause of variabilityin employeeperformance.This problemleads to a third proposition: Proposition3: The gap betweenservice qual- ity specifications and actual service delivery will affect service quality from the con- sumer's standpoint. Service delivery-external communications gap (GAP4): Media advertising and other communications by a firmcan affect consumerexpectations.If expec- tationsplay a majorrole in consumerperceptionsof service quality (as the services literaturecontends), the firmmustbe certainnot to promisemore in com- municationsthan it can deliver in reality. Promising morethancan be deliveredwill raise initialexpecta- tionsbutlowerperceptionsof qualitywhen the prom- ises arenot fulfilled. The executive interviewssuggest anotherperhaps more intriguingway in which external communica- tions could influence service quality perceptionsby consumers.This occurs when companies neglect to informconsumersof special efforts to assurequality thatare not visible to consumers.Commentsof sev- eralexecutivesimpliedthatconsumersarenot always awareof everythingdone behindthe scenes to serve themwell. For instance, a securities brokerage executive mentioned a "48-hour rule"prohibiting employeesfrom buyingor selling securitiesfor theirpersonalaccounts for the first48 hoursafterinformationis suppliedby the firm. The firm did not communicatethis infor- mationto its customers,perhapscontributingto a per- ceptionthat"allthe good deals areprobablymadeby the brokersfor themselves"(a perceptionwhich sur- AConceptual Model ofService Quality / 45
- 7. faced in the securitiesbrokeragefocus groups). One bank executive indicated that consumers were un- awareof the bank'sbehindthe counter,on-line teller terminalswhich would "translateinto visible effects on customerservice."Makingconsumersawareof not readilyapparent servicerelatedstandards suchas these couldimproveservicequalityperceptions.Consumers who are awarethata firm is takingconcretesteps to serve theirbest interestsare likely to perceive a de- liveredservice in a more favorableway. In short, externalcommunicationscan affect not only consumerexpectationsabout a service but also consumerperceptionsof the deliveredservice. Alter- natively, discrepanciesbetween service delivery and externalcommunications-in theformof exaggerated promisesand/or theabsenceof informationaboutser- vice delivery aspects intended to serve consumers well-can affect consumer perceptions of service quality. Proposition4: The gap between actual ser- vice delivery and external communicationsaboutthe ser- vice will affect service quality froma consumer'sstandpoint. Focus GroupInterviews As was trueof theexecutiveinterviews,theresponses of focus groupparticipants aboutservicequalitywere remarkablyconsistent across groups and across ser- vice businesses. While some service-specific differ- ences were revealed, common themes emerged- themes which offer valuable insights about service qualityperceptionsof consumers. Expected service-perceived service gap (GAP5): Thefocusgroupsunambiguouslysupportedthe notion thatthe key to ensuringgood service qualityis meet- ing orexceedingwhatconsumersexpect fromthe ser- vice. Onefemaleparticipant describeda situationwhen a repairmannot only fixed her brokenappliancebut alsoexplainedwhathadgonewrongandhow shecould fix it herself if a similarproblemoccurredin the fu- ture.She ratedthequalityof this serviceexcellent be- cause it exceeded her expectations. A male respond- ent in a bankingservices focus group describedthe frustration he felt when his bank would not cash his payrollcheck from a nationallyknown employerbe- cause it was postdatedby one day. When someone else in the group pointed out legal constraintspre- venting the bank from cashing his check, he re- sponded,"Well,nobodyin the bankexplainedthatto me!" Not receiving an explanationin the bank, this respondent perceivedthatthebankwas unwillingrather thanunable to cash the check. This in turnresulted in a perceptionof poor service quality. Similarexperiences, both positive and negative, weredescribedby consumersin every focus group. It appearsthatjudgmentsof highandlow servicequality dependon how consumersperceivethe actualservice performancein the context of what they expected. Proposition5: The quality that a consumer perceives in a service is a functionof the magnitudeand direction of the gap between expected service and per- ceived service. A Service Quality Model Insightsobtainedfrom the executive interviews and the focus groupsform the basis of a model summa- rizing the natureand determinantsof service quality as perceived by consumers. The foundationof this model is the set of gaps discussed earlierand shown in Figure 1. Service quality as perceived by a con- sumerdependson thesize anddirection of GAP5which, in turn,dependson the natureof the gaps associated with the design, marketing,and deliveryof services: services: Proposition6: GAPS = f(GAPl,GAP2,GAP3,GAP4) It is importantto note that the gaps on the mar- keterside of the equationcan be favorableor unfa- vorablefrom a service quality perspective. That is, the magnitudeand directionof each gap will have an impact on service quality. For instance, GAP3 will be favorablewhen actualservice delivery exceeds spec- ifications;it will be unfavorablewhen service speci- ficationsare not met. While proposition6 suggests a relationshipbetween service quality as perceived by consumersand the gaps occurringon the marketer's side, the functionalform of the relationshipneeds to be investigated.This point is discussed furtherin the last section dealing with futureresearchdirections. The Perceived Service Quality Component Thefocus groupsrevealedthat,regardlessof the type of service, consumersused basically similar criteria in evaluatingservice quality. These criteriaseem to fall into 10 key categorieswhich arelabeled "service qualitydeterminants"and describedin Table 1. For each determinant,Table 1 providesexamples of ser- vice specificcriteriathatemergedin thefocus groups. Table 1 is not meantto suggest that the 10 determi- nantsare non-overlapping.Because the researchwas exploratory,measurementof possible overlap across the 10 criteria(as well as determinationof whether some can be combined) must await futureempirical investigation. The consumer'sview of service qualityis shown in the upperpartof Figure 1 andfurtherelaboratedin 46 / Journal ofMarketing, Fall1985
- 8. TABLE1 Determinants of Service Quality RELIABILITY involves consistency of performance and dependability. It means that the firm performs the service right the first time. Italso 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 means 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. ACCESS involves 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. COURTESY involves 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. COMMUNICATION means keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them. It may mean that the company has to adjust its language for different consumers-increasing the level of sophistication with 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. CREDIBILITY involves 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 (WillI 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 individualized attention; -recognizing the regular customer. TANGIBLES include 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 perceptions was suggested in past research possible 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 ConceptualModelof ServiceQuality/ 47
- 9. FIGURE 2 Determinants of Perceived Service Quality andperceivedservice is not unlikethatperformedby consumerswhen evaluatinggoods. Whatdiffers with servicesis the natureof the characteristics uponwhich they areevaluated. One frameworkfor isolating differences in eval- uationof quality for goods and services is the clas- sificationof propertiesof goods proposedby Nelson (1974) and Darby and Karni (1973). Nelson distin- guishedbetweentwo categoriesof propertiesof con- sumer goods: search properties, attributeswhich a consumercan determinepriorto purchasinga prod- uct, and experienceproperties, attributeswhich can only be discernedafterpurchaseor duringconsump- tion. Searchproperties includeattributes suchas color, style, price, fit, feel, hardness,and smell, while ex- perienceproperties includecharacteristics suchas taste, wearability,and dependability. Darbyand Kari (1973) added to Nelson's two- way classificationsystem a thirdcategory, credence properties-characteristics which the consumermay find impossible to evaluate even after purchaseand consumption.Examplesof offeringshigh in credence properties includeappendectomiesandbrakerelinings on automobiles.Few consumerspossess medical or mechanicalskills sufficientto evaluatewhetherthese servicesarenecessaryor areperformed properly,even afterthey have been prescribedand producedby the seller. Consumersin the focus groupsmentionedsearch, experience, and credence propertieswhen asked to describeanddefine service quality. These aspects of servicequalitycan be categorizedinto the 10 service qualitydeterminants shown in Table 1 andcan be ar- rayedalong a continuumrangingfrom easy to eval- uate to difficultto evaluate. In general,offeringshigh in searchpropertiesare easiestto evaluate,thosehighin experienceproperties moredifficultto evaluate, andthose high in credence propertieshardestto evaluate. Most services contain few searchpropertiesand are high in experienceand credenceproperties,makingtheirqualitymore diffi- cultto evaluatethanqualityof goods (Zeithaml1981). Only two of the ten determinants-tangibles and credibility-can be known in advance of purchase, therebymakingthe numberof searchpropertiesfew. Most of the dimensionsof service qualitymentioned by thefocus groupparticipants wereexperienceprop- erties: access, courtesy, reliability, responsiveness, understanding/knowingthe customer, and commu- nication.Eachof thesedeterminants canonlybe known as the customeris purchasingor consumingthe ser- vice. Whilecustomersmay possess some information basedon theirexperienceoron othercustomers'eval- uations, they are likely to reevaluatethese determi- nantseach time a purchaseis made because of the heterogeneityof services. Two of the determinants thatsurfacedin the focus group interviews probablyfall into the category of credence properties,those which consumers cannot evaluateeven afterpurchaseandconsumption.These includecompetence(thepossessionof therequired skills and knowledge to performthe service) and security (freedomfromdanger,risk, or doubt).Consumersare probablynever certainof these attributes,even after consumptionof the service. Because few searchpropertiesexist with services and because credence propertiesare too difficult to evaluate,the following is proposed: Proposition7: Consumers typically rely on experience properties when evaluatingservice quality. Based on insights from the present study, per- ceived servicequalityis furtherpositedto exist along a continuumrangingfrom ideal qualityto totally un- acceptablequality, with some pointalong the contin- uumrepresentingsatisfactoryquality. The positionof a consumer'sperceptionof servicequalityon thecon- tinuumdependson the natureof the discrepancybe- tweentheexpectedservice(ES) andperceivedservice (PS): Proposition8: (a) When ES > PS, perceived qualityis less thansatisfactory and will tend toward totally unacceptablequality, with in- creased discrepancy between ES andPS; (b) whenES = PS, perceived quality is satisfac- tory; (c) when ES < PS, per- ceived quality is more than 48 / Journal ofMarketing, Fall1985
- 10. satisfactoryand will tend to- ward ideal quality, with in- creased discrepancy between ES and PS. Directionsfor FutureResearch The proposedservice quality model (Figure 1) pro- vides a conceptualframeworkin an areawhere little priorresearchhas been done. It is based on an inter- pretationof qualitativedatageneratedthrougha num- berof in-depthexecutive interviewsandconsumerfo- cus groups-an approachconsistent with procedures recommended for marketingtheorydevelopment.The conceptualmodelandthe propositionsemergingfrom it imply a rich agendafor furtherresearch. First,thereis a needandanopportunity to develop a standardinstrumentto measureconsumers' service qualityperceptions.The authors'exploratoryresearch revealed 10 evaluative dimensions or criteriawhich transcenda varietyof services (Table 1). Researchis now needed to generateitems or statementsto flesh out the 10 dimensions, to devise appropriaterating scalesto measureconsumers'perceptionswithrespect to each statement,and to condense the set of state- ments to produce a reliable and comprehensivebut concise instrument.Further,the statementsgenerated shouldbe suchthatwithappropriate changesin word- ing, the same instrumentcan be used to measureper- ceived qualityfor a varietyof services. Second,themainthesisof theservicequalitymodel is thatconsumers'qualityperceptionsare influenced by a series of distinctgaps occurringon the market- ers' side. A key challengefor researchersis to devise methodsto measure these gaps accurately. Reliable andvalidmeasuresof these gaps will be necessaryfor empirically testing the propositions implied by the model. Third, researchis needed to examine the nature of the association between service quality as per- ceived by consumersandits determinants (GAPS1-4). Specifically, areone or moreof these gaps morecrit- ical thanthe othersin affectingquality?Can creating one "favorable"gap-e.g., making GAP4favorable by employing effective external communicationsto createrealisticconsumerexpectationsandto enhance consumer perceptions-offset service quality prob- lems stemmingfromothergaps?Aretheredifferences across service industriesregardingthe relative seri- ousness of service quality problemsand their impact on qualityas perceivedby consumers?In additionto offering valuable managerial insights, answers to questions like these may suggest refinementsto the proposedmodel. Fourth,the usefulness of segmenting consumers on the basis of their service quality expectations is worthexploring. Although the focus groups consis- tently revealed similar criteria for judging service quality, the group participants differed on the relative importance of those criteria to them, and their expec- tations along the various quality dimensions. Empir- ical researchaimed at determiningwhether distinct, identifiable service quality segments exist will be valuablefrom a service marketer'sviewpoint. In this regard,it will be useful to buildinto the service qual- ity measurement instrumentcertainstatementsfor as- certainingwhether, and in what ways, consumerex- pectationsdiffer. Fifth, as shown by Figure 1, expected service-a critical component of perceived service quality-in additionto being influenced by a marketer'scom- munications,is shapedby word-of-mouthcommuni- cations, personal needs, and past experience. Re- searchfocusingon the relativeimpactof these factors on consumers'service expectations,withinas well as acrossservicecategories,will have useful managerial implications. Summary The exploratoryresearch(focus group and in-depth executive interviews) reportedin this article offers several insights and propositions concerning con- sumers' perceptionsof service quality. Specifically, the researchrevealed 10 dimensions that consumers use in formingexpectationsaboutand perceptionsof services, dimensionsthattranscenddifferenttypes of services. The researchalso pinpointedfour key dis- crepanciesor gaps on the service provider'sside that are likely to affect service quality as perceived by consumers.The majorinsightsgainedthroughthe re- searchsuggesta conceptualservicequalitymodelthat will hopefully spawn both academicand practitioner interestin service quality and serve as a framework for furtherempiricalresearchin this importantarea. REFERENCES Anderson, Carl and Carl P. Zeithaml (1984), "Stage of the Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Per- formance," Academy of Management Journal, 27 (March), 5-24. AConceptual Model ofService Quality / 49
- 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 OrganizationStructuresfor Services Firms," inMarketingof Services, J. Donnelly andW. 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: TheArt of Making Quality Certain, New York: New American Library. Darby, M. R. and E. Karni (1973), "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Eco- nomics, 16 (April), 67-86. Deshpande, Rohit (1983), "'Paradigms Lost': On Theory and Method in Research in Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 101-110. Garvin, David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," Harvard Business Review, 61 (September-October), 65-73. Gronroos, Christian(1978), "A Service-Oriented Approachto Marketing of Services," European Journal of Marketing, 12 (no. 8), 588-601. (1982), Strategic Management and Marketingin the Service Sector, Helsingfors: Swedish School of Economics and 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 of Applied Psychology, 55 (no. 6), 570-579. Langeard, Eric, John E. G. Bateson, Christopher H. Love- lock, and Pierre Eiglier (1981), Service Marketing: New Insightsfrom Consumers and Managers, Cambridge, MA: MarketingScience Institute. Lehtinen, Uolevi and Jarmo R. Lehtinen (1982), "Service Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions," unpublished working paper, Helsinki: Service Management Institute, Finland OY. Leonard, Frank S. and W. Earl Sasser (1982), "The Incline of Quality,"HarvardBusiness Review, 60 (September-Oc- tober), 163-171. Lewis, Robert C. and BernardH. Booms (1983), "The Mar- keting Aspects of Service Quality," in Emerging Perspec- tives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G. Shostack, and G. Upah, eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 99-107. Lovelock, ChristopherH. (1980), "Towards a Classification of 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 Strategic MarketingInsights," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer), 9-20. McConnell, J. D. (1968), "Effect of Pricing on Perception of ProductQuality," Journal of Applied Psychology, 52 (Au- gust), 300-303. Monroe, Kent B. andR. Krishnan(1983), "TheEffect of Price on Subjective Product Evaluations," Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, working paper. Nelson, P. (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, 81 (July/August), 729-754. Olander, F. (1970), "The Influence of Price on the Consum- er's Evaluationof Products,"in Pricing Strategy, B. Taylor andG. Wills, eds., Princeton, NJ: Brandon/Systems Press. Parasuraman,A. and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1982), "Differ- entialPerceptionsof SuppliersandClients of IndustrialSer- vices," in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G. Shostack, andG. 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 of Marketing, 47 (Spring), 26-43. Rabin, Joseph H. (1983), "Accent Is on Quality in Consumer Services This Decade," MarketingNews, 17 (March4), 12. Regan, William J. (1963), "The Service Revolution," Journal of 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), "ThePrice 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, RuthA. andMichael J. Houston (1982), "Script-Based Evaluations of Satisfaction with Services," in Emerging Perspectives 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 Is More Than Making a Good Product," Harvard Business Review, 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 Thought on Thinking, New York: Wiley. Zeithaml, ValarieA. (1981), "How ConsumerEvaluation Pro- cesses Differ between Goods and Services," in Marketing of Services, J. Donnelly and W. George, eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 186-190. 50 / Journal ofMarketing, Fall 1985