A REVIEW OF SERVICE QUALITY MODELS

1
2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT
(2nd ICM 2012) PROCEEDING
11th - 12th JUNE 2012. HOLIDAY VILLA BEACH RESORT & SPA, LANGKAWI KEDAH, MALAYSIA
ISBN: 978-967-5705-07-6. WEBSITE: w w w . i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e . c o m . m y
A REVIEW OF SERVICE QUALITY MODELS
Ali Ramezani Ghotbabadi (Corresponding Author)
Dr. Rohaizat Baharun and Setareh Feiz
Faculty of Management,
University Technology Malaysia (UTM)
zaosra@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
In the world of business, customers are crucial. Companies must keep satisfying their customers to
improve profitability and market share to survive in the competition. Companies need to find what their
customers need, what they want, and what they value. In recent decades, scientists found that the
quality of services has a significant influence on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. There are
many suggested models for Service Quality measurement but in this study, we focus on four particular
models, which are most common in marketing researches and are the basis of other models. Reviewing
these models shows that all of them have some advantages and disadvantages and Service quality
models have improved day by day. In this study, we found the Hierarchical model as the comprehensive
model. This model contains significant factors and works by researchers approving the validity and
reliability of this model in different categories. It is an applicable service quality measurement for
marketing managers.
Field of Research: Service Quality, Hierarchical Model, SERVQUAL, Customer Satisfaction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
Having more profit and growth in a company needs customer loyalty and retention, because the cost of
keeping current customers is lower than finding new customers (Kotler & Armstrong, 2007). Customer
loyalty and repurchase intention need overall customer satisfaction. However, satisfied customers are
not necessarily loyal but loyal customers are definitely satisfied customers. Therefore, customer
satisfaction is the key factor and the most studied element in marketing researches.
Some consequences of customer satisfaction is loyalty (Kotler & Armstrong, 2007) and repurchase
intention (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993) which lead companies to more profit. One of the most important
factors and antecedents of customer satisfaction is quality of services. Service Quality has a direct and
strong effect on customer satisfaction and loyalty (Bowen & Chen, 2001; Brady & Cronin, 2001; Cronin &
Taylor, 1992; Ganguli & Roy, 2011; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
Berry, 1988). High service quality has an impact on organizational outcomes such as improving
profitability, high market share, customer loyalty and probability of purchase (Brady & Cronin, 2001).

2
Customer satisfaction will come from the experience of consumers by comparing expected level of
service and delivered level of service. In this relationship Perception has a direct effect on customer
satisfaction but expectation does not have a direct effect on customer satisfaction (Anderson & Sullivan,
1993).
Therefore, quality of service has an indirect effect on company’s performance. It is crucial for companies
to find out what their customers need, want and what they perceive. One of the most important
elements in customer satisfaction and company profitability is quality of service (product). In addition,
managers need to identify weaknesses and consider planning for improvement in quality, thereby
improving efficiency, profitability and overall performance. Because of that, interest in this area has
increased during recent decades and researchers have started to find the best way of measuring
customer perspective.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Researchers believe that the service quality theory is based on the literature of customer satisfaction
and product quality (Brady & Cronin, 2001). There are many service quality models but scientists are not
of one mind about these models and measurements. Service quality has different dimensions regarding
the various service sectors (Pollack, 2009) Nevertheless, service quality measurement enables managers
to recognize quality problems and enhance the efficiency and quality of services to exceed expectations
and reach customer satisfaction.
Service quality perception wildly has been studied in last three decades. Zeithaml (1988) define service
quality as an assessment of customer from the overall excellence of service. It is because of service
quality nature, which is intangible, heterogeneous and inseparable. In recent decades, many models
have been developed for measuring service quality and the first attempt was by Gronroos in 1984. He
believes in distinguish between technical quality as an outcome for performance of service and
functional quality as a subjective perception of service delivered. Rust and Oliver have expanded
Gronroos model in 1994 by adding service environment as a new dimension.
In 1985 Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry suggested the most used and famous model named
SERVQUAL. At first, they suggested ten dimensions for service quality but after some initial study in
1988, they reduced to five dimensions for service quality model. The SERVQUAL model was based on
difference between perception and expectation of quality of service through five dimensions.
Some researchers believe measuring the gap between expectation and perception, psychometrically
cannot obtain superior assessment of service quality. Hence, in 1992 Cronin and Taylor recommended
the SERVPERF model that was based on performance in service quality measurement. SERVPERF was
inclusive more of variance in overall service quality measurement than SERVQUAL. In addition,
Dobholkar, Thorpe, and Rentz in 1996 tested SERVQUAL and reported that this measurement has not
been adapted in some areas like retail store environment. They proposed a new model so called Retail
Service Quality Scale (RSQS). Brady and Cronin proposed Hierarchical and Multidimensional model for
service quality in 2001. They combined Rust and Oliver (1994) three components model and Dabholkar
et al. (1996) the multilevel model.

3
In this study, we are going to evaluate only four main, most used, and adopted models. These four
service quality models are basis of other service quality measurements. By evaluating the expert opinion
and secondary data, we are going to find which model is the most fruitful for service sectors to
measuring quality of service and improve their customer satisfaction based on its result.
3. METHODOLOGY
In this study, we used literature research method for finding the best model in service quality
measurement. One of the useful methods (especially in review works) is literature survey. Using
secondary sources and work of other researchers is base of this study. This paper critically reviews and
discusses four different service quality models reported in literature. Objective of this study is finding
the best and comprehensive model in measuring customer perception about quality of services for
different industries. in the next section we are going to discuss about four models of service quality and
finding of researchers about these four measurements.
4. DISCUSSION
This section allocated to gathering and evaluating information and researchers work about four main
models in service quality measurement, which are the most useful and famous in this area.
Service quality models
During last three decades, a lot of scientists work on service quality measurement and many
measurements suggested but only some of them were acceptable and more used by scientists. We are
going to discuss about four major measurements of service quality in this part.
Nordic Model
Early conceptualization of service quality was formed by Gronroos (1982, 1984), he defined service
quality by technical or outcome (what consumer receive) and functional or process related (how
consumer receive the service) dimensions (figure 1) (Gronroos, 1982, 1984, 1988). Image build up by
technical and functional quality and effect of some other factors (marketing communication, word of
mouth, tradition, ideology, customer needs and pricing). Nordic model is based on disconfirmation
paradigm by comparing perceived performance and expected service. This was the first attempt to
measure quality of service. Gronroos model was general and without offering any technique on
measuring technical and functional quality. Rust & Oliver (1994) tried to refine the Nordic model by The
Three-Component Model. They suggest three components: service product (i.e., technical quality),
service delivery (i.e., functional quality), and service environment but they did not test their model and
just a few support have been found.

4
Figure 1: The Nordic model by Gronroos (1984)
SERVQUAL model
Based on disconfirmation paradigm, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1985) made the new model of
service quality measurement. They try to cover the weakness of Nordic model by offering a new way for
measuring service quality. In SERVQUAL model, they suggest to use the gap or difference between
expected level of service and delivered level of service for measuring service quality perception with five
dimensions: Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurances, Empathy, and Tangibility (Figure 2).
SERVQUAL is an analytical tool, which can help managers to identifying the gaps between variables
affecting the quality of the offering services (Seth, Deshmukh, & Vrat, 2005). This model is the most
used by marketing researchers and scientists, although it is an exploratory study and does not offer a
clear measurement method for measuring gaps at different levels. This model has been refined during
the years and some believe that only performance needed to be measured as SERVPERF model in order
to find perception of service quality (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Finding in years of using this model shows
SERVQUAL factors are inconsistent and it is not comprehensive for different applications (Dabholkar, et
al., 1996; Shahin & Samea, 2010).
Figure 2: The SERVQUAL model by Parasuraman et al., (1985)

5
Multilevel model
Because inconsistent reported in SERVQUAL factors, in 1996 Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz proposed the
multilevel model for service quality. They suggest changing the structure of service quality models to a
three-stage model: overall perceptions of service quality, primary dimensions, and Subdimensions
(Figure 3). This model was for evaluating service quality in retail store. Although multilevel propose a
new structure, it needs to generalize for different areas and consider the effect of some other factors
such as environment, price, etc. In addition, there is lack of identifying attributes or factors that define
the sub dimensions.
Figure 3: The Multilevel model by Dabholkar et al., (1996)
Hierarchical model
In 2001 Brady and Cronin, suggested a new model by combining four models. They improved SERVQUAL
(Parasuraman, et al., 1988) by specifying what needed to be reliable, responsive, empathic, assured and
tangible. Brady and Cronin adopted service quality perception based on evaluation by customer in three
dimensions: 1.Interaction Quality (i.e., functional quality) 2.Physical Environment Quality 3.Outcome
Quality (i.e., technical quality) (Gronroos, 1984; Rust & Oliver, 1994). In addition, they accept multilevel
service quality perceptions and multidimensional (Dabholkar, et al., 1996). Service quality has three
primary level dimensions in this conceptualization such as interaction, environment and outcome with
three sub dimensions for each one: Interaction (Attitude – Behavior – Expertise), Environment (Ambient
Conditions – Design – Social Factors), and Outcome (Waiting Time – Tangibles – Valence.
A new model conceptualized by this hierarchical model and SERVQUAL factors specified into sub
dimensions. Brady and Cronin have improved service quality framework and solved the stalemate in this
theory. It defines service quality perception and a clear form of service quality measurement. In
SERVQUAL measurement, service outcomes were not clearly considered, but Brady & Cronin’s model
seems to fill this void (Pollack, 2009).

6
Figure 4: The Hierarchical model by Brady & Cronin (2001)
In addition, it shows the customer experience at different levels and various dimensions of service
(Figure 4). Some researchers work on the hierarchical model and found the reliability for this framework
in various services. Like all the measurements, hierarchical model has difference in factors and
importance of sub dimensions in regards to services such as Health care (Chahal & Kumari, 2010;
Dagger, Sweeney, & Johnson, 2007), Sport (Ko, 2000), Mobile health (Akter, D’Ambra, & Ray, 2010),
hairdresser (barber) and phone service subscribers (Pollack, 2009). This model will able firms to
recognize problems in primary stage of their delivered services - Interaction Quality, Physical
Environment Quality, and Outcome Quality - (Pollack, 2009). It can help managers find customer needs
and service weaknesses simultaneously in order to enhance service quality perception and service
experiences of customer via high quality of service. This model shows better understanding about
customer perception of service quality until today.
5. CONCLUSION
Service quality is the best tool for marketing managers to find and analyze information about customer
needs, wants, and perceptions about services. This information will help managers to identify problems
and make strategic plans in order to improve efficiency, profitability, and overall performance by high
quality. During recent decades, scientists attempted to find the perfect model in measuring service
quality that cover all the factors and answer to this area of necessity. There are many models suggested
by researchers and all models have their own advantages and disadvantages. Scientists are not
unanimous about any of these service quality models. Service quality models have different dimensions
regarding the field of service sectors. However, SERVQUAL is the most common model used by
researchers but it is not comprehensive and suitable for different applications. The hierarchical model
has covered weaknesses of other models. It has strong structure and specifies the factors of customer
perspective as well. Moreover, Hierarchical measurement considers services outcomes, which were void
in SERVQUAL. Validity and Reliability of this model has been tested and approved in different areas by
other marketing researchers. Results show the hierarchical instrument as the most advantageous
approach to service quality assessment to date (Pollack, 2009) . Finally, by this review of literature we

7
can conclude that the Hierarchical Service Quality is the most suitable and helpful measurement for
managers to collect the right information and make the right decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is under the scholarship of University Technology Malaysia (UTM).
REFERENCES
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2010). Service quality of mHealth platforms: development and
validation of a hierarchical model using PLS. Electron Markets.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction
for Firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125-143.
Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S.-L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction.
[Research paper]. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13(Iss: 5),
213 - 217.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A
hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Chahal, H., & Kumari, N. (2010). Development of multidimensional scale for healthcare service quality
(HCSQ) in Indian context. Journal of Indian Business Research, 2(4), 230-255.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY - A REEXAMINATION AND EXTENSION.
Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorp, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A Measure of Service Quality for Retail Stores: Scale
Development and Validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 3-16.
Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Johnson, L. W. (2007). A Hierarchical Model of Health Service Quality.
Scale Development and Investigation of an Integrated Model. Journal of Service Research, 10(2),
123-142.
Ganguli, S., & Roy, S. K. (2011). Generic technology-based service quality dimensions in banking Impact
on customer satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 29(2), pp. 168-189.
Gronroos, C. (1982). Strategic Management and marketing in the service sector: Helsingfors: Swedish
school of Economics and Business Administration.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service Quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of
Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

8
Gronroos, C. (1988). Service Quality: The six criteria of good perceived service. Review of Business, 9(3).
Ko, Y. J. (2000). A multidimensional and hierarchical model of service quality in the participant sport
industry. Ohio State University.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2007). Marketing: An Introduction (8 ed.): Pearson Prentice Hall.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its
Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 10.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A Multiple-Item Scale For Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of service quality Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12.
Pollack, B. L. (2009). Linking the hierarchical service quality model to customer satisfaction and loyalty.
[Research paper]. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(1), 42-50.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service Quality: Insights and manegerial implications from the frontier
in Service Quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 1-19): Sage Publication.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), pp. 913-949.
Shahin, A., & Samea, M. (2010). Developing the Models of Service Quality Gaps: A Critical Discussion.
Business Management and Strategy, 1(pp 1-11).

A REVIEW OF SERVICE QUALITY MODELS

More Related Content

Similar to A REVIEW OF SERVICE QUALITY MODELS (20)

More from Renee Lewis (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A REVIEW OF SERVICE QUALITY MODELS