Conceptual Underpinnings of LibQUAL+ [tm]:
A Total Market Survey
A. Parasuraman
University of Miami
ALA Midwinter Conference
San Diego, CA
January 11, 2004
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Defining, Assessing, and Measuring Service
Quality: A Conceptual Overview
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
2
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?
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
3
Determinants of Perceived Service
Quality
Word of
Mouth
Personal
Needs
Expected
Service
Service
Quality
Gap
Past
Experience
External
Communication
to Customers
Perceived
Service
Quality
Perceived
Service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
4
A “GAPS” MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY
CUSTOMER
Customers’
Service
Expectations
SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Market
Information
Gap
Organization’s
Understanding of
Expectations
Service
Standards
Gap
Organization’s
Service Standards
GAP 1
GAP 2
Service
Quality
Gap
Customers’
Service
Perceptions
GAP 5
GAP 3
GAP 4
Organization’s
Communications to
Customers
Service
Performance
Gap
Organization’s
Service
Performance
Internal
Communication
Gap
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
5
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
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
6
SERVQUAL: Development, Refinement, and
Empirical Findings
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
7
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
Expected
Service
Service
Quality
Gap
Past
Experience
External
Communication
to Customers
Perceived
Service
Quality
Perceived
Service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
8
Correspondence between SERVQUAL Dimensions and
Original Ten Dimensions for Evaluating Service Quality
Original Ten
Dimensions for
Evaluating Service
Quality
SERVQUAL Dimensions
TANGIBLES
RELIABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
ASSURANCE
EMPATHY
TANGIBLES
RELIABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
COMPETENCE
COURTESY
CREDIBILITY
SECURITY
ACCESS
COMMUNICATION
UNDERSTANDING/
KNOWING THE
CUSTOMER
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
9
Definitions of the SERVQUAL 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.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
10
Relative Importance of Service
Dimensions When Respondents
Allocate 100 Points [Study 1]
RELIABILITY 32%
TANGIBLES 11%
RESPONSIVENESS
EMPATHY 16%
22%
ASSURANCE 19%
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
11
Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions [Study 2]
Mean Number of Points Allocated out of 100 Points
37
33
11
9
23
18
32
14
21
23
15
13
19
Computer Manufacturer
All Companies
Retail Chain
29
28
12
12
23
23
18
17
19
20
Auto Insurer
Reliability
15
18
Responsiveness
Life Insurer
Assurance
Empathy
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Tangibles
12
Mean SERVQUAL Scores by Service Dimension [Study 1]
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
Tangibles Reliability Responsive- Assurance
ness
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Empathy
13
Nature of Service Expectations
Desired Service
Level Customers
Believe Can and Should Be
Delivered
Zone
of
Tolerance
Adequate Service
Minimum Level
Customers Are Willing
to Accept
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
14
The Two Levels of Expectations Imply Two
Corresponding Measures of GAP 5:
Measure of Service
Adequacy (MSA)
Measure of Service
Superiority (MSS)
=
Perceived
Service
-
Adequate
Service
=
Perceived
Service
-
Desired
Service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
15
TWO APPROACHES FOR
MEASURING MSA AND MSS
• Two-Column Format Questionnaire
– Direct measures of MSA and MSS
• Three-Column Format Questionnaire
– Difference-score measures of MSA and MSS
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
16
TWO-COLUMN FORMAT
Please think about the quality of service ________ offers compared to the two different levels of
service defined below:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL - the minimum level of service performance you consider
adequate.
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL - the level of service performance you desire.
For each of the following statements, please indicate: (a) how ______’s performance compares
with your minimum service level by circling one of the numbers in the first column; and (b) how
______’s performance compares with your desired service level by circling one of the numbers
in the second column.
Compared to My Minimum
Service Level ____’s
Service Performance is:
The
Same
Compared to My Desired
Service Level ____’s
Service Performance is:
No
Higher Opinion
The
Same
No
Opinion
When it comes to …
Lower
1.
Prompt service
to policyholders
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
N
2.
Employees who are
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
consistently courteous
N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
N
Lower
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Higher
17
THREE-COLUMN FORMAT
We would like your impressions about ________’s service performance relative to your expectations. Please think
about the two different levels of expectations defined below:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL - the minimum level of service performance you consider
adequate.
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL - the level of service performance you desire.
For each of the following statements, please indicate: (a) your minimum service level by circling one of the numbers
in the first column; and (b) your desired service level by circling one of the numbers in the second column; and (c)
your perception of ___________’s service by circling one of the numbers in the third column.
My Minimum
Service
Level is:
When it comes to …
Low
High
My Desired
Service
Level is:
Low
My Perception
of ____’s Service
Performance is:
High
Low
No
High Opinion
1.
Prompt service
to policyholders
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
N
2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Employees who are
consistently courteous
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
N
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
18
Measurement Error: Percent of
Respondents Answering Incorrectly
Type of
Company
Two-Column
Format
Three-Column
Format
Computer
Manufacturer
8.6%
0.6%
Retail Chain
18.2%
1.8%
Auto Insurer
12.2%
1.6%
Life Insurer
9.9%
2.7%
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
19
Mean Service Quality Scores
(Combined Across All Companies)
SERVQUAL
Dimensions
TWO-COLUMN FORMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE
MSA Scores MSS Scores
THREE-COLUMN FROMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE
MSA Scores
MSS Scores
Reliability
6.8
5.9
0.2
-1.0
Responsiceness
6.7
5.7
0.3
-1.1
Assurance
6.8
5.9
0.4
-0.9
Empathy
6.5
5.6
0.2
-1.2
Tangibles
7.1
6.4
1.1
-0.2
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
20
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
Tangibles
7. Willingness to help customers
17. Modern equipment
8. Readiness to respond to customers' requests
18. Visually appealing facilities
Assurance
9. Employees who instill confidence in customers
10. Making customers feel safe in their transactions
19. Employees who have a neat, professional appearance
20. Visually appealing materials associated with the service
21. Convenient business hours
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
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
21
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
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
22
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
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
23
Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
On-Line Services
9
8
7
6
6.8
8.4
8.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.4
6.7
6.8
8.3
6.7
6.8
7.5
6.8
5.7
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Zone of Tolerance
Empathy Tangibles
S.Q. Perception
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
24
Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by
Dimension
Tech-Support Services
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
8.5
8.4
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.1
8.3
8.1
6.3
6.8
6.4
6.3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness
Zone of Tolerance
Assurance
Empathy
S.Q. Perception
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
25
LIBQUAL+: An Adaptation of SERVQUAL
Source: http://www.arl.org/newsltr/212/libqual.jpg
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
26
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
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
27
The Role Of Technology In Service Delivery:
Electronic Service Quality (e-SQ) and Technology
Readiness (TR)
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
28
Technology’s Growing Role in Marketing to
and Serving Customers: Pyramid Model
Company
Internal
Marketing
External
Marketing
Employees
Customers
Interactive
Marketing
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
29
Ongoing Research on e-Service
Quality: Conceptual Framework and
Preliminary Findings
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
30
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?
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
31
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.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
32
Dimensions of e-Service
Quality from Focus Groups
•
•
•
•
Access
Ease of Navigation
Efficiency
Customization/
Personalization
• Security/Privacy
•
•
•
•
•
•
Responsiveness
Assurance/Trust
Price Knowledge
Site Aesthetics
Reliability
Flexibility
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
33
Reliability
DEFINITION
Correct technical
functioning of the
site and the
accuracy of service
promises, billing
and product
information.
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
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
34
Efficiency
DEFINITION
SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
• Site is well organized
The site is simple to use, • Site is simple to use
structured properly,
• Site provides
and requires a
information in
minimum of
reasonable chunks
information to be
input by the customer. • Site allows me to click
for more information if
I need it
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
35
Means-End Model
Concrete
Cues
Perceptual
Attributes
Dimensions
SPECIFIC/
CONCRETE
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Higher-level
Abstractions
ABSTRACT
36
Means-End Model of
e-Service Quality
Concrete
Cues
Tab Structuring
Site Map
Search Engine
One-click Ordering
Perceptual
Attributes
Dimensions
Higher-Level
Abstractions
Easy to Maneuver
through Site
Easy to Find
What I Need
Ease of
Navigation
Speed of
Checkout
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
37
Concrete
Cues
Perceptual
Attributes
Dimensions
Higher-Level
Abstractions
Access
Ease of
Navigation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Reliability
Personalization
Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Security/
Privacy
Responsiveness
Assurance/
Trust
Site
Aesthetics
Price
Knowledge
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
38
Means-End Model of e-Service Quality
Behaviors
Higher-Level Abstractions
Dimensions
Perceptual
Attributes
Concrete
Cues
Purchase
Loyalty
Perceived
Convenience
W.O.M
Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Perceived
Control
Perceived
Value
Perceived
Price
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
39
Conceptual Model for Understanding and Improving e-Service Quality
Customer
Customer
Web site
Requirements
Customer
Web site
Experiences
Perceived
e-SQ
Perceived
Value
Company
Purchase/
Repurchase
Information
Gap
Management’s
Beliefs
about Customer
Requirements
Design and
Operation
of the
Web site
Marketing
of the
Web site
Communication
Gap
Design
Gap
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
40
e-Service Quality vs. Traditional SQ
• Several dimensions are the same, but specific
attributes underlying them are different
• e-SQ involves some new dimensions
• Empathy -- and other ‘hi-touch’ oriented attributes
-- do not seem to be as critical for e-SQ except
when customers experience problems;
preliminary insights from Phase 2 suggest
differences between regular and recovery e-SQ
• Key drivers of regular e-SQ relate to efficiency,
fulfillment, reliability, and privacy
• Key drivers of recovery e-SQ relate to
responsiveness, real-time access to help, and
compensation
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
41
An Important Implication of the
Pyramid Model
An organization’s ability to use
technology effectively in
marketing to and serving
customers critically depends on
the technology readiness of its
customers and employees
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
42
What is Technology
Readiness [TR]?
TR refers to “people’s
propensity to embrace
and use new
technologies for
accomplishing goals
in home life and at
work”
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
43
Key Insights from Qualitative
Research Studies
• TR doesn’t just refer to possessing technical
skills; TR is much more a function of people’s
beliefs and feelings about technology
• People’s beliefs can be positive about some
aspects of technology but negative about
other aspects
• The relative strengths of the of positive and
negative beliefs determine a person’s
receptivity to technology
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
44
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
Resistant to
Technology
Neutral
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Receptive to
Technology
45
Link between Technology Beliefs
and Technology Readiness
Technology
Readiness
High
Medium
Low
Resistant to
Technology
Neutral
Receptive to
Technology
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
46
Major Quantitative Research
Studies
• Four “National Technology Readiness Surveys”
[NTRS] in the USA:
– Spring 1999
– Spring 2000
– Fall 2001
– Fall 2002
• Austrian Technology Readiness Surveys
– Spring 2001
– Spring 2004 [being planned]
• Other Technology Readiness Surveys In Progress:
– Sweden, Chile, Singapore
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
47
Key Insights from Quantitative
Research Studies
• TR consists of four facets or dimensions that
are fairly independent of one another
• People’s ratings on a set of belief statements
about technology can be combined to create a
reliable and valid measure of TR -- i.e., a
“Technology Readiness Index” [TRI]
• The TRI is a good predictor of people’s
technology-related behaviors and preferences
• A meaningful typology of customers can be
created based on their TR scores on the four
dimensions
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
48
Drivers of Technology Readiness
Contributors
Optimism
Innovativeness
Technology Readiness
Inhibitors
Discomfort
Insecurity
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
49
Definitions of the TR Drivers
• Optimism: Positive view of technology;
belief that it offers increased control,
flexibility and efficiency
• Innovativeness: Tendency to be a
technology pioneer and thought leader
• Discomfort: Perceived lack of control over
technology and a feeling of being
overwhelmed by it
• Insecurity: Distrust of technology and
skepticism about its working properly
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
50
TR Scores by Dimension and
Overall TRI
4.5
4
3.5
3
Mean TR
Scores
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
OPT.
US 1999
INN.
US 2000
DIS.
US 2001
INS.
US 2002
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
TRI
Austria 2001
51
Characteristics of Technology
Segments
Optimism
Explorers High
Pioneers High
Low
Paranoids High
Laggards Low
Skeptics
InnovativeDisness
comfort
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
Insecurity
Low
High
Low
High
High
52
The Five TR Segments
Differ on Technology
Usage…..
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
53
Greater than 50% Ownership/Usage of
Technology-Based Products/Services
(as of 1999)
• Explorers:
• Pioneers:
• Skeptics:
• Paranoids:
• Laggards:
Computers, cell phones, caller
ID, ATMs, online services,
telephone banking
Computers, cell phones, caller
ID, ATMs, online services
Computers, ATMs
ATMs
None
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
54
Pace of Technology Adoption
Timing of 10% penetration rate for Internet
access within each customer segment
Explorers
7/95
Laggards
Skeptics
Pioneers
Paranoids
10/96
5/97
1/98
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
9/98
55
First-time Users
New Customer Composition by Age of TechnoBased Product/Service
te
La
Ea
r
ly
Laggards
Paranoids
Skeptics
Pioneers
Explorers
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
56
In Conclusion, to Deliver Superior Service in Library
Environments:
• Understand customers’ service expectations and how well those
expectations are being met
• Work systematically to remove organizational barriers that lead to
poor customer service -- offline and online
• Recognize and capitalize on the increasing role of technology in
serving customers, but …
• Be cognizant of customers’ and employees’ readiness to embrace
technology-based services
• Recognize that e-service quality as perceived by customers involves
much more than having a state-of-the-art website
• Put in place a solid behind-the-scenes infrastructure -- information
systems, logistics, and human resources -- to deliver what a
website’s façade promises.
• Continuously monitor customers’ and employees’ reactions to and
experiences with your electronic interfaces
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
57
Sources of Information about Customer Service and
Technology Readiness
www.technoreadymarketing.com
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
58
Thank You!
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
59