Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality
Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA
Analysis
1
Yu-Cheng Lee, 2Sang-Bing Tsai, 3Chia-Huei Wu
Department of Technology Management, Chung-Hua University, ycl@chu.edu.tw
*2,
Ph.D. Program of Technology Management, Chung-Hua University,
sangbing@hotmail.com
3,
Ph.D. Program of Technology Management, Chung-Hua University,
Dept. of Business and Tourism Planning, Ta Hwa University of Science and Technology,
hsmotel@ms68.hinet.net
1,
Abstract
In addition to understanding enterprise performance and customer satisfaction, the measurement of
service quality must provide companies with directions for improvement and optimal management
decisions under resource limitations. The three-column format SERVQUAL scale clearly indicates
the service dimension and quality element that enterprises should focus on improving to optimize
their resource allocation. Simultaneous importance-performance analysis (SIPA) can be used to
analyze the three concepts of quality element importance, performance, and competitors’
performance to understand the competitive conditions of the market. In this study, we recommend
using the integrated three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA methods to measure
enterprise service quality. By employing this approach, enterprise measurements can be obtained,
and priority orders and promotion strategies for improving service quality can be established based
on industry competition. This enables enterprises to achieve optimal effects when improving service
quality with limited resources.
Keywords: SERVQUAL Scale, Simultaneous Importance-performance Analysis (SIPA), Service
Quality, Service Science, Quality Engineering
1. Introduction
The primary objective of businesses is to create satisfied customers. In the current intensely
competitive environment, businesses must provide high added value, increase service quality,
and improve customer satisfaction to maintain profitability and growth. The adoption of a
quantifiable model that can verify businesses’ service quality and identify methods for
improving service quality is crucial to enterprises.
Levitt [1] defined service quality as service results that satisfy set standards. Grönroos [2]
held that service quality can be divided into two types. The first is technical quality, which is a
metric of when customers actually receive services. The second is functional quality, which is a
metric of service delivery methods and attitudes. Lewis and Booms [3] indicated that service
quality is the degree to which the service delivery process meets customer expectations. Service
quality is assessed according to consumers’ subjective perceptions. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and
Berry [4] indicated that customers’ perception of service quality typically resulted from the
service they expect and believe they deserve. When statistically comparing these results with
their perceptions of the actual service, if the disparity between their perception and expectation
is greater than zero, customers have obtained ideal or satisfactory service. Binter [5] stated that
service quality is the overall attitude or behavioral intentions customers have to repurchase a
service after consumption. Sureshchandar, Rajendran, and Kamalanabhan [6] indicated that
service quality is the subjective perception of customers when receiving the service.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [4] presented the five gaps model of service quality to
explain the formation of the conceptual framework for the service quality gaps model.
Additionally, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [7] were the first to suggest using the
one-column format SERVQUAL scale as a measurement tool for service quality. They proposed
using perceptions minus expectations to measure service quality. Studies of service quality have
Advances in information Sciences and Service Sciences(AISS)
Volume5, Number10, May 2013
doi:10.4156/AISS.vol5.issue10.146
1254
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
commonly adopted and employed the service quality definitions and SERVQUAL scales
described previously [8-18].
The Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (PZB) service quality model for measuring service
quality is restricted to assessing only the enterprise itself. The PZB model does not consider the
performance of industry competitors. Porter [19] presented the five forces analysis model, which
enables enterprises to develop unique competitive strengths and advantages according to their
specific industries. Together with Porter [19], Burns [20] developed the simultaneous
importance-performance analysis (SIPA) method. This method analyzes the three concepts of
quality element importance, performance, and competitor performance, and presents eight types
of competitive state. This indicates that when investigating enterprise competitiveness and
service quality, the industry overall must not be ignored in favor of focusing on individual
companies. The actions and reactions of competitors must be particularly emphasized.
In addition to understanding enterprise performance and customer satisfaction, the
measurement of service quality must provide companies with directions for improvement and
optimal management decisions under resource limitations. In this study, we recommend using
the integrated three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA methods to measure enterprise
service quality. We also present plans for improving service quality for the case companies.
2. Literature review
2.1. The PZB gaps model and SERVQUAL scale
2.1.1. The PZB gaps model
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [4] suggested using the five gaps model of service quality
to explain the formation of the conceptual framework for the service quality gaps model, as
shown in Fig. 1.
(1) Gap 1: Consumer expectation – management perception gap
A gap exists between customers’ expected service and managers’ perceptions of customer
expectations because managers do not entirely understand customers’ service expectations, customers’
privacy-based issues, or other reasons, further influencing service quality. The following factors
influence customer expectations: Word of mouth, individual needs, and past experiences.
(2) Gap 2: Management perceptions – service quality specification gap
Because of resources, market restrictions, and top management commitments, managers may be
unable to provide the services expected by customers even if they correctly perceive customers’
expectations. For example, repair workshops clearly know that customers expect fast service. However,
if they lack experienced technical staff, they will be unable to provide rapid service at peak times.
(3) Gap 3: Service quality specification – service delivery gap
Even if a company has clear operating procedures and quality specifications, it cannot ensure a high
service level. This is primarily because customers’ perception of the service quality provided by the
company’s employees is influenced heavily by their interactive relationships. However, employee
service performance is difficult to standardize.
(4) Gap 4: Service delivery – external communication gap
Advertisements and other communication tools influence customer expectations and perceptions.
Excessive promises and guarantees in advertising can increase customer expectations prior to
consumption. However, when actual services fail to meet these expectations, this reduces the service
quality perceived by customers. Additionally, when companies neglect to inform customers of their
services, customers’ perceived service quality is also affected.
1255
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
(5) Gap 5: Expected service – perceived service gap
Customers’ judgment of service quality is based primarily on a comparison of their service
expectations and perceptions. The key to ensuring excellent service quality is meeting or exceeding
these expectations.
The PZB model considers service as a dynamic process. Thus, this model presents the five service
quality gaps described previously. Gaps 1 to 4 are associated with management within organizations.
Gap 5 is determined by customer expectations and actual perceptions. Therefore, Gap 5 is a function of
Gaps 1 to 4, and the Gaps 1 to 4 within the model must be reduced to increase service quality. Gap 5 =
ƒ (Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 3, Gap 4).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the service quality gaps model [4]
2.1.2. The SERVQUAL scale
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [7] performed an empirical study on the gaps model. They
investigated the relationships among these gaps and formally presented the one-column format
SERVQUAL scale. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [21] further revised the one-column
SERVQUAL scale, ultimately presenting a revised one-column SERVQUAL scale with 22 items. They
developed a SERVQUAL scale for measuring service quality in the five dimensions of reliability,
tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy, which uses survey methods to measure service
quality.
The one-column format SERVQUAL scale has been widely applied in various industries to measure
service quality, and its application levels are extremely broad [22-27].
Although the one-column format SERVQUAL scale can measure the gaps in each quality element,
it cannot assess the importance of the quality elements to customers. Therefore, it cannot accurately
1256
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
suggest priorities for improving the quality elements. In response, a number of scholars have integrated
the one-column format SERVQUAL scale and importance-performance analysis (IPA). By measuring
the gaps between customers’ expectations and perceptions toward the quality elements and
understanding customers’ identification of the importance and performance of the quality elements,
priorities for improving these elements can be presented. This enables enterprises to allocate resources
efficiently [28-34].
Nevertheless, Dolinsky [35], Yavas and Shemwell [36], and Lee and Hsieh [37] held that the
SERVQUAL scale and IPA models have major disadvantages. These methods can only consider
customer assessments of the enterprise performance, entirely neglecting the performance of
competitors. These studies indicated that additional factors besides the case companies themselves
should be considered when addressing enterprise performance quality. Instead, enterprises should be
considered within the environment of industry competition. Specifically, the actions and reactions of
competitors must be emphasized and their strategies analyzed to present complete and efficient
strategies for increasing service quality. Therefore, the traditional SERVQUAL scale and IPA models
should be modified appropriately.
2.2. The three-column format SERVQUAL scale
Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman [38] defined the concepts of desired expectation, adequate
expectation, and the zone of tolerance. Desired expectation is the level of service that customers hope
to obtain and expect vendors to provide. Adequate expectation is the level of service that customers
will receive and also the lowest level of service that customers are willing to accept. The zone of
tolerance is the area between desired expectation and adequate expectation. The zone of tolerance
shows that service quality expectations cover a range of levels.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [39] suggested three formats for measuring service quality, that
is, the three-column format, two-column format, and one-column format. These formats are shown in
Fig. 2.
1257
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Figure 2. Methods of measuring service quality [39]
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [39] held that the three-column format SERVQUAL scale can
clearly provide and differentiate the positions of the zone of tolerance and perceived performance. The
two- and one-column format SERVQUAL scales cannot show the zone of tolerance.
The diagnostic value of the three-column format SERVQUAL scale is that it can identify where in
the zone of tolerance the customers’ perceived performance declines for individual enterprise quality
elements. If customers’ perceived performance is higher than their desired expectations, these
customers perceive a satisfactory performance. If the value is between their desired expectations and
adequate expectations, the service element at least meets the minimum service level customers are
willing to accept, even if it fails to satisfy customers’ desires. If below their adequate expectations,
customers are dissatisfied with the quality element. Consequently, if improvement priority is not
allocated, customers will be lost immediately. The three-column format SERVQUAL scale can clearly
identify the service dimensions and quality elements that enterprises should improve first to optimize
resource allocation.
2.3. Simultaneous importance-performance analysis (SIPA)
The fundamental structure of the IPA was first proposed and applied by Martilla and James [40].
IPA charts the average scores of importance and performance of service attributes or dimensions in a
two-dimensional chart. The vertical axis represents importance, whereas the horizontal axis represents
performance. IPA is a method that easily demonstrates the quality of and necessary improvements for
service quality attributes or dimensions, making it a tool for analyzing quality improvement priorities
and satisfying customer demand.
1258
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Burns [20] presented SIPA. This method can simultaneously analyze the three concepts of
importance, performance, and competitors’ performance. The basic application of SIPA is to compare a
company with its competitors. First, a number of quality elements are selected for investigation.
Questionnaires are issued to customers to determine the degree of importance these quality elements
have for customers. Customers are then asked to assess the quality elements of the company and its
competitors individually. Eight types of competitive states can be obtained following this strategy, with
Burns providing corresponding market competition strategies, as shown in Table 1.
(1) Neglected Opportunity
This indicates a high importance for the element. The company and its competitors all perform
poorly. This is a potential opportunity that is being overlooked. The first to seize control of this
situation and invest resources may gain customers.
(2) Competitive Disadvantage
This indicates a high importance for the element. The company’s performance is inferior to that of
its competitors. Thus, it is at a competitive disadvantage, and may incur substantial losses. Thus, the
company must strengthen and improve this element immediately.
(3) Competitive Advantage
This indicates a high importance for the element. The company’s performance is superior to that of
its competitors. This is a position of relative competitive advantage and niche, which must be protected
and sustained long-term.
(4) Head-to-Head Competition
This indicates a high importance for the element. The company and its competitors are all
performing well. This satisfactory performance must be sustained without neglect.
(5) Null Opportunity
This indicates a low importance for the element. The company and its competitors are investing
poorly in performance. This highlights a false opportunity, because customers will not become more
willing to use the company’s products or services even if this attribute is improved.
(6) False Alarm
This indicates a low importance for the element. The performance of competitors exceeds that of the
company. This is only a false alarm, because this element will not cause the company to lose customers.
No special reaction is required.
(7) False Advantage:
This indicates a low importance for the element. The company performance exceeds that of its
competitors. Because this element cannot benefit the company, reinvesting these resources in other
directions should be considered.
(8) False Competition
This indicates a low importance for the element. However, the company and its competitors all
perform well, reflecting excessive competition. The reinvestment of these resources in other directions
can be considered.
Among these eight states of market competition, neglected opportunities, competitive disadvantages,
competitive advantages, and false advantages must be particularly emphasized. Improvements to
service quality in these dimensions may exceed that of competitors. With neglected opportunities,
1259
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
companies can gain customers by simply seizing opportunities early and investing resources. With
competitive disadvantages, companies will continue to lose customers if they do not strengthen and
improve immediately. Competitive advantages must be sustained long term to maintain the support of
consumers. False advantages cannot help companies increase service quality. Resources must be
reinvested in other competitive attributes.
A number of studies applying SIPA have appeared on the foundation established by Burns [20]. For
example, Dolinsky [35] used SIPA to evaluate the importance of health care properties and examine
the performance of competitors. Yavas and Shemwell [41] used the SIPA method as a basis for
determining the 16 competitive strategies adopted for various service attributes in the competitive
market. Bei and Shang [42] used SIPA to compare and analyze the service characteristics of public and
private banks and public and private gas stations. Lee and Hsieh [37] used SIPA combined with
DEMATEL to analyze the competitive advantages and disadvantages of telecommunications operators
and their competitive strategies.
Table 1. The simultaneous importance-performance diagnostic grid [20]
Attribute
Importance
Own
Performance
POOR
HIGH
GOOD
POOR
LOW
GOOD
Competitors’
Performance
Simultaneous
Result
POOR
Neglected Opportunity
GOOD
Competitive Disadvantage
POOR
Competitive Advantage
GOOD
Head-to-Head Competition
POOR
Null Opportunity
GOOD
False Alarm
POOR
False Advantage
GOOD
False Competition
3. Research methods
3.1. Service gap and tolerance gap
In this study, we used a SERVQUAL scale with 22 items, plotted vertically in the questionnaire.
Horizontally, the “lowest acceptable service level,” “desired service level,” and “perceived service
level” were plotted in three columns in the SERVQUAL scale. We used this to measure consumers’
assessments of the case company’s service quality.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry [39] defined the gap between perceived performance and desired
expectation as the measurement of service superiority (MSS). In this study, we call this the service gap
(SG), as shown in Formula (1). Higher SG indicates that consumers’ desired service levels have not
been satisfied. Consumers will compare with other competing products or services and engage in
selective consumption. The gap between perceived performance and adequate expectations is the
measurement of service adequacy (MSA). In this study, we refer to this as the tolerance gap (TG), as
shown in Formula (2). Lower or negative TG indicates that consumers’ perceived service levels are
approaching or less than consumers’ minimum acceptable service levels. This indicates that service
quality cannot meet consumers’ minimum requirements. If this is not improved, consumers will be
unable to tolerate it and will refuse to purchase.
Perceived Service Level – Desired Service Level = SG
Perceived Service Level – Minimum Acceptable Service Level = TG
(1)
(2)
3.2. Integrating the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA
Referencing the three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA methods, we present the
following steps for integrating these two tools:
Step 1: Establish a three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA combined questionnaire.
1260
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Step 2: Use the questionnaire to collect customer opinions regarding the importance, minimum
acceptable service levels, and desired service levels for each service quality element and the perceived
service levels of competitors (that is, SIPA performance).
Step 3: Use the statistics from the recovered questionnaires to obtain the SG, TG, and improvement
priority for each service quality element.
Step 4: Use statistics from the recovered questionnaires to determine the importance and
performance of each service quality element.
Step 5: Use turnover as a weight to calculate the performance of competitors. Merge a number of
competitors into one item called “competitors’ weighted performance.” Based on the calculation of
competitors’ weighted performance, the case company’s SIPA market competition strategy can be
analyzed.
Step 6: Overlap data regarding the case company’s SIPA market competition strategy and the
improvement priority for SG and TG in a table. Present appropriate strategies for increasing service
quality based on each situation.
In this study, we present a combination of the three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA
methods to measure enterprise service quality. This scale not only measures enterprises but also
identifies priorities and establishes service quality improvement strategies based on the state of
industry competition.
4. Case study and results
According to 2010 data from Taiwan’s China Credit Information Service, Taiwan’s department
stores had a one-year total turnover of approximately US$550 million to $600 million. Department
Store A possessed approximately 35% of the market, B approximately 21%, and C approximately 13%.
The turnover of these three companies accounted for approximately 69% of the market. All three are
chain department stores. Department Store A has led Taiwanese department stores in annual turnover
from 2003 to 2010.
Company C’s market share has stagnated in recent years, with its profitability falling behind that of
its primary competitors. Company C’s management hopes to analyze its current market competition
situation to establish appropriate competitive strategies and increase service quality. In this study, we
used Company C as the case study company. We used Companies A and B as competing companies.
We investigated the state of competition for service quality among these three companies and presented
strategies for Company C to increase service quality.
4.1. Questionnaire design and distribution
In this study, we examined the service quality of Taiwan’s top three department stores. The design
of the questionnaire items combined the three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA methods,
with a total of 22 items. We asked consumers to assess the importance, minimum acceptable service
level, and desired service level for each service quality attribute of department stores, as well as their
perceived service levels for each of the three department stores (that is, SIPA performance). Each item
had a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 9.
In this study, we adopted convenience sampling. The questionnaire distribution period was from
January 2012 to March 2012. We investigated consumers over 20 years of age who had previously
purchased at Department Stores A, B, and C. A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed. After
removing 278 invalid questionnaires, the valid questionnaires totaled 522, for a valid questionnaire
recovery rate of 65.3%.
4.2. Three-column format SERBQUAL scale results and discussion
We used SG and TG to explain the investigation results for the case company’s service quality and
to determine the priorities for improving service quality.
(1) Examining Priorities for Improving Service Quality from an SG Perspective
1261
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Table 2 indicates that, based on the calculations of Formula 1, the eight items that consumers
identified as having the largest SG and requiring the most improvement were as follows: Q10, updating
customers regarding when services will be provided (1.41); Q13, readiness to respond to customer
requests (1.19); Q14, employees who instill confidence in customers (1.08); Q16, employees who are
consistently courteous (0.96); Q21, having customers’ best interests at heart (0.88); Q19, convenient
business hours (0.80); Q18, giving customers individual attention (0.74); and Q7, delivering services
correctly the first time.
(2) Examining Priorities for Improving Service Quality from the TG Perspective
The three-column format SERVQUAL scale questionnaire results indicate that the consumers did
have a TG among minimum acceptable service levels, desired service levels, and perceived service
levels. For each of the 22 questions, consumers’ perceived service levels were greater than their
minimum acceptable service levels.
Table 2 indicates that, based on the calculations of Formula (2), the eight items that consumers
identified as having the lowest TG and most requiring improvement were the following: Q22,
employees who understand the needs of their customers (0.12); Q20, employees who deal with
customers in a caring manner (0.21); Q19, convenient business hours (0.24); Q18, giving customers
individual attention (0.30); Q6, dependability in handling customer service problems (0.43); Q21,
having customers’ best interests at heart (0.45); Q14, employees who instill confidence in customers
(0.62); and Q16, employees who are consistently courteous (0.65).
A higher SG indicates that consumers’ desired service levels have not been satisfied. Consumers
will make comparison with competing products or services and engage in selective consumption.
Lower or negative TG indicates that consumers’ perceived service levels are approaching or less than
consumers’ minimum acceptable service levels. This indicates that service quality cannot meet
consumers’ minimum requirements. If the service is not improved, consumers will be unable to tolerate
the situation and refuse to purchase. Therefore, measuring priorities for improving service quality from
a SG perspective better facilitates the efficient use of resources for enterprises. This method is also
more practical.
The study conclusion was based entirely on consumer evaluations of the service quality provided
by the case company. A comparison with consumer evaluations of the service quality provided by
competitors was not conducted.
1262
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Table 2. Three-column SERVQUAL scale questionnaire results for the service quality of the case
department store
0.16
Perceptions –
Minimum
Acceptable
TG(C)-(A)=
(E)
1.80
Desired –
Minimum
Acceptable
TG (B) –
(A) = (F)
1.64
7.99
0.26
1.76
7.29
0.07
1.61
7.88
7.87
(0.01)
7.15
6.60
(0.55)
Q1
Average
Minimum
Acceptable
Service
Level (A)
5.86
Average
Desired
Service
Level
(B)
7.50
Q2
6.23
Q3
5.68
Q4
Q5
Q6
6.01
7.00
6.44
(0.56)
0.43
0.99
9
5
Q7
5.90
7.76
7.12
(0.64)
1.22
1.86
8
15
Q8
6.02
7.42
7.33
(0.09)
1.31
1.40
18
18
Q9
5.88
7.43
7.01
(0.42)
1.13
1.55
16
13
14
Item
Average
Perceived
Service
Level (C)
Perceptions Desires
SG(C)-(B)=(D)
7.66
7.73
7.22
5.87
5.79
SG
Improvement
Order (G)
TG
Improvement
Order (H)
21
21
1.50
22
20
1.54
20
19
2.00
2.01
19
22
0.81
1.36
10
9
Q10
5.77
8.35
6.94
(1.41)
1.17
2.58
1
Q11
5.75
7.39
6.99
(0.40)
1.24
1.64
17
16
Q12
5.80
7.31
6.88
(0.43)
1.08
1.51
14
12
Q13
6.12
8.25
7.06
(1.19)
0.94
2.13
2
10
Q14
6.62
8.32
7.24
(1.08)
0.62
1.70
3
7
Q15
6.50
8.35
7.80
(0.55)
1.30
1.85
10
17
Q16
6.75
8.36
7.40
(0.96)
0.65
1.61
4
8
Q17
6.54
7.96
7.53
(0.43)
0.99
1.42
14
11
Q18
6.32
7.36
6.62
(0.74)
0.30
1.04
7
4
Q19
6.25
7.29
6.49
(0.80)
0.24
1.04
6
3
Q20
6.69
7.37
6.90
(0.47)
0.21
0.68
12
2
Q21
6.68
8.01
7.13
(0.88)
0.45
1.33
5
6
Q22
6.77
7.33
6.89
(0.44)
0.12
0.56
13
1
4.3. SIPA results and discussion
We used an average of 7.12 as the standard value for importance in the questionnaire statistics to
determine whether the importance of each service quality element was rated “high” or “low.” We also
used the average performance of the three companies to determine whether their performance for each
service quality element was rated “good” or “poor.” Table 3 shows the importance and performance
results for the three department stores based on these categorizations. To analyze the market
competition status of Case Company C in relation to its competitors Companies A and B, the
competitors must be considered a single entity. Therefore, we used the 2010 market shares of
Companies A, B, and C as weights. Company A’s market share was 35%, Company B’s 21%, and
Company C’s 13%. This was performed to calculate the weighted performance of the competitors.
Using Q1 as an example, the performance is 7.80 for Company A, 7.49 for Company B, and 7.66
for Company C. The weighted performance of the competitors is calculated as (7.80*35 +
7.49*21 + 7.66 * 13) / 69 = 7.68. Other calculations can be executed in the same manner.
Table 3 shows our analysis of the market competition strategies, using the SIPA method, and based
on quality element importance, Company C’s performance, and the weighted performance of the
competitors.
As shown in Table 3, the SIPA results indicate that compared to its competitors, the case company
possesses a competitive advantage in Q6, dependability in handling customers’ service problems. This
is one of the case company’s strengths, which, if maintained long-term, can increase the company’s
performance.
1263
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in six attributes: Q14, employees who instill
confidence in customers; Q17, employees who have the knowledge to answer customers’ questions;
Q18, giving customers individual attention; Q20, employees who deal with customers in a caring
manner; Q21, having customers’ best interests at heart; and Q22, employees who understand the needs
of their customers. Without immediate strengthening and improvement, the company will continue to
lose customers. The case company must concentrate its resources on increasing its competitiveness in
these six service quality elements to address its disadvantages, increase service quality, and outperform
its competitors.
The case company had a false advantage in Q5, providing services as promised. Although the case
company performed better than its competitors for this service quality element, the consumers
considered this element unimportant. Thus, the company should not invest further resources in this
element.
Based on SIPA, the case company must prioritize the one “competitive advantage” service attribute
and the six “competitive disadvantage” service quality elements previously identified for improvement.
Only then can the enterprise’s service quality be improved, enabling it to outperform its competitors.
4.4. Results and discussion regarding combining the three-column format SERVQUAL
scale and SIPA
This section contains the results of combining the three-column format SERVQUAL scale and
SIPA. Based on SIPA, the case company has seven quality elements that must be prioritized for
improvement. The three-column format SERVQUAL scale measures SG and TG, listing eight quality
elements to be prioritized for improvement. A general discussion regarding combining the two tools is
provided below.
The conclusions obtained through SIPA and the three-column format SERVQUAL scale’s
measurement of TG is largely consistent. Six service quality elements were highlighted as
improvement priorities by both methods, as shown in Table 4. To reconfirm the conclusion, TG was
more appropriate than SG when using the three-column format SERVQUAL scale to measure service
quality and the improvement order.
Improvement suggestions for the seven priority service quality elements are provided below:
(1) Q6, dependability in handling customer service problems
The case company has a competitive advantage in this quality element compared to its competitors.
The case company was more active and deliberate when handling customer service problems. However,
customers remained dissatisfied with their performance (fifth in the TG improvement order).
Customers hope to receive a rapid and reliable service when problems are encountered. Thus, the case
company must prioritize improvement-related factors. This would increase customer satisfaction and
widen the gap between the company and its competitors in this area, preserving this competitive
advantage in the long term.
(2) Q14, employees who instill confidence in customers
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in this quality element compared to its
competitors. The case company’s performance in having employees who instill confidence in
customers is clearly insufficient. Consumers are dissatisfied with this aspect (seventh in the TG
improvement order). If employee behavior cannot instill consumer confidence, customers will not be
willing to purchase. This quality element must be prioritized for improvement.
(3) Q17, employees who have the knowledge to answer customers’ questions
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in this quality element compared to its
competitors. The professional knowledge of the case company’s employees regarding the products and
services they sell is insufficient. The department store is a high-level service industry with high unit
pricing. If employees’ professional knowledge of the products and services is inadequate, customers
1264
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
will adopt skeptical attitudes. Although this element is only ranked in eleventh place for the TG
improvement order, the company should improve it if sufficient resources are available.
(4) Q18, giving customers individual attention
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in this quality element compared to its
competitors. The case company does not give customers individual attention and fails to provide them
with a sense that they are respected. Consumers are dissatisfied with the case company’s performance
(fourth in the TG improvement order). The case company should enhance its employees’ focused sales
and service concepts. Employees must have focused attention for each customer.
(5) Q20, employees who deal with customers in a caring manner
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in this quality element compared to its
competitors. The case company’s personalized differentiated services, such as direct marketing (DM),
birthday offers, and parking deal services for members, cannot compete with those of its competitors.
Consumers are extremely dissatisfied with the case company’s performance (second in the TG
improvement order). If this quality element is not prioritized for improvement, the company cannot
improve its overall service quality.
(6) Q21, having customers’ best interests at heart
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in this quality element compared to its
competitors. The promotional activities offered by the case company for its customers, such as
shopping points and anniversary discounts, are inadequate compared to those provided by its
competitors. Consumers are dissatisfied with the case company’s performance (sixth in the TG
improvement order). The case company must further increase its consideration of customers’ interests.
The element must be prioritized for improvement.
(7) Q22, employees who understand the needs of their customers
The case company has a competitive disadvantage in this quality element compared to its
competitors. The case company’s employees fail to thoroughly understand the needs of their customers.
Consumers are extremely dissatisfied with the case company’s performance (first in the TG
improvement order). The case company should encourage its employees and supervisors to listen to
customers and endeavor to satisfy their needs as much as possible. With a detailed understanding of
customers’ needs, employees can provide customers with the products and services they require most.
This is the most important task in the department store service industry and must be prioritized for
improvement.
5. Conclusion
The one-column format SERVQUAL scale has been broadly applied to various industries to
measure service quality, and its application levels are extremely broad. A number of scholars have
integrated the one-column format SERVQUAL scale and IPA. By measuring the gaps between
customers’ expectations and perceptions regarding the quality elements, and understanding customers’
identification of the importance and performance of the quality elements, these elements can be
prioritized for improvement. This enables enterprises to allocate resources efficiently. However, the
one-column format SERVQUAL scale and IPA models have major disadvantages. These methods only
consider consumer assessments of the enterprise’s performance, neglecting their assessments of the
performance of competitors.
The three-column format SERVQUAL scale can clearly identify the service dimension and quality
elements that enterprises should focus on improving to optimize resource allocation. SIPA can be
employed to analyze the three concepts of quality element importance, performance, and competitors’
performance to understand the competitive conditions of the market. This allows enterprises to
understand the status of industry competition, exploit their competitive advantages, and improve
1265
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
competitive disadvantages. The combination of the three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA
methods in this study can enable enterprises to achieve optimal service quality improvement with
limited resources. Our method not only contributes to current theory, but can also be practically
employed.
Table 3. SIPA competitive strategy analysis of the case company and its competitors
Company C
Performance
Weighted
Performance of
Competitors
Market
Competition
Strategy
Importance
Q1
High
7.23
Good
7.80
Insufficient
7.49
Good
7.66
7.65
Good
7.68
Head-to-Head
Competition
Q2
Low
7.01
Good
8.06
Good
8.10
Insufficient
7.99
8.05
Good
8.06
False Alarm
Q3
Low
7.10
Insufficient
7.24
Good
7.50
Insufficient
7.29
7.34
Insufficient
7.33
Null
Opportunity
Q4
Low
6.98
Good
8.02
Good
7.98
Insufficient
7.87
7.96
Good
7.98
False Alarm
Q5
Low
6.66
Insufficient
6.12
Good
6.50
Good
6.60
6.41
Insufficient
6.33
False
Advantage
Q6
High
7.20
Insufficient
6.14
Insufficient
6.26
Good
6.44
6.28
Insufficient
6.23
Competitive
Advantage
Q7
Low
6.55
Good
7.46
Good
7.30
Insufficient
7.12
7.29
Good
7.35
False Alarm
Q8
Low
6.70
Good
7.42
Insufficient
7.15
Good
7.33
7.30
Good
7.32
False
Competition
Q9
Low
6.99
Good
7.10
Good
7.12
Insufficient
7.01
7.08
Good
7.09
False Alarm
Q10
Low
6.77
Good
7.16
Good
7.22
Insufficient
6.94
7.11
Good
7.14
False Alarm
Q11
Low
6.75
Good
7.14
Good
7.10
Insufficient
6.99
7.08
Good
7.10
False Alarm
Q12
High
7.16
Good
6.87
Insufficient
6.56
Good
6.88
6.77
Good
6.78
Head-to-Head
Competition
Q13
Low
7.03
Good
7.24
Good
7.17
Insufficient
7.06
7.16
Good
7.18
False Alarm
Item
Company B
Performance
Average
Performance
of the 3
Companies
Company A
Performance
Q14
High
7.14
Good
7.32
Insufficient
7.22
Insufficient
7.24
7.26
Good
7.27
Competitive
Disadvantage
Q15
High
7.33
Good
7.99
Insufficient
7.32
Good
7.80
7.70
Good
7.75
Head-to-Head
Competition
Q16
Low
7.11
Good
7.90
Insufficient
7.53
Insufficient
7.40
7.61
Good
7.69
False Alarm
Q17
High
7.53
Good
7.98
Insufficient
7.66
Insufficient
7.53
7.72
Good
7.80
Competitive
Disadvantage
Q18
High
7.77
Good
6.88
Good
7.01
Insufficient
6.62
6.84
Good
6.87
Competitive
Disadvantage
Q19
Low
7.11
Good
6.59
Good
6.57
Insufficient
6.49
6.55
Good
6.57
False Alarm
Q20
High
7.66
Good
7.00
Insufficient
6.88
Insufficient
6.90
6.93
Good
6.94
Competitive
Disadvantage
Q21
High
7.17
Good
7.16
Good
7.14
Insufficient
7.13
7.14
Good
7.15
Competitive
Disadvantage
Q22
High
7.72
Good
7.00
Good
6.96
Insufficient
6.89
6.95
Good
6.97
Competitive
Disadvantage
7.14
7.19
Aver-age
7.12
7.25
7.17
7.21
1266
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Table 4. Combining the three-column format SERVQUAL scale and SIPA to determine the order of
service quality improvements for the case company
SG
TG
SIPA
Market
Priority
Priority
Priority
Service Quality
Competition
Item
Improvem Improvem Improveme
Elements
Strategy
ent Order ent Order nt Order
Q1
The case company has
modern equipment.
Head-to-Head
Competition
Q2
The case company has
visually appealing facilities.
False Alarm
Q3
The case company’s
employees have a neat
professional appearance.
Null Opportunity
Q4
The case company has
visually appealing materials
associated with the service.
False Alarm
Q5
The case company provides
services as promised.
False Advantage
Q6
The case company is
dependable in handling
customers’ service problems.
Competitive
Advantage
Q7
The case company delivers
services correctly the first
time.
False Alarm
Q8
The case company provides
services at the promised
time.
False Competition
Q9
The case company maintains
error-free records.
False Alarm
Q10
The case company keeps
customers updated regarding
when services will be
provided.
False Alarm
Q11
The case company provides
prompt services to
customers.
False Alarm
Q12
The case company’s
employees are willing to
help customers.
Head-to-Head
Competition
Q13
The case company is ready
to respond to customers’
requests.
False Alarm
Q14
The case company’s
employees instill confidence
in customers.
Competitive
Disadvantage
Q15
The case company makes
customers feel safe in their
transactions.
Head-to-Head
Competition
Q16
The case company’s
employees are consistently
courteous.
False Alarm
●
5
8
1
2
●
7
3
8
4
1267
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
Q17
The case company’s
employees have the
knowledge to answer
customers’ questions.
Competitive
Disadvantage
●
Q18
The case company gives
customers individual
attention.
Competitive
Disadvantage
●
Q19
The case company has
convenient business hours
False Alarm
Q20
The case company’s
employees deal with
customers in a caring
manner.
Competitive
Disadvantage
●
2
Competitive
Disadvantage
●
6
Competitive
Disadvantage
●
1
Q21
Q22
The case company has
customers’ best interests at
heart.
The case company’s
employees understand the
needs of their customers.
4
7
3
6
5
References
[1] Levitt T, “Production-line Approach to Service”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 50, pp. 41-52,
1972.
[2] Grönroos C, “Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector”, Swedish School of
Economics and Business Administration, Helsingfors, 1982.
[3] Lewis RC, Booms BH, “The Marketing Aspects of Quality”, Emerging Perspectives on Service
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 99-107, 1983.
[4] Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its
Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, 41-50, 1985.
[5] Binter MJ, “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee
Responses”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 54, pp. 69-82, 1990.
[6] Sureshchandar GS, Rajendran C, Kamalanabhan TJ, “Customer Perceptions of Service Quality: A
Critique”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 111-124, 2001.
[7] Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for Measuring
Customer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, pp. 12-40, 1988.
[8] Brown SW, Swartz TA, “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing,
vol. 53, pp. 92-98, 1989.
[9] Carman JM, “Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL
Dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, vol. 66, pp. 33-55, 1990.
[10] Babbar S, “A Dynamic Model for Continuous Improvement in the Management of Service
Quality”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 38-48,
1992.
[11] Hall MC, Elliot ME, “Expectations and Performance from whose Perspective: A Note on
Measuring Service Quality”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 27-31,
1993.
[12] Hemmasi M, Strong KC, Taylor SA, “Measuring Service Quality for Strategic Planning and
Analysis in Service Firms,” Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 10, pp. 24-31, 1994.
[13] Winch G, Usmani A, Edkins A, “Towards Total Project Quality: A Gap Analysis Approach”,
Construction Management & Economics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 193-207, 1998.
[14] Pakdil F, Harwood T, “Patient Satisfaction in a Preoperative Assessment Clinic: An Analysis
Using SERVQUAL Dimensions,” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 16, no.
1, pp. 15-30, 2005.
1268
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
[15] Roses LK, Hoppen N, Henrique JL, “Management of Perceptions of Information Technology
Service Quality”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 876-882, 2009.
[16] Liao RC, “Combining ISO 9001 QMS and PZB Model to Reach Customer Satisfaction for
School’s Extension Education Organization -- An Integrated Approach and Empirical Study in
Taiwan”, International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, vol. 5, no. 6,
pp. 207-213, 2011.
[17] Ma Z, “Factors Affect the Customer Satisfaction of Internet Banking: an Empirical Study in
China”, Journal of Convergence Information Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 101-109, 2012.
[18] Li DY, Zhou S, “Using Fuzzy Measures To Assess Retailers' Service Satisfaction Values With
SERVQUAL Scales”, Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences, vol. 4, no. 21, pp.
231-240, 2012
[19] Porter ME, “Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitions”, The
Free Press, New York, 1980.
[20] Burns AC, “Generating Marketing Strategy Priorities Based on Relative Competitive Position”,
The Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 49-56, 1986.
[21] Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL
Scale”, Journal of Retailing, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 420-450, 1991.
[22] Rohini R, Mahadevappa B, “Service Quality in Bangalore Hospitals – An Empirical Study”,
Journal of Services Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 59-81, 2006.
[23] Tontini G, Silveira A, “Identification of Satisfaction Attributes Using Competitive Analysis of the
Improvement Gap”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 27, no. 5,
pp. 482-500, 2007.
[24] Holmlund M, “Suggesting and Comparing Different Scopes on Quality Management: Product,
Service, Relationship, and Network”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 18,
no. 8, pp. 847-859, 2008.
[25] Chen KK, Chang CT, Lai CS, “Service Quality Gaps of Business Customers in the Shipping
Industry”, Transportation Research, Part E 45, pp. 222-237, 2009.
[26] Einasto O, “Using Service Quality Monitoring to Support Library Management Decisions: A case
Study From Estonia”, The International Information & Library Review, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 12-20,
2009.
[27] Wang SM, Feng CM, Hsieh CH, “Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of Student
Expectations”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1103-1119,
2010.
[28] Chu R, Choi T, “An Importance-performance Analysis of Hotel Selection Factors in the Hong
Kong Hotel Industry: A Comparison of Business and Leisure Traveler”, Tourism Management,
vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 363-377, 2000.
[29] Yang CC, “Improvement Actions Based on the Customers’ Satisfaction Survey”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 919-930, 2003.
[30] Chen FY, Chang YH, “Examining Airline Service Quality from a Process Perspective”, Journal of
Air Transport Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 79-87, 2005.
[31] Fontenot G, Henke L, Carson K, “Take Action on Customer Satisfaction”, Quality Progress, vol.
38, no. 7, pp. 40-47, 2005.
[32] Mukherjee A, Nath P, “An Empirical Assessment of Comparative Approaches to Service Quality
Measurement”, The Journal of Service, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 174-184, 2005.
[33] Lin SP, Chang YH, Tsai MC, “A Transformation Function Corresponding to IPA and Gap
Analysis”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 829-846, 2009.
[34] Chen CF, Chen FS, “Experience Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions
for Heritage Tourists”, Tourism Management, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 29-35, 2010.
[35] Dolinsky AL, “Considering the Competition in Strategy Development: An Extension of
Importance-performance Analysis”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, vol. 11, pp. 31-37, 1991.
[36] Yavas U, Shemwell DJ, “Modified Importance-performance Analysis: An Application to
Hospitals”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 104-110,
2001.
[37] Lee YC, Hsieh YF, “Integration of Revised Simultaneous Importance Performance Analysis and
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory – A Study of Mobile Telecommunication
Industry in Taiwan”, African Journal of Business Management, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2312-2321, 2011.
1269
Measuring and Increasing Service Quality Combining the Three-Column Format SERVQUAL Scale and SIPA Analysis
Yu-Cheng Lee, Sang-Bing Tsai, Chia-Huei Wu
[38] Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A, “The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectation
of Service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 1993.
[39] Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, “Alternative Scales for Measuring Service Quality: A
Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria”, Journal of Retailing,
vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 201-230, 1994.
[40] Martilla JA, James JC, “Importance-performance Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 41, no. 1,
pp. 77-79, 1997.
[41] Yavas U, Shemwell DJ, “Analyzing a Bank’s Competitive Position and Appropriate Strategy”,
Journal of Retailing Banking Services, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 43-51, 1997.
[42] Bei LT, Shang CF, “Building Marketing Strategies for State-owned Enter Prises against Private
Ones Based on the Perspectives of Consumer Satisfaction and Service Quality”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Service, vol. 13, pp. 1-13, 2006.
1270