TRI/SERVQUAL/LibQUAL+TM

A. Parasuraman
University of Miami

Library Assessment and Benchmarking Institute

(LAB 2002)
Monterey, CA
September 13, 2002

© 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 Personal Past
Mouth Needs Experience

External
Expected Communication
Service to Customers
Service
Quality Perceived
Gap 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 SERVICE ORGANIZATION

Market Organization’s Service

Information Understanding of Standards
Gap Expectations Gap
Customers’
Service Organization’s
Expectations GAP 1 Service Standards
GAP 2
Service Service
Quality GAP 5 Performance
Gap GAP 3 Gap
GAP 4 Organization’s
Customers’ Service
Service Performance
Perceptions
Organization’s Internal
Communications to Communication
Customers 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 YES CONTINUE TO MONITOR

YOUR OFFERINGS AS MEETING CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS
OR EXCEEDING THEIR EXPECTATIONS? AND PERCEPTIONS

NO

DO YOU HAVE AN ACCURATE NO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION

UNDERSTANDING OF
CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS?

YES

ARE THERE SPECIFIC NO

TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
STANDARDS IN PLACE TO MEET
CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS?

YES

DO YOUR OFFERINGS MEET OR NO

TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
EXCEED THE STANDARDS?

YES

NO
IS THE INFORMATION TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
COMMUNICATED TO CUSTOMERS
ABOUT YOUR OFFERINGS ACCURATE?
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
Word of Personal Past
Quality Mouth Needs Experience
1. Access
2. Communication
3. Competence
External
4. Courtesy Expected Communication
5. Credibility Service to Customers

6. Reliability
7. Responsiveness Service Perceived
Quality Service
8. Security Gap Quality
9. Tangibles
10. Understanding/Knowing
the Customer 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 SERVQUAL Dimensions
Dimensions for
Evaluating Service
Quality 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
22% EMPATHY 16%

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 32

11 14
23 21
23 9
15
15
13 19 18
18
Computer Manufacturer All Companies Retail Chain
29 28

12 12

23 23
17 18
19 20

Auto Insurer Life Insurer

Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 12
 Mean SERVQUAL Scores by Service Dimension [Study 1]

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00
Tangibles Reliability Responsive- Assurance Empathy
ness

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 13
 Nature of Service Expectations

Level Customers
Desired Service Believe Can and Should Be
Delivered

Zone
of
Tolerance
Minimum Level
Adequate Service 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 Perceived Adequate

= -
Adequacy (MSA) Service Service

Measure of Service Perceived Desired

= -
Superiority (MSS) Service 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 Compared to My Desired

Service Level ____’s Service Level ____’s
Service Performance is: Service Performance is:

The No The No
When it comes to … Lower Same Higher Opin- Lower Same Higher Opin-
ion ion

1. Prompt service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N
to policyholders

2. Employees who are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N

consistently courteous

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

Service Service of ____’s Service
Level is: Level is: Performance is:

No
When it comes to … Low High Low High Low High Opin-
ion

1. Prompt service 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
to policyholders

2. Employees who are 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

consistently courteous

© 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 Two-Column Three-Column

Company Format 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)

TWO-COLUMN FORMAT THREE-COLUMN FROMAT

QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE
SERVQUAL
Dimensions
MSA Scores MSS Scores 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
19. Employees who have a neat, professional appearance
Assurance
20. Visually appealing materials associated with the service
9. Employees who instill confidence in customers
21. Convenient business hours
10. Making customers feel safe in their transactions
11. Employees who are consistently courteous
12. Employees who have the knowledge to answer customer questions

Empathy
13. Giving customers individual attention
14. Employees who deal with customers in a caring fashion
15. Having the customer's best interest at heart
16.Employees who understand the needs of their customers

© 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
8.4 8.3 8.4 8.3
8
7.0 7.0 7.5
7 7.0 6.8 6.8
6.8 6.7 6.7 6.8
6
5.7
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles

Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception

© 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
8.5 8.4
8.3
8 8.1

7 6.9 6.7 6.8

6.6 6.4
6 6.1 6.3 6.3
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

Zone of Tolerance 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 External
Marketing Marketing

Technology

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 • Responsiveness
• Ease of Navigation • Assurance/Trust
• Efficiency • Price Knowledge
• Customization/ • Site Aesthetics
Personalization • Reliability
• Security/Privacy • Flexibility

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 33
 Reliability
DEFINITION SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
• Site does not crash
Correct technical • Accurate billing
functioning of the • Accuracy of order
site and the • Accuracy of account
accuracy of service information
promises, billing • Having items in stock
and product • Truthful information
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
minimum of information in
information to be reasonable chunks
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 Perceptual Higher-level

Cues Dimensions
Attributes Abstractions

SPECIFIC/ ABSTRACT
CONCRETE

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 36
 Means-End Model of
e-Service Quality

Concrete Perceptual Higher-Level

Cues Dimensions
Attributes Abstractions

Tab Structuring
Easy to Maneuver
through Site
Site Map

Easy to Find Ease of

Search Engine
What I Need Navigation
Speed of
One-click Ordering
Checkout

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 37
 Concret Perceptual Higher-Level
Dimensions
e Cues Attributes Abstractions

Access

Ease of
Navigation

Efficiency

Flexibility

Reliability Perceived
e-Service
Personali- Quality
zation
Security/
Privacy
Responsive-
ness
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
Purchase
Abstractions

Dimensions Loyalty
Perceived
Convenience
Perceptual W.O.M
Attributes Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Concrete
Cues
Perceived Perceived
Control 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

Fulfillment
Gap

Customer Customer
Perceived Perceived Purchase/
Web site Web site
e-SQ Value Repurchase
Requirements Experiences

Company Information
Gap

Design and Management’s

Marketing
Operation Beliefs
of the
of the about Customer
Web site
Web site Requirements

Communication Design
Gap Gap
 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 Neutral Receptive to

Technology Technology

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 45
 Link between Technology Beliefs
and Technology Readiness
High
Technology
Readiness

Medium

Low
Resistant to Neutral Receptive to
Technology 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
• Three “National Technology Readiness Surveys” [NTRS] in
the USA:
– January 1999
– February 2000
– November 2001
– November 2002 [being planned]

• Austrian Technology Readiness Surveys

– February 2001
– October 2002 [being planned]

• Swedish Technology Readiness Survey

– July/August 2002 [data collected; analysis underway]
 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
2,5
Mean TR
2
Scores 1,5
1
0,5
0
1 2 3 4 5

OPT. INN. DIS. INS. TRI

US 1999 US 2000 US 2001 Austria 2001

*Austrian and US scores are signifcantly different

 Characteristics of Technology
Segments
Optimism Innovative- Dis- Insecu-
ness comfort rity
Explorers High High Low Low
Pioneers High High High High
Skeptics Low Low Low Low
Paranoids High Low High High
Laggards Low Low High High

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 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: Computers, cell phones, caller ID, ATMs, online services,
telephone banking
• Pioneers: Computers, cell phones, caller ID, ATMs, online services
• Skeptics: Computers, ATMs
• Paranoids: ATMs
• Laggards: 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

Skeptics Laggards
Explorers Pioneers Paranoids

7/95 10/96 5/97 1/98 9/98

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 55
 New Customer Composition by Age of Techno-
Based Product/Service
First-time Users

Laggards
Paranoids
Skeptics
Pioneers
Explorers
ly

e
t
r

La
Ea

© 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 TR and e-SQ

Parasuraman and Colby, Techno-Ready

Marketing: How and Why Your Customers
Adopt Technology, New York: The Free
Press, 2001.

Parasuraman, “Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A Multiple-Item

Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies,”
Journal of Service Research, May 2000, pp. 307-320.

•Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Malhotra, “A Conceptual Framework

for Understanding e-Service Quality: Implications for Future
Research and Managerial Practice,” MSI Monograph, 2000 (Report #
00-115).
 Thank You!

© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 59