Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness

Author(s): Leyland F. Pitt, Richard T. Watson and C. Bruce Kavan

Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 173-187
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249687
Accessed: 12-12-2016 11:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IS Service Quality-Measurement

was assessed in three different types of organi-

Service Quality: A zations in three countries. After examination of

Measure of content validity, reliability, convergent validity,

nomological validity, and discriminant validity,
Information Systems the study concludes that SERVQUAL is an
appropriate instrument for researchers seeking
Effectiveness a measure of IS service quality.

Keywords: IS management, service quality,

measurement

ISRL Categories: A104, E10206.03, GA03,

By: Leyland F. Pitt
GB02, GB07
Henley Management College
Greenlands
Henley on Thames, RG9 3AU
Oxfordshire Introduction
United Kingdom The role of the IS department within the organi-
leylandp@henleymc.ac.uk zation has broadened considerably over the last
decade. Once primarily a developer and opera-
Richard T. Watson tor of information systems, the IS department
Department of Management now has a much broader role. The introduction

University of Georgia of personal computers results in more users of

Athens, GA 30602-6256
U.S.A.
rwatson@uga.cc.uga.edu
C. Bruce Kavan
Department of Management,
Marketing, and Logistics
University of North Florida
4567 St. John's Bluff Road
Jacksonville, FL 32216
U.S.A.
bkavan@unflvm.cis.unf.edu
Abstract
The IS function now includes a significant ser-
vice component. However, commonly used mea-
sures of IS effectiveness focus on the products,
rather than the services, of the IS function.
Thus, there is the danger that IS researchers
will mismeasure IS effectiveness if they do not
include in their assessment package a measure
of IS service quality. SERVQUAL, an instrument
developed by the marketing area, is offered as a
possible measure of IS service quality.
SERVQUAL measures service dimensions of tan-
gibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy. The suitability of SERVQUAL
information technology interacting with the IS
department more often. Users expect the IS de-
partment to assist them with a myriad of tasks,
such as hardware and software selection, instal-
lation, problem resolution, connection to LANs,
systems development, and software education.
Facilities such as the information center and
help desk reflect this enhanced responsibility. IS
departments now provide a wider range of serv-
ices to their users.1 They have expanded their
roles from product developers and operations
managers to become service providers.
IS departments have always had a service role
because they assist users in converting data
into information. Users frequently seek reports
that sort, summarize, and present data in a form
that is meaningful for decision making. The con-
version of data to information has the typical
characteristics of a service. It is often a custom-
ized, personal interaction with a user. However,
service rarely appears in the vocabulary of the
traditional systems development life cycle. IS
textbooks (e.g., Alter, 1992; Laudon and Laudon,
1991) describe the final phase of systems de-
velopment as maintenance. They state
1 We prefer "client" to the more common "user"-it draws more
attention to the service-mission aspect of IS departments.
However, because "user" is so ingrained in the IS
community, we have stuck with it.

MIS Quarterly/June 1995 173

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement

that the key deliverables include operations
manual, usage statistics, enhancement re-
quests, and bug-fix requests. The notion
that IS departments are service providers is
not well-established in the IS literature.
A recent review identifies six measures of IS
success (Delone and McLean, 1992). In recog-the empirical basis for the categorization are
based on data collected in the early 1980s,
nition of the expanded role of the IS department,
we have augmented this list to include service
quality as a measure of IS success. This paper
discusses the appropriateness of SERVQUAL
to assess IS service quality. The instrument was a service provider. Indeed, this may be its major
originally developed by marketing academics to
assess service quality in general.
Measuring IS Effectiveness
Organizations typically have many stakeholders
with multiple and conflicting objectives of vary-
ing time horizons (Cameron and Whetton, 1983;
Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Quinn and
Rohrbaugh, 1983). There is rarely a single,
common objective for all stakeholders. Thus,
measuring the success of most organizational
endeavors is problematic. IS is not immune to
this problem. IS effectiveness is a multidimen-
sional construct, and there is no single, over-
arching measure of IS success (DeLone and
McLean, 1992). Consequently, multiple meas-
ures are required, and DeLone and McLean
identify six categories into which these meas-
ures can be grouped, namely system quality, in-
formation quality, use, user satisfaction,
individual impact, and organizational impact.
The categories are linked to define an IS suc-
cess model (see Figure 1).
The basis of the DeLone and McLean categori-
zation-Shannon and Weaver's (1949) theory
of communication-is product oriented. For ex-
ample, system quality describes measures of
the information processing system. Most meas-
ures in this category tap engineering-oriented
performance characteristics (DeLone and
McLean, 1992). Information quality represents
measures of information systems output. Typi-
cal measures in this area include accuracy, pre-
cision, currency, timeliness, and reliability of
information provided. In an earlier study, also
based on the theory of communication, these
categories are labeled as production and prod-
uct, respectively (Mason, 1978). Since system
quality and information quality precede other
measures of IS success, existing measures
seem strongly product focused. This is not sur-
prising given that many of the studies providing
when IS was still in the mainframe era.
As the introduction pointed out, the IS depart-
ment is not just a provider of products. It is also
function. This recognition has been apparent for
some years: The quality of the IS department's
service, as perceived by its users, is a key indi-
cator of IS success (Moad, 1989; Rockart,
1982). The principle reason IS departments
measure user satisfaction is to improve the
quality of service they provide (Conrath and
Mignen, 1990). A significantly broader perspec-
tive claims that quality and service are key
measures of white-collar productivity (Deming,
1981-82). For Deming, quality is a super ordi-
nate goal.
Product and system suppliers are in the service
business, albeit less so than service firms. Virtu-
ally all tangible products have intangible attrib-
utes, and all services possess some properties
of tangibility. There is a perspective in the mar-
keting literature (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991,
p.9; Shostack, 1977) that argues the inappropri-
ateness of a rigid goods-services classification.
Shostack (1977) asserts that when a customer
buys a tangible product (e.g., a car) he or she
also buys a service (e.g., transportation). In
many cases, a product is only a means of ac-
cessing a service. Personal computer users do
not just want a machine; rather they seek a sys-
tem that satisfies their personal computing
needs. Thus, the IS department's ability to sup-
ply installation assistance, product knowledge,
software training and support, and online help is
a factor that will have an impact on the relation-
ship between IS and users.
Goods and services are not neatly compartmen-
talized. They exist along a spectrum of tangibil-
ity, ranging from relatively pure products, to
relatively pure services, with a hybrid some-
where near the center point. Current IS success
measures, product and system quality, focus on
the tangible end of the spectrum. We argue that

174 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IS Service Quality-Measurement

Figure 1. Augmented IS Success Model (Adapted from DeLone and McLean, 1992)

service quality, the other end of the spectrum, information systems, the quality of service can
needs to be considered as an additional meas- influence use and user satisfaction.
ure of IS success. DeLone and McLean's model
In summary, multiple instruments are required
needs to be augmented to reflect the IS depart-
to assess IS effectiveness. The current selection
ment's service role. As the revised model shows
ignores service quality, an increasingly impor-
(see Figure 1), service quality affects both use
tant facet of the IS function. If IS researchers
and user satisfaction.
disregard service quality, they may gain an inac-
There are two possible units of analysis for IS curate reading of overall IS effectiveness. We
service quality-the IS department and a par- propose that service quality should be included
ticular information system. In those cases where in the researcher's armory of measures of IS
users predominantly interact with one system effectiveness.
(e.g., sales personnel taking telephone orders),
a user's impression of service quality is based
almost exclusively on one system. In this case,
the unit of analysis is the information system. In
situations where users have multiple interac- Measuring Service Quality
tions with the IS department (e.g., a personnel Service quality is the most researched area of
manager using a human resources manage- services marketing (Fisk, et al., 1993). The con-
ment system, electronic mail, and a variety of cept was investigated in an extensive series of
personal computer products), the unit of analy- focus group interviews conducted by Paras-
sis can be a particular system or the IS depart- uraman, et al. (1985). They conclude that serv-
ment. For the user of multiple systems, ice quality is founded on a comparison between
however, this distinction may be irrelevant. what the customer feels should be offered and
Thus, for example, the user who finds it difficult what is provided. Other marketing researchers
to get a personal computer repaired is con- (Gronroos, 1982; Sasser, et al., 1978) also sup-
cerned not with poor service for a designated port the notion that service quality is the discrep-
system but with poor service in general from the ancy between customers' perceptions and expec-
IS department. Thus, while system quality and tations. There is support for this argument in the
information quality may be closely associated IS literature. Conrath and Mignen (1990) report
with a particular software product, this is not al- that the second most important component of
ways the case with service quality. Irrespective user satisfaction, after general quality of service,
of whether a user interacts with one or multiple is the match between users' expectations and

MIS Quarterly/June 1995 175

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement

actual IS service. Rushinek and Rushinek expecta

(1986) conclude that fulfilled user expectations
ters. Fo
have a strong effect on overall satisfaction. desk fr
to expe
Users' expressions of what they want are re-
factors
vealed by their expectations and their percep-
tions of what they think they are getting.
Parasuraman and his colleagues (Paras- Anothe
uraman, et al., 1985; 1988; 1991; Zeithaml, et
al., 1990) suggest that service quality can be as-
sessed by measuring customers' expectations
and perceptions of performance levels for a
range of service attributes. Then the difference
between expectations and perceptions of actual
performance can be calculated and averaged
across attributes. As a result, the gap between
expectations and perceptions can be measured.
The prime determinants of expected service
quality, as suggested by Zeithaml, et al. (1990),
are word-of-mouth communications, personal
needs, past experiences, and communications
by the service provider to the user. Users talk to
each other and exchange stories about their re-
lationship with the IS department. These conver-
sations are a factor in fashioning users'
expectations of IS service. Users' personal
needs influence their expectation of IS service.
A manager's need for urgency may differ de-
pending on whether he or she has a PC failure
the day before an annual presentation, or simply
wants a new piece of software installed. Of
course, prior experience is a key molder of ex-
pectations. Users may adjust or raise their
that or
IS depa
commu
ticular,
pectati
are reliant on IS to convert their needs into a
system. In the process, IS creates an expecta-
tion as to what the finished system will do and
how it will appear. It would seem that too fre-
quently IS misinterprets users' requirements or
gives users a false impression of the outcome
because many systems fail to meet users' ex-
pectations. For example, Laudon and Laudon
(1991) report studies that show IS failure rates
of 35 percent and 75 percent.
In the IS sphere at least, users are subject to
another source of communication not appearing
in Zeithaml, et al.'s (1990) model. Vendors often
influence users' expectations. Users may read
vendors' advertisements, attend presentations,
or even receive sales calls. Vendors, in trying to
sell their products, often raise expectations by
parading the positive features of their wares and
downplaying issues such as systems conversion,
compatibility, or integration with existing systems.
IS has no control over vendors' communications

User IS department
I I

Word-of mouth Persona al Past

communications needs experiences

Vendors I I
IS
Vendor Expected
communications
communications service

t
Gap |

I
Perceived
service

Figure 2. Determinants of Users' Expectations

176 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

and must recognize that they are an ever pre-
sent force shaping expectations. This is not nec-
essarily bad. Vendors' communications can be
a positive force for change when they make us-
ers aware of what they should expect from IS.
The forces influencing users' expectations are
shown in Figure 2. The difference between ex-
pected service and IS's perceived service is de-
picted as a gap-the discrepancy between what
users expect and what they think they are get-
ting. If IS is to address this disparity it needs
some way of assessing users' expectations and
perceptions, and measuring the gap.
Parasuraman, et al. (1988) operationalized their
conceptual model of service quality by following
the framework of Churchill (1979) for developing
measures of marketing constructs. They started
by making extensive use of focus groups, who
identified 10 potentially overlapping dimensions
of service quality. These dimensions were used
to generate 97 items. Each item was then
turned into two statements-one to measure
expectations and one to measure perceptions.
A sample of service users was asked to rate
each item on a seven-point scale anchored on
strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).
This initial questionnaire was used to assess the
service-quality perceptions of customers who
had recently used the services of five different
types of service organizations (essentially fol-
lowing Lovelock's (1983) classification). The 97-
item instrument was then purified and
condensed by first focusing on the questions
clearly discriminating between respondents hav-
ing different perceptions, and second, by focus-
ing on the dimensionality of the scale and
establishing the reliability of its components.
Parasuraman, et al.'s work resulted in a 45-item
instrument, SERVQUAL, for assessing cus-
tomer expectations and perceptions of service
quality in service and retailing organizations.
The instrument has three parts (see the Appen-
dix). The first part consists of 22 questions for
measuring expectations. Questions are framed
in terms of the performance of an excellent
provider of the service being studied. The sec-
ond part consists of 22 questions for measuring
perceptions. Questions are framed in terms of
the performance of the actual service provider.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement
The final part is a single question to assess
overall service quality. Underlying the 22 items
are five dimensions that the authors claim are
used by customers when evaluating service
quality, regardless of the type of service. These
dimensions are:
* Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment,
and appearance of personnel.
* Reliability: Ability to perform the promised ser-
vice 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 service provider gives its
customers.
Service quality for each dimension is captured
by a difference score G (representing perceived
quality for that item), where
G=P-E
and P and E are the average ratings of
sion's corresponding perception and ex
tion statements respectively.
Because service quality is a significant
marketing, SERVQUAL has been subject to
considerable debate (e.g., Brown, et al., 1993;
Parasuraman, et al., 1993) regarding its dimen-
sionality and the wording of items (Fisk, et al.,
1993). Nevertheless, after examining seven
studies, Fisk, et al. conclude that researchers
generally agree that the instrument is a good
predictor of overall service quality.
Parasuraman, et al. (1991) argue that SERVQUAL's
items measure the core criteria of service qual-
ity. They assert that it transcends specific func-
tions, companies, and industries. They suggest
that context-specific items may be used to supple-
ment the measurement of the core criteria. In
this case, we found some slight rewording of
one item was required to measure IS service
quality. The first question was originally asked in
terms of "up-to-date equipment." We changed
the wording to "up-to-date hardware and software"
because equipment could be perceived as refer-
ring only to hardware.
MIS Quarterly/June 1995 177
IS Service Quality-Measurement

Assessment of 181 usable responses were received by the cut-

off date, for a response rate of 36.2 percent.
SERVQUAL's Validity
In the information services business, respon-
Before SERVQUAL can be used as a measure
dents were internal users of the information sys-
of IS effectiveness, it is necessary to assess its
tems department. The questionnaires were
validity in an IS setting. Data for validity assess-
dispatched by means of the internal mail sys-
ment were collected in three organizations-a
tem, and 267 usable responses were received
large South African financial institution (n=237),
by the cutoff date. The response rate was 68
a large British accounting information manage-
percent.
ment consulting firm (n=181), and a U.S. infor-
mation services business (n=267). In each case,Parasuraman, et al.'s (1988) construct validity
the standard SERVQUAL questionnaire was appraisalad- of SERVQUAL guided the assess-
ministered, with minor appropriate changes, ment
to of the validity of SERVQUAL for measur-
internal computer users in all firms (see theing IS service quality. This section discusses
Ap-
pendix). Respondents were also required to content validity, reliability, convergent validity,
give an overall rating of the IS department's and nomological and discriminant validity.
service quality on a seven-point scale, ranging
from 1 through 7 (1 = very poor, 7 = excellent).
Content validity
In the financial institution, the respondents were
users of online production systems. Potential re- Content validity refers to the extent to which an
spondents were identified from a security profile instrument covers the range of meanings in-
list of all people having access to production cluded in the concept (Babbie, 1992; p. 133).
systems. A total of 494 questionnaires were dis- Parasuraman, et al. (1988) used focus groups
tributed to personnel in the head office and six to determine the dimensions of service quality
branches of the financial institution. The response and then a two-stage process was used to re-
rate was 48 percent (237 usable questionnaires). fine the instrument. Their thoroughness sug-
gests that SERVQUAL does measure the
In the accounting and consulting firm, respon- concept of service quality. We could not discern
dents were internal users of the information sys- any unique features of IS that make the dimen-
tems department throughout the organization. sions underlying SERVQUAL (tangibles, reliabil-
The questionnaires were dispatched to 500 ity, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy)
users by means of the internal mail system, and inappropriate for measuring IS service quality or

Table 1. Reliability of the SERVQUAL

by Dimension
Average Reliability
Coefficient Across
Four Service
Reliability Coefficients Companies (source:
Financial Consulting Information Parasuraman, et al.,
Dimension Number of Items Institution Firm Service 1988)
Sample size 237 181 267
Tangibles 4 0.62 0.65 0.73 0.61
Reliability 5 0.87 0.86 0.94 0.79
Responsiveness 4 0.66 0.82 0.96 0.72
Assurance 4 0.79 0.83 0.91 0.84
Empathy 5 0.75 0.82 0.90 0.75

Realiability of 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.89

linear
combination

178 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IS Service Quality-Measurement

excluding some meaning of service quality in concepts. Thus, in the ideal case, exact repro-
the IS domain. duction of the five-factor model would indicate
both nomological and discriminant validity.

The data from the three studies were analyzed

Reliability
The reliability of each of the dimensions was as- Johnson and Wichern (1982) to determine the
sessed using Cronbach's (1951) alpha (see Ta-
ble 1). Reliabilities vary from 0.62 to 0.96, and pal components and maximum likelihood meth-
the reliability of the linear combination (Nunally,
1978) is 0.90 or above in each case. These val-
ues compare very favorably with the average
reliabilities of SERVQUAL for four service com-
panies. The tangibles dimension provides the
most concern because two of the three reliability
measures are below the 0.70 level required for
commercial applications (Carman, 1990).
Convergent validity
To assess convergent validity, the correlation
between the overall service quality index, com-
puted from the five dimensions, was compared
to the response for a single question on the IS
department's overall quality (see Table 2). The
high correlation between the two measures indi-
cates convergent validity.
Table 2. Correlation of Service Quality
Index With Single-Item Overall Measure
Financial Consulting Information
Institution Firm Service
Correlation 0.60 0.82 0.60
coefficient
p value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nomological and discriminant
ance (see Table 4). There is an acceptable
validity
Nomological validity refers to an observed rela-
tionship between measures purported to assess
different but conceptually related constructs. If
two constructs (C1 and C2) are conceptually re-
lated, evidence that purported measures of each
(M1 and M2) are related is usually accepted as
empirical support for the conceptual relation-
ship. Nomological validity is indicated if items
expected to load together in a factor analysis,
actually do so (Carman, 1990).
Discriminant validity is evident if items underly-
ing each dimension load as different factors.
The dimensions are then measuring different
independently using the method suggested by
number of factors to extract. Essentially, princi-
ods with varimax rotation were tried and
compared for a range of models.
Financial Institution
The analysis suggested that a seven-factor
model, explaining 68 percent of the variance, is
appropriate (see Table 3). The seven-factor
model splits the suggested factor of tangibles
into two parts. One part (G12) deals with the
state of hardware and software, and the other
(G2 - G4) concerns physical appearances. This
is not surprising for an MIS environment be-
cause clearly, hardware and software are quite
distinct from physical appearance. The sug-
gested empathy factor also splits into two parts.
One part (G18 - G19) concerns personal atten-
tion, and the other (G20 - G22) is focused on
more broadly based customer needs. This was
also observed by Parasuraman, et al. (1991).
Reliability, responsiveness, and assurance load
close to expectations.
Consulting Firm
Analysis indicated that five factors should be ex-
tracted, and these explain 66 percent of the vari-
correspondence between expected and actual
loadings for tangibles, reliability, assurance, and
empathy. In each case, all but one of the items
in the group load together on the factor (e.g., for
reliability, items 5-8 load together but not item
9). Responsiveness is problematic because only
two of the items load together.
Information Services Business
Analysis indicated that three factors, explaining
71 percent of the variance, should be extracted
2 G1 refers to E1 - P1 where E1 is expectation question 1 and
P1 is perception question 1.

MIS Quarterly/June 1995 179

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement

Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis-Financial Institution

(Principal Components Method With Varimax Rotation; Loadings > .55*)
Dimensions F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
Tangibles G1 0.78
G2 0.81
G3 0.73
G4 0.64
Reliability G5 0.75
G6 0.75
G7 0.70
G8 0.80
G9 0.69
Responsiveness G10
G1l 0.61
G12 0.77
G13 0.74
Assurance G14 0.80
G15 0.75
G16 0.55
G17
Empathy G18 0.87
G19 0.82
G20 0.75
G21 0.69
G22 0.63

* The cutoff po
of items in the

Table 4. E
(Principal
Dimensions F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Tangibles G1 0.78
G2 0.83
G3 0.57
G4 0.70
Reliability G5 0.85
G6 0.57
G7 0.76
G8 0.80
G9
Responsiveness G10 0.69
G11 0.60
G12 0.61
G13
Assurance G14 0.67
G15 0.55 0.63
G16 0.82
G17 0.56
Empathy G18
G19 0.77
G20 0.55
G21 0.65
G22 0.55

180 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IS Service Quality-Measurement

Table 5. Exploratory Factor Analysis--nformation Services Business

(Principal Components Method With Varimax Rotation; Loadings > .55)
Dimensions F1 F2 F3
Tangibles G1 0.60
G2 0.78
G3 0.77
G4 0.85
Reliability G5 0.86
G6 0.78
G7 0.76
G8 0.79
G9 0.67
Responsiveness G10 0.67
G11 0.58 0.63
G12 0.73
G13 0.70
Assurance G14 0.67
G15 0.64
G16 0.75
G17 0.72
Empathy G18 0.80
G19
G20 0.80
G21 0.78
G22 0.74

(see Table 5). The factor loadings are reason-
ably consistent with the suggested model. Reli-
ability and assurance load as expected.
Tangible, responsiveness, and empathy miss
one item in each case.
In summary, SERVQUAL passes content, reli-
ability and convergent validity examination.
There are some uncertainties with nomological
by
and discriminant validity, but not enough to dis-
continue consideration of SERVQUAL. It is a
suitable measure of IS service quality.

Comparison of the factor analyses

Limitations
An examination of the three factor analyses indi-
Potential users of SERVQUAL should be cau-
cates support for nomological validity. Of the 15
loadings examined, there are three exact fitstious.
(all The reliability of the tangibles construct is
variables of a dimension loading together), 10low. Although this is also a problem with the
near fits (all but one variable of a dimensionoriginal instrument, it cannot be ignored. The
whole
loading together), and two poor fits (two or more issue of tangibles in an IS environment
variables of a dimension not loading). There probably
are needs further investigation. It may be
some problems with discriminant validity be- appropriate to split tangibles into two dimen-
cause some factors do not appear to be differ-sions: appearance and hardware/software. Be-
cause hardware and software can have a
ent from one another. This is particularly
noticeable in the case of the information serv- significant impact, a measure of IS service q
ices business, where responsiveness, assur- ity possibly needs further questions to tap t
dimensions.
ance, and empathy load as one factor. It may be
that some of these concepts are too close to- SERVQUAL does not always clearly discrimi-
gether for respondents to differentiate. Concepts nate among the dimensions of service quality.
like responsiveness and empathy are similar; in Researchers who use SERVQUAL to discrimi-
his Thesaurus, Roget twice puts them together nate the impact of service changes should be
in the classifications of sensation and feeling wary of using it to distinguish among the closely
(Roget, 1977). aligned concepts of responsiveness, assurance,

MIS Quarterly/June 1995 181

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement

and empathy. These concepts are not semanti- provides valuable information for redirecting IS
cally distant, and there appear to be situations staff toward providing higher-quality service to
where users perceive them very similarly. users. Because SERVQUAL is a general meas-
ure of service quality, it is well-suited to bench-
marking (Camp, 1989), which establishes goals
based on best practice. Thus, IS managers can
potentially use SERVQUAL to benchmark their
IS Research and Service
service performance against service industry
Quality leaders such as airlines, banks, and hotels.
Service quality can be both an independent and
dependent variable of IS research. The aug-
mented IS success model (see Figure 1) indi-
cates that IS service quality is an antecedent of Future Research
use and user satisfaction. Because IS now has
We see three possible directions for future re-
an important service component, IS researchers
search on service quality. First, Q-method could
may be interested in identifying which manage-
be used to examine service quality from a differ-
rial actions raise service level. In this situation,
ent perspective. Second, the relationship be-
service quality becomes a dependent variable.
tween customer service life cycle and service
Furthermore, service quality may be part of a
quality could be examined. Third, the relative
causal model. Consider a study where a service
importance of the determinants of expected
policy intervention (e.g., a departmental help
service could be investigated.
desk) is designed to increase personal com-
puter use. Figure 1 suggests that service quality
would be a mediating variable in this situation.
Q-method
SERVQUAL, as with most questionnaires of this
kind, does not require respondents to express a
preference for one service characteristic over
IS Practice and Service another (e.g., reliability over assurance). They
Quality can rate items comprising both dimensions at
the high end of the scale. However, organiza-
Any instrument advocated as a measure of IS
tions frequently have to make a choice when al-
success should first be validated before applica-
locating scarce resources. For example,
tion. This study provides evidence that practi-
managers need to know whether they should
tioners can, with considerable confidence, use
SERVQUAL as a measure of IS success. Our put more effort into reliability or empathy. This
issue can be addressed by asking respondents
research subsequent to this study (e.g., Pitt and
to allocate relative dimension importance on a
Watson, 1994) has focused on the application of
constant sum scale (e.g., 100 points). Zeithaml,
SERVQUAL as a diagnostic tool. We have com-
et al. (1990) recommend this approach, which
pleted longitudinal studies in two organizations.
results in a "weighted gap score" by dimension
In each case, service quality was initially meas-
and in total. Another approach to identifying
ured, then IS management took steps to im-
preferences is Q-method (Brown, 1980;
prove service, and service quality was
Stephenson, 1953), which can identify a prefer-
remeasured 12 months later. In both cases, sig-
ence structure and indicate patterning within
nificant improvements in service quality were
groups of users.
detected. These organizations have embarked
on a program of continuous incremental im- We intend to use Q-method to gain insights into
provement of IS service quality and use users' preference structure for the dimensions
SERVQUAL to measure their progress. Our ex- of service and to discover if there is a single uni-
perience shows that IS practitioners accept form profile of service expectations, or there are
service quality as a useful, valid measure of IS classes of users with different expectations. We
effectiveness, and they find that SERVQUAL propose to use the questions from SERVQUAL

182 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IS Service Quality-Measurement

and recast them for Q-method. Subjects will be tems, an IS department performs other functions
such as responding to questions about software
asked to sort the items twice: first, on the basis
of an ideal service provider-their expectations; products, providing training, and giving equip-
second, on the basis of the actual service ment advice. In each of these cases, the user's
provider-their perceptions. This is very similargoal is to acquire information. Thus, the IS de-
to a technique described by Stephenson (1953), partment delivers information through both
the father of Q-method, in his study of studenthighly structured information systems and cus-
achievement and motivation. tomized personal interactions. Clearly, providing
information is a fundamental service of an IS de-
partment, and it should be concerned with the
Customer service life cycle quality of service it delivers. Thus, we believe,
the effectiveness of an IS unit can be partially
The customer service life cycle, a variation on
assessed by its capability to provide quality
the customer resource life cycle (Ives and Lear-
service to its users.
month, 1984; Ives and Mason, 1990), breaks
down the service relationship with a customer The major contribution of this study is to demon-
into four major phases: requirements, acquisi- strate that SERVQUAL, an extensively applied
tions, stewardship, and retirement. It is highly marketing instrument for measuring service
likely users' expectations differ among these quality, is applicable in the IS arena. The pa-
phases. Empathy might be the major need dur- per's other contributions are highlighting the
ing requirements and reliability during steward- service component of the IS department, aug-
ship. Thus, examining service quality by the menting the IS success model, presenting a
customer service life cycle phase is an opportu- logical model for user's expectations, and giving
nity for future research. some directions for future research.

Determinants of expected service

Acknowledgements
The model shown in Figure 2 indicates there are
five determinants of expected service. The rela- We gratefully acknowledge the insightful com-
tive influence of each of these variables can be ments of the editor, associate editor, and anony-
measured (see Boulding, et al., 1993; Zeithaml, mous reviewers of MISQ. We thank Neil Lilford
et al., 1993). Again, the marketing literature pro-of The Old Mutual, South Africa for his assistance.
vides a suitable starting point, because discov-
ering what influences customers is a major
theme of marketing research. References
Alter, S.L. Information Systems: A Management
Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,
1992.
Conclusion
Babbie, E. The Practice of Social Research (6th
The traditional goal of an IS organization is ed.),
to Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1992.
build, maintain, and operate information deliveryBerry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. Marketing
systems. Users expect efficient and effective Services:
de- Competing Through Quality, Free
livery systems. However, for the user, the goal Press, New York, NY, 1991.
is not the delivery system, but rather the infor-Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., and
mation it can provide. For example, a user may Zeithaml, V.A. "A Dynamic Model of Service
want sales reported by geographic region. A Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral In-
computer-based information system is one alter- tentions," Journal of Marketing Research
native for satisfying that need. The same report (30:1), February 1993, pp. 7-27.
could be produced manually. For the user, the Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A.J., and Peter, J.P.
information is paramount and the delivery "Improving the Measurement of Service
mechanism secondary. In addition to developing Quality," Journal of Retailing (69:1), Spring
and operating computer-based information sys- 1993, pp. 127-139.

MIS Quarterly/June 1995 183

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement

Cameron, K.S. and Whetton, D.A. Organiza-
tional Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multi-
ple Models, Academic Press, New York, NY,
1983.
Camp, R.C. Benchmarking: The Search for In-
dustry Best Practices that Lead to Superior
Performance, Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI,
1989.
Carman, J.M. "Consumer Perceptions of Serv-
ice Quality: An Assessment of SERVQUAL
Dimensions," Journal of Retailing (66:1),
Spring 1990, pp. 33-53.
Churchill, G.A. "A Paradigm for Developing Bet-
ter Measures of Marketing Constructs," Jour-
nal of Marketing Research (16), February
1979, pp. 64-73
Conrath, D.W. and Mignen, O.P. "What is Being
Done to Measure User Satisfaction with
EDP/MIS," Information & Management
(19:1), August 1990, pp. 7-19.
Cronbach, L.J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Inter-
nal Structure of Tests," Psychometrika
(16:3), September 1951, pp. 297-333.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. "Information
Systems Success: The Quest for the De-
pendent Variable," Information Systems Re-
search (3:1), March 1992, pp. 60-95.
Deming, W.E. "Improvement of Quality and Pro-
ductivity Through Action by Management,"
National Productivity Review, Winter 1981-
82, pp. 12-22.
Fisk, R.P., Brown, S.W., and Bitner, M.J.
"Tracking the Evolution of the Services Mar- "More on Improving the Measurement of
keting Literature," Joural of Retailing (69:1), Service Quality," Journal of Retailing (69:1),
Spring 1993, pp. 61-103.
Gronroos, C. Strategic Management and Mar- Pitt, L.F. and Watson, R.T. Longitudinal Meas-
keting in the Service Sector, Swedish School urement of Service Quality in Information
of Economics and Business Administration,
Helsingfors, Finland, 1982.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. "Obstacles to
Comparative Studies," In New Perspectives
on Organizational Effectiveness, P.S. Good-
man and J.M. Pennings (eds.), Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, 1977, pp. 106-131.
Ives, B. and Learmonth, G.P. "The Information
Systems as a Competitive Weapon," Com-
munications of the ACM (27:12), December
1984, pp. 1193-1201.
Ives, B. and Mason, R. "Can Information Tech-
nology Revitalize Your Customer Service?"
Academy of Management Executive (4:4),
November 1990, pp. 52-69.
Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. Applied Multi-
variate Statistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982.
Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. Management In-
formation Systems: A Contemporary Per-
spective (2nd ed.), Macmillan, New York,
NY, 1991.
Lovelock, C.H. "Classifying Services to Gain
Strategic Marketing Insights," Joumal of Mar-
keting (47), Summer 1983, pp. 9-20.
Mason, R.O. "Measuring Information Output: A
Communication Systems Approach," Infor-
mation & Management (1:5), 1978, pp. 219-
234.
Moad, J. "Asking Users to Judge IS," Datama-
tion (35:21), November 1, 1989, pp. 93-100.
Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.),
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1978.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L.
"A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and
Its Implications for Future Research," Journal
of Marketing (49), Fall 1985, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L.
"SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service
Quality," Journal of Retailing (64:1), Spring
1988, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml, V.A.
"Refinement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale," Journal of Retailing
(67:4), Winter 1991, pp. 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml, V.A.
Spring 1993, pp. 140-147.
Systems: A Case Study, Proceedings of
the Fifteenth International Conference on In-
formation Systems, Vancouver, B.C., 1994.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. "A Spatial Model
of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Compet-
ing Values Approach to Organizational
Analysis," Management Science (29:3),
March 1983, pp. 363-377.
Rockart, J.F. "The Changing Role of the Infor-
mation Systems Executive: A Critical Suc-
cess Factors Perspective," Sloan Manage-
ment Review (24:1), Fall 1982, pp. 3-13.
Roget, P.M. Roget's International Thesaurus,
revised by Chapman, R.L. (4th ed.), Thomas
Y. Crowell, New York 1977.

184 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Rushinek, A. and Rushinek, S.F. "What Makes
Users Happy?" Communications of the ACM
(29:7), July 1986, pp. 594-598.
Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P., and Wychoff, D.D.
Management of Service Operations: Text
and Cases, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA,
1978.
Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. The Mathemati-
cal Theory of Communication, University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1949.
Shostack, G.L. "Breaking Free from Product
Marketing," Joumal of Marketing (41:2), April
1977, pp. 73-80.
Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior: Q-tech-
nique and Its Methodology, University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago, IL, 1953.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L.L.
Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Cus-
tomer Perceptions and Expectations, Free
Press, New York, NY, 1990.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., and Parasuraman, A.
"The Nature and Determinants of Customer
Expectations of Service," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science (21:1), Win-
ter 1993, pp. 1-12.
About the Authors
Leyland F. Pitt is a professor of management
studies at Henley Management College and
Brunel University, Henley-on-Thames, UK,
where he teaches marketing. He holds an
MCom in marketing from Rhodes University,
and M.B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in marketing
from the University of Pretoria. He is also an ad-
junct faculty member of the Bodo Graduate
School, Norway, and the University of Oporto,
Portugal. He has taught marketing in graduate
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
IS Service Quality-Measurement
and executive programs in the U.S., Australia,
Singapore, South Africa, France, Malta, and
Greece. His publications have been accepted
by such journals as The Joural of Small Busi-
ness Management, Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, Journal of Business Ethics, and
Omega. Current research interests are in the
areas of services marketing, market orientation,
and international marketing.
Richard T. Watson is an associate professor
and graduate coordinator in the Department of
Management at the University of Georgia. He
has a Ph.D. in MIS from the University of Minne-
sota. His publications include articles in MIS
Quarterly, Communications of the ACM, Journal
of Business Ethics, Omega, and Communica-
tion Research. His research focuses on national
culture and its impact on group support sys-
tems, management of IS, and national informa-
tion infrastructure. He has taught in more than
10 countries.
C. Bruce Kavan is an assistant professor of
MIS and interim director of the Barnett Institute
at the University of North Florida. Prior to com-
pleting his doctorate at the University of Georgia
in 1991, he held several executive positions with
Dun & Bradstreet including vice president of In-
formation Service for their Receivable Manage-
ment Services division. Dr. Kavan is an extremely
active consultant in the strategic use of technol-
ogy, system architecture, and client/server tech-
nologies. His main areas of research interest
are in inter-organizational systems, the delivery
of IT services, and technology adoption/diffu-
sion. His work has appeared in such publica-
tions as Information Strategy: The Executive's
Journal, Auerback's Handbook of IS Manage-
ment, and Journal of Services Marketing.
MIS Quarterly/June 1995 185
IS Service Quality-Measurement

Appendix
Service Quality Expectations
Directions: This survey deals with your opinion of the Information Systems Department (IS). Based on
your experiences as a user, please think about the kind of IS unit that would deliver excellent quality of
service. Think about the kind of IS unit with which you would be pleased to do business. Please show
the extent to which you think such a unit would possess the feature described by each statement. If you
strongly agree that these units should possess a feature, circle 7. If you strongly disagree that these
units should possess a feature, circle 1. If your feeling is less strong, circle one of the numbers in the
middle. There are no right or wrong answers-all we are interested in is a number that truly reflects your
expectations about IS.
Please respond to ALL the statements
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

E1 They will have up-to-date hardware and software 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 - 7

E2 Their physical facilities will be visually appealing 1 2 - 3 - 4 -- 5 6- 7
E3 Their employees will be well dressed and neat in appearance 1 2 - 3 -- 4 5 6 7
E4 The appearance of the physical facilities of these IS units will
be in keeping with the kind of services provided 1 - 2 3 - 4 - 5 6 7
E5 When these IS units promise to do something by a certain
time, they will do so 1 -2 3 - 4 - 5 6 - 7
E6 When users have a problem, these IS units will show a
sincere interest in solving it 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 - 7
E7 These IS units will be dependable 1 2 3 4 -- 5 6 7
E8 They will provide their services at the times they promise
to do so 1 - 2 3 4 - 5 6 7
E9 They will insist on error-free records 1 2 -- 3 - 4 5 6 7
E10 They will tell users exactly when services will be performed 1 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 6 7
E11 Employees will give prompt service to users 1- 2 - 3 - 4 --5 - 6 - 7
E12 Employees will always be willing to help users 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E13 Employees will never be too busy to respond to users' requests 1 2 -
E14 The behavior of employees will instill confidence in users 1 - 2 3 - 4 5 6 - 7
E15 Users will feel safe in their transactions with these IS units
employees 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 7
E16 Employees will be consistently courteous with users 1 2 -- 3 4 - 5 6 7
E17 Employees will have the knowledge to do their job well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E18 These IS units will give users individual attention 1 2 3 -- 4 - 5 6 7
E19 These IS units will have operating hours convenient to all
their users 1 2 3 4 5 - 6 7
E20 These IS units will have employ
attention 1 2 3 --4 5 6 7
E21 These IS units will have the users' best interests at heart 1 - 2 3 4 5 -6 7
E22 The employees of these IS units will understand the specific
needs of their users 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 7

186 MIS Quarterly/June 1995

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IS Service Quality-Measurement

Service Quality Perceptions

Directions: The following set of statements relate to your feelings about ABC corporation's IS unit. For
each statement, please show the extent to which you believe ABC corporation's IS has the feature de-
scribed by the statement. Once again, circling a 7 means that you strongly agree that ABC corporation's
IS has that feature, and circling 1 means that you strongly disagree. You may circle any of the numbers
in the middle that show how strong your feelings are. There are no right or wrong answers-all we are
interested in is a number that best shows your perceptions about ABC corporation's IS unit.
Please respond to ALL the statements

Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

P1 IS has up-to-date hardware and software 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 7

P2 IS's physical facilities are visually appealing 1 -2 - 3 4 5 6 7

P3 IS's employees are well dressed and neat in appearance 1 -2 3 4 5 6 7

P4 The appearance of the physical facilities of IS is in keeping

with the kind of services provided 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P5 When IS promises to do something by a certain time,

it does so 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7

P6 When users have a problem, IS shows a sincere interest

in solving it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P7 IS is dependable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P8 IS provides its services at the times it promises to do so

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P9 IS insists on error-free records 1 2 3 4 5 6-- 7

P10 IS tell users exactly when services will be performed

1-- 2 -3 -4 5 6 7

P11 IS employees give prompt service to users 1 --2 3 4 5 6 7

P12 IS employees are always willing to help users 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7

P13 IS employees are never be too busy to respond to

users' requests 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7

P14 The behavior of IS employees instills confidence in1

users
2 -3 4 5 6 7

P15 Users will feel safe in their transactions with IS's employees
1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7

P16 IS employees are consistently courteous with users

1 --2-- 3 ---4 5 6 7

P17 IS employees have the knowledge to do their job welll

1 2 -3 4 5 6 7

P18 IS gives users individual attention 1 ---2 3 4 5 6 7

P19 IS has operating hours convenient to all its users 1

1---
----2
2 --- 3-3
--- 4 5 5
4 --- 66 7
7

P20 IS has employees who give users personal attention

1 2 3 - 4 5 6 7
P21 IS has the users' best interests at heart 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 7

P22 Employees of IS understand the specific needs of its users

1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

Now please complete the following:

1. Overall, how would you rate the qualit

by circling one of the points on the scale be

Poor Excellent

1 --2 -3 -4 5 6 7

MIS Quarterly/

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:33:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms