Title: SERVICE QUALITY: A small-scale meta-analysis of importance; and Applying Six Sigma through

DMAIC process in service quality improvements.

INTRODUCTION

Few researches dealing with the application of DMAIC in achieving the goals of Six Sigma have been
reported in literature arena. It is very prudent to study the nature and outcome of these researches,
as this study will be useful to evolve economical and powerful DMAIC-based Six Sigma models. In
order to fulfil this requirement, the literature review reported in this paper was carried out
(Srinivasan et al., 2016).

Although the adoption of six sigma by such companies as GE led to an enormous expansion of this
approach to the service operations of many large corporations, the service sector has been
considerably slower in embracing six sigma than the manufacturing sector (Nakhai & Neves, 2009)

High service quality is achieved by knowing operational process through identifying problems in
service and defining measures for service performances and outcomes as well as level of customer
satisfaction (Jeyalakshmi & Meenakumari, 2016).
The organizations with high service quality meet the customer needs and also remain most
economical in terms of competition as improved service quality also makes the firm more competitive
(Jeyalakshmi & Meenakumari, 2016).

Service quality is an increasingly important priority for companies that wish to differentiate their
services in a highly competitive and often cutthroat environment (Nakhai & Neves, 2009).

The most consistent findings of three decades of service quality research are that: service quality is
more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than product quality; service quality perceptions result
from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service performance; and quality
evaluations are not based solely on the outcome of a service but also involve evaluation of the
delivery process (Nakhai & Neves, 2009).

Quality of service is an important issue for all of these retailers because of that, to certain extent, it is
difficult to identify any retailer that offers no services whatsoever (Parasuraman et al., 1988).

Service quality becomes the crucial issue for the education industry and the theory of service quality
has evolved over long period of time through testing and trials in service sector (Jeyalakshmi &
Meenakumari, 2016).

High service quality is achieved by knowing operational process through identifying problems in
service and defining measures for service performances & outcomes as well as level of customer
satisfaction (Jeyalakshmi & Meenakumari, 2016).

The empirical research in development of service quality theory suggests that improved service
quality plays important role in overall customer satisfaction (Jeyalakshmi & Meenakumari, 2016).

characteristics of services-intangibility, heterogeneity, and inseparability (Parasuraman et al., 1985)

2. Literature review

2.1. Service quality

2.1.1. Definition of Service quality:

Parasuraman et al. (1985) considered service quality as “a comparison of customer

expectations with service performance” (p.42). In other words, as conceptualized in the service
literature or as measured by SERVQUAL of (Parasuraman et al., 1988), service quality was considered
as perceived quality – consumers’ judgment about an entity’s overall excellence or superiority; rather
than objective/mechanistic quality – typically includes an objective aspect or feature. In line with this
perspective, Lewis and Booms (1983, as cited in Parasuraman et al., 1985) stated that:

Service quality is a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customer
expectations. Delivering quality service means conforming to customer expectations on a
consistent basis (p.42).

Quality of service is an important issue for all of these retailers because of that it is, to certain
extent, difficult to identify any retailer that offers no services whatsoever (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
In such a highly competitive and frequently cutthroat market, service quality is becoming an
increasingly crucial goal for businesses seeking to differentiate themselves (Nakhai & Neves, 2009).
Organizations with excellent service quality meet the requirements of the customers while also
remaining the most cost-effective in terms of competition, because enhanced service quality tends to
make the firm more competitive (Jeyalakshmi & Meenakumari, 2016).

Not only has service quality become a crucial issue in the market place, but it also continued to
draw academic attention over long period of time through testing in theoretical perspective and trials
in service sector. For instance, empirical studies in evolution of service quality theory highlighted that
advanced level of service quality plays an important role in overall customer satisfaction (Jeyalakshmi
& Meenakumari, 2016). As also stated by Jeyalakshmi & Meenakumari (2016), high service quality is
achieved by understanding operational processes, recognising service problems, and defining service
performance and outcomes measures, as well as customer satisfaction levels. The most consistent
conclusions from three decades of service quality study are that service quality is more difficult for
the consumer to evaluate than product quality, the main causes of which were considered as three
well-documented characteristics of service: “intangibility, heterogeneity, and inseparability”
(Parasuraman et al., 1985, p.42). To elaborate further, service quality perceptions are the
consequence of a comparison between consumer expectations and actual service performance;
however, quality evaluations are not just based on the service's end, but also include an assessment
of the delivery process (Nakhai & Neves, 2009), which leads to a sophisticated process of measuring
such kind of quality.

2.1.2. Measurements of service quality: Parasuraman et al.'s (1988) approach

 Delivering outstanding service quality looks to be a precondition for such businesses' success or
even survival in the 1980s and beyond. However, service quality is “an abstract and elusive
construct”, as the result of three well-documented unique characteristics of service – “intangibility,
heterogeneity, and inseparability” (Parasuraman et al., 1988, p.13). At that time, based on the
absence of an objective measure, measuring consumers’ perceptions of quality – as an appropriate
approach to assessing the quality of a firm’s service – is necessary.

Several studies have made efforts to provide a clear definition and generate a model to
measure service quality. The exploratory research – through focus group and in-depth executive
interviews techniques – reported in Parasuraman et al.'s (1985) study provided numerous insights
and propositions in regard to consumers' perceptions of service quality. The SERVQUAL approach was
initially introduced with ten service quality dimensions, covering reliability, responsiveness,
competence, credibility, access, courtesy, communication, assurance, empathy, and tangibles.
Researchers later make attempts either to develop a standard instrument to measure consumers'
service quality perceptions, or to empirically test the previous framework of service quality. Through
an examination of final indicators’ content and factor analysis, labels and concise definitions of five
SERVQUAL’s dimensions were suggested in the research of Parasuraman et al. (1988): Tangibles
focuses on “physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel”; Reliability emphases on
“ability to perform the promised service quality”; Responsiveness indicates “willingness to help
customers and provide prompt service”; Assurance highlights “knowledge and courtesy of employees
and their ability to inspire trust and confidence”; and Empathy underlined “caring, individualized
attention the firm provides its customers” (p.23).

<way to measure servqual among consumers>

Servqual methodology insists on two sets of 22 questions, where the respondents are given the first
set of 22 questions prior to service delivery to measure their expectations; the second set of 22
questions at the end of service to measure their experience, perception (attitudes) of consumers
about the delivered service.

=> <paraphrase> In practice, though a questionnaire including 22 indicators in a question form prior
to service delivery to measure their expectations

As stated by Parasuraman et al. (1988), SERVQUAL instrument has a variety of potential

applications – ranging from assessing consumer expectations about and perceptions of service
quality, pinpointing areas requiring managerial attention to improve service quality, and stimulating
much-needed empirical research focusing on service quality.

2.1.3. Relevance of Service quality in associate with other outcomes

From Figure 5 and Appendix A, it is possible to conclude that service quality and customer satisfaction
(cluster 5.0) have consistently attracted interest from the research community since 1980 (Schachter,
1997).

<table of meta-analysis>

In the literature there had been some confusion over the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction. Some researchers stated that service quality and satisfaction measured the
same underlying concept and therefore were the same. Other authors argued that satisfaction with a
specific transaction precedes the perception of the overall quality of the firm and therefore were the
antecedent of perceived quality. Finally, others suggested that the concepts of satisfaction and
quality were different, and that it was the perceived service quality that would affect customer
satisfaction.
2.2. Six Sigma

2.2.1. Six Sigma in general

Six sigma is a recent quality improvement initiative that has garnered popularity and
acceptance in numerous industries throughout the world. Technically, the origins of sigma as a
measurement standard can be traced back to Frederick Gauss, who popularised the concept of a
normal curve or normal distribution (Chakrabarty & Chuan Tan, 2007). According to the Six Sigma
standard, good quality is defined at 99.99966 percent; in other words, the standard permits
organizations to make mistakes less than 3.4 errors per million opportunities (Nicholas, 2018;
Srinivasan et al., 2016). To put it another way, a quality product – under the Six Sigma philosophy –
should not have even the slightest defect when released to the customer, which help firms approach
perfection (Hsia et al., 2009).

Six sigma and its philosophy have found widespread application in many manufacturing
industries since its introduction by Motorola in the 1980s (Chakrabarty & Chuan Tan, 2007).
Srinivasan et al. (2016) found out that several more quality managers were attracted to the Six Sigma
approach because of its capacity to help organizations generate significant profits. In addition to the
success in manufacturing sector, recently, several scientific publications have outlined the importance
of Six Sigma for service operations, as well as the barriers of implementing this quality improvement
philosophy in service sector (Almehareb & Graham-Jones, 2014; Chakrabarty & Chuan Tan, 2007;
Nakhai & Neves, 2009). Still, there seems to be a lack in term of providing linkages to the literature of
service quality. In none of the articles on applying six sigma to service sector that Nakhai & Neves
(2009) investigated did they document the development of a service quality’s theoretical framework
or the adoption of a service quality model. The applicability of Six Sigma to services looks to be
severely restricted if there is no comprehensive understanding of the nature of service itself and the
judgements from the customers about what they received (Nakhai & Neves, 2009). These gaps leave
room for future research to explore this topic, in both practical and theoretical standpoints.

In practice, One of the two well-documented approaches are used to achieve this goal – as
reviewed by Srinivasan et al. (2016) – is, the first, to use define, measure, analyse, improve, and
control (DMAIC) phases to carry out projects leading to defect prevention in the organisation; and the
second is to use belt-based training infrastructure to impart formal training – assigning designations
such as champion, master black belt, black belt, green belt, and white belt. Six Sigma is not only a
standard, but – to certain extent – is a philosophy. Nevertheless, the cost of conducting belt-based
training is so high that it prevents Six Sigma from being implemented in small businesses, where low
cost strategy is the first target. In order to address this challenge, Srinivasan et al. (2016) indicates
that researchers and practitioners have recently been investigating the strategy of adopting Six Sigma
solely through the implementation of the DMAIC process in businesses.
 On the whole, the results – strived from previous studies, confirmed that DMAIC is a sound and
promising strategy for deploying Six Sigma in businesses providing customer service. (Srinivasan et al.,
2016). In light of the limitation of time and efforts, this research solely introduces a brief review of
DMAIC process in a theoretical perspective, then come to a case study in order to illustrate the way
how DMAIC is implemented into improving service quality.

2.2.2. DMAIC process

The DMAIC framework was credited because it provides a globally acknowledged structured

methodology to enhancing quality of product and service, which is adaptable to a variety of business
activities (Srinivasan et al., 2016). Although the DMAIC methodology was initially developed for
manufacturing processes, Nicholas (2018) highlighted that firms now apply it to any process having
the greatest influence on their ability, especially, to meet consumer service requirements. For this
purpose, practitioners and managers employed a stepwise approach known as DMAIC, which stands
for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control – these steps allow enhancing the quality of
any process at project or even organisational level (Niñerola et al., 2020).
Define

In the Define phase, companies should first figure out which prospects will yield the greatest
payoff for their efforts (Pyzdek, 2003); especially, this phase includes defining the problem, the
customer of the problem, and critical-to-quality attributes (CTQs) – the criteria the customer considers
most important (Nicholas, 2018). Tools or deliverables which are most typically used during Define
phase are Project charter, SIPOC (Supplier−Inputs−Process−Output−Customer), High-level process
map, Stakeholder analysis definition, Critical to Satisfaction (CTS) summary, check sheets, Pareto
analysis, Cause-and-effect diagrams, to name a few (Furterer, 2009; Pyzdek, 2003).

Measure

Identify the processes that influence the CTQs and measure their performance (Nicholas, 2018).

Analyze

This phase involved identifying the root causes of process defects or poor performance, as well
as the major elements that create substantial or unpredictable variance in the process (Nicholas, 2018);
to elaborate, the goal of the Analyze phase is to analyze the data collected related to the VOC and the
VOP to identify the root causes of the process problems, and to develop the capability of the process
(Furterer, 2009). Tools and techniques useful during the analyze phase include cause and effect
diagrams, cause and effect matrix, why-why diagram, 5S, kaizen, FMEA, DPPM/DPMO, process
capability (Furterer, 2009); or, sometimes, run charts, descriptive statistical analysis (central
tendency, spread, distribution, outliers), exploratory data analysis (box plot comparisons, stem-and-
leaf), scatter plots, correlation and regression analysis , categorical data analysis, nonparametric
methods (Pyzdek, 2003).
 Improve

Confirm the impact of the key factors on the CTQs. Determine methods for measuring variation, the
maximum acceptable range of variation, and methods to make the process acceptable (Nicholas, 2018).

Control

According to Furterer (2009), the Control phase's goal is to measure the results of the pilot
projects and manage change on a larger scale, as well as to report scorecard data and the control
plan, discover replication prospects, and establish future improvement plans – which means that
companies have to use the appropriate actions to guarantee that the process stays within the permissible
variation range (Nicholas, 2018). Tools or deliverables most typically used during that step are
hypothesis tests, design of experiments, basic statistics, graphical analysis, FMEA, to name a few
(Furterer, 2009).

In service sector

These are some of the common practices that practitioners used when implementing Six Sigma,
especially DMAIC, into service sector. To give example, in define phase, the service blueprint was
prepared for the entire process, including the customer's entry and exit during business and non-
business hours (Srinivasan et al., 2016). For one more instance, in measure phase, problems were
evaluated by using the SERVQUAL by obtaining the feedback from the customers. The questionnaires
were designed to collect information about the expectations and perceptions of the five specific
attributes: tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, assurance, and empathy; in which the characteristics
were weighted based on comments from an external customer (Srinivasan et al., 2016). Using the gap
score methodology, the sorting was done based on the feedback.
CONCLUSION

Service quality draw attention from both academics and practitioners

The major insights gained through the re- search suggest a conceptual service quality model that will
hopefully spawn both academic and practitioner interest in service quality and serve as a framework
for further empirical research in this important area (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
Almehareb, T., & Graham-Jones, J. (2014). Using Lean Six-Sigma in the Improvement of Service
Quality at Aviation Industry: Case Study at the Departure Area in KKIA. International Science
Index, 8(1), 150–156. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265851478
Chakrabarty, A., & Chuan Tan, K. (2007). The current state of six sigma application in services.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(2), 194–208.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520710735191
Furterer, S. L. (Ed.). (2009). Lean Six sigma in service : applications and case studies. CRC Press.
Hsia, T.-C., Chen, S.-C., & Chen, K.-S. (2009). Enhancement of service quality in internet-marketing
through application of the six sigma process. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial
Engineers, 26(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10170660909509117
Jeyalakshmi, S. S., & Meenakumari, S. (2016). Service Quality : A Literature Review. Shanlax
International Journal of Management, 3(4), 22–45.
Nakhai, B., & Neves, J. S. (2009). The challenges of six sigma in improving service quality. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(7), 663–684.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710910975741
Nicholas, J. (2018). Lean production for competitive advantage: a comprehensive guide to lean
methods and management practices (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press.
Niñerola, A., Sánchez-Rebull, M.-V., & Hernández-Lara, A.-B. (2020). Quality improvement in
healthcare: Six Sigma systematic review. Health Policy, 124(4), 438–445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.01.002
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its
Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL A Multiple-Item Scale For Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Pyzdek, T. (2003). The Six Sigma Project Planner: A Step-by-Step Guide to Leading a Six Sigma Project
Through DMAIC. McGraw-Hill.
Schachter, J. (1997). Four decades of research on Chlamydia. In Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice
(Vol. 6, Issue 7, pp. 469–472). https://doi.org/10.1097/00019048-199706070-00011
Srinivasan, K., Muthu, S., Devadasan, S. R., & Sugumaran, C. (2016). Six Sigma through DMAIC phases:
a literature review. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 17(2), 236.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2016.074462