|Methods and techniques|
SERVPERF (Service Performance) was created on basis of critique of SERVQUAL by J.J. Cronin and S.A. Taylor in 1994. They claimed that Parasuraman's study of relations between expected and experienced quality is not proper approach to quality assessment.
Evaluation of service quality is difficult, because of the difference between quality perceived by customer and expected by him/her. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1988 proposed SERVQUAL model which described five gaps between those two visions of quality. Elimination of those gaps should help the organization to improve service quality.
This approach is inconsistent with some research results, which show that customer's expectations should be based on experiences. What's more, higher level of perceived service quality only sometimes is a cause of increased consumer satisfaction. In many cases, the satisfaction is an antecedent of service quality.
According to Boldon and Drew, perceived service quality (Attitudet) is a function of residual perception of the service's quality (Attitudet-1) and level of (dis)satisfaction of the current service performance (CS/Dt).
Service quality is then a function of Disconfirmation, Expectations and Performance:
Cronin and Taylor proposed modification of SERVQUAL based on analysis of 730 enterprises offering different areas of services (banks, pest control, dry cleaning, fast food).
The SERVPERF measures quality as an attitude, not satisfaction. However it uses an idea of perceived service quality leading to satisfaction. But it goes further, and connects satisfaction with further purchase intentions.
The SERVPERF is a modification of SERVQUAL, and thus uses the same categories to assess service quality (RATER model):
In each of the categories there are statements that are evaluated on 7 step Likert scale. The SERVQUAL proposed 44 statements (expectations and performance related), while SERVPERF only 22 (performance related).
The SERVPERF questionnaire
The following statements are related to the enterprise being evaluated. Some of them are "the more the better" type, and some "the less the better":
- Has up-to-date equipment
- Physical facilities are visually appealing
- Employees are well dressed and appear neat
- The appearance of physical facilities is in keeping with the type of service provided
- When company promises to do something by certain time, it does so
- When you have problems, company is sympathetic and reassuring
- Is dependable
- Provides its services at the time it promises to do so
- Keeps its records accurately
- Does not tell its customers exactly when the services will be performed
- You do not receive prompt service from company employees
- Employees are not always willing to help customers
- Employees are too busy to respond to customer requests promptly
- You can trust employees
- You can feel safe in your transactions with company employees
- Employees are polite
- Employees get adequate support to do their jobs well
- Company does not give you individual attention
- Employees do not give you personal attention
- Employees do not know what your needs are
- Company does not have your best interests at heart
- Company does not have operating hours convenient to all their customers
Evaluation of the questionnaire
Each statement from part 1 should be compared with the statement from part 2. They describe expectations and perception.
|Dimension||Statement||Expectation score||Perception score||Gap score||Average for the dimension|
Scores are summed up and weighted. The weights are chosen based on expert assessment of top management.
|Average weighted score|
- Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 125-131.
- Jain, S. K., & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF scales. Vikalpa, 29(2), 25-37.
- Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47.
Author: Slawomir Wawak