Managing Service Quality: An International Journal

Prioritizing service quality dimensions

Nimit Chowdhary Monika Prakash

Article information:

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Nimit Chowdhary Monika Prakash, (2007),"Prioritizing service quality dimensions", Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp. 493 - 509
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520710817325
Downloaded on: 14 February 2015, At: 05:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 21744 times since 2007*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Shirshendu Ganguli, Sanjit Kumar Roy, (2010),"Service quality dimensions of hybrid
services", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 404-424 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521011073713
Gi-Du Kang, Jeffrey James, (2004),"Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grnrooss service
quality model", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 4 pp. 266-277 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520410546806
Abby Ghobadian, Simon Speller, Matthew Jones, (1994),"Service Quality: Concepts and Models",
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 Iss 9 pp. 43-66 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719410074297

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 601976 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

Prioritizing service quality

dimensions

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions

Nimit Chowdhary and Monika Prakash

School of Management, University, Mizoram, Aizawl, India

493

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose The study was undertaken with a purpose to investigate if any generalization in
importance of service quality dimensions is possible. Service providers are often not sure of the
amount of tangibilisation necessary and the right mix of other service quality dimensions reliability,
assurance, empathy, responsiveness, and the role of price-added by researcher.
Design/methodology/approach A two stage analysis was deployed. First free listing of
important service quality concerns for 16 services across the four service types (as suggested by
Lovelock) was done to see if any rank correlation was possible. This was followed by two-step cluster
analysis to reveal natural grouping (or clusters) within a data set for each service quality dimension
that would otherwise not be apparent.
Findings Generalization of quality dimensions was not possible among all types of services taken
together, however important insights were available pertaining to each service type.
Practical implications Some generalizations within the service types were possible for different
services. Thus, service providers can consider these finding when designing service delivery.
Originality/value Considering the two important dimensions tangibility of service act and
whether such an action is targeted at the customer or their possessions, the paper details what service
quality issues are important for which service type.
Keywords Service quality assurance, Service levels
Paper type Research paper

In the age of customer delivering quality service is considered an essential strategy

for success and survival in todays competitive environment (Dawkins and Reichheld,
1990; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Zeithaml et al., 1990). What
constitutes service quality has attracted the attention of researchers all over the world.
The debate continues.
Even as researchers continue to debate the determinants of service quality a few
important issues remain unanswered. Is there a universal set of determinants that
determine the service quality across a section of services? Does the service
characteristic gets reflected in what customers expect out of delivery of a particular
service? Is there an inherent difference in services because they must be delivered in a
particular way and does that have a bearing on what becomes important for the
customer? Practitioners continue to look for advice and suggestion as to what
constitute service quality for their offers and furthermore, if they tend to reposition
their offers by varying some characteristics of their offers, for example, by increasing
or reducing tangibility or customer contact, etc. What are the operating characteristics
of determinants as they together constitute the service quality? This paper is an
attempt to generate evidence if difference in services that result into peculiar service
characteristics returns customers with a unique set of expectations those different
from other service types. The paper also intends to examine if the determinants of
service quality show some predictable behavior as service type tend to differ based on

Managing Service Quality

Vol. 17 No. 5, 2007
pp. 493-509
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-4529
DOI 10.1108/09604520710817325

MSQ
17,5

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

494

some criterion. This paper therefore first, goes through the discussion on determinants
of service quality and then, there is a small discussion on service classifications which
can serve as basis for difference in service nature.
Johnston (1995) suggests that one of the pressing issues before services research
concerns the identification of the determinants of service quality. This should be a
central concern for service management academics and practitioners, as the
identification of the determinants of service quality is necessary in order to be able
to specify measure, control and improve customer perceived service quality.
Early studies during 1980s focused on determining what service quality meant to
customers and developing strategies to meet customer expectations (Parasuraman
et al., 1985). The early pioneers of services marketing in Europe, especially the Nordic
School, argued that service quality consists of two or three underlying dimensions.
Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1985) referred to physical and interactive quality while
Gronroos (1984) identified a technical dimension, a functional dimension and the firms
image as a third dimension. In later years, Parasuraman et al. (1988) published
empirical evidence from five service industries that suggested that five dimensions
more appropriately capture the perceived service quality construct. Building on the
pioneering work of the Nordic School of services management and particularly
Christian Gronroos, they established service quality as the core of services marketing.
Their landmark article in 1985 conceptualized service quality as a gap between
consumers expectations and perceptions (Parasuraman et al., 1985) and inspired many
other researchers to examine the services quality construct within a marketing
premise(Berry et al., 1985). However, their contribution has not gone unchallenged.
Much of this interest has centered on the controversy generated by their service quality
gaps model (Parasuraman et al., 1985), and particularly the SERVQUAL instrument
developed to measure service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Many researchers who
have used the SERVQUAL instrument have been critical of its paradigmatic
foundation, its convergent and discriminant validity, the use of difference scores and
the use of negatively phrased items (Carman, 1990; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Peter
et al., 1993; Buttle, 1995).
Variations from unidimensionality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992) to two, three, four, six and
eight factor structures have been reported (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brensinger
and Lambert, 1990; Carman, 1990; Cliff and Ryan, 1994; Schneider et al., 1992). Spreng and
Singh (1993) have hinted at the possible combination of some of the five dimensions due to
high inter-correlations. Johnston and Silvestro (1990) went on to add the customers
perspective to the 12 service quality characteristics. This led to the identification of an
additional five service quality determinants: attentiveness/helpfulness, care, commitment,
functionality, integrity; it also led to a refining of some of the other definitions.
A number of other authors have also postulated their own determinants of service
quality, though in some cases they appear to have been based on Berry et al.s (1985)
well publicized work.
Lately, even the developers of the instrument have produced evidence confirming
the doubts expressed about the five-dimensional configuration. Thus, despite the
many studies which have analyzed the dimensions measured by SERVQUAL,
there is no clear consensus on the number of dimensions and their interrelationships.
This uncertainty hampers our understanding of service quality and casts doubts over
the use of the SERVQUAL instrument in future research. It also shows that a

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

considerable amount of research still needs to be done concerning the dimensionality of

perceived service quality in general and SERVQUAL in particular, as called for by its
developers (Parasuraman et al., 1994).
Chowdhary and Prakash (2001) have suggested a two factors theory that a more
detailed approach is required wherein each factor needs to be considered independently
and not as an aggregate dimension. They report evidence to support two-factor theory
for services that was discarded by earlier researchers. They argue to differentiate
between the factors and the outcome of performance along these factors. The study
describes the two factors as vantage factors and qualifying factors. Marketers need
to be selective in that certain factors behave as vantage factors while others as
qualifying factors. The two are different in nature and require a differential treatment.
Relative importance of dimensions
Parasuraman et al. (1988) have observed that their instrument (SERVQUAL) can be
used to evaluate the relative importance of the dimensions of quality in influencing
customers overall perceptions of a service. The relative weight that customers seem to
give to each quality dimension can be determined. One of the important results that
have been reported in the early studies of relative importance is that customers are
quite consistent in both their imputed and their direct rankings of the importance of the
service quality attributes. In one key study (Parasuraman et al., 1988), reliability was
demonstrated to be the most important dimension and empathy (a composite of
understanding and access) the least important across a seemingly wide array of service
types. Zeithaml et al. (1990) also report, using a variation of SERVQUAL that tangibles
proves to be consistently unimportant. A pertinent question here is that whether such a
generalization is possible. Chowdhary (2000) suggest that generalizations are difficult
to make because of variation in the basic nature of services (labor or capital intensity)
and that the type of industry affect the design of service. It was seen that empathy and
responsiveness were found to be more important for labor intensive industry while
tangibles and reliability affected the assessment of quality dimensions in case of
capital intensive services. This was also confirmed by the results from a similar study
done for Management Education where the single most important dimension was the
knowledge of the teacher (assurance).
Services unique selling proposition can be woven around different criteria
(tangibility, customization, labor intensity, etc.). This criterion in turn could be the key
performance dimension. Different user groups can see each type of service in turn as
performing on a number of factors across different dimensions. From among these
factors, some are the key factors (KFs) and are relatively more important for the
consumer. A number of these KFs could be simultaneously important for these user
groups, though the relative importance of these dimensions may vary from one user
group to another. There may also be a general shift in consumer preference for a
dimension, for example, from medical-care through patient-care to hospital-care,
incase of the consumers of healthcare. Their importance may also vary from one
consumer to another.
Service types
Service classifications have been offered since early 1980s. Different authors have
suggested different taxonomies based on different criterions. Of these four are not

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
495

MSQ
17,5

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

496

worthy Chase (1978), Chase and Tansik (1983), Schmenner (1986), Wemmerlov (1990)
and Lovelock (1983). Chase segments by the extent of customer contact in the delivery
of the service. Schmenner classifies services using two dimensions, with the degrees of
interaction (generalized from contact) and customization on one axis and the degree
of labor intensity on the other. Wemmerlov (1990) more recently proposed a
classification scheme where the variables of differentiation are the degree of
routinization of the process, the object of the service process, and customer contact.
His operationalization of contact differs from both Chase and Schmenner in that he
redefines it to be direct indirect or no contact with the customer, rather than
simply as high or low. Lovelock (1983) has suggested categorizing services into
four distinctive categories based on what a service organization is actually processing
and how does it perform that task. A service organization may be servicing individual
customers or alternatively it may be servicing their possessions. Further, the servicing
may be physical as in case of hair cutting or a travel by train. Alternatively, the
servicing may be intangible as in case of education, entertainment or consultancy. He
therefore suggests a 2 2 classification of service processes.
This scheme elaborates on how and what benefits the customer in a service
transaction. This classification has tangibility of offer across the recipient of services.
Why tangibility answers what benefits the customer a tangible action or an
intangible one? The second issue answers how the service benefits the customer by
service his self or his possessions. This in turn determines what the nature of a service
offer is.
It answers an important question whether the customers need to be mentally or
physically present to receive such services. For example, the services targeted at people
themselves require the presence. While tangible services require the physical presence,
the intangibles can be restructured to be delivered through alternative media or at
least the alternate media can be used to support the core service. Similarly, we witness
the intangible services directed at possessions having greater propensity to be offered
thru electronic media. Services directed at possession do not necessarily require the
presence of the customer as a must. Therefore, even the tangible actions directed at
possession can be redesigned as pickup services where possessions can be picked up
from customers location, served and returned. This eliminates the need for customers
entry into providers space and thus such services can be located in low cost obscure
locations as against a high-presence venue. Presence (or absence) of the customer will
also affect the demand and supply issue (Chowdhary and Chowdhary, 2005).
Methodology
The above cited literature review has discussed the service dimension and the tools to
evaluate service quality. Yet it is insufficient is establishing any generic relative
importance of service dimensions. Researcher believes that such a generalization may
not be possible across all service types. This study seeks to make out whether some
generalization is possible within service types and does that vary with classification
variables. For the purpose of investigation, researcher has used Lovelocks (1983)
classification.
The pertinent research question was whether the different categories of service
processes show a pattern vis-a`-vis the importance of different determinants of service
quality (the five dimensions suggested by Parasuraman et al.). The objective was to

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

identify the relative importance of service quality dimensions for different service
processes.
For each category, four different services were identified (Table I). Thus, in all
16 services were identified. Respondents were chosen randomly. Of 16 service types,
604 respondents were approached which resulted in 396 responses. Of these, 356
responses were valid and considered proper to be used for research. Respondents were
approached while they were shopping a service/services and were asked to free list
what they felt was important and added value to their consumption of a particular
service. A valid response from 356 respondents returned a 989 free-list items shown in
Table II.
In the next phase of analysis, the free list items were classified using the five
dimensions of Parasuraman et al. For the purpose of this research the five service
quality dimensions were defined (the Appendix). A panel of experts helped in
classifying the free list items into five service quality dimensions. Panel therefore
facilitated ensuring content validity for sorting the items. Panel observed the price with
reference to cost, fees, charges, discounts, etc. Figured repeatedly and so it was
categorized separately as the sixth dimension and was called fees. For a list for any
particular service type, we could now generate the relative importance matrix using
tally marks. These were then converted into percentage scores. Thus, we could get a
score for each dimension for each service type (Table III). Similarly, the score were
calculated for each service process category.

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
497

Discussion
First, the six service quality dimensions corresponding to each of the service types
were ranked based on the mean scores for the subset of four services comprising each
group as obtained in Table IV.
Based on discussion on determinants of service quality, if the ranks of service
dimensions across each service type were to be similar, some kind of generalization of
relative importance of dimensions across services was possible. So, it was decided to
test the following hypothesis:
H0.

rs 0.

People
What is the nature
of service act

Who or what is the recipient of the service?

Possessions

Tangible actions

People processing
Hospitals and nursing homes
Hotels
Beauty saloons
Fitness centers

Intangible actions

Mental stimuli processing

Telephone companies
Management consulting
MBA education
Cable operators

Possession processing
Freight transportation
Repair and maintenance
shops
Retail outlets
Laundry and dry cleaning
Information processing
Accounting firms
Banks
Insurance
Legal services

Table I.
Population for study

MSQ
17,5

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

498

Table II.
Free-listed items

(A) People processing (279)

Hospitals and nursing homes
Hotel and restaurants
Beauty salons
Fitness centers
(B) Possession processing (240)
Freight transport
Repair and maintenance
Retail outlets
Laundry and dry-cleaning
(C) Mental stimuli processing (215)
Telephone companies
Management consultancy
Management education (MBA)
Cable operators
(D) Information processing (253)
Accounting firms
Banks
Insurance companies
Legal companies
Total free-list items 989

85
72
61
61
61
60
58
61
56
49
54
56
57
68
68
60

Null hypothesis. There is no rank correlation in the population; that is, different types of
services have dimensions (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy,
and fees) having different priorities (ranks).
H0.

rs 0.

Alternative hypothesis. There is population rank correlation; that is, irrespective of the
service types, dimensions have similar priorities (ranks).
Thus, if the null hypothesis is accepted it would mean that for different service
types the customer priorities of determinants of service quality are different. This
would mean that the service providers must understand the expectations of their
customers instead of relying on some kind of generalization about the service
dimension priorities. If the alternative hypothesis is accepted then irrespective of
service type some generalization about relative importance of determinants of service
quality could be made.
For small values of n (n 6), we use Spearmans rank correlation test tables that
give values for combined areas in both tails (Tables V and VI).
Thus, null hypothesis was accepted at all the abovementioned levels of significance.
It can therefore be concluded that for different service types, consumers rate service
quality dimensions differently. This supports Rosen and Karwans (1994) study that
the proposition that one can generically order the quality dimensions (in terms of
relative importance as suggested by Parasuraman et al., 1985) for any firm is
appealing, but is not likely to be supportable. The reasons for this are intuitive from a
strategic operations perspective and are observable when conducting the tests for
relative importance across a truly broad sample of service types.
Subsequently, two-step cluster analysis procedure (Table VII) was deployed to
reveal natural grouping (or clusters) within a data set for each service quality
dimension that would otherwise not be apparent. Similarity between clusters was

Tangibles
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Fees

21
8
10
21
18
7
85

Hospitals and
nursing homes
24.71
9.41
11.76
24.71
21.18
8.24
100

(Percentage
scores)
22
3
10
17
14
6
72

Hotels/restaurants
30.56
4.17
13.89
23.61
19.44
8.33
100

(Percentage
scores)
29
1
1
15
7
8
61

Beauty
salons
47.54
1.64
1.64
24.59
11.48
13.11
100

(Percentage
scores)

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

34
2
2
10
9
4
61

Fitness
centers

Total
106
14
23
63
48
25
279

(Percentage
scores)
55.74
3.28
3.28
16.39
14.75
6.56
100

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
499

Table III.
Example of free-listing
analysis for people
processing services

Table IV.
Summary of results of
free-listing

Total

Information processing

Mental stumli processing

Possesions processing

People processing

Mean
N
Std deviation
Mean
N
Std deviation
Mean
N
Std deviation
Mean
N
Std deviation
Mean
N
Std deviation

39.6375
4
14.45650
19.7450
4
9.82404
8.3425
4
5.36907
6.1925
4
7.00382
18.4794
16
16.25241

TANGIBIL
4.6250
4
3.35770
35.3100
4
8.70993
31.2275
4
2.18013
36.1250
4
10.54644
26.8219
16
14.81482

RELIABIL
7.6425
4
6.08404
6.6575
4
2.22897
8.2575
4
5.40443
9.6175
4
4.36882
8.0438
16
4.39132

RESPONSI

22.3250
4
3.98723
17.4300
4
8.84774
28.4200
4
4.77844
19.3575
4
4.60160
21.8831
16
6.78777

ASSURANC

16.7125
4
4.42072
8.4300
4
5.92166
11.6725
4
2.49090
23.1925
4
8.05730
15.0019
16
7.63478

EMPATHY

500

TYPE

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

9.0600
4
2.82004
12.4475
4
5.49013
12.0700
4
2.93113
5.5100
4
5.40081
9.7719
16
4.84428

FEES

MSQ
17,5

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

computed on the basis of log-likelihood method. The likelihood measure places a

probability distribution on the variables. Continuous variables (tangibility, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, empathy and fees) were assumed to be normally
distributed, while categorical variable (service type) are assumed multinomial.
Further, all variables are assumed to be independent. Empirical internal testing
indicates that the procedure is fairly robust to violations of both the assumption of
independence and the distributional assumptions. One important observation is that
two-way cluster analysis in almost all cases (5 out of 6, barring reliability) resulted in
2 2 distributions of service types.
Once the clusters were obtained, based on Euclidean measure of distance test of
differences between cluster means for small sample sizes was applied to ensure if the
difference in cluster means in significant or not at a 0.05. Results are summarized in
Table VIII.
Tangibility is clearly an important issue with services that require a more visible
action that is people-processing (A) and possession-processing (B) services. Perhaps,
tangible cues buttress tangible actions for these cases. Customers need more tangibility
to identify with services where value is created in their physical presence on the service
process. Since, the presence of customer is not a concern in case of services with an
intangible action, customers of mental-stimuli (C) and information processing (D) have
rated tangibles as low on expectations. Still it must be noted that need for tangibility is
higher as we move from services targeted at possessions to services those are targeted
at people (39.64 (A) . 19.758 (B); 8.34 (C) . 6.19 (D)). Tangibility, therefore, is more
important an issue for universities and cinema halls than for insurance companies and
accounting firms. Thus, tangibility is most important for people processing services
followed by possession processing, mental-stimuli processing and information
processing services in that order.
Respondents from the services selected for the study rated reliability as the most
important service dimension. As in most cases of services, only a post purchase
evaluation is possible, customers expect service processes to be reliable to match their
expectations. In case of this dimension, two-step cluster analysis resulted into two
clusters with people processing services as one cluster and the other three being
included in the second cluster. Respondents for cluster one, are relatively less
concerned about reliability perhaps because tangibility serves as a surrogate for it. All
the others in cluster two rate it as quite important (Mean 34.22, SD 7.12).

People processing
Possession processing
Mental stimuli processing
Information processing

N
6

0.02
0.6000

People
processing

Possession
processing

1.00

20.03
1.00

0.10
0.7714

Mental-stimuli-processing
20.47
0.56
1.00

0.05
0.8286

0.02
0.8857

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
501

Information
processing
20.31
0.26
0.53
1.00

0.01
0.9429

Table V.
Spearmans rank
correlation (rs) test

Table VI.
Spearmans rank
correlation test tables

Table VII.
Clustering of service
types based on service
dimensions
4a
0
4a
4a
0
4
4a
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
4

Notes: aCluster 1, others Cluster 2 for each service dimension

Clusters based on fees

Clusters based on empathy

Clusters based on assurance

Clusters based on responsiveness

Clusters based on reliability

1
2
Combined
1
2
Combined
1
2
Combined
1
2
Combined
1
2
Combined
1
2
Combined

100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0

4a
0
4
0
4
4
0
4
4
0a
4
4
0a
4
4
0a
4
4

100.0a
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0

Possesions
processing
Frequency
Percent
0
4
4
0
4
4
4a
0
4
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
4
4

0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0

Mental stumli
processing
Frequency
Percent

0
4
4
0
4
4
0
4
4
4a
0
4
4a
0
4
4a
0
4

0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0
100.0a
0.0
100.0

Information
processing
Frequency
Percent

502

Clusters based on tangibility

People processing
Frequency
Percent

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

MSQ
17,5

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

Further, as we move towards services that are targeted at possessions of customers,

whereby the presence of customer on the process is not necessary and the services are
carried out largely in back-offices, there is a greater need for reliability of service
process. More reliability is expected as services include intangible actions. Thus,
reliability is very important for information processing services (ATM-deposit, or
ability of your lawyer) followed by possession processing, mental-stimuli processing
and least important in case of people processing services.
Cluster analysis clubbed people- and information-processing as one cluster; and
possession- and mental-stimuli-processing as the second cluster, for assurance
dimension. Test of difference between means of two clusters was administered to
ascertain if there was a significant difference in the means of two clusters. Analysis
suggested null hypothesis to be accepted (Table VIII), that is there was no significant
difference in the means. Subsequently, two clusters ((A, C) and (B, D)) based on
distance of mean values of four service-types were formed and the test for differences
was applied. A t-value of 2.38 (. 2.145 the critical value) was obtained and the alternate
hypothesis was accepted. The difference in means was significant at a 0.05 for one
tailed test (Table IX).
Assurance, the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey
trust and confidence (competence, courtesy, credibility, security) was important for
services targeted at the individual customers necessitating considerable contact
between the employees and customers ((A 22.33) and (C 28.42)). Further, as
the nature of service act grows more intangible the need for greater assurance was felt
(C (28.42) . A (22.33) and D (19.36) . B (17.43)) to reinforce the confidence of
customer. Thus, customers of mental-stimuli-processing services (C) that require
meaningful customer contact and are largely intangible (MBA teaching, management
consulting, etc.), expect greater assurance from service providers. Subsequently, the
importance of assurance decreases in the order: people-processing, information
processing and last the possession processing.
Test of difference of means based on both, the two-step cluster analysis and
distance, for responsiveness, suggested accepting null hypothesis. That is no grouping
of service types was available that results into significant difference to suggest that
responsiveness was more important in any one of service types or groups. In
fact, responsiveness was uniformly considered as less important service dimension by
respondents of all service types (Figure 1). In these times of transition, ours is still a
deficit market economy. The customers are less expectants and waiting time is often
not a big consideration. The customer therefore accepts slothfulness and less
spontaneity in service delivery. This may change as markets mature over time and
customers need to be lured and pampered.
Two-step cluster analysis identified people-processing (A 16.71) and
information-processing (D 23.19) services as one cluster (Mean 19.95,
SD 6.5) where empathy is considered important. In people-processing services
the presence of customer is substantial that requires service providers to make an extra
effort to understand his/her needs and make the stay pleasant. At the other extreme is a
largely intangible service (information processing) to be carried out in back-office away
from the customer. The customers concern is higher-that service be explained to
him/her, and he/she may be understood well before the provider sets out to create the
service. A tangible (visible) service is more certain. Further, if it is targeted at a

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
503

Ho: m1 m2
H1: m1 . m2

H0: m1 m
H1:m1 . m2

Ho: m1 m2
H1:m1 . m2

Ho: m1 m2
H1:m1 . m2

Ho: m1 m2
H1:m1 . m2

Clusters based on
reliability

Clusters based on
responsiveness

Clusters based on
assurance

Clusters based on
empathy

Clusters based on
fees
B, C
A, D

A, D
B, C

A, D
B, C

A, C
B, D

A
B, C, D

A, B
C, D

12.26
7.29

19.95
10.05
8
8

8
8

29.70 8
7.27 8
18.07
4.63 4
34.22 12
26.89
7.95 8
8.14 8
8.19
20.85 8
22.92 8

4.40
4.31

6.50
4.54

4.31
7.12

5.76
3.47

3.36
7.12

12.36
6.24

4.36

5.6

5.86

4.75

6.50

9.79

2.18

2.8

2.93

2.38

3.75

4.90

2.28

3.54

0.706

0.43

7.89

4.58

Accept the alternative

hypothesis

Accept the alternative

hypothesis

Accept null hypothesis; test for

means in descending order

Accept null hypothesis; test for

means in descending order

Accept the alternative

hypothesis

Accept the alternative

hypothesis

t
Cluster
Standard Pooled Standard
membersa Mean n deviation SD
error b statistics Remarks

Notes: aAs shown in Table I, bestimated standard error of the difference between two sample means 29.70, critical value of t statistic at a 0.05, for
g 14 (degrees of freedom) was 2.145

Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Combined
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Combined
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Combined
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Combined
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Combined
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Combined

Ho: m1 m2
H1: m1 . m2

Clusters based on
tangibility

Table VIII.
Cluster details and test of
difference of means
Cluster

504

Hypothesis

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

MSQ
17,5

Clusters based on
assurance

Clusters based on
responsiveness
8.94 8
7.15 8
8.19
25.38 8
18.39 8
21.96

C, D

Ho:m1 m2 Cluster 1

H1:m1 . m2 Cluster 2 A, B
Combined
Ho:m1 m2 Cluster 1 A, C

H1:m1 . m2 Cluster 2 B, D
Combined

Mean n

Cluster
membersa

Hypothesis Cluster

7.05

4.40

4.58

4.91

Standard
deviation

5.88

4.75

Pooled
SD

2.94

2.37

Standard
error b

2.38

0.76

hypothesis

Accept the alternative

Accept null hypothesis

t-statistics Remarks

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
505

Table IX.
Analysis of new cluster
for responsiveness and
assurance

MSQ
17,5

506

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

Figure 1.
Relative importance of
service dimensions

customers possession the trepidation is less. A video repair service engineer may be
less empathic than a lawyer who must appreciate a customers concern and viewpoint.
Similarly, an hotelier must be more conscious of a customers preferences as he/she
stays with him. Thus, empathy is least with possession-processing services (B 8.43).
Mental-stimuli-processing (C 11.67) occupies an intermediate position.
In absence of risk of personal well being (people-processing) or the risk of
information processing the other services are generally available in standardized
modes in near perfect markets (cable operators, telephone companies, retail outlets, dry
cleaning, etc.) The choice of provider therefore gets associated with the monetary cost
of obtaining the service. Prices for information-processing services are very
competitive (bank rates or insurance premium) and therefore the prices of these
have a limited affect on purchase decision making (A 9.06). On the other hand, the
concern for well-being of self is paramount in case of people-processing services and so
the cost of contentment takes a low priority (D 5.4).
Conclusion
One of the major conclusions that can be drawn from this research is that no simple
generalization of relative importance of determinants of service quality is possible.
Thus, it must be noted that importance of determinants of quality for customers would
vary across different service types. This could be expected because different services
are structured and delivered in different contexts and providers consciously position
them at different levels of variables of concern. It may be noted that these variables of
concern are the criterion for classification of services. In this study, these variables
were recipient of service and the nature of service act. It could well be membership
(formal membership vs no formal membership), nature of service delivery (continuous
vs discrete), customization, judgment by contact staff, demand fluctuation, or any other
as deployed by service provider (Chowdhary and Chowdhary, 2005).
As the service providers tend to reposition their service offer along the chosen
variable they must be cautious of the fact that the expectations of their customers
might have changed because of the new promise and structure of service offer. Though
certain trends are visible, yet the researcher would like to draw attention to some of the
precincts of this study. Given the state of competition and market within the different
service industries, following can be concluded:

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

Tangibility is more important for services with more tangible actions. Further,
the importance reduces as one shifts from services targeted at people to service
targeted at possessions.
Need for reliability is more for services with intangible nature of service act.
Services targeted at possessions of the customers will also require more
reliability.
Services targeted at the customer require more assurance than those targeted at
their possessions. Further, more assurance will be needed for services with
intangible act.
Responsiveness did not allow for any kind of clustering. Customers ranked it last
on priority across different service types. Perhaps, they are less expectant for this
service dimension.
Information- and people-processing services require more empathy as compared
to other two types.
Prices were considered relatively more important by consumers of possessionand mental-stimuli processing services.

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
507

Finally, ranks of service dimensions for different service types are given below in
Table X.
It may however be noted that in most cases, the notions of most of the concepts
vary. Different respondents had different connotations of the same word. Say
safety/security; reliability, credibility and assurance; location, accessibility, etc. were
often used interchangeably. Ranking of dimensions also depended on the current state
of the competition in a particular industry and varied from industry to industry within
a service type. While markets have matured for some industries, they are not very
competitive for others. Some, for example, the cable operators, telephony and insurance
till recently, have monopolistic tendencies.
The findings of this study are based on responses of customers from 16 service
types across the four categories. The relative importance of determinants may vary for
different service types but the fact remains that they cannot be generalized. Further,
different service providers may study the relative importance of determinants of
quality for their services as they reposition their offers along criterions other than those
used in this study (Lovelocks (1983) criterions).

Service quality dimension

People
processing

Possession
processing

1
6
5
2
3
4

2
1
6
3
5
4

Mental-stimuli processing

Information
processing

Ranks
Tangibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Fees

5.5
1
5.5
2
4
3

5
1
4
3
2
6

Table X.
Relative ranks of service
quality dimensions

MSQ
17,5

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

508

References
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1985), Quality counts in services, too,
Business Horizons, May-June, pp. 44-52.
Brensinger, R.P. and Lambert, D.M. (1990), Can the SERVQUAL scale be generalized to
business-to-business services?, paper presented at the Summer Marketing Educators
Conference, American Marketing Association.
Buttle, F.A. (1995), What future SERVQUAL, Proceedings of the 24th European Marketing
Academy Conference, Paris, pp. 211-30.
Carman, J.M. (1990), Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Chase, R.B. (1978), Where does the customer fit into the service operation, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 56, pp. 37-42.
Chase, R.B. and Tansik, D.A. (1983), The customer contact model for organizational design,
Management Science, Vol. 1, pp. 037-50.
Chowdhary, N. (2000), Two factors theory: quasi experiments with service quality, in
Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W. et al. (Eds), QUIS 7- Service Quality in the New Economy:
Interdisciplinary and International Dimension, International Service Quality Association
Inc., New York, NY.
Chowdhary, N. and Chowdhary, M. (2005), A Textbook of Marketing of Services The Indian
Experience, Macmillan Indian Ltd, New Delhi.
Chowdhary, N. and Prakash, M. (2001), Service quality: revisiting the two factors theory,
Proceeding of The First International Conference on Electronic Business, Hong Kong,
December 19-21.
Cliff, A. and Ryan, C. (1994), Do travel agencies measure up to customer expectation? An
empirical investigation of travel agencies, service quality as measured by SERVQUAL,
Proceedings of the Tourism Down under Conference, Massey University, Palmerston
North, New Zealand, December, pp. 55-78.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 55-68.
Dawkins, P. and Reichheld, F. (1990), Customer retention as a competitive weapon, Directors
and Boards, Vol. 14, pp. 42-7.
Gronroos, C. (1984), A service quality model and its marketing implications, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Johnston, R. (1995), The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 53-71.
Johnston, R. and Silvestro, R. (1990), The determinants of service quality a customer-based
approach, The Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute Conference, San Diego, CA,
November.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1985), Service quality: a study of quality dimensions, paper
presented at the Second World Marketing Congress, University of Stirling, Stirling.
Lovelock, C. (1983), Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47, pp. 9-20.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), Alternative scales for measuring service
quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-30.
Peter, J., Churchill, G. and Brown, T. (1993), Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer
research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 655-62.
Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.L. Jr (1990), Zero defections: quality comes to services, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-11.
Rosen, L.D. and Karwan, K.R. (1994), Prioritizing the dimensions of service quality: an empirical
investigation and strategic assessment, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 39-52.
Schmenner, R.W. (1986), How can service businesses survive and prosper, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 21-32.
Schneider, B., Wheeler, J.K. and Cox, J.F. (1992), A passion for service: using content analysis to
explicate service climate themes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 705-16.
Spreng, R.A. and Singh, A.K. (1993), An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale and the
relationship between service quality and satisfaction, unpublished paper, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.
Wemmerlov, U. (1990), A taxonomy for service processes and its implications for system
design, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 20-40.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing
Customer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Appendix. Definition of service quality dimensions
Tangibles (TANGIBIL). Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and
communication material, location, access.
Reliability (RELIABIL). Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Responsiveness (RESPONSI). Willingness to help customers and provide prompt services.
Assurance (ASSURANC). Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey
trust and confidence (competence, courtesy, credibility, security).
Empathy (EMPATHY). Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers
(access, communication and understanding of customer).
Fees (FEES). Direct monetary cost of the service.

About the authors

Nimit Chowdhary is presently Professor and Head at School of Management at Mizoram University,
Aizawl. He researches extensively in services and small business. Nimit Chowdhary is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: nimitchowdhary@gmail.com
Monika Prakash is Assistant Professor at School of Management at Mizoram University,
Aizawl.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Prioritizing
service quality
dimensions
509

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Muahmmad Kashif, Sharifah Suzana Wan Shukran, Mohsin Abdul Rehman, Syamsulang Sarifuddin.
2015. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian Islamic banks:a PAKSERV investigation.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 33:1, 23-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Amitava MitraPremium for Service Contracts for Damage Protection 73-87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF]
3. Aki Jskelinen, Harri Laihonen, Antti Lnnqvist. 2014. Distinctive features of service performance
measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:12, 1466-1486. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Olgun Kitapci, Ceylan Akdogan, brahim Taylan Dortyol. 2014. The Impact of Service Quality
Dimensions on Patient Satisfaction, Repurchase Intentions and Word-of-Mouth Communication in the
Public Healthcare Industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 148, 161-169. [CrossRef]
5. S. Ibrahim, M. Othman. 2014. Developing and Validating Halal Service Quality Instrument for Malaysian
Food Service Establishments: A Conceptual Paper. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, 400-408.
[CrossRef]
6. Prodromos Chatzoglou, Dimitrios Chatzoudes, Eftichia Vraimaki, Eleni Leivaditou. 2014. Measuring
Citizen Satisfaction Using the SERVQUAL Approach: The Case of the Hellenic Post. Procedia
Economics and Finance 9, 349-360. [CrossRef]
7. Noorain Mohamad Yunus, Dilla Syadia Ab Latiff, Suryani Che Din, Siti Noorsuriani Maon. 2013.
Patient Satisfaction with Access to 1Malaysia Clinic. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 91, 395-402.
[CrossRef]
8. Prabha Ramseook-Munhurrun, Pushpa Nundlall. 2013. Service quality measurement for secondary school
setting. Quality Assurance in Education 21:4, 387-401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. David Muturi, Jackline Sagwe, Thomas K. Cheruiyot, Loice C. Maru. 2013. Service quality and relative
performance of public universities in East Africa. The TQM Journal 25:5, 533-546. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
10. Dr Haris Doukas, Assistant, Professor Alexandros Flamos, Professor John Psarras, Gilbert E. Chodzaza,
Harry S.H. Gombachika. 2013. Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty among industrial
customers of a public electricity utility in Malawi. International Journal of Energy Sector Management 7:2,
269-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Lova Rajaobelina, Isabelle Brun, lissar Toufaily. 2013. A relational classification of online banking
customers. International Journal of Bank Marketing 31:3, 187-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Olgun Kitapci, Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol, Zhrem Yaman, Mustafa Gulmez. 2013. The paths from service
quality dimensions to customer loyalty. Management Research Review 36:3, 239-255. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
13. Muhammad Usman Awan, Khalid Mahmood. 2013. Development of a service quality model for academic
libraries. Quality & Quantity 47:2, 1093-1103. [CrossRef]
14. Alet C. Erasmus, Andrea Grabowski. 2013. Female customers' expectation of the service offering and
their perception of the service quality in an emerging clothing market. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 37:1, 2-12. [CrossRef]
15. P. Gonzlez-Redondo, P. Garca-Domnguez. 2012. Typification and characterisation of the pheasant
(Phasianus colchicus) game farms in Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10:4, 1005. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia At 05:22 14 February 2015 (PT)

16. Abdul Rahman Jumat, Vaughan Coffey, Martin Skitmore. 2012. Stakeholder service delivery expectations
of military facilities management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 2:2, 146-166.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Ieva Meidut, Michail Litvinenko, Artras Aranskis. 2012. Logistics Cooperation: Integrated Logistics
Services. Verslas: teorija ir praktika 13:4, 343-351. [CrossRef]
18. K. Kiran, S. Diljit. 2012. Modeling Web-based library service quality. Library & Information Science
Research 34:3, 184-196. [CrossRef]
19. Jotham Mbiito Byarugaba, Aihie Osarenkhoe. 2012. Service Quality Perceptions: A Case of Ugandan
Telephony Users. Journal of Relationship Marketing 11:3, 149-171. [CrossRef]
20. Beomjoon Choi, Dennis L. Rosen, Suna La. 2012. The Use of Portraits and Performance Statements of
Service Providers in Marketing Communications. Services Marketing Quarterly 33:1, 1-15. [CrossRef]
21. S.I. Lao, K.L. Choy, G.T.S. Ho, Y.C. Tsim, N.S.H. Chung. 2011. Determination of the success factors
in supply chain networks: a Hong Kongbased manufacturer's perspective. Measuring Business Excellence
15:1, 34-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Ghazali Musa, Thinaranjeney Thirumoorthi. 2011. Red Palm: exploring service quality and servicescape
of the best backpacker hostel in Asia. Current Issues in Tourism 14:2, 103-120. [CrossRef]
23. Barry L.M. Mak. 2011. ISO certification in the tour operator sector. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 23:1, 115-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Angelos Pantouvakis. 2010. The relative importance of service features in explaining customer satisfaction.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 20:4, 366-387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. S.T. Akinyele, K. Olorunleke. 2010. Technology and Service Quality in the Banking Industry: An
Empirical Study of Various Factors in Electronic Banking Services. International Business Management
4:4, 209-221. [CrossRef]
26. Niaz Ahmad, Muhammad Usman Awan, Abdul Raouf, Leigh Sparks. 2009. Development of a service
quality scale for pharmaceutical supply chains. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
Marketing 3:1, 26-45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Birgit Leisen Pollack. 2008. The nature of the service quality and satisfaction relationship. Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal 18:6, 537-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Stephen Graham Saunders. 2008. Measuring and applying the PAKSERV service quality construct.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 18:5, 442-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]