Service quality attributes determine improvement priority

Abstract

Purpose -Although there are many quality measurement theories and models, all are imperfect; that is, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Particularly, some models cannot indicate accurate improvement priorities. The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated performance model that improves service quality and acquires accurate improvement priorities that promote customer satisfaction and eliminate resource wastage. Design/methodology/approach -This study applied a performance matrix and quality loss function (QLF) theory to determine priority items needing improvement. A questionnaire was designed to determine the priority of improvement objectives derived from certain questionnaire items that do not fall into the appropriate performance zone (APZ) of the performance matrix. Finally, the QLF was adopted to rank the improvement objectives in terms of priority. A large QLF area indicates customer satisfaction needs improvement. Findings -This study utilized an employee satisfaction survey to demonstrate this matrix, and found that it reflects the improvement priorities of different items and avoids the shortcomings of other models. In this case study, 11 items must be improved; furthermore, five items with the greatest QLF areas became the priority items for improvement. Originality/value -This performance matrix also considers the items of surplus resource investment, which can be included in improvements, thereby avoiding resource wastage.

Devising appropriate service strategies for customers of different value: an integrated assessment model for the banking industry

“…Other authors have proposed various service-delivery models to enhance service quality for customers, and thus maintain their loyalty (Lambert and Sharma 1990;Hung, Huang, and Chen 2003;Chen, Yang, Lin and Yeh 2007). However, few studies have integrated these two issues (customer identification and improved service-quality models) in a manner that enables firms to differentiate their service strategies effectively.…”

Academic Staff Perceptions of Service Quality Improvement in Ethiopian Public Higher Education Institutions

“…They continue by declaring that the degree of teacher satisfaction has an influence on the performance of the institutions. Greater stakeholder satisfaction leads to an improvement in loyalty, the further consumption of the service and invitations from other stakeholders (Chen, Yang, Lin & Yeh, 2007;Juga & Juntunen, 2010).…”

“…It was also developed in response to a lack of conclusive measuring tools designed for gauging service quality. The SERVQUAL model reveals the gap between customer perceptions and expectations of service quality, in order to determine the perceived service quality and to target these identified gaps for improvement (Parasuraman et al, 1988;Faganel, 2010;Chen et al, 2007;Nadiri, Kandampully & Hussain, 2009;Brysland & Curry, 2001;Chen et al, 2006;Quinn et al, 2009;Wright & O'Neill, 2002).…”

Journey towards World Class Stations: An Assessment of Platform Amenities at Allahabad Junction

“…Further, identifying items only that need improvement is not enough; the priority order of items to be improved must be determined (Chen et al 2007). Hence, to deal with the difficulty of deciding on a particular zone for items falling on a borderline, it was assumed that items were in the Improvement zone if they were on the border of the Improvement and Maintain zones and in the Maintain zone if they were on the border of Maintain and Reduce.…”

“…The original matrix was developed by Lambert and Sharma (1990) and redeveloped by Hung, Huang, and Chen (2003). Importance and satisfaction indices were calculated using the following formula given by Chen et al (2007):…”