2009
DOI: 10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.631-645
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Service Quality Gaps and Their Role in Service Enterprises Development

Abstract: abstract. The study takes into consideration the problem of organizational quality gaps where the quality losses occur. Many service quality gaps are reviewed in this paper. But the four out of five quality gaps by Parasuraman et al. (1985) are examined. The main management problem, according to research achievements, is the gap between managers' perception of customers' expectation and service specifications existing in organizations. In a service organization usually more quality gaps might be identified. Id… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(28 reference statements)
0
28
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous attempts to develop new quality measurement models and/or scales in various sectors (Lovelock, 1994;Bennington & Cummane, 1998;Candido & Morris, 2000;Brady & Cronin, 2001;Luk & Layton, 2002;Getty & Getty, 2003;Chiu & Lin, 2004;Chatterjee & Chatterjee, 2005;Gupta, McDaniel & Herath, 2005;Urban, 2009;Baccarani, Ugolini & Bonfanti, 2010;Durvasula, Lysonshi & Madhavi, 2011;Calabrese & Scoglio, 2012), the Gaps Model remains a reference point in literature about service quality. In addition, new technologies and the increasing awareness of the dynamic nature of services underline the need for an updated analytical perspective which take into consideration the crucial factors for the company evolution in uncertain and more competitive enviroments (Macdonald, Wilson, Martinez & Toosi, 2011;van der Wiele, van Iwaarden, Williams & Eldridge, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous attempts to develop new quality measurement models and/or scales in various sectors (Lovelock, 1994;Bennington & Cummane, 1998;Candido & Morris, 2000;Brady & Cronin, 2001;Luk & Layton, 2002;Getty & Getty, 2003;Chiu & Lin, 2004;Chatterjee & Chatterjee, 2005;Gupta, McDaniel & Herath, 2005;Urban, 2009;Baccarani, Ugolini & Bonfanti, 2010;Durvasula, Lysonshi & Madhavi, 2011;Calabrese & Scoglio, 2012), the Gaps Model remains a reference point in literature about service quality. In addition, new technologies and the increasing awareness of the dynamic nature of services underline the need for an updated analytical perspective which take into consideration the crucial factors for the company evolution in uncertain and more competitive enviroments (Macdonald, Wilson, Martinez & Toosi, 2011;van der Wiele, van Iwaarden, Williams & Eldridge, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two research instruments were used for methodological basis of forming the conceptual interaction model of leader's spiritual intelligence and the service quality of organization: first is King's (2008) SISRI-24 consisting of 24 questions reflecting to four spiritual attributes; second is SERQUAL (Urban, 2009) allowing to identify leader's approaches to the services quality of organizations through evaluating dimensions of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. King's SISRI-24 appeared to better address the cognitive aspects and dimensions of spiritual intelligence supported by the literature (Hildebrant, 2011).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Services are difficult to evaluate as compared to goods/products since they tend to be intangible, the customer is involved in their creation, they are processes and also dependent on the behaviour of the service provider [30]. The most widely accepted and cited service quality model in literature is the GAP model from Parasuraman et al [31]. Service quality, with respect to this model, is widely defined in published literature as the gap between the service expectation by customers from a service provider and actual service perceived to be delivered to the customer by the service provider.…”
Section: Quality Service Quality and Information Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%