1. TRI/SERVQUAL/LibQUAL+TM
A. Parasuraman
University of Miami
Library Assessment and Benchmarking Institute
(LAB 2002)
Monterey, CA
September 13, 2002
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

2. Defining, Assessing, and Measuring Service
Quality: A Conceptual Overview
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 2

3. Multi-Phase, Multi-Sector, Multi-Year
Program of Research to Address the
Following Issues
• How do customers perceive and evaluate service
quality?
• What are managers’ perceptions about service
quality?
• Do discrepancies exist between the perceptions
of customers and those of managers?
• Can customers’ and managers’ perceptions be
combined into a general model of service
quality?
• How can service organizations improve customer
service and achieve excellence?
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 3

4. Determinants of Perceived Service
Quality
Word of Personal Past
Mouth Needs Experience
External
Expected Communication
Service to Customers
Service
Quality Perceived
Gap Service
Quality
Perceived
Service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 4

5. A “GAPS” MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY
CUSTOMER SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Market Organization’s Service
Information Understanding of Standards
Gap Expectations Gap
Customers’
Service Organization’s
Expectations GAP 1 Service Standards
GAP 2
Service Service
Quality GAP 5 Performance
Gap GAP 3 Gap
GAP 4 Organization’s
Customers’ Service
Service Performance
Perceptions
Organization’s Internal
Communications to Communication
Customers Gap
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 5

6. PROCESS MODEL FOR CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
OF SERVICE QUALITY
DO YOUR CUSTOMERS PERCEIVE YES CONTINUE TO MONITOR
YOUR OFFERINGS AS MEETING CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS
OR EXCEEDING THEIR EXPECTATIONS? AND PERCEPTIONS
NO
DO YOU HAVE AN ACCURATE NO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
UNDERSTANDING OF
CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS?
YES
ARE THERE SPECIFIC NO
TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
STANDARDS IN PLACE TO MEET
CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS?
YES
DO YOUR OFFERINGS MEET OR NO
TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
EXCEED THE STANDARDS?
YES
NO
IS THE INFORMATION TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
COMMUNICATED TO CUSTOMERS
ABOUT YOUR OFFERINGS ACCURATE?
YES
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 6

7. SERVQUAL: Development, Refinement, and
Empirical Findings
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 7

8. Determinants of Perceived Service
Quality
Dimensions of Service
Word of Personal Past
Quality Mouth Needs Experience
1. Access
2. Communication
3. Competence
External
4. Courtesy Expected Communication
5. Credibility Service to Customers
6. Reliability
7. Responsiveness Service Perceived
Quality Service
8. Security Gap Quality
9. Tangibles
10. Understanding/Knowing
the Customer Perceived
Service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 8

9. Correspondence between SERVQUAL Dimensions and
Original Ten Dimensions for Evaluating Service Quality
Original Ten SERVQUAL Dimensions
Dimensions for
Evaluating Service
Quality TANGIBLES RELIABILITY RESPONSIVENESS ASSURANCE EMPATHY
TANGIBLES
RELIABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
COMPETENCE
COURTESY
CREDIBILITY
SECURITY
ACCESS
COMMUNICATION
UNDERSTANDING/
KNOWING THE
CUSTOMER
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 9

10. Definitions of the SERVQUAL Dimensions
• Tangibles: Appearance of physical facilities, equipment,
personnel, and communication materials.
• Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service
dependably and accurately.
• Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and
provide prompt service.
• Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and
their ability to inspire trust and confidence.
• Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides
its customers.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 10

11. Relative Importance of Service
Dimensions When Respondents
Allocate 100 Points [Study 1]
RELIABILITY 32%
TANGIBLES 11%
RESPONSIVENESS
22% EMPATHY 16%
ASSURANCE 19%
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 11

12. Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions [Study 2]
Mean Number of Points Allocated out of 100 Points
37 33 32
11 14
23 9 23 21
13 15
18 15
19 18
Computer Manufacturer All Companies Retail Chain
29 28
12 12
23 23
17 18
19 20
Auto Insurer Life Insurer
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 12

13. Mean SERVQUAL Scores by Service Dimension [Study 1]
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
Tangibles Reliability Responsive- Assurance Empathy
ness
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 13

14. Nature of Service Expectations
Level Customers
Desired Service Believe Can and Should Be
Delivered
Zone
of
Tolerance
Minimum Level
Adequate Service Customers Are Willing
to Accept
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 14

15. The Two Levels of Expectations Imply Two
Corresponding Measures of GAP 5:
Measure of Service Perceived Adequate
= -
Adequacy (MSA) Service Service
Measure of Service Perceived Desired
= -
Superiority (MSS) Service Service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 15

16. TWO APPROACHES FOR
MEASURING MSA AND MSS
• Two-Column Format Questionnaire
– Direct measures of MSA and MSS
• Three-Column Format Questionnaire
– Difference-score measures of MSA and MSS
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 16

17. TWO-COLUMN FORMAT
Please think about the quality of service ________ offers compared to the two different levels of
service defined below:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL - the minimum level of service performance you consider
adequate.
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL - the level of service performance you desire.
For each of the following statements, please indicate: (a) how ______’s performance compares
with your minimum service level by circling one of the numbers in the first column; and (b) how
______’s performance compares with your desired service level by circling one of the numbers
in the second column.
Compared to My Minimum Compared to My Desired
Service Level ____’s Service Level ____’s
Service Performance is: Service Performance is:
The No The No
When it comes to … Lower Same Higher Opin- Lower Same Higher Opin-
ion ion
1. Prompt service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N
to policyholders
2. Employees who are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N
consistently courteous
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 17

18. THREE-COLUMN FORMAT
We would like your impressions about ________’s service performance relative to your expectations. Please think
about the two different levels of expectations defined below:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL - the minimum level of service performance you consider
adequate.
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL - the level of service performance you desire.
For each of the following statements, please indicate: (a) your minimum service level by circling one of the numbers
in the first column; and (b) your desired service level by circling one of the numbers in the second column; and (c)
your perception of ___________’s service by circling one of the numbers in the third column.
My Minimum My Desired My Perception
Service Service of ____’s Service
Level is: Level is: Performance is:
No
When it comes to … Low High Low High Low High Opin-
ion
1. Prompt service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N
to policyholders
2. Employees who are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N
consistently courteous
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 18

19. Measurement Error: Percent of
Respondents Answering Incorrectly
Type of Two-Column Three-Column
Company Format Format
Computer
Manufacturer 8.6% 0.6%
Retail Chain 18.2% 1.8%
Auto Insurer 12.2% 1.6%
Life Insurer 9.9% 2.7%
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 19

20. Mean Service Quality Scores
(Combined Across All Companies)
TWO-COLUMN FORMAT THREE-COLUMN FROMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE
SERVQUAL
Dimensions
MSA Scores MSS Scores MSA Scores MSS Scores
Reliability 6.8 5.9 0.2 -1.0
Responsiceness 6.7 5.7 0.3 -1.1
Assurance 6.8 5.9 0.4 -0.9
Empathy 6.5 5.6 0.2 -1.2
Tangibles 7.1 6.4 1.1 -0.2
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 20

21. Revised SERVQUAL Items
Reliability
1. Providing services as promised
2. Dependability in handling customers' service problems
3. Performing services right the first time
4. Providing services at the promised time
5. Keeping customers informed about when services will be performed
Responsiveness
6. Prompt service to customers Tangibles
7. Willingness to help customers 17. Modern equipment
8. Readiness to respond to customers' requests 18. Visually appealing facilities
19. Employees who have a neat, professional appearance
Assurance
20. Visually appealing materials associated with the service
9. Employees who instill confidence in customers
21. Convenient business hours
10. Making customers feel safe in their transactions
11. Employees who are consistently courteous
12. Employees who have the knowledge to answer customer questions
Empathy
13. Giving customers individual attention
14. Employees who deal with customers in a caring fashion
15. Having the customer's best interest at heart
16.Employees who understand the needs of their customers
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 21

22. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
Computer Manufacturer
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 22

23. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
Computer Manufacturer
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 23

24. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
On-Line Services
9
8.4 8.3 8.4 8.3
8
7.0 7.0 7.5
7 7.0 6.8 6.8
6.8 6.7 6.7 6.8
6
5.7
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 24

25. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by
Dimension
Tech-Support Services
9
8.5 8.4
8.3
8 8.1
7 6.9 6.7 6.8
6.6 6.4
6 6.1 6.3 6.3
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 25

26. LIBQUAL+: An Adaptation of SERVQUAL
Source: http://www.arl.org/newsltr/212/libqual.jpg
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 26

27. MULTIPLE METHODS OF LISTENING TO
CUSTOMERS
• Transactional surveys*
• Mystery shopping
• New, declining, and lost-customer surveys
• Focus group interviews
• Customer advisory panels
• Service reviews
• Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry
capture
• Total market surveys*
• Employee field reporting
• Employee surveys
• Service operating data capture
*A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these
methods
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 27

28. The Role Of Technology In Service Delivery:
Electronic Service Quality (e-SQ) and Technology
Readiness (TR)
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 28

29. Technology’s Growing Role in Marketing to
and Serving Customers: Pyramid Model
Company
Internal External
Marketing Marketing
Technology
Employees Customers
Interactive
Marketing
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 29

30. Ongoing Research on e-Service
Quality: Conceptual Framework and
Preliminary Findings
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 30

31. Research Phases and Questions
PHASE 1:
• What is good service on the Web?
• What are the underlying dimensions of
superior electronic service quality (e-SQ?)
• How can e-SQ be conceptualized?
PHASE 2:
• How do these dimensions compare to
those of traditional service quality?
• How can e-SQ be measured and thereby
assessed?
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 31

32. Definition of e-Service
Quality (e-SQ)
e-SQ is the extent to which a
Website facilitates efficient and
effective shopping, purchasing
and delivery of products and
services.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 32

33. Dimensions of e-Service
Quality from Focus Groups
• Access • Responsiveness
• Ease of Navigation • Assurance/Trust
• Efficiency • Price Knowledge
• Customization/ • Site Aesthetics
Personalization • Reliability
• Security/Privacy • Flexibility
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 33

34. Reliability
DEFINITION SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
• Site does not crash
Correct technical • Accurate billing
functioning of the • Accuracy of order
site and the • Accuracy of account
accuracy of service information
promises, billing • Having items in
and product stock
information.
• Truthful information
• Merchandise arrives
on time
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 34

35. Efficiency
DEFINITION SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
• Site is well organized
The site is simple to use, • Site is simple to use
structured properly, • Site provides
and requires a
minimum of information in
information to be reasonable chunks
input by the customer. • Site allows me to click
for more information if
I need it
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 35

36. Means-End Model
Concrete Perceptual Higher-level
Cues Dimensions
Attributes Abstractions
SPECIFIC/ ABSTRACT
CONCRETE
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 36

37. Means-End Model of
e-Service Quality
Concrete Perceptual Higher-Level
Cues Dimensions
Attributes Abstractions
Tab Structuring
Easy to Maneuver
through Site
Site Map
Easy to Find Ease of
Search Engine
What I Need Navigation
Speed of
One-click Ordering
Checkout
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 37

38. Concrete Perceptual Higher-Level
Dimensions
Cues Attributes Abstractions
Access
Ease of
Navigation
Efficiency
Flexibility
Reliability Perceived
e-Service
Personali- Quality
zation
Security/
Privacy
Responsive-
ness
Assurance/
Trust
Site
Aesthetics
Price
Knowledge
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 38

39. Means-End Model of e-Service Quality
Behaviors
Higher-Level Abstractions
Purchase
Dimensions Loyalty
Perceived
Convenience
Perceptual W.O.M
Attributes Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Concrete
Cues
Perceived Perceived
Control Value
Perceived
Price
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 39

40. Conceptual Model for Understanding and Improving e-Service Quality
Customer
Fulfillment
Gap
Customer Customer
Perceived Perceived Purchase/
Web site Web site
e-SQ Value Repurchase
Requirements Experiences
Company Information
Gap
Design and Management’s
Marketing
Operation Beliefs
of the
of the about Customer
Web site
Web site Requirements
Communication Design
Gap Gap

41. e-Service Quality vs. Traditional SQ
• Several dimensions are the same, but specific
attributes underlying them are different
• e-SQ involves some new dimensions
• Empathy -- and other ‘hi-touch’ oriented
attributes -- do not seem to be as critical for e-SQ
except when customers experience problems;
preliminary insights from Phase 2 suggest
differences between regular and recovery e-SQ
• Key drivers of regular e-SQ relate to efficiency,
fulfillment, reliability, and privacy
• Key drivers of recovery e-SQ relate to
responsiveness, real-time access to help, and
compensation
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 41

42. An Important Implication of the
Pyramid Model
An organization’s ability to use
technology effectively in
marketing to and serving
customers critically depends on
the technology readiness of its
customers and employees
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 42

43. What is Technology
Readiness [TR]?
TR refers to “people’s
propensity to embrace
and use new
technologies for
accomplishing goals
in home life and at
work”
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 43

44. Key Insights from Qualitative
Research Studies
• TR doesn’t just refer to possessing technical
skills; TR is much more a function of people’s
beliefs and feelings about technology
• People’s beliefs can be positive about some
aspects of technology but negative about
other aspects
• The relative strengths of the of positive and
negative beliefs determine a person’s
receptivity to technology
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 44

45. Technology-Beliefs Continuum
Resistant to Neutral Receptive to
Technology Technology
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 45

46. Link between Technology Beliefs
and Technology Readiness
High
Technology
Readiness
Medium
Low
Resistant to Neutral Receptive to
Technology Technology
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 46

47. Major Quantitative Research
Studies
• Three “National Technology Readiness Surveys”
[NTRS] in the USA:
– January 1999
– February 2000
– November 2001
– November 2002 [being planned]
• Austrian Technology Readiness Surveys
– February 2001
– October 2002 [being planned]
• Swedish Technology Readiness Survey
– July/August 2002 [data collected; analysis underway]

48. Key Insights from Quantitative
Research Studies
• TR consists of four facets or dimensions that
are fairly independent of one another
• People’s ratings on a set of belief statements
about technology can be combined to create a
reliable and valid measure of TR -- i.e., a
“Technology Readiness Index” [TRI]
• The TRI is a good predictor of people’s
technology-related behaviors and preferences
• A meaningful typology of customers can be
created based on their TR scores on the four
dimensions
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 48

49. Drivers of Technology Readiness
Contributors Optimism Innovativeness
Technology Readiness
Inhibitors Discomfort Insecurity
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 49

50. Definitions of the TR Drivers
• Optimism: Positive view of technology;
belief that it offers increased control,
flexibility and efficiency
• Innovativeness: Tendency to be a
technology pioneer and thought leader
• Discomfort: Perceived lack of control over
technology and a feeling of being
overwhelmed by it
• Insecurity: Distrust of technology and
skepticism about its working properly
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 50

51. TR Scores by Dimension and
Overall TRI
*
4,5
*
4
3,5
*
3
2,5
Mean TR
2
Scores 1,5
1
0,5
0
1 2 3 4 5
OPT. INN. DIS. INS. TRI
US 1999 US 2000 US 2001 Austria 2001
*Austrian and US scores are signifcantly different

52. Characteristics of Technology
Segments
Optimism Innovative- Dis- Insecu-
ness comfort
rity
Explorers High High Low Low
Pioneers High High High High
Skeptics Low Low Low Low
Paranoids High Low High High
Laggards Low Low High High
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 52

53. The Five TR Segments
Differ on Technology
Usage…..
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 53

54. Greater than 50% Ownership/Usage of
Technology-Based Products/Services
(as of 1999)
• Explorers: Computers, cell phones, caller
ID, ATMs, online services,
telephone banking
• Pioneers: Computers, cell phones, caller
ID, ATMs, online services
• Skeptics: Computers, ATMs
• Paranoids: ATMs
• Laggards: None
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 54

55. Pace of Technology Adoption
Timing of 10% penetration rate for Internet
access within each customer segment
Skeptics Laggards
Explorers Pioneers Paranoids
7/95 10/96 5/97 1/98 9/98
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 55

56. New Customer Composition by Age of Techno-
Based Product/Service
First-time Users
Laggards
Paranoids
Skeptics
Pioneers
Explorers
rly
te
La
Ea
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 56

57. In Conclusion, to Deliver Superior Service in Library
Environments:
• Understand customers’ service expectations and how well those
expectations are being met
• Work systematically to remove organizational barriers that lead to
poor customer service -- offline and online
• Recognize and capitalize on the increasing role of technology in
serving customers, but …
• Be cognizant of customers’ and employees’ readiness to embrace
technology-based services
• Recognize that e-service quality as perceived by customers involves
much more than having a state-of-the-art website
• Put in place a solid behind-the-scenes infrastructure -- information
systems, logistics, and human resources -- to deliver what a
website’s façade promises.
• Continuously monitor customers’ and employees’ reactions to and
experiences with your electronic interfaces
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 57

58. Sources of Information about TR and e-SQ
Parasuraman and Colby, Techno-Ready
Marketing: How and Why Your Customers
Adopt Technology, New York: The Free
Press, 2001.
Parasuraman, “Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A Multiple-Item
Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies,”
Journal of Service Research, May 2000, pp. 307-320.
•Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Malhotra, “A Conceptual Framework
for Understanding e-Service Quality: Implications for Future
Research and Managerial Practice,” MSI Monograph, 2000 (Report #
00-115).

59. Thank You!
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 59