Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Conceptual-Model-Of-Service-Quality-A 👈

1. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research
Author(s): A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, Leonard L. Berry
Source: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 41-50
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251430
Accessed: 23/11/2010 00:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org

2. A. Parasuraman,ValarieA. Zeithaml, & LeonardL. Berry
A Conceptual
Model of Service
Quality and Its Implications
for Future Research
The attainment of quality in products and services has become a pivotal concern of the 1980s. While
quality in tangible goods has been described and measured by marketers, quality in services is largely
undefined and unresearched. The authors attempt to rectify this situation by reporting the insights ob-
tained in an extensive exploratory investigation of quality in four service businesses and by developing
a model of service quality. Propositions and recommendations to stimulate future research about service
quality are offered.
"People
wantsomewiseandperceptive
statement
like,
'Qualityis ballet, not hockey.'"-Philip Crosby(1979)
UALITYis an elusiveandindistinct
construct.
Often mistaken for imprecise adjectives like
"goodness,or luxury,or shininess,or weight"(Crosby
1979), qualityand its requirementsare not easily ar-
ticulatedby consumers(Takeuchiand Quelch 1983).
Explicationand measurementof quality also present
problemsfor researchers
(MonroeandKrishnan1983),
who often bypass definitionsand use unidimensional
self-reportmeasuresto capturethe concept (Jacoby,
Olson, andHaddock1973; McConnell 1968; Shapiro
1972).
While the substance and determinants of quality
may be undefined, its importance to firms and con-
sumersis unequivocal.Researchhas demonstrated
the
strategicbenefits of qualityin contributingto market
shareand returnon investment(e.g., Anderson and
Zeithaml1984;Phillips, Chang, andBuzzell 1983) as
well as in lowering manufacturing
costs and improv-
A.Parasuraman
andValarie
A.Zeithaml
areAssociate
Professors
of
Marketing,
andLeonard
L.Berry
is Foley's/Federated
Professor
of Re-
tailing
andMarketing
Studies,
Texas
A&M
University.
Theresearch
re-
ported
inthisarticle
wasmade
possible
byagrant
from
theMarketing
Science
Institute,
Cambridge,
MA.
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 49 (Fall 1985), 41-50.
ingproductivity(Garvin1983). The searchforquality
is arguablythe most importantconsumertrendof the
1980s(Rabin1983)as consumersarenow demanding
higherqualityin productsthanever before (Leonard
and Sasser 1982, Takeuchiand Quelch 1983).
Few academicresearchershave attemptedto de-
fine and model qualitybecause of the difficulties in-
volved in delimiting and measuring the construct.
Moreover,despitethe phenomenalgrowthof the ser-
vice sector, only a handfulof these researchershave
focusedon service quality. We attemptto rectifythis
situationby (1) reviewingthe smallnumberof studies
thathaveinvestigatedservicequality,(2) reporting
the
insightsobtainedin an extensive exploratoryinvesti-
gation of quality in four service businesses, (3) de-
veloping a model of service quality, and (4) offering
propositionsto stimulatefutureresearchabout qual-
ity.
Existing Knowledge about
Service Quality
Effortsin defining and measuringqualityhave come
largelyfrom the goods sector. Accordingto the pre-
vailing Japanese philosophy, quality is "zero de-
fects-doing it right the first time." Crosby (1979)
AConceptual
Model
of Service
Quality
/ 41

3. defines quality as "conformanceto requirements."
Garvin(1983) measuresquality by counting the in-
cidence of "internal"failures (those observedbefore
a productleaves the factory) and "external"failures
(those incurredin the field after a unit has been in-
stalled).
Knowledge about goods quality, however, is in-
sufficient to understandservice quality. Three well-
documentedcharacteristics
of services-intangibility,
heterogeneity,and inseparability-must be acknowl-
edged for a full understanding
of service quality.
First,most services areintangible(Bateson 1977,
Berry1980, Lovelock 1981, Shostak1977). Because
they are performancesrather than objects, precise
manufacturing
specifications
concerning
uniformquality
can rarelybe set. Most services cannot be counted,
measured,inventoried,tested, andverifiedin advance
of sale to assurequality.Because of intangibility,the
firm may find it difficult to understandhow con-
sumers perceive their services and evaluate service
quality(Zeithaml1981).
Second, services, especially those with a high la-
borcontent,areheterogeneous:
theirperformance
often
varies from producerto producer,from customerto
customer, and from day to day. Consistency of be-
haviorfrom service personnel(i.e., uniformquality)
is difficultto assure(Booms andBitner1981)because
whatthe firm intendsto deliver may be entirelydif-
ferentfrom what the consumerreceives.
Third, productionand consumptionof many ser-
vices are inseparable(Carmenand Langeard 1980,
Gronroos1978, Regan 1963, Upah 1980). As a con-
sequence, qualityin services is not engineeredat the
manufacturing
plant, thendeliveredintactto the con-
sumer.In laborintensiveservices, for example, qual-
ity occurs during service delivery, usually in an in-
teraction
betweentheclientandthecontactpersonfrom
the service firm (Lehtinenand Lehtinen 1982). The
servicefirmmayalsohaveless managerial
controlover
qualityin serviceswhereconsumerparticipation
is in-
tense(e.g., haircuts,doctor'svisits) becausethe client
affectstheprocess. Inthesesituations,theconsumer's
input(descriptionof how the haircutshouldlook, de-
scriptionof symptoms)becomes criticalto the quality
of service performance.
Servicequalityhasbeen discussedin only a hand-
ful of writings (Gronroos1982; Lehtinenand Lehti-
nen 1982;Lewis andBooms 1983;Sasser,Olsen, and
Wyckoff1978).Examination
of thesewritingsandother
literature
on servicessuggeststhreeunderlying
themes:
* Service quality is more difficult for the con-
sumerto evaluatethangoods quality.
* Service qualityperceptionsresult from a com-
parison of consumer expectations with actual
service performance.
* Qualityevaluationsare not made solely on the
outcome of a service; they also involve evalu-
ationsof theprocess of service delivery.
Service QualityMore Difficultto Evaluate
Whenpurchasinggoods, the consumeremploysmany
tangiblecues to judge quality:style, hardness,color,
label, feel, package, fit. When purchasingservices,
fewertangiblecues exist. In mostcases, tangibleevi-
denceis limitedto the service provider'sphysical fa-
cilities, equipment,andpersonnel.
In the absence of tangible evidence on which to
evaluatequality,consumers
mustdependon othercues.
The natureof these othercues has not been investi-
gated by researchers, although some authors have
suggestedthat price becomes a pivotal quality indi-
cator in situations where other information is not
available(McConnell 1968, Olander1970, Zeithaml
1981). Because of service intangibility, a firm may
find it more difficult to understandhow consumers
perceive services and service quality. "Whena ser-
vice providerknows how [the service] will be eval-
uatedby the consumer, we will be able to suggest
how to influencethese evaluationsin a desireddirec-
tion"(Gronroos1982).
QualityIs a Comparisonbetween
Expectationsand Performance
Researchers
andmanagersof servicefirmsconcurthat
servicequalityinvolves a comparisonof expectations
with performance:
Servicequalityis a measureof how well theservice
level deliveredmatchescustomerexpectations.De-
liveringqualityservice means conformingto cus-
tomerexpectations
on a consistentbasis.(Lewisand
Booms1983)
Inline withthisthinking,Gronroos(1982) developed
a modelin whichhe contendsthatconsumerscompare
theservicetheyexpectwithperceptionsof the service
they receive in evaluatingservice quality.
Smith and Houston (1982) claimed that satisfac-
tion with services is related to confirmationor dis-
confirmationof expectations. They based their re-
search on the disconfirmation paradigm, which
maintainsthat satisfactionis relatedto the size and
directionof thedisconfirmation
experiencewheredis-
confirmationis relatedto the person's initial expec-
tations(Churchilland Suprenaut1982).
QualityEvaluationsInvolve Outcomes and
Processes
Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978) discussed three
differentdimensionsof serviceperformance:
levels of
material,facilities, andpersonnel.Impliedin this tri-
chotomyis thenotionthatservicequalityinvolvesmore
thanoutcome;it also includes the mannerin which
42 / Journal
ofMarketing,
Fall1985

4. the service is delivered. This notion surfacesin other
researchon service quality as well.
Gronroos,for example, postulatedthattwo types
of service quality exist: technical quality, which in-
volves what the customeris actually receiving from
theservice, andfunctionalquality,whichinvolves the
mannerin which the service is delivered (Gronroos
1982).
Lehtinenand Lehtinen's (1982) basic premise is
thatservice qualityis producedin the interactionbe-
tween a customerand elements in the service orga-
nization.They use threequalitydimensions:physical
quality,whichincludesthephysicalaspectsof the ser-
vice (e.g., equipmentor building);corporatequality,
which involves the company's image or profile; and
interactivequality,whichderivesfromthe interaction
between contact personnel and customersas well as
between some customersand other customers. They
further
differentiate
betweenthe qualityassociatedwith
the process of service delivery and the quality asso-
ciatedwith the outcome of the service.
ExploratoryInvestigation
Becausethe literature
on servicequalityis not yet rich
enoughto providea soundconceptualfoundationfor
investigatingservice quality, an exploratoryqualita-
tive study was undertakento investigate the concept
of service quality. Specifically, focus group inter-
views with consumers and in-depth interviews with
executives were conducted to develop a conceptual
model of service quality. The approachused is con-
sistent with proceduresrecommendedfor marketing
theory development by several scholars (Deshpande
1983;PeterandOlson 1983;Zaltman,LeMasters,and
Heffring 1982).
In-depthinterviews of executives in four nation-
ally recognizedservice firms anda set of focus group
interviewsof consumerswere conductedto gain in-
sights aboutthe following questions:
* Whatdo managersof service firms perceive to
be the key attributesof service quality? What
problems and tasks are involved in providing
high quality service?
* Whatdo consumersperceive to be the key at-
tributesof qualityin services?
* Do discrepanciesexist between the perceptions
of consumersand service marketers?
* Can consumer and marketer perceptions be
combinedin a generalmodel thatexplains ser-
vice qualityfrom the consumer's standpoint?
Service Categories Investigated
Fourservicecategorieswere chosen for investigation:
retailbanking, credit card, securitiesbrokerage,and
productrepairandmaintenance.While this set of ser-
vice businessesis notexhaustive,it representsa cross-
sectionof industrieswhichvaryalongkey dimensions
used to categorize services (Lovelock 1980, 1983).
Forexample, retailbankingand securitiesbrokerage
servicesaremore"highcontactservices"thantheother
two types. The natureand results of the service act
aremoretangiblefor productrepairand maintenance
services than for the other three types. In terms of
servicedelivery,discretetransactions
characterize
credit
cardservicesandproductrepairandmaintenanceser-
vices to a greaterextent than the othertwo types of
services.
ExecutiveInterviews
A nationallyrecognized company from each of the
four service businesses participatedin the study. In-
depth personal interviews comprised of open-ended
questionswere conductedwith three or four execu-
tives in each firm. The executives were selected from
marketing,operations,senior management,and cus-
tomerrelationsbecauseeachof theseareascouldhave
animpacton qualityin servicefirms.Therespondents
heldtitles suchas president,seniorvice president,di-
rector of customer relations, and manager of con-
sumermarketresearch.Fourteenexecutives were in-
terviewedabouta broadrangeof servicequalityissues
(e.g., whatthey perceivedto be service qualityfrom
the consumer'sperspective, what steps they took to
controlorimproveservicequality,andwhatproblems
they faced in deliveringhigh qualityservices).
Focus GroupInterviews
A total of 12 focus groupinterviewswas conducted,
threefor each of the four selected services. Eight of
the focus groupswere held in a metropolitanareain
the southwest.The remainingfourwere conductedin
the vicinityof the participating
companies'headquar-
tersandwerethereforespreadacrossthe country:one
on the West Coast, one in the Midwest, and two in
the East.
The focus groupswere formedin accordancewith
guidelinestraditionallyfollowed in the marketingre-
search field (Bellenger, Berhardt, and Goldstucker
1976). Respondentswere screenedto ensurethatthey
werecurrentorrecentusersof the servicein question.
To maintainhomogeneity and assure maximumpar-
ticipation,respondentswere assignedto groupsbased
on age and sex. Six of the twelve groups included
only males and six included only females. At least
one male group and one female group were inter-
viewed for each of the four services. Consistencyin
age was maintainedwithin groups;however, age di-
versity across groups for each service category was
established
to ascertain
the viewpointsof a broadcross
section of consumers.
AConceptual
Model
of Service
Quality
/ 43

5. Identitiesof participatingfirms were not revealed
to focus groupparticipants.Discussion aboutquality
of a given service centeredon consumerexperiences
andperceptionsrelatingto thatservice in general, as
opposedto the specificserviceof the participating
firm
in thatservicecategory.Questionsaskedby the mod-
eratorcoveredtopics suchas instancesof andreasons
for satisfactionand dissatisfactionwith the service;
descriptionsof an ideal service (e.g., ideal bank or
idealcreditcard);the meaningof servicequality;fac-
tors importantin evaluating service quality; perfor-
mance expectationsconcerning the service; and the
role of price in service quality.
Insights from Exploratory
Investigation
ExecutiveInterviews
Remarkably
consistentpatternsemergedfromthe four
sets of executive interviews. While some perceptions
about service quality were specific to the industries
selected, commonalities among the industries pre-
vailed. The commonalitiesare encouragingfor they
suggestthata generalmodelof servicequalitycan be
developed.
Perhapsthe most importantinsightobtainedfrom
analyzingthe executive responsesis the following:
A set of key discrepancies or gaps exists re-
garding executive perceptions of service qual-
ity and the tasks associated with service de-
livery to consumers. These gaps can be major
hurdles in attemptingto deliver a service which
consumers would perceive as being of high
quality.
The gaps revealedby the executive interviewsare
shown in the lower portion (i.e., the MARKETER
side)
of Figure 1. This figure summarizesthe key insights
gained(throughthe focus groupas well as executive
interviews)about the concept of service quality and
factorsaffectingit. The remainderof this section dis-
cusses the gaps on the service marketer'sside (GAPI,
GAP2, GAP3, and GAP4) and presentspropositionsim-
plied by those gaps. The consumer'sside of the ser-
vice qualitymodelin Figure I is discussedin the next
section.
Consumer expectation-management perception gap
(GAPI): Many of the executive perceptions about what
consumersexpect in a qualityservice were congruent
with the consumerexpectationsrevealedin the focus
groups. However, discrepancies between executive
perceptionsandconsumerexpectationsexisted, as il-
lustratedby the following examples:
FIGURE
1
Service Quality Model
CONSUMER
* Privacy or confidentiality during transactions
emergedas a pivotal quality attributein every
bankingand securitiesbrokeragefocus group.
Rarelywas this considerationmentionedin the
executive interviews.
* Thephysicalandsecurityfeaturesof creditcards
(e.g., the likelihood that unauthorizedpeople
could use the cards) generatedsubstantialdis-
cussion in the focus group interviews but did
not emerge as critical in the executive inter-
views.
* Theproduct
repairandmaintenance
focusgroups
indicatedthat a large repairservice firm was
unlikely to be viewed as a high quality firm.
Small independentrepair firms were consis-
tentlyassociatedwith high quality. In contrast,
mostexecutivecommentsindicatedthata firm's
size would signal strengthin a qualitycontext.
In essence, service firm executives may not always
understand
whatfeaturesconnotehigh qualityto con-
sumersin advance,whatfeaturesa service musthave
in orderto meet consumerneeds, and what levels of
performanceon those featuresare needed to deliver
high quality service. This insight is consistent with
previousresearchin services, whichsuggeststhatser-
vice marketersmay not always understandwhatcon-
sumersexpect in a service (Langeardet al. 1981, Pa-
rasuraman
and Zeithaml 1982). This lack of under-
44 / Journal
ofMarketing,
Fall1985
I

6. standingmay affectqualityperceptionsof consumers:
Proposition1: The gap between consumer
expectationsand management
perceptionsof those expecta-
tions will have an impact on
the consumer's evaluation of
service quality.
Management perception-service quality specifi-
cation gap (GAP2):A recurring theme in the executive
interviewsin all four service firms was the difficulty
experienced in attemptingto match or exceed con-
sumerexpectations.Executivescited constraints
which
preventthem from delivering what the consumerex-
pects. As an example, executives in the repairservice
firm were fully awarethatconsumersview quick re-
sponse to appliancebreakdownsas a vital ingredient
of highqualityservice. However, they find it difficult
to establish specifications to deliver quick response
consistentlybecause of a lack of trainedservice per-
sonnel and wide fluctuationsin demand. As one ex-
ecutive observed, peak demandfor repairingair con-
ditionersand lawnmowersoccurs duringthe summer
months, precisely when most service personnelwant
to go on vacation. In this and numerousother situa-
tions, knowledgeof consumerexpectationsexists but
the perceivedmeansto deliverto expectationsappar-
ently do not.
Apartfrom resource and marketconstraints,an-
otherreasonfor the gap betweenexpectationsandthe
actualset of specificationsestablishedfor a service is
the absenceof total managementcommitmentto ser-
vice quality. Althoughthe executive interviewsindi-
cated a genuine concern for quality on the part of
managersinterviewed,this concern may not be gen-
eralizableto all service firms. In discussing product
quality, Garvin (1983) stated: ". .. the seriousness
that managementattachedto quality problems [var-
ies]. It's one thing to say you believe in defect-free
products,but quite anotherto take time from a busy
scheduleto act on thatbelief and stay informed"(p.
68). Garvin'sobservationsare likely to apply to ser-
vice businessesas well.
In short, a variety of factors-resource con-
straints,marketconditions, and/or managementin-
difference-may result in a discrepancy between
management
perceptions
of consumerexpectationsand
theactualspecificationsestablishedfora service. This
discrepancyis predictedto affect qualityperceptions
of consumers:
Proposition2: The gap between management
perceptions of consumer ex-
pectations and the firm's ser-
vice qualityspecificationswill
affect service qualityfrom the
consumer'sviewpoint.
Service quality specifications-service delivery gap
(GAP3): Even when guidelines exist for performing
services well and treatingconsumerscorrectly, high
quality service performancemay not be a certainty.
Executivesrecognizethata service firm's employees
exert a strong influence on the service quality per-
ceived by consumersand thatemployee performance
cannot always be standardized. When asked what
causes service quality problems, executives consis-
tentlymentionedthe pivotalroleof contactpersonnel.
Inthe repairand maintenancefirm, for example, one
executive's immediateresponse to the source of ser-
vice quality problems was, "Everythinginvolves a
person-a repairperson.It's so hardto maintainstan-
dardizedquality."
Each of the four firms had formal standardsor
specifications for maintainingservice quality (e.g.,
answerat least 90% of phone calls from consumers
within 10 seconds; keep errorrates in statementsbe-
low 1%). However, each firm reported difficulty in
adheringto these standardsbecause of variabilityin
employeeperformance.This problemleads to a third
proposition:
Proposition3: The gap betweenservice qual-
ity specifications and actual
service delivery will affect
service quality from the con-
sumer's standpoint.
Service delivery-external communications gap
(GAP4): Media advertising and other communications
by a firmcan affect consumerexpectations.If expec-
tationsplay a majorrole in consumerperceptionsof
service quality (as the services literaturecontends),
the firmmustbe certainnot to promisemore in com-
municationsthan it can deliver in reality. Promising
morethancan be deliveredwill raise initialexpecta-
tionsbutlowerperceptionsof qualitywhen the prom-
ises arenot fulfilled.
The executive interviewssuggest anotherperhaps
more intriguingway in which external communica-
tions could influence service quality perceptionsby
consumers.This occurs when companies neglect to
informconsumersof special efforts to assurequality
thatare not visible to consumers.Commentsof sev-
eralexecutivesimpliedthatconsumersarenot always
awareof everythingdone behindthe scenes to serve
themwell.
For instance, a securities brokerage executive
mentioned
a "48-hour
rule"prohibiting
employeesfrom
buyingor selling securitiesfor theirpersonalaccounts
for the first48 hoursafterinformationis suppliedby
the firm. The firm did not communicatethis infor-
mationto its customers,perhapscontributingto a per-
ceptionthat"allthe good deals areprobablymadeby
the brokersfor themselves"(a perceptionwhich sur-
AConceptual
Model
ofService
Quality
/ 45

7. faced in the securitiesbrokeragefocus groups). One
bank executive indicated that consumers were un-
awareof the bank'sbehindthe counter,on-line teller
terminalswhich would "translateinto visible effects
on customerservice."Makingconsumersawareof not
readilyapparent
servicerelatedstandards
suchas these
couldimproveservicequalityperceptions.Consumers
who are awarethata firm is takingconcretesteps to
serve theirbest interestsare likely to perceive a de-
liveredservice in a more favorableway.
In short, externalcommunicationscan affect not
only consumerexpectationsabout a service but also
consumerperceptionsof the deliveredservice. Alter-
natively, discrepanciesbetween service delivery and
externalcommunications-in theformof exaggerated
promisesand/or theabsenceof informationaboutser-
vice delivery aspects intended to serve consumers
well-can affect consumer perceptions of service
quality.
Proposition4: The gap between actual ser-
vice delivery and external
communicationsaboutthe ser-
vice will affect service quality
froma consumer'sstandpoint.
Focus GroupInterviews
As was trueof theexecutiveinterviews,theresponses
of focus groupparticipants
aboutservicequalitywere
remarkablyconsistent across groups and across ser-
vice businesses. While some service-specific differ-
ences were revealed, common themes emerged-
themes which offer valuable insights about service
qualityperceptionsof consumers.
Expected service-perceived service gap (GAP5):
Thefocusgroupsunambiguouslysupportedthe notion
thatthe key to ensuringgood service qualityis meet-
ing orexceedingwhatconsumersexpect fromthe ser-
vice. Onefemaleparticipant
describeda situationwhen
a repairmannot only fixed her brokenappliancebut
alsoexplainedwhathadgonewrongandhow shecould
fix it herself if a similarproblemoccurredin the fu-
ture.She ratedthequalityof this serviceexcellent be-
cause it exceeded her expectations. A male respond-
ent in a bankingservices focus group describedthe
frustration
he felt when his bank would not cash his
payrollcheck from a nationallyknown employerbe-
cause it was postdatedby one day. When someone
else in the group pointed out legal constraintspre-
venting the bank from cashing his check, he re-
sponded,"Well,nobodyin the bankexplainedthatto
me!" Not receiving an explanationin the bank, this
respondent
perceivedthatthebankwas unwillingrather
thanunable to cash the check. This in turnresulted
in a perceptionof poor service quality.
Similarexperiences, both positive and negative,
weredescribedby consumersin every focus group. It
appearsthatjudgmentsof highandlow servicequality
dependon how consumersperceivethe actualservice
performancein the context of what they expected.
Proposition5: The quality that a consumer
perceives in a service is a
functionof the magnitudeand
direction of the gap between
expected service and per-
ceived service.
A Service Quality Model
Insightsobtainedfrom the executive interviews and
the focus groupsform the basis of a model summa-
rizing the natureand determinantsof service quality
as perceived by consumers. The foundationof this
model is the set of gaps discussed earlierand shown
in Figure 1. Service quality as perceived by a con-
sumerdependson thesize anddirection
of GAP5which,
in turn,dependson the natureof the gaps associated
with the design, marketing,and deliveryof services:
services:
Proposition6: GAPS = f(GAPl,GAP2,GAP3,GAP4)
It is importantto note that the gaps on the mar-
keterside of the equationcan be favorableor unfa-
vorablefrom a service quality perspective. That is,
the magnitudeand directionof each gap will have an
impact on service quality. For instance, GAP3 will be
favorablewhen actualservice delivery exceeds spec-
ifications;it will be unfavorablewhen service speci-
ficationsare not met. While proposition6 suggests a
relationshipbetween service quality as perceived by
consumersand the gaps occurringon the marketer's
side, the functionalform of the relationshipneeds to
be investigated.This point is discussed furtherin the
last section dealing with futureresearchdirections.
The Perceived Service Quality Component
Thefocus groupsrevealedthat,regardlessof the type
of service, consumersused basically similar criteria
in evaluatingservice quality. These criteriaseem to
fall into 10 key categorieswhich arelabeled "service
qualitydeterminants"and describedin Table 1. For
each determinant,Table 1 providesexamples of ser-
vice specificcriteriathatemergedin thefocus groups.
Table 1 is not meantto suggest that the 10 determi-
nantsare non-overlapping.Because the researchwas
exploratory,measurementof possible overlap across
the 10 criteria(as well as determinationof whether
some can be combined) must await futureempirical
investigation.
The consumer'sview of service qualityis shown
in the upperpartof Figure 1 andfurtherelaboratedin
46 / Journal
ofMarketing,
Fall1985

8. TABLE1
Determinants of Service Quality
RELIABILITY
involves consistency of performance and dependability.
It means that the firm performs the service right the first time.
Italso means that the firm honors its promises. Specifically, it involves:
-accuracy in billing;
-keeping records correctly;
-performing the service at the designated time.
RESPONSIVENESS concerns the willingness or readiness of employees to provide service. It involves timeliness of ser-
vice:
-mailing a transaction slip immediately;
-calling the customer back quickly;
-giving prompt service (e.g., setting up appointments quickly).
COMPETENCE
means possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service. It involves:
-knowledge and skill of the contact personnel;
-knowledge and skill of operational support personnel;
-research capability of the organization, e.g., securities brokerage firm.
ACCESS
involves approachability and ease of contact. It means:
-the service is easily accessible by telephone (lines are not busy and they don't put you on hold);
-waiting time to receive service (e.g., at a bank) is not extensive;
-convenient hours of operation;
-convenient location of service facility.
COURTESY
involves politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel (including receptionists,
telephone operators, etc.). It includes:
-consideration for the consumer's property (e.g., no muddy shoes on the carpet);
-clean and neat appearance of public contact personnel.
COMMUNICATION
means keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them. It may
mean that the company has to adjust its language for different consumers-increasing the level of sophistication
with a well-educated customer and speaking simply and plainly with a novice. It involves:
-explaining the service itself;
-explaining how much the service will cost;
-explaining the trade-offs between service and cost;
-assuring the consumer that a problem will be handled.
CREDIBILITY
involves trustworthiness, believability, honesty. It involves having the customer's best interests at heart.
Contributingto credibility are:
-company name;
-company reputation;
-personal characteristics of the contact personnel;
-the degree of hard sell involved in interactions with the customer.
SECURITY is the freedom from danger, risk, or doubt. It involves:
-physical safety (WillI get mugged at the automatic teller machine?);
-financial security (Does the company know where my stock certificate is?);
-confidentiality (Are my dealings with the company private?).
UNDERSTANDING/KNOWING THE CUSTOMER involves making the effort to understand the customer's needs. It involves:
-learning the customer's specific requirements;
-providing individualized attention;
-recognizing the regular customer.
TANGIBLES
include the physical evidence of the service:
-physical facilities;
-appearance of personnel;
-tools or equipment used to provide the service;
-physical representations of the service, such as a plastic credit card or a bank statement;
-other customers in the service facility.
Figure 2. Figure 2 indicates that perceived service portance vis-a-vis consumer perceptions of the deliv-
quality is the result of the consumer's comparison of ered service. However, the general comparison of ex-
expected service with perceived service. It is quite pections with perceptions was suggested in past research
possible that the relative importance of the 10 deter- on service quality (Gronroos 1982, Lehtinen and Leh-
minants in molding consumer expectations (prior to tinen 1982) and supported in the focus group inter-
service delivery) may differ from their relative im- views with consumers. The comparison of expected
A ConceptualModelof ServiceQuality/ 47

9. FIGURE
2
Determinants of Perceived Service Quality
andperceivedservice is not unlikethatperformedby
consumerswhen evaluatinggoods. Whatdiffers with
servicesis the natureof the characteristics
uponwhich
they areevaluated.
One frameworkfor isolating differences in eval-
uationof quality for goods and services is the clas-
sificationof propertiesof goods proposedby Nelson
(1974) and Darby and Karni (1973). Nelson distin-
guishedbetweentwo categoriesof propertiesof con-
sumer goods: search properties, attributeswhich a
consumercan determinepriorto purchasinga prod-
uct, and experienceproperties, attributeswhich can
only be discernedafterpurchaseor duringconsump-
tion. Searchproperties
includeattributes
suchas color,
style, price, fit, feel, hardness,and smell, while ex-
perienceproperties
includecharacteristics
suchas taste,
wearability,and dependability.
Darbyand Kari (1973) added to Nelson's two-
way classificationsystem a thirdcategory, credence
properties-characteristics which the consumermay
find impossible to evaluate even after purchaseand
consumption.Examplesof offeringshigh in credence
properties
includeappendectomiesandbrakerelinings
on automobiles.Few consumerspossess medical or
mechanicalskills sufficientto evaluatewhetherthese
servicesarenecessaryor areperformed
properly,even
afterthey have been prescribedand producedby the
seller.
Consumersin the focus groupsmentionedsearch,
experience, and credence propertieswhen asked to
describeanddefine service quality. These aspects of
servicequalitycan be categorizedinto the 10 service
qualitydeterminants
shown in Table 1 andcan be ar-
rayedalong a continuumrangingfrom easy to eval-
uate to difficultto evaluate.
In general,offeringshigh in searchpropertiesare
easiestto evaluate,thosehighin experienceproperties
moredifficultto evaluate, andthose high in credence
propertieshardestto evaluate. Most services contain
few searchpropertiesand are high in experienceand
credenceproperties,makingtheirqualitymore diffi-
cultto evaluatethanqualityof goods (Zeithaml1981).
Only two of the ten determinants-tangibles and
credibility-can be known in advance of purchase,
therebymakingthe numberof searchpropertiesfew.
Most of the dimensionsof service qualitymentioned
by thefocus groupparticipants
wereexperienceprop-
erties: access, courtesy, reliability, responsiveness,
understanding/knowingthe customer, and commu-
nication.Eachof thesedeterminants
canonlybe known
as the customeris purchasingor consumingthe ser-
vice. Whilecustomersmay possess some information
basedon theirexperienceoron othercustomers'eval-
uations, they are likely to reevaluatethese determi-
nantseach time a purchaseis made because of the
heterogeneityof services.
Two of the determinants
thatsurfacedin the focus
group interviews probablyfall into the category of
credence properties,those which consumers cannot
evaluateeven afterpurchaseandconsumption.These
includecompetence(thepossessionof therequired
skills
and knowledge to performthe service) and security
(freedomfromdanger,risk, or doubt).Consumersare
probablynever certainof these attributes,even after
consumptionof the service.
Because few searchpropertiesexist with services
and because credence propertiesare too difficult to
evaluate,the following is proposed:
Proposition7: Consumers typically rely on
experience properties when
evaluatingservice quality.
Based on insights from the present study, per-
ceived servicequalityis furtherpositedto exist along
a continuumrangingfrom ideal qualityto totally un-
acceptablequality, with some pointalong the contin-
uumrepresentingsatisfactoryquality. The positionof
a consumer'sperceptionof servicequalityon thecon-
tinuumdependson the natureof the discrepancybe-
tweentheexpectedservice(ES) andperceivedservice
(PS):
Proposition8: (a) When ES > PS, perceived
qualityis less thansatisfactory
and will tend toward totally
unacceptablequality, with in-
creased discrepancy between
ES andPS; (b) whenES = PS,
perceived quality is satisfac-
tory; (c) when ES < PS, per-
ceived quality is more than
48 / Journal
ofMarketing,
Fall1985

10. satisfactoryand will tend to-
ward ideal quality, with in-
creased discrepancy between
ES and PS.
Directionsfor FutureResearch
The proposedservice quality model (Figure 1) pro-
vides a conceptualframeworkin an areawhere little
priorresearchhas been done. It is based on an inter-
pretationof qualitativedatageneratedthrougha num-
berof in-depthexecutive interviewsandconsumerfo-
cus groups-an approachconsistent with procedures
recommended
for marketingtheorydevelopment.The
conceptualmodelandthe propositionsemergingfrom
it imply a rich agendafor furtherresearch.
First,thereis a needandanopportunity
to develop
a standardinstrumentto measureconsumers' service
qualityperceptions.The authors'exploratoryresearch
revealed 10 evaluative dimensions or criteriawhich
transcenda varietyof services (Table 1). Researchis
now needed to generateitems or statementsto flesh
out the 10 dimensions, to devise appropriaterating
scalesto measureconsumers'perceptionswithrespect
to each statement,and to condense the set of state-
ments to produce a reliable and comprehensivebut
concise instrument.Further,the statementsgenerated
shouldbe suchthatwithappropriate
changesin word-
ing, the same instrumentcan be used to measureper-
ceived qualityfor a varietyof services.
Second,themainthesisof theservicequalitymodel
is thatconsumers'qualityperceptionsare influenced
by a series of distinctgaps occurringon the market-
ers' side. A key challengefor researchersis to devise
methodsto measure these gaps accurately. Reliable
andvalidmeasuresof these gaps will be necessaryfor
empirically testing the propositions implied by the
model.
Third, researchis needed to examine the nature
of the association between service quality as per-
ceived by consumersandits determinants
(GAPS1-4).
Specifically, areone or moreof these gaps morecrit-
ical thanthe othersin affectingquality?Can creating
one "favorable"gap-e.g., making GAP4favorable
by employing effective external communicationsto
createrealisticconsumerexpectationsandto enhance
consumer perceptions-offset service quality prob-
lems stemmingfromothergaps?Aretheredifferences
across service industriesregardingthe relative seri-
ousness of service quality problemsand their impact
on qualityas perceivedby consumers?In additionto
offering valuable managerial insights, answers to
questions like these may suggest refinementsto the
proposedmodel.
Fourth,the usefulness of segmenting consumers
on the basis of their service quality expectations is
worthexploring. Although the focus groups consis-
tently revealed similar criteria for judging service
quality, the group participants differed on the relative
importance of those criteria to them, and their expec-
tations along the various quality dimensions. Empir-
ical researchaimed at determiningwhether distinct,
identifiable service quality segments exist will be
valuablefrom a service marketer'sviewpoint. In this
regard,it will be useful to buildinto the service qual-
ity measurement
instrumentcertainstatementsfor as-
certainingwhether, and in what ways, consumerex-
pectationsdiffer.
Fifth, as shown by Figure 1, expected service-a
critical component of perceived service quality-in
additionto being influenced by a marketer'scom-
munications,is shapedby word-of-mouthcommuni-
cations, personal needs, and past experience. Re-
searchfocusingon the relativeimpactof these factors
on consumers'service expectations,withinas well as
acrossservicecategories,will have useful managerial
implications.
Summary
The exploratoryresearch(focus group and in-depth
executive interviews) reportedin this article offers
several insights and propositions concerning con-
sumers' perceptionsof service quality. Specifically,
the researchrevealed 10 dimensions that consumers
use in formingexpectationsaboutand perceptionsof
services, dimensionsthattranscenddifferenttypes of
services. The researchalso pinpointedfour key dis-
crepanciesor gaps on the service provider'sside that
are likely to affect service quality as perceived by
consumers.The majorinsightsgainedthroughthe re-
searchsuggesta conceptualservicequalitymodelthat
will hopefully spawn both academicand practitioner
interestin service quality and serve as a framework
for furtherempiricalresearchin this importantarea.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Carl and Carl P. Zeithaml (1984), "Stage of the
Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Per-
formance," Academy of Management Journal, 27 (March),
5-24.
AConceptual
Model
ofService
Quality
/ 49

11. Bateson, John E. G. (1977), "Do We Need Service Market-
ing?," in Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights,
Cambridge, MA: MarketingScience Institute, Report #77-
115.
Bellenger, Danny N., Kenneth L. Berhardt,and Jac L. Gold-
stucker (1976), Qualitative Research in Marketing, Chi-
cago: American Marketing.
Berry, LeonardL. (1980), "Services MarketingIs Different,"
Business, 30 (May-June), 24-28.
Booms, Bernard H. and Mary J. Bitner (1981), "Marketing
Strategiesand OrganizationStructuresfor Services Firms,"
inMarketingof Services, J. Donnelly andW. George, eds.,
Chicago: American Marketing, 47-51.
Carmen, James M. and Eric Langeard(1980), "GrowthStrat-
egies of Service Firms," Strategic Management Journal, 1
(January-March), 7-22.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., and C. Suprenaut (1982), "An Inves-
tigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction,"
Journal of MarketingResearch, 19 (November), 491-504.
Crosby, Philip B. (1979), Quality Is Free: TheArt of Making
Quality Certain, New York: New American Library.
Darby, M. R. and E. Karni (1973), "Free Competition and
the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Eco-
nomics, 16 (April), 67-86.
Deshpande, Rohit (1983), "'Paradigms Lost': On Theory and
Method in Research in Marketing," Journal of Marketing,
47 (Fall), 101-110.
Garvin, David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," Harvard
Business Review, 61 (September-October), 65-73.
Gronroos, Christian(1978), "A Service-Oriented Approachto
Marketing of Services," European Journal of Marketing,
12 (no. 8), 588-601.
(1982), Strategic Management and Marketingin the
Service Sector, Helsingfors: Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration.
Jacoby, Jacob, JerryC. Olson, and Rafael A. Haddock(1973),
"Price, Brand Name and Product Composition Character-
istics as Determinants of Perceived Quality," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55 (no. 6), 570-579.
Langeard, Eric, John E. G. Bateson, Christopher H. Love-
lock, and Pierre Eiglier (1981), Service Marketing: New
Insightsfrom Consumers and Managers, Cambridge, MA:
MarketingScience Institute.
Lehtinen, Uolevi and Jarmo R. Lehtinen (1982), "Service
Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions," unpublished
working paper, Helsinki: Service Management Institute,
Finland OY.
Leonard, Frank S. and W. Earl Sasser (1982), "The Incline
of Quality,"HarvardBusiness Review, 60 (September-Oc-
tober), 163-171.
Lewis, Robert C. and BernardH. Booms (1983), "The Mar-
keting Aspects of Service Quality," in Emerging Perspec-
tives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G. Shostack, and
G. Upah, eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 99-107.
Lovelock, ChristopherH. (1980), "Towards a Classification
of Services," in Theoretical Developments in Marketing,
C. Lamb and P. Dunne, eds., Chicago: American Market-
ing, 72-76.
(1981), "Why Marketing Management Needs to be
Different for Services," in Marketing of Services, J. Don-
nelly andW. George, eds., Chicago: American Marketing,
5-9.
(1983), "Classifying Services to Gain Strategic
MarketingInsights," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer),
9-20.
McConnell, J. D. (1968), "Effect of Pricing on Perception of
ProductQuality," Journal of Applied Psychology, 52 (Au-
gust), 300-303.
Monroe, Kent B. andR. Krishnan(1983), "TheEffect of Price
on Subjective Product Evaluations," Blacksburg: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, working paper.
Nelson, P. (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal of
Political Economy, 81 (July/August), 729-754.
Olander, F. (1970), "The Influence of Price on the Consum-
er's Evaluationof Products,"in Pricing Strategy, B. Taylor
andG. Wills, eds., Princeton, NJ: Brandon/Systems Press.
Parasuraman,A. and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1982), "Differ-
entialPerceptionsof SuppliersandClients of IndustrialSer-
vices," in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing,
L. Berry, G. Shostack, andG. Upah, eds., Chicago: Amer-
ican Marketing, 35-39.
Peter, J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson (1983), "Is Science Mar-
keting?," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 111-125.
Phillips, Lynn W., Dae R. Chang, and Robert D. Buzzell
(1983), "ProductQuality, Cost Position, and Business Per-
formance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses," Journal of
Marketing, 47 (Spring), 26-43.
Rabin, Joseph H. (1983), "Accent Is on Quality in Consumer
Services This Decade," MarketingNews, 17 (March4), 12.
Regan, William J. (1963), "The Service Revolution," Journal
of Marketing, 27 (July), 57-62.
Sasser, W. Earl, Jr., R. Paul Olsen, and D. Daryl Wyckoff
(1978), Managementof Service Operations:Textand Cases,
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Shapiro,Bensen (1972), "ThePrice of Consumer Goods: The-
ory and Practice," Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science In-
stitute, working paper.
Shostack, G. Lynn (1977), "BreakingFree from ProductMar-
keting," Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 73-80.
Smith, RuthA. andMichael J. Houston (1982), "Script-Based
Evaluations of Satisfaction with Services," in Emerging
Perspectives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G. Shos-
tack, and G. Upah, eds., Chicago: American Marketing,
59-62.
Takeuchi, Hirotaka and John A. Quelch (1983), "Quality Is
More Than Making a Good Product," Harvard Business
Review, 61 (July-August), 139-145.
Upah, Gregory D. (1980), "Mass Marketing in Service Re-
tailing:A Review and Synthesis of Major Methods," Jour-
nal of Retailing, 56 (Fall), 59-76.
Zaltman, Gerald, Karen LeMasters, and Michael Heffring
(1982), Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thought
on Thinking, New York: Wiley.
Zeithaml, ValarieA. (1981), "How ConsumerEvaluation Pro-
cesses Differ between Goods and Services," in Marketing
of Services, J. Donnelly and W. George, eds., Chicago:
American Marketing, 186-190.
50 / Journal
ofMarketing,
Fall
1985