service quality

1. New Ways of Listening to Library Users: New Tools for
Measuring Service Quality
A. Parasuraman
University of Miami
Washington, DC
November 4, 2005

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

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

6. POTENTIAL CAUSES OF
INTERNAL SERVICE GAPS
[GAPS 1 - 4]
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 6

7. GAP 1
Customer
Expectations
Key Factors:
• Insufficient marketing research
• Inadequate use of marketing research
• Lack of interaction between
management and customers
• Insufficient communication between
contact employees and managers
Management
Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
Lack of
“Upward
Communication”
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 7

8. GAP 2
Key Factors:
• Inadequate management commitment
to service quality
• Absence of formal process for setting
service quality goals
• Inadequate standardization of tasks
• Perception of infeasibility -- that
customer expectations cannot be met
Management
Perceptions of
Customer Expectations
Service
Quality
Specifications
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 8

9. GAP 3
Key Factors:
• Lack of teamwork
• Poor employee - job fit
• Poor technology - job fit
• Lack of perceived control (contact personnel)
• Inappropriate evaluation/compensation system
• Role conflict among contact employees
• Role ambiguity among contact employees
Service
Quality
Specifications
Service
Delivery
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 9

10. GAP 4
Key Factors:
• Inadequate communication between
salespeople and operations
• Inadequate communication between
advertising and operations
• Differences in policies and procedures
across branches or departments
• Puffery in advertising & personal selling
Service
Delivery
External
Communications
to Customers
Lack of
“Horizontal
Communication”
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 10

11. SUGGESTIONS FOR CLOSING
INTERNAL SERVICE GAPS
[GAPS 1 - 4]
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 11

12. Suggestions for Closing
the Market Information Gap
• Conduct systematic marketing research
• Make senior managers interact with customers
• Make senior managers occasionally perform
customer-contact roles
• Encourage upward communication from customer-
contact employees
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 12

13. Suggestions for Closing
the Service Standards Gap
• Make a blueprint of the service and standardize
as many components of it as possible
• Institute a formal, ongoing process for setting
service specifications
• Eliminate “perception of infeasibility” on the part
of senior managers
• Make a true commitment to improving service
quality
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 13

14. Suggestions for Closing
the Service Performance Gap
• Invest in ongoing employee training
• Support employees with appropriate technology
and information systems
• Give customer-contact employees sufficient
flexibility
• Reduce role conflict and role ambiguity among
customer-contact employees
• Recognize and reward employees who deliver
superior service
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 14

15. Suggestions for Closing
the Internal Communication Gap
• Facilitate effective horizontal communication
across functional areas (e.g., marketing and
operations)
• Have consistent customer-related policies and
procedures across branches or departments
• Resist the temptation to promise more than the
organization can deliver
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 15

16. Process Model for Continuous Measurement and Improvement
of Service Quality
Do your customers perceive
your offerings as meeting
or exceeding their expectations?
Do you have an accurate
understanding of
customers’ expectations?
Are there specific
standards in place to meet
customers’ expectations?
Do your offerings meet or
exceed the standards?
Is the information
communicated to customers
about your offerings accurate?
Continue to monitor
customers’ expectations
and perceptions
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
Take corrective action
Take corrective action
Take corrective action
Take corrective action
NO
NO
NO
NO
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 16

17. SERVQUAL: Development, Refinement, and
Empirical Findings
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 17

18. Determinants of Perceived Service
Quality
Dimensions of Service
Quality
1. Access
2. Communication
3. Competence
4. Courtesy
5. Credibility
6. Reliability
7. Responsiveness
8. Security
9. Tangibles
10. Understanding/Knowing
the Customer
Expected
Service
Perceived
Service
Service
Quality
Gap
Perceived
Service
Quality
Word of
Mouth
Personal
Needs
Past
Experience
External
Communication
to Customers
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 18

19. Correspondence between SERVQUAL Dimensions and
Original Ten Dimensions for Evaluating Service Quality
Original Ten
Dimensions for
Evaluating Service
Quality
TANGIBLES
RELIABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
COMPETENCE
COURTESY
CREDIBILITY
SECURITY
ACCESS
COMMUNICATION
UNDERSTANDING/
KNOWING THE
CUSTOMER
TANGIBLES RELIABILITY RESPONSIVENESS ASSURANCE EMPATHY
SERVQUAL Dimensions
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 19

20. 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 20

21. Relative Importance of Service
Dimensions When Respondents
Allocate 100 Points [Study 1]
TANGIBLES 11%
EMPATHY 16%
RELIABILITY 32%
ASSURANCE 19%
RESPONSIVENESS
22%
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 21

22. Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions [Study 2]
Mean Number of Points Allocated out of 100 Points
37
9
13
18
23
29
12
17
19
23
28
12
18
20
23
33
11
15
19
23
32
14
15
18
21
Computer Manufacturer All Companies Retail Chain
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 22

23. 1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
Tangibles Reliability Responsive-
ness
Assurance Empathy
Mean SERVQUAL Scores by Service Dimension [Study 1]
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 23

24. Nature of Service Expectations
Desired Service
Zone
of
Tolerance
Adequate Service
Level Customers
Believe Can and Should Be
Delivered
Minimum Level
Customers Are Willing
to Accept
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 24

25. Measure of Service
Adequacy (MSA)
Measure of Service
Superiority (MSS)
=
=
Perceived
Service
Perceived
Service
-
-
Adequate
Service
Desired
Service
The Two Levels of Expectations Imply Two
Corresponding Measures of GAP 5:
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 25

26. 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 26

27. 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 27

28. 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 28

29. Measurement Error: Percent of
Respondents Answering Incorrectly
Two-Column
Format
Three-Column
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%
Type of
Company
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 29

30. Mean Service Quality Scores
(Combined Across All Companies)
TWO-COLUMN FORMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE
THREE-COLUMN FROMAT
QUESTIONNAIRE
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
SERVQUAL
Dimensions
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 30

31. 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
7. Willingness to help customers
8. Readiness to respond to customers' requests
Assurance
9. Employees who instill confidence in customers
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
Tangibles
17. Modern equipment
18. Visually appealing facilities
19. Employees who have a neat, professional appearance
20. Visually appealing materials associated with the service
21. Convenient business hours
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 31

32. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
Computer Manufacturer
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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 32

33. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
Computer Manufacturer
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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 33

34. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by Dimension
On-Line Services
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception
6.8 7.0
6.7 6.7
7.0
7.0
8.3
8.4
6.8
8.4
6.8
8.3
5.7
7.5
6.8
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 34

35. Service Quality Perceptions Relative to Zones of Tolerance by
Dimension
Tech-Support Services
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Zone of Tolerance S.Q. Perception
8.5
6.9
8.4
6.1
6.6
6.7
8.1
6.4
6.3
8.3
6.3
6.8
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 35

36. LIBQUAL+: An Adaptation of SERVQUAL
36
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission
© Association of Research Libraries, Washington DC (2003)

37. 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 37

38. 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 38

39. Technology’s Growing Role in Marketing to
and Serving Customers: Pyramid Model
Company
Employees Customers
Internal
Marketing
Interactive
Marketing
External
Marketing
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 39

40. 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 40

41. 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 41

42. 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 42

43. Dimensions of e-Service
Quality from Focus Groups
• Access
• Ease of Navigation
• Efficiency
• Customization/
Personalization
• Security/Privacy
• Responsiveness
• Assurance/Trust
• Price Knowledge
• Site Aesthetics
• Reliability
• Flexibility
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 43

44. Reliability
SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
• Site does not crash
• Accurate billing
• Accuracy of order
• Accuracy of account
information
• Having items in
stock
• Truthful information
• Merchandise arrives
on time
DEFINITION
Correct technical
functioning of the
site and the
accuracy of service
promises, billing
and product
information.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 44

45. Efficiency
SAMPLE ATTRIBUTES
• Site is well organized
• Site is simple to use
• Site provides
information in
reasonable chunks
• Site allows me to click
for more information if
I need it
DEFINITION
The site is simple to use,
structured properly,
and requires a
minimum of
information to be
input by the customer.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 45

46. Means-End Model
SPECIFIC/
CONCRETE
ABSTRACT
Dimensions
Higher-level
Abstractions
Perceptual
Attributes
Concrete
Cues
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 46

47. Ease of
Navigation
Easy to Maneuver
through Site
Easy to Find
What I Need
Speed of
Checkout
Search Engine
One-click Ordering
Tab Structuring
Site Map
Means-End Model of
e-Service Quality
Dimensions
Higher-Level
Abstractions
Perceptual
Attributes
Concrete
Cues
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 47

48. Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Security/
Privacy
Price
Knowledge
Assurance/
Trust
Responsive-
ness
Site
Aesthetics
Reliability
Flexibility
Efficiency
Ease of
Navigation
Personali-
zation
Access
Dimensions
Higher-Level
Abstractions
Perceptual
Attributes
Concrete
Cues
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 48

49. Means-End Model of e-Service Quality
Perceived
Value
Perceived
Convenience
Perceived
Control
Perceived
e-Service
Quality
Perceived
Price
Dimensions
Higher-Level Abstractions
Perceptual
Attributes
Concrete
Cues
Behaviors
Purchase
Loyalty
W.O.M
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 49

50. Customer
Web site
Requirements
Perceived
e-SQ
Perceived
Value
Purchase/
Repurchase
Management’s
Beliefs
about Customer
Requirements
Design and
Operation
of the
Web site
Marketing
of the
Web site
Design
Gap
Information
Gap
Conceptual Model for Understanding and Improving e-Service Quality
Customer
Company
Communication
Gap
Customer
Web site
Experiences
50
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

51. Dimensions of e-SQ
Core Dimensions
[E-S-QUAL]
• Efficiency
• Fulfillment
• System Availability
• Privacy
Recovery Dimensions
[E-RecS-QUAL]
• Responsiveness
• Compensation
• Contact
Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra, “E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality,”
Journal of Service Research, February 2005.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 51

52. Definitions of e-SQ Dimensions
E-S-QUAL Dimensions
Efficiency: The ease and speed of accessing and using the site.
Fulfillment: The extent to which the site’s promises about order delivery and
item availability are fulfilled.
System Availability: The correct technical functioning of the site.
Privacy: The degree to which the site is safe and protects customer
information.
E-RecS-QUAL Dimensions
Responsiveness: Effective handling of problems and returns through the site.
Compensation: The degree to which the site compensates customers for
problems.
Contact: The availability of assistance through telephone and online
representatives.
Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra, “E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality,”
Journal of Service Research, February 2005.
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 52

53. 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 53

54. 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 54

55. Multinational Research Studies on
Technology Readiness
• Began in 1997 in the USA and still ongoing
• Being conducted in collaboration with Charles Colby,
President, Rockbridge Associates
• Have thus far involved several qualitative and
quantitative studies
• Completed studies include three “National
Technology Readiness Surveys” in the USA [NTRS
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004]
• National studies also have been done or are underway
in Austria, Chile, Germany, Singapore and Sweden
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 55

56. 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 56

57. Receptive to
Technology
Neutral
Resistant to
Technology
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
57
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

58. Link between Technology Beliefs
and Technology Readiness
High
Receptive to
Technology
Neutral
Resistant to
Technology
Low
Medium
Technology
Readiness
Technology-Beliefs Continuum
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 58

59. Quantitative Survey Methodology
• Each NTRS in the U.S. included a random
sample of adults:
– 1000 respondents 1999 & 2000 and 500
respondents in 2001, 2002 & 2004
• Data collected via computer-assisted
telephone interviewing
• Survey included questions about
technology beliefs, demographics,
psychographics, and technology-related
behaviors and preferences
59
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

60. 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 60

61. Drivers of Technology Readiness
Technology Readiness
Discomfort Insecurity
Inhibitors
Contributors Innovativeness
Optimism
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 61

62. 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 62

63. • Optimism 10 items
• Innovativeness 7 items
• Discomfort 10 items
• Insecurity 9 items
The TRI: A 36-Item, 4-Dimensional
Scale to Measure TR
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 63

64. • Example of Optimism: “Technology gives
people more control over their daily lives”
% of respondents agreeing: 61% in 1999
68% in 2000
65% in 2001
65% in 2002
67% in 2004
• Example of Innovativeness: “You keep up
with the latest technological developments
in your areas of interest”
% of respondents agreeing: 68% in 1999
69% in 2000
65% in 2001
59% in 2002
60% in 2004
Customer Beliefs About Technology
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 64

65. • Example of Discomfort: “It is embarrassing
when you have trouble with a high-tech
gadget while people are watching”
% of respondents agreeing: 52% in 1999
54% in 2000
55% in 2001
51% in 2002
46% in 2004
• Example of Insecurity: “Any business
transaction you do electronically should be
confirmed later with something in writing”
% of respondents agreeing: 87% in 1999
88% in 2000
82% in 2001
82% in 2002
78% in 2004
Customer Beliefs About Technology
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 65

66. OPT. TRI
INS.
DIS.
INN.
Mean TR
Scores
TR Scores by Dimension and
Overall TRI
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1999 2000 2001 2004
2002
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 66

67. Online Acitivities ofHighandLow TRCustomers (NTRS2004)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Bought stocks
Applied for credit card
Did business with govt.
Bought items >US$100
Booked travel
Checked bank acct info
Read newspaper
Low TR
High TR
%
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 67

68. 3.03
2.83
3.13
3.01
2.85
2.68
3.03
2.96
2.77
3.14
2.88
2.83
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2
Male
Female
18-33 years
34-47 years
48-59 years
60-88 years
College Grad or More
Some College
High School or Less
$75K or More
$40K to $75K
Less than $40K
TRI Scores by Demographics (NTRS
2004)
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 68

69. Predicted Change in TR of Age
Cohorts over Time
TR
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort Y
Year 1-5
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort Y
Age
Cohort 1
Age
Cohort 2
Age
Cohort N
Age
Cohort X
Age
Cohort Y
Year 6-10 Year 11-15 Year 16-20 Year 21-25 Year 26-30
Time
Age Range
Covered in
TR Surveys
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 69

70. Five TR-Based Customer Segments
Optimism Innovative
-ness
Discomfort Insecurity
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 70

71. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
E
x
p
l
o
r
e
r
s
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
s
S
k
e
p
t
i
c
s
P
a
r
a
n
o
i
d
s
L
a
g
g
a
r
d
s
%
Typology of Technology Customers:
Percent of Population in Each Segment
1999 2000 2001 2004
2002
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 71

72. TR Segments and Technology
Adoption
High
Low
Technology
Readiness
Time of Adoption of New Technologies
Explorers
Pioneers
Skeptics
Paranoids
Laggards
Early Late
72
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

73. New Customer Composition by Age of Techno-
Based Product/Service
E
a
r
l
y
L
a
t
e
First-time
Users
Laggards
Paranoids
Skeptics
Pioneers
Explorers
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 73

74. High-Tech versus High-Touch
Customer Service
High
Low
Appeal
of
High-Tech
Service
Channels
Appeal of High-Touch
Service Channels
Explorers
Pioneers
Skeptics
Paranoids
Laggards
Low High
74
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

75. 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
75
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission

76. Sources of Information about Customer Service and
Technology Readiness
www.technoreadymarketing.com
76

77. Thank You!
© A. Parasuraman, University of Miami; not to be reproduced or disseminated without the author’s permission 77