Servqual in Museum of Art
Essay Preview: Servqual in Museum of Art
Report this essay
Measuring service quality is a challenge because customer satisfaction is determined by many intangible factors. The authors of the service quality gap model (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry) developed a multipleitem scale called SERVQUAL for measuring the five dimensions of service quality (i.e., reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles). This two-part instrument, which is shown in SERVQUAL FORMS: Measuring Service Quality using SERVQUAL (as attached), has an initial section to record customer expectations for a class of services, followed by a second section to record a customers perceptions for a particular service firm. The 22 statements in the survey describe aspects of the five dimensions of service quality. A score for the quality of service is calculated by computing the differences between the ratings that customers assign to paired expectation and perception statements. This score is referred to as GAP 5, as was shown in Figure 6.3. Scores for the other four gaps also can be calculated in a simillar manner.
QUESTIONS:
1.What are the strengths and weaknesses of all SERVQUAL models you have learned, including the gap analysis model by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry?
2.On the questionnaire (as shown in SERVQUAL FORMS: Measuring Service Quality Using SERVQUAL 2 x 22 statements), just replace the word “bank” with the type of your business being analyzed and develop your own questionnaire.
3.Read carefully Case 6.3 (The Museum of Art and Design), and answer the question: (a) Critique the WtA gap analysis, (b) Make recommendations for closing the gaps found in the WtA.
Answer:
The strengths and weaknesses of all SERVQUAL models Ive learned, including the gap analysis model by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry:
Service performance model (Sasser, Olsen, Wyckoff, 1978)
Strengths: This model sees the quality of the service performance; those are the quality of materials, facilities and personnel. Those things that included in the model are the primer matter on delivering services.
Weakness: This model only sees about what things delivered, but not how the guest wants the things delivered or the guest expectation.
Two Dimensional Model (Groonroos, 1982)
Strengths: Functional quality reflects consumers perceptions of their interactions with service providers. Gronrooss model compares the two dimensions of service performance to customer expectation, and eventually each customer has an individual perception of service quality.
Weakness: Groonross only saw from the technical quality and functional quality, he didnt see how was the invironment. But then, McDougall and Levesque (1994) later added to Gronrooss model a third dimension, physical environment, proposing their three-factor model of service quality.
IP – EP Model / Instrument Performance and Expressive Performance (Swan and Comb, 1976)
Strengths: This model refers to the performance of the physical product, and whether this meets expectations.
Weakness: but it doesnt see the quality of the product.
Process – Output Quality (POQ) Model (Lhtinen, 1983)
Strengths: This model sees the process in delivering services and the quality of its.
Weakness: But it doesnt see the personnel or human who deliver it.
Importance – Performance (IP) Model (1992)
Strengths: This model sees what the best and the worst things
Weakness: But, it doesnt give solution how to make all things good, because if the things bad. This model will terminate them.
Perceived / Standard (P/S) Model (1993)
Strengths: This model sees the satisfaction of the guest.
Weakness: