This paper examines the SERVQUAL model as a framework for evaluating service quality, with Singapore Airlines as the case study context. Drawing on a review of foundational literature by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, as well as critical analyses by Buttle (1995) and Shahin, the paper outlines SERVQUAL's ten original components, its five generic dimensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy), and the seven major service quality gaps. The paper also presents theoretical and operational criticisms of the SERVQUAL instrument and concludes with findings on the model's utility for assessing the gap between customer expectations and perceived service delivery in the airline industry.
This paper examines the SERVQUAL model as it applies to a case study of Singapore Airlines with regard to service quality and the application of a conceptual model of service quality. The study additionally explains the gap in service quality between the firm and the customer.
Prayag and Dookhony-Ramphul (2010) report that the SERVQUAL model "is still the most widely used scale for measuring service quality. The SERVQUAL scale has been applied to airlines, hotels, financial services, health care, and the public sector" (p. 3). Buttle (1995) reports that SERVQUAL provides a technology "for measuring and managing service quality (SQ). Since 1985, when the technology was first published, its innovators Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry have further developed, promulgated, and promoted the technology through a series of publications" (p. 8).
The ABI/Inform database Global Edition records service quality as a keyword in approximately 1,447 articles published between January 1992 and April 1994, and these publications "incorporate both theoretical discussions and applications of SERVQUAL in a variety of industrial, commercial, and not-for-profit settings" (Buttle, 1995, p. 8). The studies published span tire retailing, dental services, hotels, travel and tourism, car servicing, business schools, higher education, hospitality, business-to-business channel partners, accounting firms, architectural services, recreational services, hospitals, airline catering, banking, apparel retailing, and local government. A great many unpublished SERVQUAL studies have also been noted.
The scope of this study is the use of the SERVQUAL instrument in evaluating customer service for Singapore Airlines. The methodology is qualitative in nature, conducting a review of literature to determine the appropriateness of using SERVQUAL for this evaluation.
Service quality (SQ) "has become an important research topic because of its apparent relationship to costs, customer retention, and positive word of mouth" (Buttle, 1995, p. 8). SQ is also widely regarded "as a driver of corporate marketing and financial performance" (Buttle, 1995, p. 8). SERVQUAL is founded "on the view that the customer's assessment of SQ is paramount. This assessment is conceptualized as a gap between what the customer expects by way of SQ from a class of service providers and their evaluations of the performance of a particular service provider" (Buttle, 1995, p. 9).
SQ is presented as a multidimensional construct. In the original formulation of Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985), SQ was identified as having ten components:
(1) Reliability; (2) Responsiveness; (3) Competence; (4) Access; (5) Courtesy; (6) Communication; (7) Credibility; (8) Security; (9) Understanding/knowing the customer; and (10) Tangibles (Buttle, 1995, p. 9).
The instrument is administered twice in different forms: first to measure expectations along each dimension, and second to measure perceptions of actual service received.
According to Buttle (1995), Parasuraman et al. (1991) published a follow-up study refining their previous work, and the wording of expectations items was changed. The 1988 version had attempted to capture respondents' normative expectations — for example, one 1988 item read: "Companies offering ________ services should keep their records accurately." The revised wording focused on what customers would expect from excellent service companies: "Excellent companies offering ________ services will insist on error-free records." Detailed wording of many perceptions items also changed. Two new items — one each for tangibles and assurance — were substituted for two original items. The tangibles item referred to the appearance of communication materials, and the assurance item referred to employee knowledge, both of which had been omitted in the 1988 version (Buttle, 1995, p. 4).
Buttle states that analysis of SERVQUAL data may take several forms:
(1) Item-by-item analysis (e.g., P1 − E1, P2 − E2); (2) Dimension-by-dimension analysis (e.g., (P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 / 4) − (E1 + E2 + E3 + E4 / 4), where P1 to P4 and E1 to E4 represent the four perception and expectation statements relating to a single dimension); and (3) Computation of a single measure of service quality — the so-called SERVQUAL gap — calculated as ((P1 + P2 + P3 … + P22 / 22) − (E1 + E2 + E3 + … + E22 / 22)) (Buttle, 1995, p. 4).
There are five generic dimensions in the SERVQUAL instrument:
(1) Tangibles — physical facilities, equipment, and personnel appearance; (2) Reliability — ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately; (3) Responsiveness — willingness to assist customers and provide prompt service; (4) Assurance — encompassing competence, courtesy, credibility, and security; and (5) Empathy — caring and individualized attention that the firm provides to its customers (Shahin, n.d., p. 4).
"Theoretical and operational critiques of the instrument"
"Seven gaps between expectations and delivery"
"Summary conclusions on SERVQUAL applicability"
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.