HENLEY MANAGEMENT COLLEGE NEDERLAND

 

 

 

 

 

MANAGING SERVICE QUALITY OF

 

AN INTERNAL INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT

 

 

(THE CASE OF GOUDEN GIDS B.V.)

 

 

 

 

By:

 

Dogan Yilmaz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for a degree of

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

 

 

 

Zaandam , September 1998

 

Acronyms

 

IS                     Information Services

IT                     Information Technology

ISD                  Information Services Department

ISF                   Information Services Function

SERVQUAL    Service Quality Measurement Instrument

EUCSI             End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument

UIS                  User Information Satisfaction

 

Abstract

 

 

Measurement of Service Quality of an Internal Information Service Department

 

This dissertation evaluated the hypothesis that:

 

A services marketing based service quality measurement approach can be applied to internal IS departments. IS departments usually focus on technical aspects of service delivery. A services marketing oriented approach will identify some problems around soft (non-technical) aspects of service delivery, such as, the manner in which services are conveyed to users.

 

The research proceeds by literature search on and developing definitions of:

 

·       Services, and Service Quality

·       Internal information Services departments, IS effectiveness measures and IS roles in organisations

·       Service quality measurement issues, definition of SERVQUAL measure, and the constructs influencing service quality

·       Previous applications of SERVQUAL in IS environments

 

Amongst the available Service Quality measurement techniques, SERVQUAL is found to be the most proven and widely used one. SERVQUAL is based on the ‘meeting or exceeding user expectations’ definition of quality.

 

SERVQUAL instrument is used to identify the service quality problems for an internal IS department. The survey included three interest groups; service users as customers, IS management as those setting the service delivery standards, and IS employees as those providing the service. Primary data was collected from these interest groups and the results were evaluated.

 

It was found that IS service quality is not meeting users’ expectations. The existence of service quality gap was identified, and the causes leading to this gap are analysed.

 

It was concluded that application of SERVQUAL measure to an internal IS department was effective. A services marketing based measure can help managers identify soft aspects of service delivery problems in IS departments. However, the results obtained by this study can not be generalised to all IS environments due to differences between IS settings.

 

SERVQUAL is found to be easy to implement in IS environments.

 

 

Keywords: Services Marketing, Internal Information Services Departments, Service Quality, Quality Measurement, SERVQUAL, User Satisfaction

 

Acknowledgements

 

 

Many people helped me during my MBA study and for the preparation of this dissertation.

 

I would like to especially thank Prof. Dalgic of Hogeschool Utrecht for his encouragement to start this study. I am also grateful to Gouden Gids management for supporting me during my research, and all other people who responded to the survey. 

 

I cannot forget the patience and support I get from my wife during this study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Company Information....................................................................................................

1.2 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................

1.3 Method, Scope, and Limitations...................................................................................

1.4 Structure of Dissertation..........................................................................................

CHAPTER 2: INFORMATION SERVICES.........................................................................................

2.1 Characteristics of Services.......................................................................................

2.2 Information Services..................................................................................................

2.3  Service Quality............................................................................................................

CHAPTER 3: IS SERVQUAL SURVEY...........................................................................................

3.1 SERVQUAL........................................................................................................................

3.2 Previous Applications of SERVQUAL in Information Services............................

3.3 Survey Design...............................................................................................................

3.4 Questionnaire Design..................................................................................................

Customer Survey - Model A....................................................................................................

IS Managers Survey - Model B................................................................................................

IS Personnel Survey - Model C...............................................................................................

3.5 Expected Results.........................................................................................................

CHAPTER 4: SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................................................

4.1 Customer Survey Results and Analysis of Service Quality Gap.....................

4.2 Manager Survey Results...........................................................................................

Gap 1 ( Customers’ Expectation - Management-Perception) Analysis........................................

Gap 2 (Management Perception - Service Quality Specification) Analysis...................................

4.3 Employee Survey Results.........................................................................................

Gap 3 (Service Quality Specifications - Service Delivery) Analysis..............................................

Gap 4 (Service Delivery - External Communications) Analysis...................................................

4.4 Summary of Research Findings................................................................................

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................ A-

Appendix A: Questionnaires............................................................................................ A-

Appendix B: Questionnaire Evaluation Models.......................................................... B-

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

 

1.1 Company Information

 

ITT Gouden Gids B.V., located in Amsterdam, is the Dutch unit of telephone directory publishing division - ITT World Directories - of ITT Corporation. This business unit was recently bought by Dutch publishing group VNU.

 

Gouden Gids was the only publisher of classified telephone directories (Yellow Pages) in Holland until 1994. A competitor, Telemedia, controlled by Dutch PTT, started operation as of 1994. Gouden Gids publishes business information (name, address, telephone and fax numbers) about businesses, whereas competitor product contains both business information and white pages (i.e. alphabetical listing of all telephone connections.) PTT Telecom was the main provider of information which was printed in Gouden Gids directories up until 1995. After this year, Gouden Gids did not renew its contract with PTT, and started gathering its own data from alternative resources including Chamber of Commerce, and database matching.

 

Directory publishing business is changing rapidly. New substitute or complementary products are emerging like directory services on the Internet, and operator assisted directory services. Scoot, a joint venture of VNU and British ‘Freepages Ltd’ is providing toll-free operator assisted inquiry service as of September 1997. Gouden Gids introduced a commercial operator assisted yellow page service, ‘Gouden Gids Line’, at the same time. Gouden Gids has also an Internet product called ‘Gouden Gids On-Line’.

 

After this brief description of business environment of Gouden Gids, some information on the Information Services Department will be presented.

 

VNU World directories has operations in Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Ireland, South Africa and Puerto Rico. Dutch and Belgium units are reporting to a vice president. International structure of World Directories will not be elaborated on further, as this is beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, international dimension of Information Services (IS) function will be included in this study to some detail level.

 

All IS functions in the units are co-ordinated by a CIO -Chief Information Officer. Units have local Information Services departments supporting their operational systems. In some cases units may do their own development; for example development of Gouden Gids On-Line (Internet) product was carried out locally. However, main software development and R&D activities are carried out by a business unit level software house called ITT Publitec. Publitec is located in Amsterdam, and CIO is also the general manager of Publitec.

 

Unit IT managers report to both their unit management and CIO. All major IT investments need to be approved by CIO, who also has a co-ordinating role. 

 

Figure 1- 1 IT Management Structure Matrix

 

Information Services department of Gouden Gids is headed by an IS manager, who reports to the operations director. Department has about 30 people employed. There are two different functional groups within the department;  a development pool and the data centre. Development pool has about 18 people and is organised as a project organisation. There are 2 project managers who manage the activities of this pool. IS manager may sometimes function as a project manager as well. All new software developments, maintenance, testing and technical database maintenance activities are done by the development pool.

 

Data centre has about 12 people who do technical system management, network management, operations support, and help desk / desktop support.

 

 

 

Figure 1- 2 Functional Organisation of IS Department

 

1.2 Problem Statement

 

There are several problem areas around internal IS departments. These problem areas will be  mentioned prior to the explanation of why this topic is chosen for the dissertation, and the aim of the study. The problem areas which make this dissertation subject significant are:

 

 

1.    Information services departments are traditionally dominated by technical people, and are organised as production environments. Especially non-managerial positions in IS function remain to stay purely technical. This is one of the factors that contribute to a communication problem between IS department and the rest of the organisation. IS departments need to improve their services marketing and communication skills.

 

2.    IS departments provide supportive services in the form of firm infrastructure and technology development (see Figure 1-3, Porter’s value chain). The fact that many processes are  either supported by automated systems or performed by use of computers makes the delivery of IS services crucial in the organisations. Any slow down in the business growth or ineffectiveness in market response which is attributable to IS service delivery decreases the credibility of IS organisations. For example, IS department of Gouden Gids was not able to integrate the support for Gouden Gids Line product in its existing back office systems, due to technical difficulties, resource shortages and impossible deadlines. This was in some cases interpreted as an ‘unwillingness of IS’. At the end, a quick and simple solution, a satellite PC-based system was developed by the help of externals. The IS department did not have any control on this happening. However, it is now clear that one-person company which developed the system is quite vulnerable and Gouden Gids management asks IS to gain back-up skills as a contingency to support this system.

 

     Figure 1- 3   Porter’s Generic Value Chain

3.    Performance measures for IS effectiveness are difficult to develop and implement. This function was in the past evaluated based on its technical output and capacity, and was used to automate rather standard tasks. Justification for high IT investments becomes a main task of IS management, and benefits from IT investment are in many cases not directly attributable to any revenue and/or profit growth.

 

4.    Although IT plays a growing role in the organisations, upper management is usually marketing and/or production oriented. Upper management is not aware of fast changes in the IT industry and they are not interested in the details (or management attention) of a rather complex discipline.  This lack of management attention makes the tasks of IT managers difficult. IS managers do not get enough support on IT related issues, especially in small IS departments.

 

5.    Diversity of information technologies used in any company requires acquiring technical skills to effectively use these technologies. Small IS departments have difficulties in recruiting new people, and getting their permanent employees to the desired technical skill level. Gouden Gids IS department, as well, has difficulty in new recruitment, and in dealing with  low employee productivity.

 

6.    Furthermore, it is very difficult for small IS organisations to acquire all required technical skills in use since the number of different technological platforms is diverse, and specialisation in all these technical areas is impossible. An alternative solution is to bring in externals on temporary basis. However, the length of learning curve for these people, and the tight budgetary controls make this option less effective. This also applies to Gouden Gids,  and the small size of IS department does not allow it to benefit from economies-of-scale and economies-of-scope.

 

Moreover, the following points are specifically applicable to Gouden Gids environment. It should be noted that these points may be applicable to some other organisations and/or IS departments during their organisational development;

 

1.    The main operational system is mainframe based and old fashioned. It does not allow any major changes since implementation of any such changes requires too much effort. Paper based products are supported by this system. New products like Internet and telephone enquiry system are based on relational database platforms and are fed by this system. All other systems like accounting package, supportive systems for Internet and telephone inquiry service products, a sales information system, a separate complaint handling system, a PC based retail-sales system etc., are all functioning around the main system.

 

2.    The structure of  these systems is a risk to the organisation as any new business expansion results in a new satellite system. There is a strong need to develop an integrated system which is both able to support complete range of products, and is easy to customise based on changing business needs. Currently, a migration plan is being worked on to find a optimal solution for system replacement.

 

3.    Internal IS department of Gouden Gids functions in a re-active basis to the changes in the company. IS is usually not involved in the business decisions, and has to implement the necessary changes in tight deadlines. This contributes to the thinking in the organisation that IS is not able to deliver its services at an adequate level.

 

4.    Measurement of IS effectiveness in Gouden Gids is an issue. IS is not able to show that it is performing well. The effectiveness of IS is valued low by many people in the organisation.

 

Problem Statement:Current effectiveness measures in IS departments include timely delivery of new software or maintenance requests,  meeting the departmental budget, and some other technical critical success factors such as system availability during working hours. Managers recognise the need for a better service quality measurement for the IS departments.

 

This dissertation is based on the hypothesis that a services marketing based service quality measurement approach can be applied to internal IS departments. IS departments usually focus on technical aspects of service delivery. A second hypothesis is that a services marketing oriented approach will identify some problems around soft (non-technical) aspects of service delivery, such as, the manner in which services are conveyed to users.

 

Gouden Gids management supported the application of a non-technical instrument (i.e. SERVQUAL) to identify the problems associated with the delivery of services by the IS department.

 

Depending on the results revealed by the survey, applicability of SERVQUAL service quality measurement technique to IS departments will be evaluated. Based on the evaluation and acceptability of these results by survey respondents, the validity of the hypothesis, that a Services Marketing based quality measurement technique could help managers identify service delivery problems, will be verified.

 

Research findings will be interpreted and action points will be submitted to the management.

 

1.3 Method, Scope, and Limitations

 

The scope of this study is limited with the services (self delivered or contracted) of Gouden Gids IS department and the quality of these services as perceived within Gouden Gids organisation. Where appropriate, references may be made to ITT Publitec or other IT service providers, to the extent they interact with Gouden Gids IS.

 

SERVQUAL technique will be applied to measure the service quality of IS department of Gouden Gids. Results will first be averaged within their respondent group, and then compared. In order to minimise the discrepancy between IS and user group responses on the expectation side of service quality gap, two group interviews are done with users and IS managers.

 

1.4 Structure of Dissertation

 

Dissertation is composed of 5 chapters. This first chapter, Introduction, gives background information on the case company, Gouden Gids, and lays IS related issues and the problem statement, together with the research method, scope and limitations. Chapter 2, Information Services, gives a brief explanation of ‘characteristics of services’ and its differences from ‘goods marketing’, service quality issues. Chapter 2 also includes a section on Information Services, gives some information of internal information services departments, roles and problems associated with them. Chapter 3, IS SERVQUAL survey, defines the survey: its first section gives a through review of SERVQUAL instrument. Another section gives some information on the past applications of SERVQUAL to IS environment. This chapter continues with survey population design, questionnaire design and a section on expected results.  Chapter 4, Survey Results, interprets  the research results in order to identify the gap sizes for each of the 5 gaps in the SERVQUAL model. The constructs influencing each of these gaps are analysed further and these are associated to each other where appropriate. Research findings are summarised as the last section of chapter 4. The last chapter, Chapter 5, conclusions and recommendations, is an attempt to interpret research findings at a managerial level. This chapter also includes some proposals for future research both within Gouden Gids organisation and in general, in order both to monitor the improvement of IS service quality, and to make clear some issues that could not be tackled by this research.

 

Copies of questionnaires distributed to user group, IS management, and IS staff, are presented in appendix A. The Microsoft Excel models used for analysing the survey results for all 3 questionnaires are also presented in appendix B.

 

CHAPTER 2: INFORMATION SERVICES

 

A review of the literature on services, service quality and service quality measurement issues will be done in this chapter.  In addition, a literature review on internal Information Services (IS) departments is also done to identify specific ‘service’ issues related to IS departments.

2.1 Characteristics of Services

 

Kotler  (1994) defines service as “any act or performance that one party can offer to another that is essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of anything. Its production may or may not be tied to a physical product.”

 

Services may be provided standalone or together with some products as a part of a total offer. Kotler (1994) categorises the following  service product combinations.

 

·       A Pure Tangible Good: Here a tangible good is provided such as sugar.

 

·       A Tangible Good with Accompanying Services: Here the offer consists of a tangible good accompanied by one or more services. Levitt  (1972) observes that “the more technologically sophisticated the generic product (e.g., cars, computer hardware), the more dependent are its sales on the quality and availability of its accompanying customer services.”

 

·       A Hybrid: Here the offer consists of equal parts of goods and services, such as restaurants. 

 

·       A Major Service with Accompanying Minor Goods and Services: Here the offer consists of a service accompanied by some goods and/or services. For example, airline passengers are buying transportation service, which is purely intangible. However, the trip includes some tangibles (such as food and drinks). Even though the service requires a capital intensive good (aeroplane), the main offer is transportation.

 

·       A Pure Service: Here the offer consists primarily of a service, such as baby-sitting, local transportation etc.

 

Services have four major characteristics that greatly distinguish them from products. These characteristics are:

 

Intangibility

 

Services are primarily intangible (Judd, 1964; Mills & Margulies, 1980), making it impossible to stock services in the same way one would stock goods, and their attributes are difficult to demonstrate.

 

To reduce uncertainty, buyers will look for the signs or evidence of the service quality. They will draw inferences about the service quality from the place, people, equipment, communication material, symbols, and price that they see.

 

Therefore, the service provider’s task is to “manage the evidence”, to “tangibilise the intangible (Levitt, 1981).”

 

Inseparability

 

To a large extent, services are simultaneously produced and consumed (Sasser et al., 1978); consequently, firms cannot use inventories to manage fluctuations in demand. If a service is rendered by a person, then the provider is a part of service. Since the client is also present as the service is produced, provider-client interaction is a special feature of services marketing. Both the provider and the client affect the service outcome.

 

When clients have strong provider preferences, price is raised to ration the preferred provider’s limited time (Kotler, 1994).

 

Service providers’ strategies to overcome these limitations include to serve larger groups of clients simultaneously, to serve the clients faster, and to include more service providers.

 

Variability

 

Customer involvement in the production of many services (Bowen & Schneider, 1988; Mills & Margulies, 1980; Shetty & Ross, 1985) creates additional quality-control difficulties for managers. Services are highly variable, since they depend on who provides them and when and where they are provided. Service firms can take some measures towards quality control. The first is investing in good personnel selection and training, so that clients find the same level of friendliness and help from the personnel. The second step is to standardise the service performance process throughout the organisation. The third step is monitoring customer satisfaction through suggestion and complaint systems, and customer surveys, ghost shopping, and lost customer analysis, so that poor service can be detected and corrected (Hostage, 1975; Kotler, 1994).

 

Perishability

 

Services are also considered to be extremely perishable (Sasser et al., 1978) and to be a process rather than a thing (Grönroos, 1983). They can not be stored. When demand fluctuates, service firms have difficult problems. Sasser  (1976) has described several strategies for producing a better match between demand and service in service industries. These include differential pricing, complementary services, part time employment, shared services with other service providers, and increased consumer participation.

 

Grönroos (1984) has argued that service marketing requires not only external marketing, but also internal and interactive marketing (see figure 2-1)

 

External marketing describes the normal work done by the company to prepare, price, distribute and promote the services to customers. Internal marketing describes the work done by the company to train and motivate its employees to serve customers well.

 

Interactive marketing describes the employees’ skill in serving the client. The client judges service quality not only by its technical quality, but also by its functional quality.

 

Kotler (1994) emphasises that internal marketing must proceed external marketing, as it makes no sense to promise excellent service before the company staff can provide it.

 

Zeithaml (1981) argues that service quality is difficult to evaluate by customers. She defines three attributes of quality on goods and services. These are search qualities, experience qualities and credence qualities.

 

Figure 2- 1 Three Types of Marketing in Service Industries

 

 

·       Search qualities are characteristics that buyer can evaluate before purchase.

·       Experience qualities are characteristics that buyer can evaluate after purchase.

·       Credence qualities are, however, characteristics that the buyer finds hard to evaluate even after consumption.

 

Since services are generally higher in experience and credence qualities, consumers feel more risk in their purchase. That has several consequences. First, service customers generally rely more on word of mouth than on service firm advertising. Second, they rely heavily on price, personnel and physical cues to judge the service quality. Third, they are highly loyal to the service provider when satisfied.

2.2 Information Services

 

Internal information systems departments emerged during late 60s onwards as part of an attempt by organisations to increase efficiency by automation of transaction systems and other routine activities (such as payroll systems). This also explains why this function was at the beginning called Electronic Data Processing (EDP), and was usually under the control of finance departments.

 

Starting with early 80s, new concepts like personal computers, networking, word processing, and messaging/data exchange emerged. This transition made IS function more a service provider as opposed to initial production environments. Another change was at the goods/mixture side of IS service.  IS service delivery will usually include some goods dimension in the form of systems and/or equipment. However, as we shall see later in this section, IS is becoming more a service provider. IS also became an integral part of firm infrastructure, and gives service to all parts of organisations.

 

For these reasons, IS is one of the attention points in all organisations; financially, since IT based services are a major expenditure item, and functionally, since delivery of many internal and external services of today’s companies are supported by IS.

 

Determining the effectiveness of an organisation’s information services function is a crucial management concern. This determination may lead to the decision to revamp, restructure, or even out-source the information services function.

 

Saunders and Jones (1992) made an extensive literature survey accompanied by a series of delphi studies to find out the drivers used to measure IS performance in various organisations. They interviewed senior executives and IS management for their analysis. They found out the following 10 dimensions to be important for ISF performance as illustrated in table 2-1.

 

Some additional IS performance measures found by Saunders and Jones (1992) include “adequacy of data security administration, end-user training and support, and adequacy of contingency planning and disaster recovery”.  Other factors that influence the importance of IS in the organisations are top management support and involvement in IS, structure of the

 

Table 2- 1  ISF Performance Dimensions and Associated Measures

Rank	Dimension	Measures
1	IS Impact on Strategic Direction.   An effective IS function enhances the organisation’s competitive position through the development of new systems and the maintenance of systems that support overall organisational goals. IS should take the lead in the application of IS resources.	·       market share attributable to IS function increases ·       Profit attributable to IS function increases ·       Organisation would be out of business without IS
2	Integration of IS planning with Corporate Planning.   To promote the achievement of organisational goals, IS planning must be tied to organisational planning and must allow for inputs from top management.	·       IS documented plan is designed to support the corporate strategic plan ·       Forecasts of IS capabilities exists ·       Corporate and IS plans jointly developed
3	Quality of Information Outputs.   IS functions are designed to provide information. They should be judged on accuracy, usefulness and timeliness of information they produce. They are also indirectly responsible for the quality of user-generated output	·       End user surveys (in house) ·       Customer/Client surveys (individuals not in organisation) ·       Log of errors encountered by users maintained
4	IS contribution to Organisational Financial Performance.   Financial measures are widely used in organisations to determine performance	·       ROI - Return on Investment ·       ROA - Return on Assets ·       Cost Allocation (method of accounting for systems development and operations ·       Value added by information technology ·       Industry average comparison of IS budget as a percentage of revenue ·       Budget performance (ability to meet budget) ·       Costs of maintaining systems
5	IS Function Operational Efficiency.   As computers become more a part of the daily business cycle, systems availability, reliability, and responsiveness of hardware and software become critical. The IS function must ensure high quality and near-zero defects	·       Log of system availability ·       Users’ perception surveys ·       User (batch) turnaround time ·       Log of computer and communication up/downtime ·       Online system response time
6	User/Management Attitudes about IS Function.   In today’s environment of end-user computing, user satisfaction and perception of IS responsiveness, service level, and quality of IS products determine IS effectiveness	·       Management and user perceptions of IS performance ·       User surveys of user participation in systems development ·       User surveys of IS responsiveness to user needs ·       Time for IS function to respond to user complaints ·       Complaint logs
7	IS Staff Competence.   An effective IS function is able to recruit and maintain a technically and managerially competent staff, and is able to interface successfully with users and management throughout the organisation.	·       Number of managerial and technical education programs for IS staff ·       Career ladder(s) for IS staff exist ·       Formal performance appraisal system used ·       Level of education of IS staff: degrees and professional certification
8	Integration of Related Technologies Across Other Organisational Units.   IS continually interacts across all business functions. There must be a smooth, cost-effective flow of information across the entire organisation.  Stand-alone pockets of technology may inhibit the flow of information in the organisation.	·       User/IS development of User/IS budget
9	Adequacy of System Development Practices.   An IS function is more effective if it promotes an organised approach to system design, development, and documentation throughout the organisation. The development should be on time, within the budget, and should deliver the tight product.	·       Percentage of projects completed on time and/or within budget ·       Standard methodology for system analysis and design exists ·       Evaluation of user and IS function documentation is performed ·       Estimates of number of man-years in backlog of system development requests
10	Ability of IS function to Identify and Assimilate New Technologies.   The IS function must promote an innovative climate that encourages its staff and organisational users to capitalise on new technologies. Consolidation of new technologies must update obsolete systems, be cost-effective, and not reduce service.	·       Formal reward system for innovative thinking and suggestions using information technology ·       Number of technical breakthroughs

 

Source: Saunders S. S., & Jones, J.W., 1992. Measuring Performance of the Information Systems Function, Journal of Management Information Systems, 8(4), pp. 72-74.

 

 

IS function, placement of IS department’s head in the organisational hierarchy, the size of the organisation, the industry of organisation, and the impact of computer downtime on the organisations operations and performance.

 

Saunders and Jones (1992) also mention as a paradox that, “while top executives stressed the importance of IS impact, they frequently remained aloof from IS operations.” They also mention that “organisations need to review the appropriateness of the measures’ application to them as they evolve and their business situation change”.

 

All of these performance dimensions identified by Sounders and Jones (1992) are evaluated by IS service users. The importance of these dimensions will vary in different organisational settings. For example, the manager of contract entry department will evaluate IS based on the quality of information outputs and operational efficiency. However, for the general manager, strategic planning, and financial performance dimensions will be more important.

On the other hand, DeLone and McLean (1992) created an IS success model to cover all constructs of IS effectiveness. They identified 6 categories into which these constructs can be grouped, namely system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact and organisational impact.  These categories are linked to define an IS success model (Figure   2-2).

 

 

Figure 2-2 Augmented IS Success Model

 

 

Pitt et. al. (1995) point out that the basis for DeLone and McLean’s categorisation is product specific. For example, system quality describes measures of the information processing system. Information quality represents measures of information systems output. Typically measures for information quality are accuracy, timeliness, precision and currency of information provided.  These two measures proceed other measures (see figure 2-2) in DeLone/McLean model. Pitt et. al. (1995) conclude that DeLone/McLean categorisation is strongly product focused. They also (referring to Conrath and Mignen, 1990) stressed that the principle reason IS departments measure user satisfaction is to improve the quality of service they provide.

IS success measures (within IS literature, Pitt et al. 1995, asserts), product and system quality, focus on the tangible end of the goods/services spectrum. They argued that service quality, at the other end of the spectrum, needs to be considered as an additional measure of IS success. They have augmented the IS success model by adding the “service quality” as an antecedent of both use and user satisfaction (see figure 2-2).

 

Pitt et al. (1995) also point out to the difference between two possible units of analysis for IS service quality; namely, the IS department and a particular information system/service. In those cases were users predominantly interact with one system (e.g. contract entry department using corresponding functionality in the operational system), a user’s impression of service quality is based almost exclusively on one system. In situations where users have multiple interactions with IS department (for example, a sales manager using several data analysis packages for sales planning, electronic mail, and other office automation products), the unit of analysis could be a particular system or the IS department. Thus, they proceed with an example, the user who finds it difficult to get a personal computer repaired is concerned not for poor service for a designated system but with poor service in general from the IS department. In other words, while system quality and information quality may be closely associated with a product, it is not always the case with service quality.

 

However, as Saunders and Jones (1992) point out, given technical and decentralisation trends in computing, an organisation’s ISF may include varying organisational arrangements including alternative internal and external sources of information product and service delivery. Bhote (1991)  reports that the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF coincides with the general trend in business to operationalise  and measure internal and external customer service quality. IS is a vital support activity in today’s business environment, and the products and services of ISF may be viewed within a customer context. IS customers may pick the products and services that best fit their needs, at the best price. They may purchase from outside the firm (out-sourcing) if expectations for quality and cost are not met by an internal ISF. In addition, as IT usage increases within organisations, alternative sources of supply within the firm (in-sourcing) will directly compete with the traditional centralised ISD.

 

Due to the growth of end-user computing, decentralisation, and alternative sources of supply, an organisation’s information services function is now faced with serving customers that possess substantial discretion in their use and purchase of Information Services. This increasingly market oriented environment demands sensitivity to IS customers’ expectations and perceived value of ISF services (Kettinger and Lee, 1994). One important source of guidance in such an IS management environment is to look at marketing literature for frameworks that may permit the ISF to more effectively determine and convey the value of their services.

 

Pitt et al (1997) highlight some characteristics and problems of internal IS departments. They point out that internal service provider departments in general might be different from providers of services to external customers. Thus, IS departments, (and all other entities that provide services or products only to the organisation's employees, i.e. internal customers)  may be sufficiently different from other service businesses to warrant particular attention when it comes to measuring service quality.

 

These are unique situations, for in many instances the IS department is seen as an inflexible monopoly by its customers, and it in turn experiences the problems of being on a "hiding to nothing" - when things go well, it is because the users are so capable, and when things go wrong, it is always the IS department's fault. Pitt et al (1997) continue by saying that the central issue is whether service quality measurement in an internal market is different from that in external markets, not because IS is different from other functions or industries, but because it is an internal, rather than an external, service provider.

 

Development of effectiveness measures for Information Services has a long background. Kettinger and Lee (1994) mention that techniques as system usage, cost/benefit analysis, information economics, and critical success factors have all been used to gauge the contribution of information systems and information services function make to firms. They acknowledge the contribution of such measures. They claim that the most widely used effectiveness measure is “user’s perceptions of satisfaction”. In general there are two types of user satisfaction instruments. The End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument (EUCSI) was developed by Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) as a response to the growth of end-user computing. While this measure attempts to capture the satisfaction of end users with a specific information systems application, it does not include a direct assessment of end-user support services, or more generally ISF. To gouge the products and services of a firm’s information services function, a second user satisfaction instrument, User Information Satisfaction (UIS) developed by Ives, Olson and Baroudi (1983), has frequently been employed. Studies based on this instrument identified its major dimensions as

 

 

 

1.    The quality of Information products developed by ISF

2.    The level of user’s knowledge and involvement in systems development and ISF activities; and

3.    user attitudes towards ISF staff and services

 

Later research found problems with these measures and suggested improvements. For example, Baroudi and Orlikowski (1988)  state that the original development and subsequent improvements on the UIS measure tended to be in the era of a large centralised transaction processing systems rather than today’s personal computing and network-based service environment. Zmud (1984) notes that the role of the ISF has changed significantly from principally a manufacturing activity, involving development and operation of large scale hardware and software systems, to include additional roles of distribution of technology transfer that require higher levels of user interaction and service delivery. As a result of these changes, ISF has been compelled to place more emphasis on support through provision of services. Newer service roles include that of strategic and architectural planner, business process consultant, technical co-ordinator, end-user trainer, internal auditor, and network provider in addition to, and in some cases instead of, information systems developer and operator (Saunders and Jones, 1992).

 

Meanwhile, recognising the need to more comprehensively measure IS service quality, some researchers (e.g. Kettinger and Lee, 1994) have looked to the marketing field where extensive research has focused on customer satisfaction and perceived customer service quality. Kettinger and Lee (1994) implemented SERVQUAL instrument (see sections 3.1 and 3.2) to look at possibilities of enriching UIS measure to include service quality characteristics.

 

According to Ferguson and Zawacki (1993) IS managers should understand the basic strategies that companies use to gain competitive advantage. These are technical quality strategy, price strategy, image strategy, and service strategy. They argue that, to be successful with its internal customers, an IS organisation should combine various elements of these strategies. However, the service strategy represents the best approach for ISD, and they should consider it to be their driving philosophy. According to them service strategy creates a differential advantage by developing a range of services that add value to the customers and build strong relationships with them. They mention three complications of service strategy which are

·       Service depends on the performance of employees

·       Service quality is defined by the customers, and

·       Services are evaluated not only by what is done (technical quality) but by how it is done (functional quality).

 

Ferguson and Zawacki (1993) also mention two primary advantages of service strategy for IS organisations. First, it views total service quality as a function of both technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality is necessary but not sufficient for service quality. The second strength is that the IS organisation’s strategic focus becomes customer relationship. Because competitors can usually duplicate the technical aspects of services, the customer service strategy provides a greater opportunity for maintaining a differential advantage. Customers who experience only the outcome of a service may not even be aware of the technical aspects of the service quality. Ongoing relationships will involve the customer in the technical aspects of the product development as well.

 

2.3  Service Quality

 

Kotler (1994) defines quality as “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. He further distinguishes between performance quality ad conformance quality.

 

Marketing literature indicates that perceived service quality can be divided into two sub-processes; technical performance and functional performance. Researchers argue that technical (output) quality is necessary, but not always sufficient, condition to achieve customer satisfaction and that overall perceived service quality involves attaining functional (expressive) quality as well. Kettinger and Lee (1994) give definitions of these concepts in the context of services. Technical quality is what the customer is actually left with after the service is delivered. Typically, technical performance is evaluated based on an assessment of whether the actual service product (outcome) meets both service specifications and customer needs/expectations. As a service is produced in interaction with customer, this technical performance dimension may not equate to a total assessment of the perceived quality, but rather may be influenced by the way in which the technical quality is conveyed functionally. Functional performance corresponds with the expressive performance of the service and is related to service provider/customer interaction. In essence, it involves how services are received by customers in relation to various personnel, resources, and activities of the service provider during service delivery.

 

Kettinger and Lee (1994) further point out that most research on customer satisfaction in marketing has been on the basis of Oliver’s (Oliver,1980) use of adaptation level theory, which posits expectations as an adapted standard which provide a frame of reference for customers’ evaluative judgements. Oliver’s theory simply states that a customer having high expectations is likely to be happier after the service is delivered than a customer having low expectations.

 

Quality has been variously defined as conformance to specifications (Levitt, 1972), conformance to requirements (Crosby, 1979), and meeting and/or exceeding customers' expectations (Grönroos, 1983; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985).

 

 

Levitt (1972), as referenced by Reeves and Bednar (1994),  argued that the failure of service firms to achieve high quality occurred because of their reluctance to adopt manufacturing techniques. For Levitt, the essence of quality was consistency. To the extent possible, all discretion should be removed from employees, because "discretion is the enemy of order, standardisation, and quality".

 

Customer involvement in the production of many services creates additional quality-control difficulties for managers.

 

The increasingly important role played by services and the inability of researchers to apply traditional manufacturing definitions to service quality led to a new conceptualisation of service quality. Only one definition of quality was judged to be appropriate by service scholars (Grönroos, 1983; Parasuraman et al., 1985), and that definition was governed by the extent to which a service met the expectations of customers. This definition grew out of the services marketing literature (Zeithaml, 1981), wherein researchers argued that a conformance-to-specifications definition of quality failed to address the unique characteristics of services. An important catalyst for the widespread movement away from conformance to specifications and toward a consumer-based definition of quality was the increasingly important role played by services in the U.S. and other Western economies (Reeves & Bednar, 1994).

 

"Only customers judge quality; all other judgements are essentially irrelevant" (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Grönroos (1990) argued that "it should always be remembered that what counts is quality as it is perceived by the customers." Service scholars were not the only advocates of a customer-oriented definition of quality. The profit impact of market strategy (PIMS) program database, which is primarily composed of manufacturing firms, also uses this approach to quality: "Quality is whatever the customers say it is, and the quality of a particular product or service is whatever the customer perceives it to be" (Buzzell & Gale, 1987). Reeves & Bednar (1994) note that although most operations management scholars continue to focus on a conformance-to-specifications definition of quality, the meeting-and/or-exceeding expectations definition of quality is now widely accepted.

 

Reeves and Bednar (1994) claim that definitions of quality also vary in their usefulness to managers. Quality defined as excellence can provide powerful motivation to a workforce. Quality defined as value or conformance to specifications can lead an organisation to focus on efficiency, and quality defined as meeting and/or exceeding expectations compels management to keep abreast of changes in consumer demands. However, each definition has drawbacks for managers: excellence provides limited practical guidance, value and quality typically represent different concepts, conformance to specifications may cause managers to focus on internal efficiency while neglecting external effectiveness, and understanding and measuring consumers' expectations is problematic.

 

According to Reeves and Bednar (1994), meeting and/or exceeding expectations is the most relevant definition of quality for the consumers.

 

Research conducted for the profit impact of market strategy (PIMS) program has led to the conclusion that "in the long run, the most important single factor affecting a business unit's performance is the quality of its products and services, relative to those of competitors" (Buzzell & Gale, 1987).

 

As can be seen from  the literature review, the perception/expectation definition of quality is the most suitable one for the service environments. The research for this study was carried out by using the SERVQUAL measure, which is based on perception/expectation definition of quality.

CHAPTER 3: IS SERVQUAL SURVEY

 

 

In this chapter, the design of the research for this dissertation will be explained. First, a extensive definition of SERVQUAL measure will be done, followed by a review of previous applications of this measure in IS settings. Further sections will explain the survey design, questionnaire design, and expected results from  the research.

 

3.1 SERVQUAL

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) started a ‘Service Quality Research Program’ in 1983 under the auspices of the Marketing Science Institute in Boston, MA. They have completed 3 phases of their study in 1988, and came out with the ‘Extended Service Quality Model’ (see figure 3-2). The articles “Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol 52”  by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, (1988), and  “Perceived Service Quality as a customer-based Performance Measure: An Empirical Examination of Organisational Barriers Using an Extended Service Quality Model” by Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1991) explains this model, which is called Extended SERVQUAL, and its application in detail. Their study was carried out in 3 phases.

 

Phase I was an extensive qualitative study of service customers and executives in four service sectors. Phase I resulted in the development of a conceptual model (see Figure 3-1) that defines service quality from the customers’ standpoint, identifies the criteria customers use to judge quality, and outlines potential organisational shortfalls that can cause poor service.

 

Phase II involved an empirical study that focused on the “customer side” of their service quality model. On the basis of these empirical findings, they consolidated the criteria customers use to evaluate service quality into five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy (see table 3-1 on page 26). They also developed and refined SERVQUAL, a methodology for measuring customers’ perceptions of service quality.

 

 

In Phase III, they focused on the service provider (or company) half of their Service Quality Model, building on what they have learned about internal shortfalls from Phase I and the case study from Phase II. In this phase, they conducted a large-scale study to verify their hypotheses about potential causes of service quality problems. They came up with Extended Model of Service Quality (see figure 3-2).

 

Figure 3- 1 Conceptual Model of Service Quality

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry’s Service quality model is based on a service quality gap (Gap 5) at the customer side, and  four internal gaps at the service provider side which also determine the size of  gap 5. 

 

Figure 3- 2 Extended Model of Service Quality

 

Table 3- 1 Five Dimensions of Service Quality

 

Dimension	Dimension Attributes
Tangibility	The appearance of company’s physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials.
Reliability	The ability of the company to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Response	The willingness of the company to help customers and provide prompt service.
Assurance	The knowledge and courtesy of the company’s employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence.
Empathy	The caring, individualised attention the company provides to its customers.

 

Source: Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml V.A., 1991. Perceived Service Quality as a customer-based Performance Measure: An Empirical Examination of Organisational Barriers Using an Extended Service Quality Model, Human Resource Management, 30(3), p.  338

 

Service Provider GAP 1: Difference between Customer Expectations and Management Perceptions of Customer Expectations

 

Service firm executives may not always understand what features connote high quality to customers, what attributes a service must have in order to meet customer needs, and what levels of performance on those features are necessary to deliver high quality service (Parasuraman and Zeithaml, 1983). Because there are few clearly defined and tangible cues for services, the gap between what customers expect and what managers think customers expect may be considerably higher than it is in firms producing tangible goods (Zeithaml, 1981). Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988) proposed the size of gap 1 to be a function of marketing research orientation, upward communication, and levels of management (see table 3-2).

 

Marketing Research Orientation (MRO): Extent to which managers make an effort to understand customers’ needs and expectations through formal and informal information gathering activities.

Lovelock (1981)claims that service organisations place less emphasis than goods firms on marketing in general, believing that the operations function is more critical. An operations orientation, on the other hand, diverts focus from customers and reduces efforts to understand  their needs and expectations.  Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988)  note that

Table 3- 2 Service Quality Management Gap 1

 

Theoretical Constructs	Specific Variables
Marketing Research Orientation	·       Amount of Marketing research ·       Usage of marketing research ·       Degree to which marketing research focuses on service quality issues ·       Extent of direct interaction between managers and customers
Upward Communication	·       Extent of employee-to-manager communication ·       Extent to which inputs from contact personnel are sought ·       Quality of contact between top managers and contact personnel
Levels of Management	·       Number of layers between customer contact personnel and top managers

 

Source: Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L.,  1988, Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol 52, p 38.

 

the size of gap 1 should depend greatly on the amount of marketing research conducted, to the extend this data is used by managers, and the degree to which the research focuses on service quality issues. They mention “the extent to which top managers interact with customers” to be another factor influencing the degree of marketing research orientation.

 

 

 

Upward Communication (UC): Extent to which top management seeks, simulates, and facilitates the flow of information from employees at lower levels

 

Research carried out by Schneider and Bowen (1985)  suggests that customer contact personnel can accurately predict customer expectations and perceptions of service. Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988), for the same reason, claim that top managers’ understanding of the customer may depend largely on the extend and types of communication received from customer-contact personnel. Berry, Zeithaml and Parasuraman (1985):

 

“In service organisations, the types of messages that need to be conveyed are often complex and ambiguous (e.g., problems encountered in service delivery, how employees feel, morale and attitudes within the organisation) and top managers often differ considerable in  background from contact personnel”. Peters and Waterman (1982) labelled successful service organisations using rich communication channels as “management by walking around”.

 

Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988) therefore propose that three specific variables influence the upward communication: extent of employee-to-manager communications, extent to which input from contact personnel is sought, and quality of the contact between top managers and contact personnel.

 

Levels of Management (LOM): Number of managerial levels between top most and bottom most levels.

 

Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988) argue that “Layers of management inhibit communication and understanding because they place barriers between senders and receivers of messages. Therefore the greater the number of management levels, the larger gap 1 is expected to be.”

 

Service Provider GAP 2: Difference between Management Perception and Service Quality Specification

 

Managers of service firms often experience difficulty in attempting to match or exceed customer expectations. A variety of factors -- resource constraints, short-term profit orientation, market conditions, management indifference – may account for the discrepancy between managers’ perceptions of  customer expectations and the actual specifications established by management for a service.

 

Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988) found out that the size of gap 2 to be a function of management commitment to service quality, goal setting, task standardisation, and perception of feasibility (see table 3-3).

 

Management Commitment to Service Quality (MCSQ): Extent to which management views service quality as a key strategic goal and allocates adequate resources to it.

 

One explanation for gap 2 is the absence of total management commitment to service quality. Emphasis on other objectives such as cost reduction, short-term profit, and difficulty in meeting tight deadlines has outcomes that are more easily measured and tracked and may supersede emphasis on service quality.

 

 

Table 3- 3 Service  Quality Management Gap 2

Theoretical Constructs	Specific Variables
Management Commitment to Service Quality	·       Resource commitment to quality ·       Existence of internal quality programs ·       Management perceptions of recognition of quality commitment
Goal Setting	·       Existence of a formal process for setting quality of service goals
Task Standardisation	·       Use of hard technology to standardise operations ·       Use of soft technology to standardise operations
Perception of Feasibility	·       Capabilities / Systems for meeting specifications ·       Extent to which managers believe consumer expectations can be met

 

Source: Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L.,  1988, Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol 52,  p. 39.

 

Specific variables related to management commitment of service quality include the proportion of resources committed to service quality (rather than to other goals), the existence of an internal quality program, and the extent to which managers believe their attempts to improve service quality will be recognised and rewarded in the organisation.

 

Goal Setting (GS):  Existence of a formal process for setting quality of service goals.

 

Research done by Ivancevich and McMahon (1982)  reveals that goal-setting improves organisational performance and individual achievement, and increases overall control in the organisation. Because services are performances, the goals for service delivery usually are set and measured in terms of machine or human performance. Management can analyse customer complaints and other customer feedback to find out the weak points in the service delivery process, and can set these points as goals to achieve. The next step management should take is to develop procedures to monitor the achievement of these goals.

 

The development of service goals involves defining service quality in ways that enable providers to understand what management wants to deliver. Existence of a formal quality program that includes identification and measurement of service quality standards is expected to reduce the size of gap 2.

 

Task Standardisation (TS): Extend to which technology and training programs are used to standardise service tasks.

 

The effective translation of managerial perceptions into specific service quality standards depends on the degree to which tasks to be performed can be standardised or routinised. Efforts to conceptualise and measure the standardisation of tasks in organisations research have focused  on technology (Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry, 1988). Some research these authors mention showed that technology can serve to standardise and regularise employee behaviour. If tasks are routine, specific rules and standards can be established and effectively executed. If services are customised for individual customers, specific standards are difficult to establish. However, recurring and non-technical aspects of even highly customised services (e.g. non-technical aspects of services in a help desk) can be standardised.

 

According to Levitt (1976)  standardisation can take three forms: (1) substitution of hard technology for personal contact and human effort, (2) improvement of work methods (soft technology), and (3) combination of these 2 methods. An example for hard technology can be achieved by computer telephony integration where service employee or customer initiated telephone conversations could be handled by a computer. An example of soft technology would be provision of query tools to end-users to extract the data they need out of a database. A combination of these methods would be “sales force automation” to eliminate task-interfering duties like price calculations, proposals for repeat sales etc., from the sales force.

 

Perception of Feasibility (POF):  Extent to which managers believe that customers’ expectations can be met.

 

Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988) found out that executives in repair service firm participating in their study were fully aware that customers view quick response to appliance breakdowns as a vital aspect of high quality service. However, they believed that establishing specifications to deliver a quick response was not feasible for the reasons that (1) it was difficult to forecast time required for a specific maintenance, and (2) skilled technicians were less available (in summer) when equipment failure rate was high.

 

A similar pattern can be seen in IS department as well. Employee turnover and experience curve needed for newcomers, changing business priorities etc. are creating resource allocation problems within IS.

 

Variables related to this construct include the organisational capabilities and systems for meeting specifications and the degree to which managers believe expectations can be met economically.

Service Provider GAP 3: Difference between Service Quality Specification and Service Delivery

 

Gap 3 is the discrepancy between the specifications for the service and the actual delivery of the service. It can be referred as the “service performance gap,” that is, the extent to which service providers do not perform at the level expected by the management. This gap occurs when employees are unable and/or unwilling to perform the service at the desired level.

 

Table 3- 4 Service  Quality Management Gap 3

Theoretical Constructs	Specific Variables
Teamwork	·       Extent to which employees view other employees as customers ·       Extent to which contact personnel feel upper level managers genuinely care for them ·       Extent to which contact personnel feel they are co-operating (rather then competing) with others in the organisation ·       Extent to which employees feel personally involved and committed
Employee-Job Fit	·       Ability of employees to perform job ·       Importance and effectiveness of selection process
Technology-Job Fit	·       Appropriateness of tools and technology for performing job
Perceived Control	·       Extent to which employees perceive they are in control of their jobs ·       Extent to which customer contact personnel feel they have flexibility in dealing with customers ·       Predictability of demand
Supervisory Control Systems	Extent to which employees are evaluated on what they do (behaviours) rather than solely on output quantity
Role Conflict	·       Perceived conflict between expectations of customers and expectations of organisations ·       Amount of paperwork needed to complete service transactions ·       Number of internal contacts that customer contact people must make to complete a service transaction or answer customer queries ·       Existence of management policy that conflicts with specifications
Role Ambiguity	·       Perceived clarity of goals and expectations ·       Frequency and quality of downward communication ·       Extent of constructive feedback given to contact personnel ·       Perceived level of competence and confidence ·       Product knowledge of contact personnel ·       Product-specific training provided to contact personnel ·       Training in communication skills provided to contact personnel

 

Source: Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L.,  1988, Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol 52, p. 41.

 

 

As shown in table 3-4, the main theoretical constructs proposed to account for the size of gap 3 are teamwork, employee-job fit, technology-job fit, perceived control, supervisory control systems, role conflict, and role ambiguity.

 

Teamwork (TEAM):  Extent to which all employees pull together for a common goal.

 

The value of teamwork was emphasised throughout the exploratory interviews carried out by Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry (1988). In high performing groups, people function as a team and accomplish their goals by allowing group members to participate in decisions and to share in the group’s success.

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1988) proposed the following aspects as being critical to teamwork: the extent to which employees view other employees as customers, the extent to which employees feel management cares about them, the extent to which employees feel they are co-operating rather than competing with each other, and the extent to which employees feel personally involved and committed.

 

Employee-Job Fit (EFIT): Match between the skills of employees and their jobs.

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1988) found out during their exploratory study that service quality problems often occur because contact personnel are not well suited to their positions. Contact personnel may lack language, interpersonal, or other communication skills to serve customers effectively. Zeithaml et al. (1988) claim that managers often do not give enough attention or devote sufficient resources to hiring and selection process. They proposed that emphasis on matching the employee to the job through selection process and  the consequent ability or skill of employees to perform the job well affect the size of gap 3.

 

Technology-Job Fit (TFIT): The appropriateness of the tools and technology that employees use to perform their jobs.

 

Provision of high service quality also depends on the appropriateness of the tools or technology the employee uses to perform the job. Technology and equipment can enhance employees’ performance. Appropriate and reliable technology must be provided, together with required training, for high quality service delivery.

 

Technology-Job fit can be an extremely important cause of low service quality in IS service delivery. Inadequate tooling may cause delays in service delivery. Tools used for performance monitoring, network availability and congestion, systems monitoring and alert, help desk requests handling and follow-up may increase level of service at reduced costs.

 

It should also be noted that availability of right technology is an important factor of employee-job fit and job satisfaction.

 

Perceived Control (PC): Extent to which employees perceive that they are in control of their jobs and that they can act flexibly.

 

The notion of perceived control suggests that individuals’ reaction to stressful situations depend on whether they can control these situations (Glass and Singer, 1972).

 

Averill (1973)  has delineated three forms of control: behavioural, cognitive, and decisional.

 

1.    Behavioural control is the ability to make responses that influence threatening situations.

2.    Cognitive control is the ability to reduce stress by the way information is processed by an individual.

3.    Decisional control involves a choice in the selection of the outcomes or goals.

 

Zeithaml et al. (1988) proposed that when service employees perceive themselves to be in control of the situations they encounter in their jobs, they experience less stress. Lower level of stress, in turn, lead to higher performance. When employees perceive that they can act flexible rather than by rote in problem situations encountered in providing services, control increases and performance improves.

 

Perceived control can be a function of the degree to which organisational procedures, and culture limit contact employee flexibility in serving customers. It can also be a consequence of the degree to which an employee’s authority to achieve specific outcomes with customers lies elsewhere in the organisation. Service companies commonly are organised internally in a way that makes providing fast service to the customer difficult for the service employee. When a contact person must get the approval of other departments in the organisation before delivering a certain service, service quality is jeopardised. Though the contact person may be totally committed to serving the consumer, he or she cannot perform well because control over the service has been dispersed among multiple organisational units. Finally, perceived control can be a function of the predictability of the demand, which is a major problem in service businesses

 

Supervisory Control Systems (SCS): The extent to which employees are evaluated /compensated on what they do (behaviour) rather than solely on output quantity.

 

Output-based measures and systems may not be appropriate or sufficient in the service organisations (Zeithaml,  Parasuraman, & Berry, 1988). For example, IT users want programmers to be friendly, accurate and fast even though friendliness would not be a factor in output-based systems.

 

Performance can be monitored through behavioural control systems, which consists largely of observations or other reports on the way employees work or behave rather than output measurements. Techniques used for performance monitoring may vary from questionnaires carried with customers just after the service is delivered to ‘shopper’ research (researchers pretending to be customers).

 

Role Conflict (RC): Extent to which employees perceive that they cannot satisfy all the demands of all the individuals  (internal and external customers) they must serve.

 

The role attached to a position in an organisation represents the set of behaviours and activities to be performed by the person occupying the position (Katz and Khan, 1978). They stated that “The role is defined through the expectations, demand and pressures communicated to employees by individuals (e.g. top managers, immediate supervisors, customers) who have a vested interest in how employees performs their jobs.” When expectations of this people are incompatible or too demanding, employees experience role conflict, the perception that they cannot satisfy all the demands of all the individuals. Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1988) indicate research in the literature which has shown that perceived role conflict is related positively to feelings of job-related tension and anxiety and negatively to job satisfaction.

 

Because IS employees are links between IS and user community, they must satisfy the needs of both. Sometimes expectation of users and allocation of resources and priorities in the department conflict. For example, a programmer allocated to a task may be re-assigned to another task either due to changing user or IS management priorities.

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1988) note to the fact that managers of service organisations can inadvertently create role conflict for employees through excessive paperwork and unnecessary internal road-blocks.

 

Kahn et al. (1964) say that perceptions of role conflict are psychologically uncomfortable for the employee, can have a negative effect on the employee’s satisfaction and performance in the organisation, and increases absenteeism and turnover. Zeithaml et. al. (1988) claim that a service organisation that recognises inherent conflicts in the employee’s job will go far in eliminating the distress of role conflict. The result will be a better employee performance and hence a reduction of gap 3. Use of performance measurement systems that focus on the consumer in addition to internal efficiency goals is one example of how role conflict can be reduced.

 

Role Ambiguity (RA): Extent to which employees are uncertain about what managers and supervisors expect from them and how to satisfy those expectations.

 

When employees do not have the information necessary to perform their jobs adequately, they experience role ambiguity (Katz and Khan, 1978). Role ambiguity may occur because employees are uncertain about what managers or supervisors expect from them and how to satisfy these expectations or because they do not know how their performance will be evaluated and rewarded.

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1988) indicate some organisational variables that moderate the role ambiguity experienced by employees. The frequency, quality and accuracy of downwards communication are likely to affect employee’s role ambiguity. Downward communication involves messages used primarily by managers to direct and influence personnel at lower levels in the organisation. It typically pertains to the goals, strategies, and objectives for the organisation and its departments, job instruction and rationale, policy and procedures, and assessment and correction of performance. The more frequently managers provide clear and unambiguous communication about those topics, the lower employees’ role ambiguity will be.

 

Another organisational variable mentioned by Zeithaml et al. (1988) is training. Training provided by the organisation can help employees gain an accurate understanding of what is expected and how they will be evaluated. Training that relates to specific services offered by the firm should help the contact person in dealing with the customer. Training in communication skills, especially in listening to customers and understanding what customers expect, also should give contact personnel greater role clarity. All such organisational training programs should affect the employee’s perceived level of confidence or competence, which should result in greater role clarity. These aspects are especially important in IS service provision as gathering of the user requirements is the most important aspect of service delivery.

Service Provider Gap 4: Difference Between Service Delivery and External Communication

 

Advertising and other communications by a firm can affect customer expectations. Discrepancy between service delivery and external communication - in  the form of exaggerated promises and/or the absence of information about service delivery aspects intended to serve customers well - can affect customer perceptions of service quality. Zeithaml et al. (1988) proposed that horizontal communication and propensity to over-promise within an organisation affect the size of gap 4 (also see table 3-5).

 

Horizontal Communication (HC): Extent to which communication and co-ordination occur between different departments that have contact with and/or serve customers.

 

Table 3- 5 Service  Quality Management Gap 4

Theoretical Constructs	Specific Variables
Horizontal Communication	·       Extent of input by operations people in advertising planning and execution ·       Extent to which contact personnel are aware of external communications to customers before they occur ·       Communications between sales and operations people ·       Similarity of procedures across departments and branches
Propensity to Over-promise	·       Extent to which firm feels pressure to generate new businesses ·       Extent to which firm perceives that competitors over-promise

Source: Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L.,  1988, Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing. Vol 52, p. 44.

 

Daft and Steers (1985)  are quoted in Zeithaml et. al. (1988) defining horizontal communications as the lateral information flows that occur both within and between departments/groups of an organisation. The basic purpose of horizontal communication is to co-ordinate people and departments so that the overall goals of the organisation are achieved. If high service quality is to be perceived by the customer, horizontal communication among departments is necessary.

 

One essential form of horizontal communications in service organisations involves the advertising (external promises) and contact personnel. When communication occurs between contact personnel and advertising department/function (i.e. advertising function communicates the promise), consumers are led to expect what contact personnel can deliver. Serious problems can be expected when advertised promise is not feasible.

 

In the focus group interviews carried out by Zeithaml et. al. (1988), contact personnel expressed the need to be aware of all company communications before they run as basis for monitoring and responding to the consumer’s advertising induced expectations. They also believed their inputs to the campaign would result in more reasonable customer expectations.

 

Another important aspect of horizontal communication is the co-ordination or integration of departments in the organisation to achieve strategic objectives. In Gouden Gids case, co-ordination between different IS functions, and consistency of policies and procedures in implementation of different IT projects is an important aspect of user expectation. If the service quality varies randomly in time, users will see a bigger gap 4.

 

Propensity to Over-promise (PTO): Extent to which the firm feels pressure to promise more to customers than can be delivered.

 

Increased levels of internal pressure and increased demand for new IT solutions as part of ‘preserve market leadership’ strategy, IS function has the risk of either over-promising on one side, and low-productivity image on the other. End result is that ‘projects being late’ becomes a acceptable standard.

 

Vendor Presentations could be another cause of service delivery / communication gap. Vendors communicate their products and services to users as very straightforward and cheap solutions without considering the maintenance, customisation and integration issues of their solutions. On the other hand, IS is always cautious for the new products since they are aware of these problems. Unless IS function communicates this situation, gap 4 will become bigger.

 

Service Quality Gap 5: Difference Between Customer Expectations and Customer Perceptions

 

The factors on which customers base their expectations are, according to Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990):

 

 

1.    Word-of-mouth communication

2.    Personal needs

3.    past experience

4.    external communications to the customer

 

Two of these factors (1 and 4) are directly connected to communication.

 

Word-of-mouth communication

 

Webster  (1991) argues that word-of-mount communication is the most influential factor of customer’s perception of service quality. Quality is usually determined in a subjective manner. Since services are intangible, it is hard to determine quality on tangible grounds (measurable norms). The receiver of the word-of-mouth ‘advertising’ sees the sender as someone with past experience (an expert) and places great value on that opinion. The message of word-of-mouth has usually greater effect than the external communication of the organisation (i.e. advertising).

 

Personal needs

 

Personal needs are the basis for the customer expectations. The expectations of customers will vary because of their individual characteristics and circumstances (Zeithaml et. al. 1990). For example, the expectation from a new system implementation may be different based of whether there is already a system or not. The ‘ultimate’ service for a customer can be a ‘bad’ service to another.

Past experience

 

Past experience provides the customer with an image of the services of an organisation. Performing the service right-the-first-time is important since otherwise the prospects of repeat turnover could be lost. Unsatisfied customers will very likely search for alternatives. Research shows that a satisfied customer tells his good experience to 3 persons whereas a dissatisfied customer communicates his experience to 11 persons (source: lecture notes by Prof. Dalgic, Henley Management College, 1993).

 

It is worth mentioning that satisfactory past experience leads to positive word-of-mouth communication, which is the most effective form of advertisement for the service industries.

 

External communications to the customer

 

As already discussed in chapter 2, services are less tangible than products or not tangible at all. In the communication with their customers, it is important that service organisations make their services more tangible in order to reduce the perception risk. Another important factor is that communication in services cannot be totally separated from the servicing process. However, in goods/production industries, communication with customers can take place afterwards.

 

These factors that customers base their expectations can be affected by the organisation. Zeithaml, Berry, and  Parasuraman (1988) state that causes of gap 5 are lying in the internal gaps 1 to 4, which were discussed earlier.  Pitt et. al. (1995) showed the factors affecting users’ expectation in an IS context (see figure 3-3).

 

The personal needs of customers can be identified by marketing research as discussed in Gap 1. Users’ personal needs influence their expectation of IS service. A manager’s need for urgency may differ depending on whether he or she has a PC failure the day before an annual presentation, or simply wants a new piece of software installed. Of course, prior experience is a key determinant of expectations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-3 Determinants of Users’ Expectations in an IS Department

 

 

Word-of-mouth communication and past experience are outcomes of service delivery process and can be influenced by reducing gaps 2 and 3. Users talk to each other and exchange stories about their relationship with the IS department. These conversations are a factor in fashioning users’ expectations of IS service. Users may adjust or raise their expectations based on previous service encounters. For instance, users who find that the help desk frequently solve their problems are likely to expect answers to future problems.

 

The external communication must deliver realistic messages as discussed for gap 4. An important source of expectations is the IS department itself, as the service provider. Its communications influence expectations. In particular, IS can be a very powerful shaper of expectations during systems development.

 

In the IS sphere at least Pitt el. al. (1995) claims, users are subject to another source of communications not appearing in Zeithaml, et al.’s (1990) model. Vendors often influence users’ expectations (see figure 3-3). Users may read vendors’ advertisements, attend presentations, or even receive sales calls. Vendors, in trying to sell their products, often raise expectations by parading the positive futures of their wares and downplaying issues such as systems conversion, compatibility or integration with existing systems. IS has no control over vendors’ communications, and must recognise that they are an ever present force shaping expectations. This is not necessarily bad. Vendors’ communications can be a positive force for change when they make users aware of what they should expect from IS.

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) proposed a Process Model for Continuous Improvement of Service Quality, as shown in Figure 3-4. The 4 boxes with text “take corrective action” refer to, from top to bottom, the fix of the 4 internal gaps in a service organisation. They also imply the sequence of service quality improvement by this figure: i.e. measure users’ perceptions and expectations of service (gap 5), identify the reasons behind perception/expectation mismatch (gap 1) , set appropriate standards for improvement of problem areas (gap 2), monitor if the organisation is capable of delivering the service according to the standards (gap 3), and check if the service improvement effort is communicated properly to both within the service organisation and to the customers (gap 4).

Figure 3- 4 Process Model for Continuous Improvement of Service Quality

Longitudinal use of SERVQUAL may also provide IS with a feedback loop that can be used to evaluate the effect of change in service strategy. In essence, allowing the IS manager to analyse the effectiveness of service quality in terms of a market analysis allows for corrective action based on varying customer requirements.

 

It is important to note that the IS function performance dimensions identified by Saunders and Jones (1992), and the 5 gaps identified by Zeithaml et al (1990) are closely related. Especially, the performance dimensions which are related to the internal efficiency of IS departments, such as quality of information outputs, IS function’s operational efficiency, IS staff competence, adequacy of system development practices, andability of IS to integrate and assimilate emerging technologies, could be controlled by IS managers to improve the perception of IS performance by others in their organisations.

 

Another point that should be noted is that the categorisation of performance dimensions as done by Saunders and Jones (1992) is more based on the technical functions as performed within IS. However, the five service quality dimensions identified by Zeithaml et al. (1990) are based on how the service is delivered to the users. At the very end, both categorisations are dealing with IS services. Although, the service quality dimensions (Zeithaml et. al. 1990) are more suitable for the research of this dissertation, the Saunders and Jones (1992) performance dimensions give a better understanding of IS function.

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Previous Applications of SERVQUAL in Information Services

 

There are quite few applications of SERVQUAL instrument to the Information Services, ranging from academic studies aiming for validation of instrument for the information services, to surveys done for big IT service providers. Some of these applications and their findings will be mentioned in this section.

 

Remenyi and Money (1994) applied SERVQUAL technique to investigate the effective use of computer systems and functioning of Information systems department at the Henley Management College in the United Kingdom.

 

Pitt and Watson (1994), as reference by Pitt et. al. (1995), focused on the application of the SERVQUAL as a diagnostic tool. They have completed longitudinal studies in two organisations. In each case, service quality was initially measured, then IS management took steps to improve service, and service quality was measured 12 months later. In both cases, significant improvements in service quality were detected. These organisations have embarked on a program of continuous incremental improvements of IS service quality and use SERVQUAL to measure their progress. Their experience shows that IS practitioners accept service quality as a useful valid measure of IS effectiveness, and they find that SERVQUAL provides valuable information for redirecting IS staff toward providing higher quality service to users. Pitt et al. (1995) concluded after their study that it may be appropriate to split tangibles into two dimensions: appearance and hardware/software. Because hardware and software can have a significant impact, a measure of IS service quality possibly needs further questions to tap these dimensions.

 

Kappelman et al. (1995) carried out a study to assess the service quality of a IS service provider. Data was gathered from customers of a single, large, international provider of information services with (1994) revenues in access of $10 billion. The respondents were all IS professionals and/or executives responsible for purchasing IS services.

 

Kettinger and Lee (1994)  used the SERVQUAL instrument in an internal “college computing service”.  Their statistical analysis of dimensions resulted in deletion of several items including the entire ‘tangibles’ dimension. Their study deducted that SERVQUAL has revealed same and, in the cases of reliability and service empathy, better results than UIS (see section 2-2). Pitt et al. (1995) also express some concerns on the poor reliability of the tangibles dimension. Kappelman et al. (1995) dropped 3 items of the “tangibles” dimension from their study.

 

There has been some discussions in the service marketing area on whether SERVQUAL is applicable to IS environments, and whether the expectation dimension of SERVQUAL is useful for management decisions. Another discussion subject is the measurement of gaps; whether gaps should be measured directly as originally proposed by Grönroos  (1984), or as a difference between perceptions and expectations.

 

Pitt, Watson and Kavan  (1997) agree with  Parasuraman et. al. (1994), that service quality measurements incorporating customer expectations provide richer diagnostic information than those that merely use perceptions. Pitt et. al. (1997) concede that the perceptions-only measures may possess stronger statistical properties than do gaps measures. However they believe that IS managers find the concept of a gap most useful, for it indicates a shortfall, something that needs to be closed. They also believe that IS managers want to know and should know what their customers expect.

 

Pitt et al. (1997) also say that in order for customer expectations to be managed, they first should be measured. There might be important differences between various groups of customers with regard to their expectations of service quality, which might have customer relationship implications. For example, mail users have different expectations than supervisors of data entry department. These would not be detected if expectations were not measured. Moreover, Parasuraman et al. (1993) ( a work cited in Pitt et al., 1997) claim that measuring both expectations and perceptions over time gives a better indication of where changes have occurred.

 

Any instrument advocated as a measure of IS success should first be validated before application. The study carried out by Pitt et al. (1995) provided evidence that practitioners can,  with considerable confidence, use SERVQUAL as a measure of IS success.

 

Kappelman et al. (1995) mention that “Service Quality Model” that Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) based their work on was originally developed by Grönroos (1984). Kappelman et. al. (1995) continue: Grönroos’ model posits that one’s perception of service quality is the result of an evaluation process whereby “the customer compares … the perceived service against the expected service”. Kappelman et al. (1995) note that Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry’s (1990) SERVQUAL instrument separately measures the expected and experienced levels of service, and then the service quality scores are calculated as the difference between these two measures. Their instrument do not measure the outcome a cognitive evaluation process as Grönroos (1984) originally described. Kappelman et al. (1995) noted that the implicit assumption that subtraction accurately portrays this cognitive process seems overly simplistic.

 

Kappelman et al (1995) note to the fact that customers’ interpretation of expectations concept in SERVQUAL is problematic. They say that customer’s ideal point is at an infinite level. As supported by other studies as well, a high proportion of extreme responses (e.g. 7 on a 7 point scale) makes expectation scores less useful as an increasing proportion of the variation in difference-based SERVQUAL scores is due only to perception scores. They  deduct that the perception component of perception-minus-expectation score consistently performs better as a predictor of overall service quality than the difference score itself.

 

Kappelman et al. (1995) proposed an alternative method to measure service quality which (they mention ) was also proposed by Babakus and Boller (1992). They propose to revise the wording of SERVQUAL items into a format combining both expectations and perceptions into a single question (as originally thought by Grönroos). They proposed to combine the SERVQUAL’s service delivery gap questions with a form of “Much better than expected”, or “Much worse than expected”. Then the gaps could be measured directly. The inherent problems with calculated scores might then be minimised.

 

3.3 Survey Design

 

As mentioned in section 3.1, there are three samples in the SERVQUAL instrument: service users, managers of servicing organisation, and employees of service organisation. 

 

The first group in this study, customers,  are the users of services of IS department.

 

The second group is composed of (IS) managers and senior staff of the (IS) department. This group sets the service standards and controls their implementation.

 

The third group is (IS) employees. All employees of IS department (except line management) were included in this group. IS employees are seen like user contact personnel according to the categorisation done by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990). Although some employees have more contact with users than others, all IS staff has some kind of communication with the user community and all are included in the survey.

 

A non-probability and judgmental sampling technique was used for the population of users survey group. All management team members and key managers were included. All supervisors and end-users were also selected based on their IS service usage importance, service request frequency, and command of English language. In this respect, the user group represents the complete universe; the judgmental sampling was done solely to identify the users who are affected by IS services.

 

IS management and IS employee surveys were conducted on the whole population.

 

Table 3- 6 Survey Sample Groups and Their Representation of Population

Target Group / Sample	Sample Size	% of Population
Users	37	100% according to set criteria
Service (IS) Managers	10	100%
Service (IS) Employees	24	100%

 

All questionnaires were sent out via internal mail. Anonymity was provided to increase response rate. Pre-labelled (return address only) envelopes were sent together with the questionnaires.

 

 

3.4 Questionnaire Design

 

Despite the fact that tangibility dimension of SERVQUAL (and especially its appearance related items) is found not to be important in the IS settings by previous research, this dimension is kept intact in this survey. Management wanted to see if the dimension was really unimportant. All SERVQUAL questions are reformulated to reflect an IS environment for expectation items, and to reflect the internal IS department of Gouden Gids for the perception items.

 

Customer Survey - Model A

 

The customer survey was aimed to reveal the size of Service Quality Gap (gap 5) for the IS department. The questionnaire (see appendix A) consisted of the following parts: Two 22-item question sets, one customised for IS departments in general to get users expectation from an IS department (A-1) and the other customised for the Gouden Gids IS department to collect users perception of IS service quality (A-2). Users did not know which questions were for which dimension of service quality. The mapping of questions to dimensions were as follows:

                        Dimension                                       Questions 

                        Tangibility                                              1 to 4

                        Reliability                                               5 to 9

                        Response                                            10 to 13

                        Assurance                                           14 to 17

                        Empathy                                              18 to 22

 

A point allocation question (A-3) was included to guide users to allocate points to 5 dimensions of IS service, sum of allocated points being 100. User were also asked to identify two most important and the least important dimension of service (A-4). Although this question and the point-allocation question seems to be redundant to some extent, they were designed to force respondents give consistent ratings to service dimensions. Respondent were also asked (A-5) to rate the overall quality of IS service delivery (overall perception).

 

 

 

IS Managers Survey - Model B

 

Questionnaire Model B (see appendix A) was targeted for IS managers in order to identify the sizes of gap 1 (Difference between Customer Expectations and Management perceptions of Customer Expectations) and gap 2 (Management Perception - Service Quality Specification Gap).

 

Gap 1 was identified by usage of question sets B-1 to B-4. B-1 is a reformulation of the 22-question set, asking IS managers how they think users value quality of IS services, in other words, IS managers were asked to predict what user thought of IS department. Similarly, B-2 is a point allocation, and B-3 is a question to identify the most important two dimensions and the least important dimension. Managers were asked to answer B-2 and B-3 questions also from a users’ point-of-view. B-4 is identifying managers overall perceptions of how users value IS services.

 

The differences between A-2 and B-1, A-3 and B-2, A-4 and B-3, and finally A-5 and B-4 will be used to identify Gap 1 components (at service quality dimensions level).

 

The first 9 questions of B-5 question set are related to the causes of Gap 1 as shown below. Please note that questions 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 19 are negated, and their results will be negated with 7-point Linkert-scale negation formula (8 minus value).

                                                                                   

Construct Influencing Gap 1                                   Related Questions

MRO    Marketing Research Orientation                                 1 to 4

UC       Upward Communication                                             5 to 8

LOM    Levels of Management                                                9

 

The last 11 questions of B-5 are related to the causes of Gap 2, as shown below:

 

Construct Influencing Gap 2                                   Related Questions

MCSQManagement Commitment to Service Quality           10 to 13                      

GS       Goal Setting                                                                14 and 15

TS       Task Standardisation                                                  16 and 17

            POF    Perception of Feasibility                                              18 to 20

 

Question sets B-6 and B-7 are designed to identify whether IS managers think that some standards exist for each of 5 dimensions of service quality, and whether they find these standards to be formal or informal. These questions will help identify the size of gap 2.

 

IS Personnel Survey - Model C

 

IS Personnel Questionnaire Model C (see appendix A) was designed to assess the sizes of gap 3 (Service Quality Specification - Service Delivery Gap) and gap 4 (Difference Between Service Delivery and External Communication).

 

The first two question sets are again based on the five dimensions of service quality. Question set C-1 is designed to cross check employees’ perception of ability of IS to meet standards (Gap 3). C-2 checks IS employees’ assessment of whether IS is able to meet promises given to customers for each dimension of service quality (i.e. Gap 4).

 

Question set C-3 consists of 31 question and aims to reveal the sizes of constructs leading to Gaps 3 and 4.

Gap 3  (Service Quality Specification - Service Delivery Gap) questions are as follows;

 

Construct Influencing Gap 3                                   Related Questions

TEAM  Teamwork                                                                  1 to 5              

EFIT    Employee-Job Fit                                                        6 and 7

TFIT     Technology-Job Fit                                                     8 and 9

            PC       Perceived Control                                                       10 to 13

            SCS    Supervisory Control Systems                                     14 to 16

            RC       Role Conflict                                                               17 to 20

            RA       Role Ambiguity                                                            21 to 25

 

Gap 4 (Difference between Service Delivery and External Communication) questions are as follows;

Construct Influencing Gap 4                                   Related Questions

HC       Horizontal Communication                                         26 to 29                      

POF    Propensity to Over-promise                                       30 and 31

 

 

 

3.5 Expected Results

Information services department provides a variety of services to the Gouden Gids organisation. There are various user groups with different IS service and support needs. Two major user groups are users of main operational system and desktop (personal computer) users. The service quality gap is expected to be different for different user groups. However, this research did not aim to reveal service quality gap per user group: It was tought that, before the service quality given to specific user groups could be evaluated, a generic result based on all user groups should be available.  The results will show the average of users perception of IS service quality.

 

Gouden Gids IS department was spin-off from Publitec in 1991. Data centre was handed over to Gouden Gids later in 1993. User community has an experience with Publitec and hence IS department during the development of current system, which took place between 1987 and 1989. The system became stable after 1990. However, it had been seen as a barrier to the organisational development and flexibility as it was very difficult to maintain and add new functionality. As a result, many satellite systems were created, usually by users initiative and without IS control. Replacement of this operational system is being considered since 1993, but the system is still operational.

Another main change over the 1990’s was the number of PCs and automated workplaces, which was accommodated by network under-capacity, increased backup and security requirements, and software and hardware maintenance. The level of PC support was at times heavily criticised by the user community. Number of desktop computers has increased from very few  in 1990 to about 350 in 1998. Ordering and acquisition of hardware and software, its installation and maintenance is mainly done by IS department.

 

New products like telephone inquiry service  and Gouden Gids On-Line (Internet) were introduced in 1996 and 1997 respectively. These products are delivered on-line, and require timely sales and production systems (as opposed to paper-based directories which are printed once a year).

 

All these changes and inadequate support of IS department to support them is expected to result in a low perception of IS service quality, meaning a large service quality gap. 

 

IS management is aware of low user valuation of IS service quality by user community. For this reason, Gap 1 (Customer Expectations minus Management perceptions of Customer Expectations ) will be small. Gap 2 (Management Perception - Service Quality Specification) is expected to have grown over the years to a serious size, due primarily to short term operational pressures and the nature of a maintenance organisation. There has been an organisational discontinuity between the development of the main operational system and its maintenance (i.e. Publitec vs. Gouden Gids IS).

 

Gap 3 (Service Quality Specification - Service Delivery Gap) is expected to be the biggest gap. Problems arising from the existence of different functional groups in the IS department in the past, and the integration problems of the data centre with the rest of the IS were two barriers against coherent teamwork. High staff  turnaround in the IS department, and difficulties with the recruitment of new staff created employee-job fit problems. In addition, the technological gap between the old technology that Gouden Gids operational systems are based on, and the technology levels that employees want to work with, together with the difficulties of applying new technology to the existing systems created technology-job fit problems.

 

It is also expected that supervisory control systems will be loose in terms of service quality and employee productivity follow-up. Control systems are not supported by adequate merit systems, and this creates inefficiency. The lack of standards existence and/or their implementation will result in high role conflict and role ambiguity problems. Quick changes in user demands and/or changing IS management directions are expected to be a major factor for role ambiguities.

 

Gap 4 (Difference Between Service Delivery and External Communication) is expected to be moderate. Horizontal communication is expected to have some problems. Propensity to over promise by past IS management (by overly optimistic and unrealistic plans), and unrealistic sales-talk level project estimations done by some third parties have created a over-promise and under-promise debate between IS and users.

CHAPTER 4: SURVEY RESULTS

 

All results were recorded in spreadsheet models in MS Excel tool. A one-page print of models for each questionnaire (Models A, B and C)  are provided in Appendix B.

4.1 Customer Survey Results and Analysis of Service Quality Gap

 

Questionnaire Model A was sent out to 37 users in total. 21 users responded; yielding a response rate of  56.75%.

 

Please refer to the first part of Appendix B, “A- User Questionnaire” for a detailed analysis of the results for this section.

 

Service Quality Gap calculated by averaging user responses is -1.49 (average perception 4.37 - average expectation 5.86). Average score of users’ overall perception of IS service quality (question A-5)  is, however, 4.19.

 

Users value reliability and response as the most important dimensions of IS service (see chart A-1). Tangibility received the lowest importance, confirming other SERVQUAL surveys (e.g. Pitt et. al. 1995).  Detailed look to A-3 and A-4 questions showed that assurance was the third most and empathy was the second least important service quality dimensions.

 

A service quality gap of 1.49 on a 7-point Linkert-scale is quite high. For this reason, an extensive analysis of perception and expectation scores of all service quality dimensions and of individual construct’s contribution to these dimensions will be done.

 

 

It is surprising that size of gap at the service quality dimensions’ level and the importance given to these dimensions by the user community is highly related: Gaps are bigger for important dimensions (see chart A-2). The only exception to this trend is Assurance and Empathy dimensions. The assurance dimension has a positive construct gap (construct A2, friendliness of IS employees) which may have caused this discrepancy. Since users were directly asked to allocate points to service dimensions in question set A-3, these responses are preferable to the results of A-1 and A-2 comparison.

 

Table 4- 1 Service Quality Dimension Gaps and Dimension Importance

Service Quality Dimension	Gap Size	Importance to User(*)
Tangibility	-0.92	5
Reliability	-2.40	1
Response	-1.64	2
Assurance	-1.12	3
Empathy	-1.23	4

(*) Lower figures imply higher importance.

 

A detailed analysis of constructs influencing five service quality dimensions will be done here. Please note that the gap sizes for each individual construct is illustrated graphically in Chart A-3.

 

 

 

Tangibility

 

Out of 4 constructs of tangibility dimension, two have very small gaps. These are visual appearance of physical facilities (T2, -0.29) and appearance of IS personnel (T3, 0.29). These items were found to be of little importance or unimportant to IS in some other studies (e.g. Pitt et. al., 1995).

 

Quality of equipment (T1, -1.24) and quality of service and support material such as documentation (T4, -2.43) is found to be poor by users. The size of gap on service and support material is at an alarming level and is the main contributor to tangibility dimension gap.

 

Reliability

 

All constructs of reliability dimension are valued low. Two of these constructs, which both relate to “Ability to meet deadlines, or deliver service at the promised time”  (Rel1, and Rel4) are extremely low. Gap sizes for these constructs are -3.24 and -2.90, respectively. These are also the highest two gaps of all constructs of all dimensions.

 

Other dimensions of reliability have big gaps as well. Interest of IS in solving users’ problems (Rel2, -2.14) and ability of IS to perform services right the first time (Rel3, -2.33) are found to be inadequate by the users. IS emphasis on delivery of error-free systems and services (Rel5, -1.38) has the smallest gap in the reliability dimension.

Response

 

Users think that IS is not informing them on when services will be delivered (Res1, -2.76). Communication of IS towards users on the delivery time of services is thus very low. Users also think that IS does not give prompt service (Res2, -1.52). Another item that users think should be improved is the availability of IS personnel to respond to their requests (res4,         -1.19). Willingness of IS employees to help users is another item that could be improved. This construct (Res3)  has a smaller gap of -0.90.

 

Assurance

 

The  gap sizes of constructs A1 (users’ confidence to IS personnel behaviour, -1.71) and A2 (users’ feeling of safety against IS, -1.71) show that users have a confidence problem in their relations with IS. Users also think that IS employees do not have enough knowledge to help them (A4, -1.19). In contradiction to other constructs of assurance, user find IS employees slightly over friendly (A3, 0.14).

 

Empathy

 

User find operating hours of IS inconvenient (E2, -1.29). Users also think that IS employees are not able or not willing to understand their specific needs (E5, -1.95). Users perception of IS keeping user interests at heart is lower then users’ expectation (E4, -1.24).  Items related to attention given to users by IS (E1, -0.86 and E3, -0.81) are also valued low, but these gaps are relatively small.

 

4.2 Manager Survey Results

 

Model B Questionnaire was sent to a sample of 10, including IS manager, project managers and senior employees. 9 responses were received, yielding a response rate of  90%.

 

Please refer to the second part of Appendix B, “B- Manager Questionnaire” for a detailed analysis of the results for this section.

 

 

Gap 1 ( Customers’ Expectation - Management-Perception) Analysis

 

Gap 1 (Difference between Customer Expectations and Management perceptions of Customer Expectations) is low at the service quality dimensions level. IS managers, on the average,  know how user community values IS services. However, careful look at the constructs making up service quality constructs identifies some gaps (see chart B-1).

 

 

IS managers think that users value tangibility dimension of IS services higher than what users actually do. However, these differences come from items related to physical appearances of equipment and staff (T2 and T3). Users and IS managers valuation of quality of service material (T4) was nearly same. This factor had the biggest gap 5 score.

 

One of the Gap 1 findings in the reliability dimension is that managers think that IS meets deadlines (Rel1) more than what users perceive.  IS managers also think that services and systems delivered by IS are less error-free (Rel5) than what users experience. On the average, managers over-estimate reliability dimension of IS service delivery.

 

Managers think that users think IS is not informing them on the delivery time of services (Res1) more than what users actually do. On the other hand, IS management predicts users’ valuation of IS willingness to help them (Res3) lower than what users actually do. On the average, however,  no gap 1 exists for the response dimension.

 

Managers think that users’ perception of assurance dimension is lower than what users actually perceive. Especially the courtesy/friendliness construct (A3) had a big gap: Managers think users see IS less friendly than what users actually do.

 

IS managers think that users perceive IS working hours to be more convenient to users (E2) than what users actually perceive. IS managers also think that users value personalised attention of IS employees higher than what user actually perceive.

 

IS managers’ answers to B-2 and B-3 question sets (prioritisation of service quality dimensions) give the same results as user responses (see charts B-2 and A-1).

 

 

However, when asked the question “how users would perceive IS service quality”, IS managers give a higher score (4.56) than what users actually valued IS service (4.19).

 

Analysis of Constructs influencing Gap 1

The scores for the constructs influencing Gap 1 are summarised in chart B-3. Please note that higher scores for the construct items represent lower gaps. The ideal point for each number given during gap 1 to gap 4 analysis would be 7. It should also be noted that scores lower than 4 (mid-point of 7-point Linkert scale) are accepted as bad.

 

Marketing Research Orientation (MRO, 3.31) is the most problematic area among the gap 1 constructs. Managers think that they contact users at a low level (MRO4, 4.33). However, items like collecting user needs’ information (MRO1, 3.33), usage of user survey information (MRO2, 3.00), and collection of users’ expectation of service quality (MRO3, 2.56) are extremely low.

 

 

Upwards communication (UC, 4.42)  is also a point that can be improved. All causes of this construct, namely, communication of IS employees with IS managers (UC1), IS managers interaction with IS employees to improve service levels (UC2), face-to-face interaction of IS managers with IS employees (UC3), and formality of communication (UC4) had similar scores.

 

Levels of management (LOM) scores highest (4.56). However, this should be seen as an important gap.

Gap 2 (Management Perception - Service Quality Specification) Analysis

 

Gap 2 (Management Perception - Service Quality Specification Gap) is high since managers’ scores for both existence of standards (overall average 3.76) and formality of standards (overall average 3.26) are low. In other words, existing standards are not formal and are not well specified.

Managers think that standards exist for reliability and tangibility dimensions, and these dimensions also have higher levels of formality (see chart B-4). These standards are project management and time-sheet controls for the reliability, and equipment standardisation for the tangibility dimensions. The other three dimensions,  response, assurance and empathy have lower formality levels of standards. IS department seems to be weak in setting formal standards for these aspects of service delivery.

 

Analysis of Constructs influencing Gap 2

 

The scores for the constructs influencing Gap 2 are summarised in chart B-5.

 

 

Management Commitment to Service Quality (MCSQ) is low (average 3.47). The highest scoring construct was the existence of  internal programs for improving the quality of service to users (MCSQ1, 4.00).  Other constructs like commitment of necessary resources for service quality (MCSQ2),  existence of reward programs promoting service quality improvements (MCSQ3) and emphasis of software/hardware delivery more than serving users (i.e. service orientation rather than product orientation, MCSQ4) scored lower than acceptable (scores are  around 3.30 for each of these constructs).

 

Managers valued level of formal goal setting (GS) in the department low.  The two goal setting constructs, setting of formal service quality goals for employees (GS1), and setting service quality goals for the department (GS2)  were valued low, 3.00 and 4.00 respectively.

 

Level of task standardisation in the department, both by usage of technology to achieve consistency of service quality (TS1, 3.89), and by improvement of operating procedures to provide consistent service (TS2, 3.56)  are low from managers point of view.

 

Responses to questions related to perception of feasibility (POF) of service quality improvement are very interesting; IS managers valued budgetary controls too restrictive. Fear of overspending IS budget if desired service is given to users is extremely high (POF2, 2.11).  Belief that department has necessary capabilities to meet user requirements (POF1, 4.33) scored higher than the existence of operating procedures to provide adequate service (POF3, 3.67).

 

4.3 Employee Survey Results

 

Model C Questionnaire was sent out to all 24 employees of IS department. There were 20 responses in total, one being partially complete. Response rate for the IS employees is 83.33%.  Only the filled part of the partial questionnaire was used.

 

Please refer to the third part of Appendix B, “C- Staff Questionnaire” for a detailed analysis of the results for this section.

 

Gap 3 (Service Quality Specifications - Service Delivery) Analysis

 

Gap 3  (Service Quality Specification - Service Delivery Gap) is identified by the assessment of employees’ perception of ability to meet service quality standards for each of the five dimensions of service quality.

 

Employees think that IS is able to meet standards for the tangibility and reliability dimensions the least (averages of 3.89). The other dimensions scored better; response (4.84), assurance (4.79) and empathy (4.58). Please also refer to chart C-1. In other words, employees notice that department does not perform according to the set standards for the standardised service dimensions. This observation could not be done by the employees for the less standardised dimensions, in the from of smaller gaps.

 

 

 

Analysis of Constructs influencing Gap 3

 

 

Constructs influencing Gap 3 are measured by the first 25 items of question set C-3. 

 

Please note that averages for questions 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24 and 25 were inverted to remove the effects of negated logic.

 

Questions related to teamwork (TEAM) returned satisfactory results (please refer to Chart C-2). Employees valued themselves being clearly linked to a team (TEAM1, 5.25) at a satisfactory level. All employees of department contributing to a team effort (TEAM2, 4.35) is surprisingly low; indicating some employees are seeing other colleagues not effective, or different functions are not visible.  Employees’ feeling that they are an important member of the department (TEAM5, 5.10) is at an acceptable level. Tendency to help colleagues do their jobs well (TEAM3, 6.30) and more co-operation with colleagues than competition (TEAM4, 6.05) scored at nearly ideal points.

 

Items related to Employee-Job fit (EFIT) were interesting; employees feel comfortable at their jobs (EFIT1) by a score of 5.35, which is good. Ability of the department to hire qualified people (EFIT2) is valued higher at 5.70.

 

Technology-Job (TFIT) fit problems are more serious. Employees think that tools and equipment used in the department are not adequate to perform their jobs well (TFIT1, 4.95). Employees also think that methodologies and technology used in the department do not give them confidence for their future career (TFIT2, 4.20).

 

 

Employees perception of control (PC) of their work environment showed the lowest results, overall average being 4.04. Employees think that they spend a lot of  time to resolve problems they can not control (PC1, 3.30). Employees, on the other hand, think that they have reasonable level of freedom in performing their jobs (PC2, 4.75). Employees frustrations of demand peaks (i.e. increasing user requests, PC3)  has a worse score (4.00) than frustration of dependency on colleagues to serve users (4.10, PC4).

 

Items related to emphasis of supervisory control systems (SCS) on service quality showed that job appraisals included quality of communication with users (SCS1, 5.05) to some degree, even though servicing users better was not promoted at all by either more pay / recognition (SCS2, 2.60), or by faster career paths (SCS3, 3.40).

 

Employees feeling of role conflict (RC) between productivity control / monitoring, and servicing users (service orientation) is also high.  Employees value amount of paperwork needed for servicing users as acceptable (RC1, 5.25). Other items related to role conflict scored smaller, hence bigger contributors to gap 3. Emphasis for productivity over service quality was relatively high (RC2, 4.20). Employees role conflict due to differences between managers’ and users’ wishes is high (RC3, 3.80). Employees also showed that they think their jobs could be performed differently (RC4, 3.90)

 

Items related to Role Ambiguity (RA) scored low except the fact that employees think they are able to cope with the changes in the department (RA3, 5.60). Amount of top-down information flow was seen inadequate by employees (RA1, 3.95).  Employees also do not know which aspects of their jobs will be stressed most by their managers (RA5, 3.80). Employees confidence that they are well trained to interact with users (RA4, 4.35), and their understanding of the services delivered by the department (RA2, 4.55) are far from the ideal point.

 

Gap 4 (Service Delivery - External Communications) Analysis

 

Gap 4 (Difference between Service Delivery and External Communication) is measured by use of question set C-2. Employees were asked to evaluate the ability of IS to meet promises made to the user community (chart C-3).

 

 

Employees think that IS is able to meet promises made to user community better for assurance and response dimensions than for dimensions of tangibility, reliability and empathy. These figures are similar to Gap 3 findings (at service quality dimension level) on employees. In other words, ability to meet standards is directly related to the ability to keep promises.

 

Analysis of Constructs influencing Gap 4

 

The responses are shown in chart C-4. Level of horizontal communication is unexpectedly low (overall HC score is 3.93).  Employees think that they interact with each other moderately on how IS services should be delivered to users (HC3, 4.45). Level of consultation made between those making promises and employees implementing the promises is unacceptable (HC1, 3.80).  Employees also complain that they are not informed of promises until after the promises are done (HC2, 3.75), and that departmental policies on serving users differ between different groups/teams (HC4, 3.70).

 

Employees answers to propensity to over-promise (PTO, 4.58) shows that the amount of internal competition is not at a level that can jeopardise service delivery (PTO1, 5.40). However, employees think that other IS service providers are making unrealistic promises to gain new customers within the organisation (PTO2, 3.75).

 

4.4 Summary of Research Findings

 

Reliability of IS service delivery, and response issues related, are valued very low by the user community. IS is not able to deliver on time (lateness) and can not meet deadlines set by the organisation (under capacity and/or inefficiency). Users also think that IS service quality is low since it is not right the first time, and that IS does not show desired level of interest in users’ needs. On the response dimension of service delivery, users think that IS does not provide them feedback on service delivery process. Promptness of the service and the availability of IS resources to respond to user requests is also low.

 

The most important service quality gap on the assurance dimension was that users do not feel safe in their transactions with IS. Lack of confidence and lack of safety feeling are two important IS service delivery shortcomings.

 

Users think that IS does not show enough empathy to them and is not willing to understand their needs.

 

The quality of service and support material is found to be inadequate. Physical appearance of staff and equipment was acceptable.

 

However, the difference between users perception of IS services and IS managers’ predictions of users’ perception of IS service was surprisingly low. It can be concluded that IS managers know the service delivery problems. The most important mismatches here are on IS meeting deadlines (overestimate), IS delivering error-free software (underestimate), giving feedback to users  (overestimate), willingness to help users (underestimate), and the personalised attention of employees to the users (overestimate).  Usage of the constructs used to close the service delivery/user perception gap showed bad results; amount of marketing research on IS service quality and usage of this information is very low. Despite the size of the IS and its position in the organisation, upwards communication from employees to IS management and downwards communication from management to employees scored just above the mid-point. Tools that can be used to understand user expectations (i.e. input from users and from IS employees) are not used effectively. High levels of management indicates that middle level of IS management is not able to communicate effectively.

 

Standardisation of IS services is low and, moreover,  standardised aspects of service are not formalised. Standards exist for tangibility and reliability dimensions more than response, assurance and empathy dimensions (a characteristic of technical/production environments). IS needs to set standards for these soft aspects of service delivery. In general, it can be concluded that IS management is not able to improve the quality of services by translating its understanding of service delivery problems into standards and service level specifications. Commitment to service quality (not only product quality) by the management and IS employees’ perception of importance given to service quality by management is low. Moreover, IS management thinks that it is impossible to improve service quality within the financial controls imposed on the department.

 

Employee survey results showed better results on gap 3. Employees think that IS is not able to meet the standardised dimensions of service quality (i.e. tangibility and reliability). These dimensions are better standardised than other three. Higher valuation of meeting standards for empathy, response and assurance dimensions could be attributed to the vagueness of these standards.

 

Employees valued the level of teamwork and they fitting their jobs quite high. All other constructs influencing service specification / service delivery gap showed undesirable results. Employees find the technology used in IS inefficient and as a barrier for their careers. Tasks are not well defined and this creates ambiguity on who does what, which in turn creates frustrations of being dependent on peers. Employees also do not know which aspect of their jobs will be stressed more by management (i.e. ambiguity). The conflict between servicing users and productivity is also high. As a conclusion, it can be said that employees think they are capable and fitting their positions, but the work environment and methods are not well perceived by them.

 

The Service Delivery / External Communication gap is also big. The level of horizontal communication in the department is low. However, most of the complaints were related to unpredictable demand which eventually originates from user community. IS management was also pointing to the unpredictable demand coming from user community, and this demand was usually occurring in peaks (i.e. product changes in the summer).  Unrealistic advertising or promises made by third parties seems to be a major contributor to the communication gap. However, the rise of user expectations as a consequence of third party communication is seen desirable in order to keep IS function and users aware of new horizons in information systems solutions and service delivery.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

This research found out that the delivery of Information services by the Gouden Gids IS department is problematic. The major findings are:

 

Users’ perception of IS service quality is lower than their expectations. Users value IS service delivery as not reliable. Responsiveness of IS to user service requests is also valued lower than expected. Users do not trust IS, and moreover, users think that IS does not show enough empathy towards  them. The quality of documentation is found to be inadequate.

 

IS management is aware of low perception of IS services by users. However, IS management does not employ formal marketing research techniques to gather user feedback. Vertical communication (upwards and downwards) in the department is not at the desired level as to help gather user feedback on IS service.

 

IS Service delivery is not standardised, and this creates ambiguity amongst IS employees. Certain standards exist for time management/cost reporting and equipment acquisition. However, management does not regularly develop standards in order to improve service quality. Another important finding is that IS management do not think IS service quality could be improved within the financial constraints emposed  on the department.

 

Employees are not able to perform their jobs well due to technology-job fit problems, changing priorities, unclear objectives,  and tight deadlines. Aspects of team working seem to be adequate.

 

Communication of IS service to users is also problematic. Horizontal communication in the department is lower than desired level.

 

IS management can start a service quality improvement programme by implementing the “Process Model for Continuous Service Quality Improvement model” (see Figure 3- 4) proposed by Zeithaml, et. al. (1990).

 

IS can use marketing research techniques to improve its understanding of user needs. By such pro-active measures, users will also see IS showing interest in their needs. Marketing research and usage of its results will help to reduce the gaps on the empathy and assurance dimensions of service quality. Improvement on the horizontal and vertical communication is needed for a better service quality.

 

Response dimension of service quality could easily be improved by a combination of training and standards  settings on response issues. Management can easily measure improvements of IS responsiveness via marketing research techniques. Another problem area is the availability of IS personnel to respond to user requests during office hours. This could be improved by adding some resources to the first line support functions such as help desk.

 

IS needs to improve the quality of service and support material, and the quality of equipment in order to match user expectations on the tangibility dimension.

 

Since standardisation is setting specifications for the service delivery process, IS needs to work hard to close this management perception / service quality specification gap. IS needs to develop standards for gathering user requirements, documentation of systems/service specifications and operational procedures, systems design, development and testing methodologies, communication with users etc. IT consultancy firms could be asked for help introduce these standards.

 

A very important step that should be realised is to improve communication in the department. IS management should take appropriate steps to improve vertical communication. Better downwards communication could be the first step. Creating an open environment in IS by frequent communication and increased interaction between functional groups is needed. It is important that employees of department give feedback on the effectiveness of departmental standards, and ask for modifications of standards if necessary.

 

Better planning of work, introduction of techniques/methodologies and clear communication in the department will eliminate service specification / service delivery gap. It is clear that closing this gap (gap 3) is the heart of service quality improvement process, and that closing gap 2 (management perception / service quality specifications) is a prerequisite for it.

 

Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) propose two service improvement roles within a service organisations for the improvement effort to succeed. They propose to have a “Service Defender” and a “Service Champion”. Service Defender will protect the change process by eliminating the resistance and giving credibility to the improvement process. Service Champions are those people who actually plan and steer the change process. Sometimes the defender and champion could be the same person.

 

Considering the organisational structure of Gouden Gids IS, it is proposed that Operations Director plays the role of service defender, and IS manager takes responsibility for service championship.

 

Cost-based performance indicators are not always going hand-in-hand with service quality.  Quality of services delivered by IS should somehow be made one of the performance indicators for IS. A quarterly user satisfaction survey could then be used to monitor quality of IS services and the (comparative) results could be used as an IS performance indicator. 

 

Consistent with some other SERVQUAL studies mentioned by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990), this study shows  IS service reliability as the most important factor among the SERVQUAL dimensions in determining overall user satisfaction. This means that IS performs the service right the first time and honours its premises. In the highly competitive environment (not only IS, but also the business environment in general) IS management and personnel may feel pressured to over-promise IS deliverables. However, as Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1990) state, when service providers make careless mistakes and when things are not done on time, customers quickly lose confidence in the service provider. To prevent this occurrence, they suggest identifying potential fail points by using periodic customer survey, by soliciting input from employees performing the service, and by studying customer complaints. Corrective actions could be taken based on this information.

 

Based on the findings of this study, the hypothesis that, a services marketing based service quality measurement could successfully be applied to IS departments, is valid in the case of  Gouden Gids. All involved parties (survey respondents) agreed with the results.

 

SERVQUAL instrument identified certain aspects of IS service delivery process that were not to be identified by the current performance measures. The communication within IS and with user community is poor, changing user needs are not identified by IS management in time, IS management is not always able to  eliminate service quality problems by translating them into standards that could both be progressively measured and be guidelines for IS employees.  Hence, the second hypothesis of this paper that, application of a service quality measurement instrument could detect problems with the soft aspects of service delivery better, is also proven. SERVQUAL helped identifying these problems together with their causes.

 

The application of SERVQUAL in the IS department of  the case company revealed some aspects that were not considered by IS management during day-to-day activities. In the operational environments there is usually no time for managers to concentrate on the internal problems as part of their daily work. Internal IS problems get attention when service delivery becomes very poor, and in these cases, the action is not likely to be taken by IS management. Application of SERVQUAL measure can help service managers identify problems associated with their servicing organisation, in addition to the gathering customer feedback on service quality.

 

SERVQUAL was found to be simple and practical to implement in the case company. It is very easy to modify the questionnaires to any service environment. Researchers do not need to know the organisational and technical details of service organisation. Questions do not include any technical jargon, and are easily answered by both users and IS personnel. This measure can easily be used for other departments of the case company (e.g. facility management -customers being company personnel, customer services - customers being advertisers of Gouden Gids). This research could also easily be repeated for IS departments of other country units such as Belgium and Portugal. With some additional changes, SERVQUAL could be applied to the services of ITT Publitec. In this case, service customer group will be both service users and IS departments of operational units.

 

During this study, an extensive literature survey was done on services and IS service environments. A services marketing approach was implemented to the services of the internal IS department of Gouden Gids organisation. The case IS department did not have any formal service quality measurements before this study. SERVQUAL service quality measurement technique was used for the research.

 

A clear view of the evaluation of IS services by the users was obtained. The constructs influencing service quality and service delivery problems were identified by literature search. The influence of these constructs on Gouden Gids IS environment were identified by use of SERVQUAL.

SERVQUAL was found to be a sound research technique that can be used by managers to identify service delivery problems and their causes within IS departments. The strength of this technique is that it helps managers identify both service delivery problems, and their causes. IS users, IS managers and IS employees give their feedback on IS environment, and these results are compared to find problem areas.

 

SERVQUAL identifies a service delivery gap, the other four internal gaps that identify the causes of service delivery gap. It is worth mentioning that even if service quality gap is small, the other gaps may be big. When service quality gap (gap 5) is small, gap 1 (difference between customer expectations and management perception of customer expectations) will be small. However, the other three internal gaps (difference between management perception and service quality specification, difference between service quality specification and service delivery, and, difference between service delivery and external communication) may still be big. Although research in services marketing is more focused on the customer side, analysis of these  internal gap could provide useful hints to service managers to improve the performance and coherence of their service organisation. For example, technological changes  in an industry like IT are so immense that, even if service users evaluate the quality of equipment/service as adequate, IS employees may have a low perception of their operational environment. 

 

Although different user profiles within Gouden Gids are already known by IS (e.g. desktop users, users of main operational system, etc.), this research did not distinguish between different user profiles. In order to investigate the specific needs of different user profiles, first there should be an overall understanding of IS service quality. This study measured the overall service quality for Gouden Gids IS department.  Later, a clustered SERVQUAL survey could be done for these specific user profiles to find out their specific needs.

 

Another aspect of IS service life cycle is that it can be broken down into four major phases: requirements, acquisitions, stewardship, and retirement. It is highly likely that users’ expectations will be different at each of these phases. For example, empathy might be the major need during requirements, and reliability during stewardship. This might be a possible future research. Another future research subject could be the application of SERVQUAL to the services delivered by each functional group within IS (i.e. development pool, help-desk,  etc.)

 

Although this research investigated the service quality in the Information Services of Gouden Gids, it may not be generalised for all internal IS departments, or to IT service providers. As already mentioned (section 2.2) the services delivered by IS departments and the organisational settings of IS departments may differ a lot.  For example, IS may be simply a support function in one organisation, and still be the most crucial department in a company dealing with information. More research is needed in order to reach industry wide conclusions and generalisations.

 

Another future research that may reveal valuable information is to group users according to their satisfaction levels. Each segment could then be analysed based on the each dimension of SERVQUAL, namely physical appearance, etc. These results will help to better understand what needs to be done in each dimension of IS service quality for each IS customer segment, and moreover, provide valuable feedback toward building an overall service strategy to improve organisational IS effectiveness.

 

SERVQUAL can be used by managers to allocate scarce resources more effectively. This can be achieved by asking users to allocate relative dimension importance on a constant sum scale (e.g. 100 points). Zeithaml et al. (1990) recommend this approach, which results in a “weighted gap score” by dimension and in total. The score for each dimension is multiplied by its weight and then each new score is divided by the sum of the weighted scores. Then the importance of reliability and response dimensions (in our case, at least) will be even more, compared to other service quality dimensions.

 

In addition, not each dimension of service quality, and even not each construct of any service quality dimension may be equally important on a 7 point scale. If the resources for the improvement program are scarce, users could be asked to prioritise these constructs. Management can then concentrate on improvement of these most critical fail-points.

 

A final caution should be mentioned here that different applications of SERVQUAL like instruments in different service organisations in different cultural settings may show variations depending on cultural factors.  No research, in the literature survey done for this study, covered the affects of culture on the implementations of SERVQUAL. Service is carried out by individuals, and, individual behaviour is influenced by the culture.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

·       Averill, J.R. 1973,  "Personal Control over Aversive Stimuli and Its Relationship to Stress," Psychological Bulletin, 80(4), 286-303

·       Babakus, E., and Boller, G. W. "An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale," Journal of Business Research (243) 1992, pp. 253-268.

·       Baroudi, J.J., & Orlikowski, W.J., 1988, A Short-form measure of user information satisfaction: A psychometric evaluation of notes on use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 4(4), 44-59.

·       Berry L.L., Zeithaml V. A, and Parasuraman, A., 1985, "Quality Counts in Services, Too" Business Horizons, 28 (May-June), pp 44-52.

·       Bhote, K.J., 1991, Next operation as customers: How to improve quality, cost, and cycle time in service operations. New York: American Management Association.

·       Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. 1988. Services marketing and management: Implications for organisational behavior. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 10: 43-80.

·       Buzzell, R., & Gale, B. 1987. The PIMS principles: Linking strategy to performance. New York: Free Press.

·       Conrath, D.W., and Mignen, O. P., August 1990, "What is being done to Measure User Satisfaction with EDP/MIS," Information & Management, 19(1), pp. 7-19.

·       Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: New American Library.

·       Daft, R. L.,  and Steers, R., 1985. Organisations: A Micro/Macro Approach. Scott, Foresman and Company. Glenview, IL.

·       DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R., 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, 3(1), March 1992, pp. 60-95.

·       Doll, W.J., & Torkzadeh, G., 1988. The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction, MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 258-274

·       Ferguson, J. M., & Zawacki, R. A.,  1993. Service quality: A critical success factor for IS organisations. Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, 9(2), 24-30.

·       Glass, D.C., and Singer, J.E., 1972. Urban Stress. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

·       Grönroos, C. 1983. Strategic management and marketing in the service sector. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

·       Grönroos, C. 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4): 36-44.

·       Grönroos, C. 1990. Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in service competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

·       Hostage G.M., 1975. "Quality control in a service business", Harvard Business Review, July-August 1975, pp 98-106.

·       Ivancevich, J.M., and McMahon, J.T., 1982. "The effects of Goal Setting, External Feedback and Self-Generated Feedback on Outcome Variables: A Field Experiment," Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 359-372.

·       Ives, B., Olson, M.H., & Baroudi J., 1983. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 16(10), 785-793.

·       Judd, R. C., 1964. The case for redesigning services. Journal of Marketing, 28(1): 58-59.

·       Kappelman, L.A., Van Dyke, T.P., Prybutok, V.P., 1995. Concerns on the Use of SERVQUAL Difference Scores to Measure Information Systems Service Quality, Working Paper BCIS-WP-951101, College of Business Administration, University of Northern Texas.

·       Katz, B. and Khan, R., 1978. The Social Psychology of Organisations, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

·       Kettinger W.J., & Lee C.C., 1994. Perceived Service Quality and User Satisfaction with Information Services Function, Decision Sciences, 25(5,6), 737-766.

·       Khan, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., et al., 1964. Organisational Stress, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

·       Kotler,  P., 1994, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control., Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

·       Levitt, T., 1981. “Marketing Intangible products and product intangibles,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1981, pp. 94-102

·       Levitt, T. 1976. "Industrialisation of Service," Harvard Business Review, 54 (September-October), pp 163-171.

·       Levitt, T. 1972. “Production-line approach to service,” Harvard Business Review, 50(5): 41-52.

·       Lovelock, C. H., 1981. "Why marketing management needs to be different for services" in Marketing of Services, J.H. Donnelly and W.R. George, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp 5-9.

·       Mills, P. K., & Marguiles, N. 1980. Toward a core typology of service organisations. Academy of Management Review, 5: 255-265

·       Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(6), 460-469.

·       Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A., 1994. "Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research," Journal of Marketing (58) January 1994, pp. 111-124.

·       Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A. 1993, "Research Note: More on Improving Quality Measurement," Journal of Retailing, 69(1), pp. 140-147.

·       Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml V.A., 1991. Perceived Service Quality as a customer-based Performance Measure: An Empirical Examination of Organisational Barriers Using an Extended Service Quality Model, Human Resource Management, 30(3), pp 335-364

·       Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 4(4): 41-50.

·       Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64: 12-37.

·       Parasuraman, A., and Zeithaml V.A., 1983, "Differential Perceptions of Suppliers and Clients of Industrial Services" in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, L. Berry, G L Shostack, and G. Upah, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 35-39.

·       Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

·       Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B.,  1997. Measuring Information Systems service quality: concerns of a complete canvass. MIS Quarterly.

·       Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., Kavan, C. B., 1995, “Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness,” MIS Quarterly, June 1995, pp. 173-187.

·       Pitt, L. F., and Watson, R. T., 1994, “Longitudinal Measurement of Service Quality in Information Systems: A Case Study,” Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on information systems, Vancouver, B.C.

·       Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A.  1994 "Defining quality: alternatives and implications," Academy of Management Review, page 419

·       Remenyi, D. S. J., and Money, A. H., 1994, “Service quality and correspondence analysis in determining problems with the effective use of computer services,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 3, pp. 2-12.

·       Sasser W. E., "Match supply and Demand in Service Industries", Harvard Business Review, November-December 1976, pp. 133-140.

·       Sasser, W. E., Olsen, R. P., & Wyckoff, D. D. 1978. Management of service operations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

·       Saunders S.S., & Jones, J.W., 1992. Measuring Performance of the Information Systems Function, Journal of Management Information Systems, 8(4), 63-82.

·       Schneider, B., and Bowen, D. E., 1985. "Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service in Banks: Replication and Extension," Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 423-433.

·       Shetty, Y. K., & Ross, J. E. 1985. Quality and its management in service businesses. Industrial Management, 27(6): 7-12.

·       Webster, C.,  1991, "Influences upon customer expectations of services," Journal of Services Marketing.

·       Zeithaml, V. A. 1981. How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and services. In J. Donnelly, & W. George (Eds.), Marketing of services: 186-190, Chicago: American Marketing Association.

·       Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L.,  1988, Communication and Control Processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of marketing. Vol 52. pp 35-48.

·       Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L.L., 1990. Delivering Quality Service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, The Free Press

·       Zmud, R.W., 1984, Design alternatives for organising information systems activities. MIS Quarterly, 8(2), 79-93.

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Questionnaires

 

IS SERVICE QUALITY ASSESSMENT - QUESTIONAIRRE MODEL A

 

DIRECTIONS: Based on your experiences as a user of Information Services Department, please think about the kind of information services department  that would deliver excellent quality of Information services. Think about the kind of information services department with which you would be pleased to do business.

 

Please show the extent to which you think such an information services department  would possess the feature described by each statement. If you feel a feature is not at all essential for excellent information services departments such as the one you have in mind, circle the number "1". If you feel a feature is absolutely essential for excellent information services departments , circle "7". If your feelings are less strong, circle one of the numbers in the middle. There are no right or wrong answers - all we are interested in is a number that truly reflects your feelings regarding information services departments that would deliver excellent quality of service. Please note that this first set of questions relate to an information services department in your mind. Try not to consider the service quality of our IS department while answering these questions.

 

Figure A-1

                                                                                             Disagree                  Agree

1	Excellent information services departments will have modern equipment.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
2	The physical facilities at excellent information services departments  will be visually appealing.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
3	Employees of excellent information services departments will be neat-appearing.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
4	Materials associated with the service (such as systems documentation and user interfaces) will be user friendly and visually appealing in an excellent information services department.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
5	When excellent information services departments  promise to do something by a certain time, they will do so.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
6	When users have a problem, information services departments will show a sincere interest in solving it.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
7	Excellent information services departments will perform the service right the first time.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	Excellent information services departments will provide their services at the time  they promise to do so.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
9	Excellent information services departments will insist on error-free systems and services.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
10	Employees of excellent information services departments will tell users exactly when services will be performed.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
11	Employees of excellent information services departments will give prompt service to users.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
12	Employees of excellent information services departments will always be willing  to help users.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
13	Employees of excellent information services departments will never be too busy to respond to user requests.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
14	The behaviour of employees of excellent information services departments will instil (start) confidence in users.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
15	Users of excellent information services departments will feel safe in their transactions.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
16	Employees of excellent information services departments will be consistently  courteous (friendly, kind) with users.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
17	Employees of excellent information services departments will have the knowledge to answer user questions.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
18	Excellent information services departments will give users individual attention.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
19	Excellent information services departments will have operating hours convenient to all their users.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
20	Excellent information services departments will have employees who give users personal attention.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
21	Excellent information services depts will have the users' best interests at heart	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
22	The employees of excellent information services departments will understand the  specific needs of their users.