The Gap Model of Service Quality

The Gap Model of service quality was developed by Parasuraman et al (1985) to help service providers manage service delivery in their sectors. It preceded the SERVQUAL model. The Gap Model is a measurement and a management framework that was designed after an empirical study (Parasuraman et al, 1985). During the initial stages of their study, Parasuraman et al (1985) noted that there was little literature on areas of service quality but abundant literature on the area of goods (product) quality. They also noted that there was hardly any tangible evidence or indicators to be used to evaluate the quality of services. The only tangible evidence found in the service area is “limited to the service provider’s physical facilities, equipment and personnel” (Parasuraman et al 1985:42). These researchers also found that quality management principles for goods were used to understand and evaluate service quality. They pointed out that quality management principles for goods were inadequate to evaluate service quality, because service quality is an abstract construct that cannot be measured objectively using tangible measures. They proposed that an appropriate approach to assess the quality of services in service industries was to measure service users’ expectations and their perceptions of the experiences of the service offered by service providers.

Parasuraman et al’s (1985) first empirical work on service quality began with an exploratory investigation of service quality in four different service sectors. The investigations involved focus

group and in-depth interviews with service users and executives (managers) from the following service sectors: credit card, retail banking, securities brokerage, product repair and maintenance. The results of the exploratory investigation revealed the following important insights into service quality.

· Firstly, service users evaluate service quality by comparing expectations (the service they expect to receive) with perceptions (the service actually received) on quality dimensions. (This result confirmed earlier studies (Boom & Lewis, 1983; Gronroos 1982), that service users (consumers) compare the service they expect with the service they receive). · Secondly, the results revealed a set of service quality discrepancies or gaps associated

with service providers.

· Thirdly, service users used the same determinants to evaluate quality.

From these insights Parasuraman et al (1985) developed a service quality model referred to as the Gap Model of service quality. It is an “integrated view” which shows the relationship between an organisation and a service user. The main aim of the Gap model is to identify the gaps between service users’ expectations and their perceptions of the services offered at different stages of service delivery, and to explain the causes of these gaps that occur as a result of quality shortfalls within the organisations.

The Gap Model proposes that service users’ perception of service quality depends on these gaps. In addition, the model depicts that service users’ expectations are highly influenced by statements made by an organisation and its personnel. For example, an advertisement about a service may state that the organisation provides excellent service. However, when the service is delivered, the user’s expectations of “excellent” might be frustrated. The gap will arise when the expectations of “excellent” service are not fulfilled at the time of delivery of the service. According to Parasuraman et al (1985:44), “These gaps can be major hurdles in attempting to deliver a service”.

GAP 5

Service User (Customer)

Service Provider (Organisation) GAP 4

GAP 1 GAP 3

GAP 2

Figure 3.1: The model of service quality (Parasuraman et al 1985)

Figure 3.1 shows the gap model of service quality. There are five service-quality gaps depicted in The Gap Model. These are: Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap3, Gap 4 and Gap 5. These five gaps arise as a result of an organisation not meeting service users’ expectations and needs. The first four gaps are called “company gaps” or internal gaps. Gap 5 is called the service users’ gap. Parasuraman et al (1985) point out that what a service user perceives in a service is a function of the magnitude and

Word-of-mouth communication Personal needs Expected service Perceived service Service delivery (pre- and post-

contact) Translation of perceptions into Services Quality Specifications Management’s perception of customers’ expectations Past experiences External communication to customer

users’ perceptions are influenced by a series of gaps that prevent the delivery of services within an organisation that provides services. In other words, before the service quality gap can be closed, other gaps should also be addressed. All the gaps are elaborated and explained below: · GAP 1: The gap between service users’ expectations and management perceptions of

service users’ expectations

Gap 1 arises when the management of an organisation that provides service does not correctly perceive the service user’s expectations, or what the service users want. For instance, DE institutions’ administrators may think delivering a lot of study material is what students want, but the students may be more concerned with how to access lecturers and tutors to assist them. GAP 2: Gap between management’s perception and service quality specification

Gap 2 (standards gap) occurs when the management of the organisation that provides a service correctly perceives what the service user wants but does not set performance standards. This means the organisation cannot translate the service user’s expectations into clear quality standards. As a result, there are no quality specifications to guide the personnel of the organisation. In most cases, some standards are described as “adequate” without defining different levels of adequacy.

§ GAP 3: The gap between service quality specification and service delivery

This gap arises when the specifications of services delivered are not met. This could occur due to poor management or putting service delivery in the hands of people who lack expertise, or have been poorly trained, or are incapable of or unwilling to meet the set service standard.

§ GAP 4: The gap between service delivery and external communication:

Service users’ expectations are highly influenced by statements made by companies or organisations’ representatives and advertisements. The gap arises when expectations are not fulfilled at the time of delivery of the service. For example, a DE institution may advertise itself

to be the best, yet in reality it may be delivering very poor services that fail to meet students’ expectations.

§ GAP 5: The gap between expected service and experienced service

Gap 5 is called the service users’ gap because it is experienced by the service user. It is also referred to as perceived service quality gap. Gap 5 is the difference between service users’ expectations of service and their perceptions of the service actually delivered. It arises when a service user’s perceptions of the experience with the service do not match the user’s expectations of the service due to a series of shortfalls within the service provider’s organisation. Perceived service quality is conceptualised differently by researchers. Zeithaml (1987) defines perceived quality as a service user’s judgement of the excellence of a particular service. Parasuraman et al (1985) on the other hand define perceived service quality as the difference or the discrepancy between service user’s expectations and perceptions. This discrepancy depends on the size and the direction of the four gaps concerning the delivery of service by the organisation. Perceived service quality is multi-dimensional in nature. According to Parasuraman (1988:15), perceived quality is a “form of attitude, related to but not equivalent to satisfaction”. Furthermore, Parasuraman et al (1985) state that:

§ When expected service is less than perceived service, perceived quality is less than satisfactory and will tend to be totally unacceptable quality, with decreased discrepancy between expected service and perceived service.

§ When expected service is equal to perceived service (ES=PS), perceived quality is satisfactory. § When expected service is greater than perceived service (ES>PS), perceived quality is more

Figure 3-2 shows that perceived quality is multidimensional in nature. There are ten determinants or dimensions that can be used to measure perceived service quality.

Figure 3.2: Determinants of perceived service quality (Parasuraman et al, 1985)