Chapter 1. Introduction
1.3 The Structure
This study is divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 serves as the introduction to this study.
Chapter 2 reviews theoretical and empirical literatures on service quality and related constructs of management and conference interpreting. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology of this study, starting from the forming of the service quality model, the measurement instruments, and hypotheses, to the development and implementation of survey, and data collection. Chapter 4 presents the survey results and findings, as well as tests on the hypotheses and analysis. Chapter 5 discusses further analysis on the findings and makes the conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Service industry has been playing a dominant role in the global economy in the 21st century. According to a 2011 World Bank’s report, contribution of service sector to the GDP of major and emerging economies had exceeded 50%, or, if not, had been approaching 50% (Zhang, 2013). Such trend has encouraged and inspired a boom of literatures contributing to theories and concepts on service industry management. Among these efforts, “service quality” has been one major focus, as it is believed to make the decisive competence of a service provider for it to stand out from the competitors (Grönroos, 1984; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1988; Haywood-Farmer, 1988;
Philip & Hazlett, 1997; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993; Sweeney, Soutar, & Johnson, 1997; Dabholkar, Shepherd, & Thorpe, 2000).
Growth and advances of the service industry, expansion of global economy, and innovation of other industries have fueled the development and expansion of professional services. Today, many countries consider professional services as a key contributor to their economies. However, studies in the fields of many professional services and the management are still at an early stage. Therefore, when addressing the construct “service quality”, studies of professional service usually take 3 approaches:
(1) Build from scratch the quality theory/standard for a specific professional service (Markovic, 2006).
(2) Borrow and apply the mainstream theories and concepts of service quality from management studies (Carman, 1990; Headley & Miller, 1993).
(3) Review previous attempts of the above 2 approaches, elaborate, and expand (Dagger, Sweeney, & Johnson, 2007).
This paper takes the third approach (the reasons are explained in later sections and Chapter 3). Therefore, the following sections will review theoretical/empirical literatures on service quality and related constructs from both studies of management and the professional service—interpreting service.
2.1 Service Quality of Professional Service
This section discusses the mainstream service quality management theories, definitions of professional service, why quality matters, and applications of the mentioned service quality theories in professional service industry.
2.1.1 Service Quality Theories
The subject of “service quality” has been a top of the line topic in the practice and academic studies of business management, particularly for the service sectors. The main reason for the subjects’ prominence is intuitive: good service quality contributes to customer satisfaction, leading to positive business outcome for service providers. Such conventional believe, though still receive challenges now and then, has been proved in various empirical studies.
In the past few decades, tens of service quality models were reported. In a paper (Seth, Deshmukh, & Vrat, 2004) that reviews 20 service quality models during 1984-2003, one can see attempts from different perspectives on exploring attributes of service quality that really matter to different business sectors and the impact of service quality on costs reduction, customer satisfaction, loyalty and profitability. As this study aims at developing a service quality model of conference interpreting, the 20 models were reviewed to identify the most sufficient and adaptable ones for that purpose.
GAP model and SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) is obviously the mainstream supported by many researchers (Akan, 1995; Bojanic, 1991; Carman, 1990; Finn
& Lamb, 1991; Johnson & Sirikit, 2002). In fact, many other service quality models have derived from it (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993; Sweeney et al., 1997; Dabholkar et al., 2000), based on their agreement with or arguments against it. Among those derived models,
one major rival to the GAP model and SERVQUAL is SERPERF and its perception-only model (Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
As for those other models (non GAP model related), some are mainly conceptual models that have not been tested (Haywood-Farmer, 1988; Philip & Hazlett, 1997), others focus on certain specific services, such as internet banking, E-service, etc. (Berkley & Gupta, 1994; Broderick & Vachirapornpuk, 2002; Santos, 2003). The only one that is tested and general enough to be put into the context of this study is the technical and functional quality model of Grönroos (1984). Grönroos’ conceptual model and theory is commonly quoted by researchers (Woodside, Frey, & Daly, 1989; Bitner, 1990; Babakus & Boller, 1992).
However, the model does not offer an instrument or method to measure the service quality as does SERVQUAL and SERPERF.
The GAP model and SERVQUAL has been supported for its sufficient or better-than-others validity, generality, and applicability. It has also been the most quoted/applied in the quality studies of different service businesses, including professional services. Therefore, the GAP model and SERVQUAL is chosen to serve as the fundament of the model and instrument development of this study. However, considering its limits, concepts of Grönroos’ and Cronin and Taylor’s are also drawn into this study to develop a model and instrument that makes a better sense in the context of conference interpreting.
These three models are thus discussed in the following sections.
A. Gap Model and SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988)
Founded on studies of service and product quality and insights from an exploratory investigation (in-depth interviews with executives and focus group interview of customers) on 4 service categories (retail banking, credit card, securities brokerage, and product repair
and maintenance), Parasuraman et al. (1985) proposed a conceptual model of service quality, later known as the GAP Model (see Figure 2.1), identifying five gaps in the process of service delivery that “can be major hurdles in attempting to deliver a service which consumers would perceive as being of high quality”. The five gaps are:
Gap 1: Consumer expectation—management perception gap:
This is the gap between consumers’ expectations and management’s perceptions of those expectations, suggesting that “service providers may not always understand what customers expect in the service.”
Gap 2: Management perception—service quality specification gap:
This is the gap between management’s perceptions of consumers’
expectations and service quality specifications, suggesting that even though the service firm’s management has the knowledge of consumers’ expectations, means to deliver service meeting such expectations may not be in place.
Gap 3: Service quality specification—service delivery gap:
This is the gap between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered, suggesting variability in personnel performance makes adhering specified quality standards difficult.
Gap 4: Service delivery—external communication gap:
This is the gap between service delivery and the communications to consumers about service delivery, suggesting insufficient or exaggerated communication might lead to customers’ false expectations/perceptions of the service and therefore affect the service quality in views of customers.
Gap 5: Expected service—perceived service gap:
This refers to the difference between consumers’ expectations and the perceived service, suggesting that “judgments of service quality depend on how consumers perceive the actual service performance in the context of
what they expected” (1985, p. 46). This gap depends on the scale and direction of the mentioned four gaps associated with the delivery of service: Gap 5 = f(Gap1, Gap2, Gap3, Gap4)
Figure 2.1 Service Quality Model (Parasuraman et al., 1985)
Parasuraman et al. (1985) also proposed in the paper that “the position of a consumer’s perception of service quality on the continuum depends on the nature of the discrepancy between the expected service (ES) and perceived service (PS)” (p.48):
When ES > PS, perceived quality is less than satisfactory;
When ES = PS, perceived quality is satisfactory;
When ES < PS, perceived quality is more than satisfactory and will tend toward ideal quality
Besides the model, findings of the focus groups in this research suggested similar criteria consumers (across different services) used in evaluating service quality. These criteria were then summarized and described as 10 “service quality determinants” (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 10 Determinants of Service Quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985)
Following up their research in 1985, Parasuraman et al. (1988) published a subsequent scale named SERVQUAL (see Table 2.1) to serve as an instrument in measuring “GAP 5”—customers’ expectations and perceptions of service quality. SERVQUAL features 5 dimensions (refined from the previous 10 determinants of service quality), represented and assessed by a 22-item scale, where each item is measured based on consumers’ responses to two statements of the item:
One suggests the quality expectations of customers concerning a service;
The other suggests the quality perceptions of customers regarding the service actually experienced.
The responses to the statements are expressed by selection on a seven-point Likert-type scale. The collected data of responses will then be converted into
“perception-minus-expectation” scores for each statement; that is:
G (gap score) = P (perception-of-performance score) – E (expectation score) The greater “G” is, the better is the perceived service quality.
Table 2.1 SERVQUAL 5 dimensions and the description (Zeithaml et al., 1990)
Dimensions Number of items
Description
Tangibles 4 The appearance of physical facilities, equipment, and personnel.
Reliability 5 The ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
Responsiveness 4 The willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
Assurance 4 The knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire thrust and confidence.
Empathy 5 The level of caring and individualized attention the firm provides to its customers.
Although the GAP model and SERVQUAL have been applied and valued by researchers and managers in the service sectors, some researchers have identified limitations or flaws on its conceptual foundation and operationalization. Based on a paper reviewing researches on SERVQUAL during 1988-2008 (Ladhari, 2009), major criticisms against it include, to name just a few, the following:
Use of scores
The major criticism center on using gap scores to represent service quality. (see also 2.4.1) Brown, Churchill, and Peter (1993) and Peter, Churchill, and Brown (1993) identified poor reliability of the gap scores. Cronin and Taylor (1992) claimed and confirmed with empirical results that perception-only scores (as in SERPERF) outperform SERVQUAL in measuring service quality.
Responding to such criticisms, Parasuraman et al. (1994) argued that gap methodology helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a business on different service quality attributes, suggesting the directions for the business to work on for improvement. For that purpose, the difference between expectation and perception, instead of perception alone, provides more insights. Such statement is supported by some researchers: Curry and Sinclair (2002) reported that SERVQUAL is useful and relevant for identifying consumer priories in the context of public-sector physiotherapy services. Jain and Gupta (2004), based on their empirical results, reported that “when the research objective is to identify areas relating to service quality shortfalls for possible intervention.., the SERVQUAL scale needs to be preferred because of its superior diagnostic power” (P. 34).
Emphasis on functional quality
The construct of service quality has been believed as having different dimensions:
Grönroos (1982, 1984) suggested that service quality consists of functional quality and technical quality. Swartz and Brown (1989) categorized service quality into “how” and “what”
dimensions. Supporting these views, Rust and Oliver (1994) claimed that service quality is based on perceptions of
(i) The consumer-employee interaction during the service (functional quality), (ii) The outcome of the service (technical quality), and
(iii) The service environment
Obviously, SERVQUAL focuses solely on the functional quality. Richard and Allaway (1993) argued that relying on functional quality alone in explaining or predicting consumer behavior can be a misinterpretation of service quality.
Applicability of measuring service quality in different settings
Several studies questioned the applicability of SERVQUAL for measuring service quality in different settings (Babakus & Boller, 1992; van Dyke, Kappelman, & Prybutok, 1997; Akbaba, 2006), and some argued that industry-specific instruments are more sufficient in measuring specific industries than is the generic scale of SERVQUAL (Carman, 1990;
Babakus & Boller; Brown et al., 1993; van Dyke et al., 1997; Caro & Garcia, 2007).
In conclusion, though not perfect, SERVQUAL is still considered a useful instrument for researches on service quality. However, it is recommended not to use it as it is in all cases.
When applying SERVQUAL, one should (Ladhari, 2009):
Adapt it to develop the very instrument for the specific industry
Validate the instrument after data collection on reliability and validity.
Agreeing with the views of the above mentioned literature, this study takes the approach of applying SERVQUAL partially and with other methods to develop a tailored model and instrument for conference interpreting to achieve the objectives set forth for this study. The details are explained in Chapter 3, Methodology.
B. Perception-only model and SERPERF (Cronin & Taylor, 1992)
Based on their argument against the framework of Parasuraman et al. (1985) on its conceptualization and measurement of service quality, Cronin and Taylor proposed a theoretical justification on SERVQUAL in 1992 and introduced SERPERF, a service quality measurement instrument which discards the expectation portion of SERVQUAL and keeps just the measures of service perception in the scale, reducing the number of measuring statements by 50%. The concept of SERPERF on service quality can be expressed in the following equation:
Source: Jain and Gupta, 2004: p. 28
Cronin and Taylor reported empirical evidence proving SERPERF outperformed SERVQUAL across four industries (banks, pest control, dry cleaning, and fast food) in terms of measuring service quality. Several later empirical studies have also found SERPERF superior to SERVQUAL as it explains greater variance in the overall service quality (Angur, Nsataraajan, & Jaheera, 1999; Jain & Gupta, 2004). Over time, SERPERF has received considerable supports from researchers (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982;
Babakus & Boller, 1992; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993;
Woodruff, 1997). Even Zeithaml (one of the authors of SERVQUAL) observed in a study that, “perceived quality is directly influenced only by perceptions (of service performance)”
(Boulding et al., 1993).
Though SERPERF is not directly applied in this study, as the objective of this study is not to measure the perceived service quality, but the expected, its measuring method on service quality perception and satisfaction is applied in testing the hypotheses developed by this study (see 2.4.2).
C. Technical and functional quality model (Grönroos, 1984)
A decade before the GAP model and SERVQUAL, Grönroos proposed his service quality model that incorporates three quality components: technical quality, functional quality, and image, to further define the term “service quality” for it to be a sufficient guidance for management (see Figure 2.3).
Grönroos (1984) believes that “perceived quality of a given service will be the outcome of an evaluation process, where the consumer compares his expectations with the service he perceives he has received” (p. 37). Therefore, for a firm to better manage perceived quality for better customer satisfaction, one has to match the customers’ expected service with their perceived service, or vice versa.
Two dimensions of quality were proposed in this model: technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality refers to the result of a service production process, for example, “a passenger has been transported from one place to another, a medical problem has been attended to in a hospital”.
However, since the service is considered an activity where buyer-seller interactions are involved, the technical quality dimension alone cannot be considered as the totality of customers’ perceived quality, because the interactions will also have an impact on the customers’ perceived service. Therefore, functional quality must be put into place, answering
the question of “how customers gets the service”, when technical quality answers the question of “what customers get”.
Figure 2.3 Service quality model (Grönroos, 1984)
Grönroos also argue that
“functional quality is more important to the perceived service than the technical quality, at least as long as the latter quality dimension is on a satisfactory level” (p.
41).
This hypothesis was tested and proved by a survey on 219 respondents of Swedish service firm executives. The result also shows that high level of functional quality may compensate for temporary problems with the technical quality, which supports Grönroos’ appeal for business sectors’ efforts in improving functional quality of service.
Agreeing with Grönroos on his conceptual model of service quality, this study incorporates a dimension of technical quality, to complement the
functional-quality-centered GAP model, in the development of the service quality model of conference interpreting. The details are explained in Chapter 3 Methodology.
2.1.2 Professional Service and Why Quality Matters
When addressing quality management of professional service, the definition and characteristics of professional service should be first addressed. Though there has not yet been a universally agreed definition of the term, numerous literatures have attempted to depict the attributes of professional services:
They are services provided by qualified people who possess competent knowledge and skills in certain specific fields (Gummesson, 1978; Sarkar & Saleh, 1974). The intellectual sophistication is often stressed, for example, by Wilson (1972, p. 4), “…an intellectual discipline capable of formulation on theoretical, if not academic, lines, requiring a good educational background and tested by examination”.
There are traditional practices or a code of ethics that regulate the practitioners’
behavior (Greenwood, 1957; Wilson, 1972; Bloom, 1984). Professional associations are formed to safeguard such code of ethics and continue the development of the professions’ expertise and standards (Wilson, 1972).
A professional service is a credence good.1 High level of uncertainty is experienced by buyers of the service in purchasing and evaluating professional services (Swartz &
Brown, 1991).
The professions offer services that are highly complex, intangible, highly customized, and are created and delivered by highly qualified personnel, over a continuous stream
1 A credence good is a good whose utility impact is difficult or impossible for the consumer to ascertain. In contrast to experience goods, the utility gain or loss of credence goods is difficult to measure after consumption as well. The seller of the good knows the utility impact of the good, creating a situation of asymmetric
information. (Wikipedia)
of transactions or service encounters (Thakor & Kumar, 2000).
In views of these definitions, service quality management of professional services is very different from consumer services. Since it is credence good, evaluation on the service quality of the customers would be far from the same as it is of the service practitioners themselves. Therefore, understanding how service purchasers evaluate the service performance to avoid possible misunderstandings, or even conflicts, can be an even more critical task for the management of professional services.
Furthermore, as Gummesson (1981) had put it, “It is necessary to actively market professional services. It is dangerous to believe that a good service will sell itself ” (p. 108).
For marketing purpose, professional service providers need to know what matters to their target customers and how much customers know about the services, so that the right marketing strategy and messages can be put into place to address to the target market.
After all, professional services are mostly costly owing to their complexity, their values need to be proofed with quality service in the definition of customers or the business would not grow. To achieve that objective, it “...requires familiarity with and deep understanding of the customer and the problematic situation on hand” (Eveardsson, 1988, p. 430). That explains why this study consider understanding what clients expect from conference interpreting service is a critical task in developing the market for the service.
2.1.3 Application of Service Quality Theories in Professional Service Sector
If quality management of consumer services is hard, it is even harder for professional or business-to-business services. Professional services providers have found assessing quality a tough task. The reasons can be as what Hite and Fraser (1988) observed: professional
services are complex, therefore their performance is difficult to judge; the effects of service are often delayed, making post-purchase judgment difficult; frequency of quality assessment is intentionally reduced to the minimal level so as to prevent clients from collecting information to develop informed expectations of quality. Another hindrance of quality assessment on professional service can be that the professionals, as observed by Brown and Swatz (1989), “…appear to be more task and self-oriented than client oriented.” Therefore, professional service practitioners might be more concerned with the standards perceived
services are complex, therefore their performance is difficult to judge; the effects of service are often delayed, making post-purchase judgment difficult; frequency of quality assessment is intentionally reduced to the minimal level so as to prevent clients from collecting information to develop informed expectations of quality. Another hindrance of quality assessment on professional service can be that the professionals, as observed by Brown and Swatz (1989), “…appear to be more task and self-oriented than client oriented.” Therefore, professional service practitioners might be more concerned with the standards perceived