The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty a study in telecommunication industry of laos

ATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITYVIETNAM MINISTRYOFEDUCATIONANDSPORTN ATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAOSLAOS PADAPPHETSAYAKHOT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY, CUSTOMERSATISFACTION AND CUSTO

ATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITYVIETNAM

MINISTRYOFEDUCATIONANDSPORTN ATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAOSLAOS

PADAPPHETSAYAKHOT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY,

CUSTOMERSATISFACTION AND CUSTOMER LOYALTY: A STUDY

INTELECOMMUNICATIONINDUSTRYOFLAOS

Specialisation: Industrial ManagementCode62340414 Supervisor :Assoc.Prof.Dr TruongDoanThe

A dissertation Submitted to the National Economics University,

Vietnamand National University of Laos in fulfillment of requirements for

thedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophyinEconomics

HANOI-2015

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work and effort Thedissertationhasnotbeensubmittedanywhereforanyaward.Allthesou rcesofinformation used havebeen well acknowledged.

Signature

PADAPPHETSAYAKHOT

The path toward completion of a doctorate is long and often times canseemquite arduous Yet it has been an enriching and rewarding experience for mebothprofessionallyaswellaspersonally.Iwouldliketoexpressmythanksandappreciatio

n to the many that have encouraged and lifted my spirits along the way.IespeciallywanttothankAssociateProfessorDr.TRUONGDOANTHE,myprincipal

supervisor, for his patient and proficient guidance He has shared expertisein researchmethods,inspired me to generate new ideas, and encouraged metobecomeahigherlevelscholar

My family has also been especially supportive in my journey to pursueadoctorate.Tomylovingwifeforthepatienceshedemonstrated,andtheencouragementshe provided throughout the long process My children werealwaystheretoexpresstheirloveandappreciationfortheirdad

Last but not least, I also would like to offer a special thanks tom y

f r i e n d s and colleagues within my business organization who have providedtheir supportalong the way.Furthermore, I could not complete this thesis withoutthe

assistancesandsupportsfromintervieweeteamandinterviewers,pleasereceivemydeepthankfulnessfrommyheart

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

TABLEOFCONTENTSTableofcontents i

ABBREVIATION iv

LISTOF FIGURES v

LISTOFTABLE vi

CHAPTER1:INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Researchobjectives 4

1.3 Researchquestions 4

1.4 Researchframework 4

1.5 Research method 5

1.6 Structureof thethesis 5

CHAPTER2:LITERATUREREVIEWONTHERELATIONSHIPBETWEENSERVICE QUALITY,CUSTOMERSATISFACTIONANDCUSTOMERLOYALTY 7

2.1 Backgroundof servicequality, customersatisfaction,andcustomer loyalty7 2.1.1 Servicequality 7

2.1.2 Customersatisfaction 26

2.1.3 Customerloyalty 36

2.2 Reviewo f t h e o r y o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n S e r v i c e q u a l i t y , c u s t o m e r satisfactionandcustomerloyalty 38

2.2.1 Servicequalityandcustomersatisfaction 38

2.2.2 Servicequalityandcustomerloyalty 38

2.2.3 Customersatisfactionandcustomer loyalty 39

2.3 TelecommunicationsandTelecommunicationService 40

2.3.1 Telecommunications 40

2.3.2 Telecommunicationservices 42

2.3.3 Theroleof telecommunicationsineconomicgrowth 44

2.4 Qualityo f T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e a n d c u s t o m e r s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d customerloyalty 51

2.4.1 QualityofTelecommunicationService 51

2.4.2 Dimensions of Qualityof TelecommunicationService 55

2.4.3 Qualityo f T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e , c u s t o m e r s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d customerloyalty 57

CHAPTER3 : O V E R V I E W O F T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N I N D U S T R Y I N LAOS 60

3.1 BackgroundofLaos 60

3.2 Economyoverview 61

3.3DemographicOutlook 63

3.4.OverviewoftelecommunicationindustryinLaos 66

CHAPTER4:METHODOLOGY 85

4.1 Overviewoftheresearchdesign 85

4.1.1 Approaches of theresearch 85

4.1.2 Researchhypotheses 86

4.1.3 Evaluationindicatorsforpotentialconstructs 86

4.1.4 Reliabilityanditemanalysis 88

4.1.5 Exploratoryfactoranalysis 89

4.2 MainSurvey 90

4.2.1 SurveySample 90

4.2.2 QuestionnairesDevelopment 92

4.2.3 Datacollection 95

CHAPTER5.:ANALYSISANDRESULT 97

5.1 Descriptiveanalysisof measurementscales 97

5.1.1 Descriptiveanalysisofcustomersatisfaction 97

5.1.2 Descriptiveanalysisof customerloyalty 97

5.1.3 Descriptiveanalysisofservicequality 98

5.2 Exploratoryfactoranalysis 101

5.3 ReliabilityAnalysis 105

5.3.1 Reliabilityoftelecommunicationservicequalitymeasurement scale 105

5.3.2 Reliabilityof customerloyaltymeasurementscale 107

5.4 Ther e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s e r v i c e q u a l i t y a n d customersatisfaction 108

5.5 The relationshipbetweentelecommunicationservicequalityandcustomerloyalty 114

5.6 Therelationshipbetweencustomersatisfactionandcustomerloyalty119 CHAPTER6 121

DISCUSSION,CONCLUSIONANDRECOMMENDATION 121

6.1. Discussion 121

6.1.1 Servicequalityscale 121

6.1.2 Relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and customerloyalty 122 6.2. Conclusion 122

6.3 Recommendation 123

6.4 Limitationofthestudy andsuggestionforfutureresearch 124

6.4.1. Limitation 124

6.4.2 Suggestionforfutureresearch 124

REFERENCES 126

APPENDIX:QUESTIONAIRES 144

ABBREVIATION

2G Second-Generationwirelesstelephonetechnology3G Third-generationtechnology

Figure1:ResearchModel 4

Figure2.Laos'populationpyramidfor2011 63

Figure3.Mobilemarketgrowth(2006–2014) 68

Figure4.Fixed-LineMarketGrowth2006–2011 72

Figure5.Fixed-LineMarketGrowth2012-2014 73

Figure6.LaosInternetMarketGrowth(2003-2011) 75

Figure7.LaosInternetMarketGrowth(2012-2015) 76

Figure8.LaosBroadbandMarketGrowth(2005-2011) 78

Figure9.LaosBroadbandMarketGrowth(2012-2014) 79

Table1.Summarypreviousmo de ls ond im ens io ns ofte leco mm un ic at io n s

ervicesquality 56

Table2:Laos'PopulationByAge Group,1990-2020('000) 64

Table3:Laos' PopulationByAge Group,1990-2020(%of total) 65

Table4:Laos' KeyPopulationRatios,1990-2020 65

Table5:Laos' RuralAndUrbanPopulation,1990-2020 66

Table6:Mobilemarketgrowth(‘000) 69

Table7:LaosTelecommunicationsSubscriber MixSubscriberMix 70

Table8:LaosInternetMarketbyService 77

Table9:CompetitiveLandscape 83

Table10:Telecoms sectorinLaos –HistoricalDataand Forecasts 84

Table13.S u m m a r y ofcharacteristicsofthesample 91

Table11.Itemsof customersatisfactionandcustomerloyalty 93

Table12.Itemsoftelecommunicationservice quality 94

Table14.DescriptiveAnalysisofCustomerSatisfactionItems 97

Table15.DescriptiveAnalysisofCustomerSatisfactionItems 98

Table16.Descriptive Analysisof ServiceQualityItems 99

Table17.KMOandBartlett's Test 101

Table18.TotalVarianceExplained 102

Table19.RotatedcomponentMatrix 103

Table20.ConstructsmeasuretelecommunicationservicequalityinLaos 104

Table21.Item-TotalStatistics 105

Table22.Item-TotalStatistics 106

Table23.Item-TotalStatistics 106

Table24.Item-TotalStatistics 107

Table25.Correlation matrixof relevantvariables 108

109 Table27.A N O V Aa

109 Table28.Coefficients 110

Table29.Dummyvariables 111

Table30.ModelSummary 112

Table31.ANOVAa

112 Table32.Coefficientsa

113 Table33.Correlations 114

Table34.ModelSummaryb

115 Table35.ANOVAa

115 Table36.Coefficientsa

116 Table37.ModelSummary 117

Table38.ANOVAa

117 Table39.Coefficientsa

118 Table40.ModelSummaryb

119 Table41.ANOVAa

119 Table42.Coefficientsa

120

CHAPTER1.

INTRODUCTION1.1 Rationale

Telecommunicationtechnologyplaysasignificantroleintheflowofinformation

It is an extremely useful tool to spread knowledge and new ideas,which can reduceinfrastructure development gap between people in rural and urbanarea Furthermore, it canimprove education, health care services, and encouragebusiness activities In addition, it also plays the

economicdevelopment,especiallyinthedevelopingcountrylikeLaos.Therefore,telecommunicationtechnologyisawaythatLaogovernmentusestogeneraterevenuea n d c r e a t e j o b

o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p e o p l e I n a d d i t i o n , t h e L a o g o v e r n m e n t aims to improvepeople living standard and increase the ability to compete in globaltrade for Lao business by giving priority to the development oftelecommunicationtechnologywiththeintentiontopromote sustainabledevelopmentofthenation

In line with the new Economic mechanism, the Telecommunication sectorinLaoswasprivatizedattheyear1996asajointventurewithaThaiinvestor(ShinawanaInternationalPublicCompanyLimited).However,thistelecomprivatizationpolicyhasbeenrevisedduetotheimportanceofanationaltelecommunications development strategy which is

suchasdigitaldivideamongregionsandthefrequenttelephonictrafficc o n g e s t i o n causedbyadeficiencyinthenationwidetelecommunicationfacilities( e g switchingandtelephonelinecapacityandhumanresources)

(MCTPC,1982;MCTPC,1990&1995;MCTPC,1990–2007)

Besides,LaoP.D.Rhasaresponsiblepositionforpromotingtelecomdevelopmentprograms planned for the Greater Mekong sub-region (GMS) Thisdevelopmentconcept of GMS proposed by Asia Development Bank (ADB) andisappliedtoanareaorregionaldevelopmentapproachtoGMS,promotingnetworks

amongthesixMekongripariancountries,includingsupportingactivitiesforacommonstandardoftelecom servicesavailability whichisincreasinginLaos.Telecommunicationincreasedsteadilyfrom2007to2011(MCTPC, 2007–2011).

Att h e p r e s e n t , t h e r e a r e f i v e a u t h o r i z e d e n t e r p r i s e s w h i c

h a r e p r o v i d i n g fixed and mobile telecommunication services in Laos All these providers have thegovernmentownerships, including: Lao Telecommunication Corporation Limited(LTC) withGovernment of Laos (GOL) and Shinawatra (Thailand) share 51% and49% ofpossession respectively; Enterprise of Telecommunication Laos (ETL) withGOL100% but currently become to ETL public; Star Telecom (STL): GOL 51%andViettel Global 49% (now has been renamed to Unitel); Million internationalcellular

SA (now has been transferred to Vimpelcom Russia (Beeline): GOL 22%andVimpelcom 78%; and SKY communication Laos (SKY) with private retort100%(since2010)

ThenumberofInternetserviceproviders(ISPs)hasgrownfromtwoformsin 1990s to about seven after nearly 15 years They are STEA, ETL internet, Laotelecom Planet online, LaneXang internet, Sky telecom KPL and Mill com TheentryofMillionandSky,thelargeshareholdingby Shincorp,theoperationo f Planet and prevalence ofVoice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) operators show thatprivate investors are willing to invest in Laos

andregulatoryregime(MPT,2011).Asaresult,theyfaceintensec o m p e t i t i o n , including competition from sources not previously existing Over 10 millionLaosconsumersownanduseamobilephone.TheLaosgovernment'sr e c e n t restructuri

ng of state owned monopolistic telecommunication system andfurtherderegulationhasledtoamoreopenandfreemarketsystem

Recent reports show that a cloud of uncertainty seems to be hanging overthewhole Laos telecommunication market Subscriber growth is weak after themarkethadgonebackwardsforawhile.Theprovidersarenowoperatingina n environmentwhere the regulator is keeping a tight hold on pricing and competitionis ineffectdiscouraged.Afurther problememerging forthemobile operatorsis that

network performance is deteriorating across the board This in turn highlightedtwoimportant issues – there has been insufficient investment by the operators intheareasofnetworkmaintenanceandupgrades,and,secondly,thereareobviousdeficiencies in the regulatory environment in how the authorities apply andmanagenetworkperformancestandards.

How does a firm survive under such turbulent conditions?Traditionally,mobile and land phone providers competed fiercely for newcustomers In somecountries, customers were provided with financial incentives to

switchservicefromoneprovidertoanother.Overtime,andwiththeincreasedsaturationof the market, companies have come to realize their performance can improve byfocusing more onretaining customers than constantly a conquest mode As theLaosmarketprovidesanincreasingrangeofopportunitiesforconsumers,howcantelecommunication service providers maintain customer loyalty? ThosequestionrequiremoreresearchinLaostelecommunicationcontext

Acomprehensivesurveyoftheliteraturerevealsthattherelationshipsbetweenservicequality,customersatisfaction, andcustomerloyalty havebeenexaminedbynumerousscholars,inmanystudiesconductedinvariedbusiness/services settings.These studies led me to look more closely at thepossiblepositiver o l e o f s e r v i c e q u a l i t y o n c u s t o m e r s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d c u s t

o m e r l o y a l t y a s wellasofcustomersatisfactiononcustomerloyalty

Additionally,inrecentresearchinmultinationaltelecommunicationcompanies’performance Kommasith (2014) finds that cultural differences areoneoftheimportantfactorsaffectingtheperformanceofmultinationaltelecommunicationcompaniesinLaos.Thatmeansalthoughtherelationshipsamong service quality,customer satisfaction and customer loyalty has been wellstudied, there is a need toconfirm each entity’s components and their relationship indifferent contexts To date no publishedwork on those relationship has been foundinthecontextoftelecommunicationindustryinLaos

1.3 Researchquestions

Thefollowingresearch questions havebeenaddressedinthisstudy:

1 UsingatelecommunicationservicessettinginLaos,whatarethespecificqualityattributesthat measureservicequality,andinfluencecustomersatisfaction?

2 Usinga t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e r v i c e s e t t i n g i n L a o s , h o w s e r v i c

e q u a l i t y attributesandcustomersatisfactioninfluencecustomerloyalty?

1.4 Researchframework

Drawingfromtheliteratureontherelationshipsamongservicequality,customersatisfaction and customer loyalty I proposed a research framework thatdescribe theinfluences of service quality on customer satisfaction andcustomerloyaltyandofcustomersatisfactiononcustomerloyalty(seeFigure1)

Figure1:Research Model

1.5 Researchmethod

After reviewing the literature which reveals that the relationshipsamongservice quality and customer satisfaction and customer loyalty has beenstudied

bymanyresearchersinvariousservicefieldsincludingoftelecommunication.Therefore,quantitative approach has been employed to confirm the relationshipbetweenservice quality and customer satisfaction, service quality andcustomerloyalty,customersatisfactionandcustomerloyaltyinLaostelecommunicationsetting.DatawascollectedinasurveyoftelecommunicationcustomersinVientiane,thenwasanalyzedbySPSS20

Chapter 4: Methodologyprovides explanation for and justification of

theresearchapproachusedinthisresearch.Inparticular,thischapterdescribesmeasurementscalesofservice quality,customer satisfaction andcustomerloyaltyintelecommunication;analysistechniques;datacollection

Chapter 5: Analysis and resultpresents analysis procedures of collected

dataand the results Main analyses are descriptive analysis, exploratory factoranalysis,reliabilityanalysis,andtestsofproposedrelationships

Chapter 6: Discussion, conclusion, and recommendationprovides

overviewof the key findings and identifies the theoretical and practicalcontributions thatemerged from this research This chapter also points out researchlimitations andsuggestionsforfutureresearch

LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEENSERVICE QUALITY, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

ANDCUSTOMERLOYALTY

Thepurposeofthischapteristoreviewandanalyzepreviousresearchrelativetotheconceptsofservicequality,customersatisfactionandcustomerloyalty Theorydevelopment in service quality over the past few decades hasbuiltuponearlierresearchthatwasinitiallyconductedinthestudyofcustomersatisfactionmodels,mostofwhichinitiatedwithstudiesinvolvingconsumersatisfaction withproducts This review of the literature seeks to identify andexplainsomeofthekeyterminologiesassociatedwithservicequalityandcustomersatisfaction, including expectations and disconfirmation theory Additionally, itwillexaminethedifferencesandsimilaritiesintheconstructsofperceivedservicequality andcustomer satisfaction, as well as investigate the degree and direction ofcausal links The current research presents

a basis for understanding the servicequality and customer satisfaction constructs in

technicalfieldservice.Thefollowingsectionsdescribepriorresearchfromthes e r v i c equality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty literature, and seek toextendthese concepts to the field service context, where heretofore very littleattention hasbeen placed The dimensions of service quality will be examinedrelative to theexisting literature and how they relate to the topic under study Theconcept

ofcustomerexpectationsanditseffectonthedeterminationofperceivedservicequalityandsatisfactionwillalsobeexplored

measuring it with no overall consensus emerging on either (Wisniewski,2001).There are a number of different "definitions" as to what is meant by servicequality.One that is commonly used defines service quality as the extent to which aservicemeets customers’ needs or expectations (cited in Dehghan, Zenouzi, &Albadvi,2012) Servicequality can thus bedefinedas the difference betweencustomerexpectationsofserviceandperceivedservice.Ifexpectationsaregreaterthanperformance, then perceived quality is less than satisfactory and hencecustomerdissatisfactionoccurs(Parasuramanetal.,1985;LewisandMitchell,1990).

The concept of service quality began to receive substantial attention intheearly 1980s with the writings of Gronroos (1982; 1984), Lehtinen andLehtinen(1982),Lovelock(1981)andothers.ThedevelopmentoftheSERVQUAL(Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988) performance - expectations gap model, along withitssubsequent refinements, played a key role in the establishment of an instrumentforthe evaluation of perceived service quality Key criticisms of theSERVQUALinstrument on issues such as problems with difference scores anddimensionalityinconsistencies across service environments were quickly pointedout by severalresearchers This review will examine many of these criticisms Itwill also asinvestigate alternative instruments used in the measurement of servicequality, suchasperformance-onlyandsubjectivedisconfirmationscales

2.1.1.2 PerceivedServiceQuality

Servicequalityhasbeenequatedtothecustomer'sjudgmentaboutaprovidersoverall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1987) Consistent with theconcept ofexcellence or superiority, Parasuraman et al (1988) liken perceivedservice quality

to being a global judgment, similar to an attitude, and relating to thesuperiority of aservice They contend that this form of attitude results from thecomparison ofexpectations with perceptions of performance, and is related tobutnotequivalenttosatisfaction.BuildinguponOliver's(1980)propositionthatsatisfacti

on is a function of the disconfirmation of performance fromexpectation,Parasuraman,etal

(1985;1988)subsequentlyputforwardthatservicequalityisa

functionofthedifferencesbetweenexpectationandperformancealonganestablishedsetofqualitydimensions.Inotherwords,theyproposedthatthedifferences betweenperceived performance and expected performance ultimatelydetermine overallperceived service quality (Lee, Lee, & Yoo, 2000; Parasuraman etal., 1985; 1988) Bolton andDrew (1991a) explored how customers integrate theirperceptions of a service to subsequently form an

service.Theirfindingssuggestthatcustomer'spriorexpectations,alongwiththeirperceptions of current performance, coupled with their disconfirmation experiencesaffecttheir satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a service This in turn affects thecustomer'sassessment of service quality According to Parasuraman et al (1985,p.46) acustomer perceives service quality as "a function of the magnitude anddirection ofthe gap between expected service and perceived service" Gronroos(1988),moreover, contends that customers often perceive quality in a much broadersense than

do service providers Therefore, quality within a serviceorganizationmustbedefinedinamannerconsistentwiththewaycustomersdefineit,soasnotto spend time, effort, and resources inefficiently, by following ineffective courses ofaction Bolton and Drew (1991b), however, assertthat customers' attitudes aboutservice depends largely on their prior attitudes, modified by theirperceptions ofcurrent performance, along with their prior expectations aboutperformance, and thediscrepancy between those expectations and the subsequent perceptions of servicequality —suggesting the overall importance of performance They further concludethat attitudes areaffected substantially by the assessment of performance and to alesser extent by disconfirmation O'Neill andPalmer (2003) likewise assert thatcustomers' perceptions of service quality aresignificantly influenced by their pastexperience, or lack thereof, relative to aparticular service product An experimentaldesign study utilizing college studentsand an amusement parkconfirmed theirhypothesis

2.1.1.3 DimensionsofServiceQuality

Johnston(1995)arguesthatthedeterminants(ordimensions)ofservicequalityshouldbeacentralconcernforservicemanagement,aswellasforacademics and practitioners,

in that it is necessary to identify these determinantsinordertobeabletospecify,measure,control,andimproveservicequalityasperceived bythe customer Schneider and White (2004) explain that if a researcherssole goal is to predictother constructs, for instance, satisfaction, or behavioralintentions, with a service quality measure, an

wouldbesufficient.If,however,theprimaryobjectiveistomanipulateservicequality,itis essential to identify the various aspects that might be potentially influenced toaffect the overall judgment.These factors are in essence the dimensions of servicequality Mostconceptualizations of service quality thus far have considered theservice qualityconstruct to be multidimensional As such it is reasoned that servicequalityassociated with industrial technical field service should likewise beviewedasamultidimensionalconstruct

Gronroos(1988)positsthatthequalityofservice,asperceivedbythecustomer, hastwo dimensions; a technical — or outcome dimension, and a process-relateddimension Gronroos (1988) further suggests that the outcome dimension,ortechnicalqualityoftheoutcome,canbemeasuredratherobjectivelybythecustomer, since

it is what he/she is left with at the end of the process The functionalquality of the processitself, on the other hand, cannot be so readily measured and isoften perceived quite subjectively by thecustomer The behavior of a maintenancetechnician, for instance — how he or sheperforms the necessary tasks, what theysay and how they do it — all influences thecustomer's perception of the service(Gronroos,1988)

Gronroos (1988) identifies six criteria of good perceived service quality tobeused as guidelines for empirical and conceptual research: professionalism and skills,attitudes and behaviors, accessibility and flexibility,

trustworthiness,recovery,andreputationandcredibility.Heclassifiesprofessionalismandskillsas

outcome-related, and thus a technical quality dimension quality Reputation

andcredulityischaracterizedasimagerelated,whiletheremainingcriteriaareconsidered

asfunctional,orprocessrelateddimensions

It has been argued by some, however, that the overall perceived

servicequality level is not determined solely by the performance level of the

technical andfunctional quality dimensions, but rather by the gap between the

expected and theexperiencedservicequality.Parasuramanetal

(1985)identifiedtendeterminants,or dimensions that customers use in forming expectations about, and

Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of

personnelReliability: Ability to perform the promise service dependably and

accuratelyResponsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt

Research by Johnston et al (1990) tested the comprehensiveness ofParasuraman et al.'s (1988) service quality

datagatheredintenUKserviceorganizations.Theiranalysis,althoughgenerallysupporti

veo f t h e t e n d e t e r m i n a n t s , s u g g e s t e d a r e f i n e d l i s t o f t w e l v e f r o m w hic h fiv

e additional quality determinants were identified: attentiveness/helpfulness,

care,commitment,functionality,andintegrity(Johnston1995).However,themostcommo

nly used service quality instrument SERVQUAL, uses the five

dimensionsestablishedb y P a r a s u r a m a n e t a l

( 1 9 8 8 ) C u s t o m e r s e n t e r t a i n e x p e c t a t i o n s o f

performance on these service dimensions (Oliver, 1993) Performanceperceptionsareformedafterhavingobservedperformanceoftheserviceprovider.T h e customerthencomparestheseperformanceperceptionswithpriorexpectations.

Reliability Irrespective of the level of intangibility of the service,

Bebko(2000)submitsthatreliability,doingitrightthefirsttime,remainsthemostimportantservicequalityexpectation.Moreover,ofthefiveservicequalitydimensionsoriginallyproposedbyParasuramanetal.(1988),reliabilityisconsistently reported as the most

(1993)forinstance,contendthatwhileservicequalityismultidimensional,reliability isthe key dimension in determining overall perceived service quality Intheirdynamic model of service quality, they found reliability to be the primarydriver ofcustomers' overall service quality perception This seems to hold true inmany otherstudies as well, where different dimensions may surface and supplantone or more

of the original five, or collapse the overall number of dimensions into alesser number,reliability is one that typically remains present in the service qualitymodels Parasuraman et al's (1994) revamp

of SERVQUAL, for example, resultedin the five factor structure being reduced to

however,remainedintactwithallfiveitemsloadingseparatelyontothefactor

Responsiveness Parasuraman et al (1985) identified responsiveness as

"thewillingness or readiness of employees to provide service it involvestimeliness ofservice" (p.47) Examples of this include calling the customer backquickly,

orrespondingpromptlybysettingupappointmentsquickly.InreviewoftheParasuraman

et al (1988) responsiveness items in SERVQUAL, however, it isapparent that thewording for the responsiveness items are reflective of traitsandbehaviorstypicallyassociatedwithconsumerretailtypesettings.Thephrases"alwayswilling to help you" and "never to busy to respond to your requests", couldindeedapply to the general sense one might get from walking into a store, or up to acounter, orpossibly asking for information over the phone Attentiveness might beanappropriatedescription

The inflection of these indicator items, however, may be somewhat outofcharacter with what could be expected from a customer in a business-to-businesssetting whose equipment is down, and judges the ability of the serviceprovider torespond in a timely manner to the request for repair work.Responsiveness in fieldservice parlance takes on more of an aspect of "timeliness",

towhatistermedasresponsetime.Responsetimeinindustrialfieldserviceisdescribedasthesumofqueuetimeandtraveltimethatelapsesbetweentheplacement of a service calland the arrival of the service engineer at thecustomer'slocation(Simmons,2001).Anothermatterrelatedtothetimelinessaspectresponsivenessintechnicalfieldservicemightrelatetomeantimetorepair(MTTR), whichhas to do with the total time associated with fault finding, andtheactualtimespenttomaketherepairof theequipment(Kumar&Kumar,2004)

While the Parasuraman et al (1985) definition of responsiveness may notfitwell in the industrial field service context per say, its characteristics do fitwithboundary spanning functions that are essential to the support of the fieldserviceorganization Responsiveness from a boundary spanning type service, such

as callcenters, may include response time to answer phones, but also attentivenessandaccuracy in the attention to detail of information received from customers inplacingrequests for service Expressing attitudes of helpfulness, and not appearing too busyto accurately take information about thecustomer and the nature of problem forwhichtheyarecallingtorequestservicecertainlyapply

Assurance The assurance dimension was initially based on Parasuraman

etal.'s(1985)attributesofcommunication,credibility,security,competence,andcourtes

y In their development of SERVQUAL in 1988, these attributes combinedthroughfactor analysis into a single dimension referred to as assurance Ham et al.(2003)summarizethevariouscomponentsassociatedwithassuranceas:"Communicationconcernskeepingcustomersinformed.Credibilityinvolvestrustworthiness,believability,andhonesty.Competencemeanshavingtherequired

Because many services are difficult for customers to evaluate there is aneedto develop trust between the customer and the service provider (Lovelock,2001).Armistead and Kiely (2003) point out that professionalism within anorganization'scustomer service roles builds trust through dependability, respect,empathy, anddiplomacy Moreover, they contend that, in the future, effectivecustomer servicewill require an increasing degree of professionalism from bothservice managementaswellasfrontlineservicestaff

Burton, Sheather, and Roberts (2003) propose that attribution of problemstofactors outside of the control of the service provider are positively associatedwithcustomers' perceived performance, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.Swansonand Davis (2003), however, based on attribution theory, suggest that theperson

thecustomerholdsmostresponsiblefortheserviceexperiencecansubstantiallyinfluencewhich service quality dimensions take precedence in customersatisfactionaswellasinsubsequentbehavioralintentions.Theirfindingsindicatethatcustomer's consider the contact employee most responsible for the servicedelivery,andtakethisintoaccountintheservicequalityandsatisfactionevaluation.Professionalism inindustrialfieldservicecomesintoplay wherethecustomersupport engineerassumes full ownership and responsibility for the service deliveryprocess

The assurance dimension is not always retained in many replicationstudies.Brady and Cronin (2001) did not find assurance to be distinct in the pretestfactoranalysis and thus did not retain it as a dimension, nor as a modifier of thenine sub-dimensions in their model They cited several other studies (Babakus &Boiler,1992; Carman, 1990; Dabholkar et al., 2000; Llosa et al., 1998; MacDougal

&Levesque, 1994; Mels, et al 1997) in which assurance, was likewise dropped duetomeasures loading on several different factors, and suggest that this it islargelyindustrycontextdependent However,fromtheconceptual standpointoftechnical

field service, a hypothesis in this study suggests that many of the attributesreflectedin the assurance dimension are vital in the assessment of service quality andcouldalignasasingledimensionwhenfactoranalyzed.

The associated concept ofprofessionalism, however, may have

significantimpactwithtyingsomeofthesevariousdimensionstogetherinfields e r v i c equality For instance, in a situation in which a difficult problem is experienced onapiece of sophisticatede q u i p m e n t , t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e t a k e n

t o c o m p l e t e a r e p a i r may be considered acceptable by the customer ifthe engineer appears competentand inspires confidence in the customer that their

theotherhand,asimilaramountoftimetakentorepairtheequipmentmaybeconsideredunacceptable if the engineer does not come across as experienced and orknowledgeable,and does not convey a sense of confidence This may indicate thatthe customer's perception of the mean time

orresponsivenessdeterminant,isinfluencedbytheassurancedimension

Qualitative analysis may help in the understanding of how customersclassifyunderlying dimensions within a given service industry As in other studies, itisentirelyp o s s i b l e t h a t i n t h e t e c h n i c a l f i e l d s e r v i c e c o n t e x t t h e a t t r i b

u t e s t r u c t u r e maynotperfectlyalignwiththefiveSERVQUALdimensions.Tangible

s,forinstanceintheSERVQUALoperationalization,typicallyinvolvesthephysicalpremise

sandsurroundingsinwhichtheserviceisconducted.Infieldservice,however, the physicalenvironment in which the service takes place is typicallywithin the customer'sown facility.Thismayindicate thatt a n g i b l e s , i n t h e c o n t e x t of industrial technical field service, could be limited tothe appearance of the serviceengineer, and the condition of his or her tools, test equipment, materials, andspareparts.I t i s p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s m a y b e p e r c e i v e d b y t h e

c u s t o m e r s a s more relative to a conceptualization ofprofessionalism Likewise, it is possible

thatseveral of the assurance indicators such as competence, courteousness,

knowledgeand skills, as well asretained items associated withempathy, may along

withtangibles,collapseinto asingle"professionalism" dimensionin afactoranalysis

Carman (1990) suggests that researchers should consider working withtheParasuraman et al.'s (1985) original ten dimensions as opposed to adoptingtherevised five-factor model In field service, for instance, communication, at leastonthe surface, would appear to be a highly important factor Communication wasoneof the initial ten dimensions, but collapsed into assurance in the fivedimensionmodel A typical scenario might involve a service engineer beingnotified from thecall center of a customer service request In many cases it is theresponsibility of thefield engineer to contact the customer to gain further knowledge of the problemsoastobepreparedfortherepairvisit,andalsotoinformthecustomerw i t h confirmedschedule date and time to be on site Timely communication or the lackthereof bythe service engineer, in this case will likely be regarded by thecustomerasrelatingtoresponsiveness.

Once on site, however, the ability of the service engineer to cordiallyandeffectively communicate with the customer in order to better ascertain theprecisenature of the problem, as well as to assure that the problem will be handled,

is likelyto be perceived by the customer as more in the realm of competence andassurance,perhapscoupledwithanelementofempathy.Invokingcommunicationinaresponsivenessitemmaythereforealignwithadifferentfactorthaninvokingcommunication in

an assurance item The nuance of the wording in the constructionof indicator items thereforecould substantially affect which dimensions items willloadontoinafactoranalysis

Some insight might be gained by considering Gronroos's (1988) approachtoservice quality Here, the "professionalism and skills" dimension is considered asanoutcomerelatedcriteria.Professionalism,accordingtotheEncartaD i c t i o n a r y , refers to "the skill, competence, or character expected of a member of ahighlytrainedprofession".ThisdimensionofservicequalityaccordingtoG r o n r o o s (1988),associatescustomers'realizationthatserviceproviders'employees,operationalsystems, and physical resources have the knowledge and skillsrequiredtos o l v e t h e i r p r o b l e m s i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l w a y I a c o b u c c i ,

O s t r o m , a n d G r a y s o n

(1995) ina qualitative criticalincidence study,moreover foundthatcustomersassociatedthe"expertiseofservicepersonnel"withservicequality.

Researchershavearguedthatthedimensionalityofservicequalitymaysubstantiall

y depend on the type of service under study (Babakus & Boiler, 1992).Asubonteng

et al (1996) moreover, suggest that service quality dimensionsarelikelytobeindustryspecific.ResearchbyChowdharyandPrakash(2005),furthermore, suggests that a limited number of dominating factors may be the basisaroundwhich customers evaluate the service experience In industrial business-to-businesstechnical field service the importance of a limited number of factors couldsignifythat a "professionalism" dimension, for instance, may encapsulate many oftheattributes from the SERVQUAL empathy, assurance, and tangibles dimensions.Ofcourse, the dimensions of reliability and responsiveness are typically alwayscriticalfactors to services in general and likely even more so with regard to fieldservice

As can be understood from the suggestions of Parasuraman et al.(1988)refinement of the construct may be appropriate: "Therefore, whileSERVQUAL canbe used in its present form to access and compare quality across a wide variety offirms, appropriateadaptation of the instrument may be desirable when only asingleserviceisinvestigated(p.28)

ManyempiricalstudieshaveindeedadaptedtheitemsusedwiththeSERVQUAL(Parasuraman et al., 1988) instrument, and then analyzed the factorstructure of thevarious service quality dimensions Mels et al (1997) point out thata regular theme

in these studies demonstrates that a wide variety of empiricalfactorstructuresareobtained.Llosa,Chandon,andOrsingher(1998)notethatevencustomers attempting to evaluate the same service view the underlyingdimensionsdifferently Svensson (2001) maintains that the service qualityconstruct, in anygiven service context, cannot be appropriately operationalizedwithout sufficientrefinement of the construct's underlying dimensions This impliesthat

indicatoritemsthataredevelopedtomeasurethefactorsmustcapturetheessenceofthecore

meaning of the dimensions from an empirical perspective Brady and Cronin(2001)likewise advise that service quality determinants may need to be considered at theitemlevel.

While the dimensions of the SERVQUAL scale takes only processrelatedquality into account, Llosa et al (1998) point out that perceived servicequality hastwo major facets; service process, but also output (outcome) quality.Swanson andDavis (2003) further propose that a positive relationship existsbetween outcomequalityandcustomersatisfaction

2.1.1.4 TheSERVQUALInstrument

SERVQUAL has been the most popular and widely used measure ofservicequality since its inception in the late 1980s It was designed to measureservicequality as perceived by the customer (Asubonteng, McCleary, & Swan,1996) Theconceptual framework of the SERVQUAL scale was derived from workdone byresearchers such as Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978), Gronroos (1982,LehtinenandLehtinen(1982)whoexaminedthemeaningofservicequality,andthenprincipally from Parasuraman et al.'s (1985) exploratory research in this area.Theunderlying theory for Parasuraman, et al.'s (1985) measure of service qualitywasbased on the premise of Oliver's (1980) disconfirmation model Oliver (1980)hadproposed that satisfaction resulted from the disconfirmation of performancefromexpectation.Parasuramanetal.(1985,1988)appliedthesameconcept,theexceptionbeing they proposed that service quality resulted from the disconfirmationof expectationsfrom performance along certain quality dimensions (Lee, Lee, &Yoo, 2000) For SERVQUAL scale

(1998)closelyfollowedtheproceduresrecommendedbyChurchill's(1979)paradigmfordevelopingbettermeasuresformarketingconstructs

Parasuraman, et al (1988) employed the initial ten determinants identifiedintheir 1985 focus group research on customers' perceptions of service quality,andcreated items for 22 separate statements to measure expectations, and tomeasureperception.T h e i n i t i a l i n s t r u m e n t w a s r e f i n e d , c o n d e n s e d , a n d

v a l i d a t e d t h r o u g h

several stages of data analysis The attributes were factor analyzed andultimatelygroupedintothefivedistinctdimensions:tangibles,reliability,responsiveness,assurance, and empathy The dimensions of assurance and empathy containtheitemsr e p r e s e n t i n g t h e o t h e r s e v e n o r i g i n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s I

n t h e f o u r i n d u s t r i e s examined thereliabilitydimension showed to be most important withempathyleastimportant.

expectation(P-E)servicegapconceptisdifferentfromthedisconfirmed expectations

TheexpectationinSERVQUALwasconceptualizedasanormativee x p e c t a t i o n ,

whereastheexpectationinthesatisfactiondisconfirmationmodelwasconceptualized as

a predictive expectation (Lee et al., 2000) Rust and Oliver (1994)point out that the expectations

theconceptofan"ideal"companythatdeliversexcellentqualityofservice.

Diagnostic Utility of Expectations Parasuraman et al (1991) advocate

thatthe measurement of expectations can serve as a diagnostic function formanagers.Schneider and White (2004) point out that such an approach providesmuch

richerdataascomparedtousingdatafromperformanceonlymeasures.Kaldenberg,Becker,Browne, and Browne (1997) concur that the primary usefulness of a servicequality assessment tool such as SERVQUAL is its diagnosticcapability

OtherslikewiseagreewiththeargumentthattheSERVQUALscaleprovidesamorepragmaticdiagnosis of service quality shortfalls due the presence of gaps betweencustomer expectations and performance

Gupta,2004).Thisisespeciallyimportantformanagementinthattheperformance-expectationsgapswhichcanbeevaluatedalongthevariousservicequalitydimensions.McAlexander et al (1994) however, observe in the healthcaresetting,forinstance,patientshaveuniformlyhighexpectationsrelativetoalloftheSERVQUALdimensions,whichmaylimitthediagnosticutilityoftheperception-

expectationgapm ea s u r e me n t Theythereforeposit thatcustomers m ay haveveryhighqualityexpectationsforallprofessionalservices.

DebateandControversyoverthe SERVQUALGapModel

Numerous criticisms of the SERVQUAL gap model have been leveledinvarious studies since the early 1990s Carman (1990), for instance, arguedthatParasuramanetal

(1988)dimensionscannotrepresentagenericmeasurethatcanbe applied to any service;rather it must be customized to the specific service — thisdespite the fact that SERVQUAL was originally designed to provide agenericmeasure that could be applied to any service Carman's (1990) replicationstudy offour diverse service providers found that in none of the situations was itpossible

tousethe22SERVQUALitemsexactlyasproposed.FinnandLamb( 1 9 9 1 ) , likewise,found that SERVQUAL could not be used as proposed by Parasuramanetal.toassessqualityinawiderangeofservicecategories

Cronin and Taylor (1992) raised the question of how should servicequalitybeconceptualizedandmeasured,andarguedthattheconceptualizationandoperationalization of service quality SERVQUAL was inadequate They expressedconcernabout the model's scale construction and, whether the individual scale itemsactuallydescribe five separate service quality components as intended CroninandTaylor(1992,1994)assertthatthedisconfirmation-

basedSERVQUALscalemeasures neither service quality nor customer satisfaction.Rather, they claim thatthe SERVQUAL scale appears at best an operationalization

of only one of the manyforms of expectancy-disconfirmation, citing Boulding et al (1993), Oliver (1993),and evenZeithaml, et al (1993) Buttle (1996, p 11) likewise contends thatbasingSERVQUALon an expectations-disconfirmationm o d e l i s

Iacobucci et al (1994b), however, raised criticism of Cronin and Taylor's useofexploratory factor analysis to "confirm" theunidimensionality oft h e

c o m b i n e d itemso f S E R V Q U A L a n d S E R V P E R F , a n d h e n c e a r g u e t h a

t i t i s u n c l e a r i f t h e latterisindeedanimprovement,basedupontheCroninandTaylor(1992)study

Another criticism of SERVQUAL is that it is highly inductive in natureandfails to draw from theory in such disciplines as psychology, social sciencesandeconomics(Anderson,1992;Buttle,1996;O'Neill&Palmer,2003).Whileaninductiveapproach provides a general framework from which to launchfurtherstudies,theindustryspecificnatureofservices,mayrequireadeductiveapproach

Another point of concern in the literature is that typically different typesofservices are being examined in each of the studies The established precedentsarethen applied to future research which occurs in yet other different servicesetting.Can universal models be constructed and applied is the question — because

CroninandTaylor's(1992)criticism of SERVQUAL makes a good case and point ofsuch reasoning As notedby Smith (1995), while many researchers commendSERVQUAL for its face and/orcontent validity, they typically add to, deleted from, or amended the item contentofthequestionnairetobemorerelevanttoaspecificservicesituation

DifferenceScores.Numerousresearchershavetakenissuewitht h e problemsa s

s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s , w h i c h S E R V Q U A L u s e s t o c o m p u t e t

he P-E gap scores (Brown, et al., 1993; Iacobucci et al., 1994b; Peter et al., 1993;Page & Spreng, 2002; Prakash,1984; Teas, 1993) Difference scores involve thesubtraction of scores on onemeasurement to create a new variable which is used insubsequent data analysis

Prakash(1984)isnotconceptual,butratheroneregardingmeasurement

Brownetal.(1993)arguethatthecalculationofsuchdifferencescoremeasures canlead to several psychometric problems They first cite reliability, inthat if positivecorrelation exists between the component scores (e.g.expectationsandperformance),thereliabilityoftheresultingdifferencescorewillbeattenuated

Moreover, the reliability of the difference score will decrease if the reliabilityofeithercomponentscoresdecreases.WiththeexampleofSERVQUAL,theexpectationsand perceptions batteries are typically administered after the service,thus a strongcorrelation between the two is likely, because the expectations areinfluenced by theperformance Page and Spreng (2002), suggest that differencescores may notpresent a problem if expectations can be measured at a time prior tothe service,with the performance scores evaluated directly thereafter However, thenecessaryadministration of separate surveys to accomplish this would obviouslybeimpracticalinmanyservicesettings.

Anotherissueraisedrelativetotheuseofdifferencescoresisthatofdiscriminantvalidity,"thedegreetowhichmeasuresoftheoreticallyunrelatedconstructs do not correlate too highly withone another" (Peter et al., 1993) Brownet al (1993) point out two problems, one common to allmeasures, and anotherunique to measures that are formed as linear combinations of

otherconstructs.Inthefirstinstance,giventhatlowmeasurereliabilityattenuatescorrelations between constructs, the low reliability of the measure may appeartodemonstratediscriminantvalidity becauseofitsunreliability.Differencescoreswouldthus likely be more subject to this phenomenon because they are usually lessreliable than non-difference scoremeasures In the second instance Brown et al.(1993)n o t e t h a t , t h e o r e t i c a l l y t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s s u p p o s e d t o r e p r e s e n t a

c o n s t r u c t that is distinct from the variables that represent its component measures In practice,however, they conclude the difference

andthusnotbedistinctivefromoneorbothofthecomponentmeasures

Dimensionality Concerns While Parasuraman et al (1988) initially

claimedthat the service quality gap may be characterized by their five dimensionsthat aregeneric across service contexts, several authors have questioned the numberofdimensions as well as the stability of items across different industries Caruana etal.(2000) Babakus and Boiler (1992) question the individual item reliabilities andtheconvergentan d d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y oft h e S E R V Q U A L d im ens io ns S

p re nga nd

Singh (1993) likewise questioned the discriminant validity citing that thecorrelationbetweentheresponsivenessandassuranceconstructswas.97intheirstudy.Asubonteng et al (1996) suggest that differences in the number ofempiricallyderivedfactorsacrossstudiesmaybedueprimarilytoa c r o s s -

d i m e n s i o n s similarities and/or within-dimension differences Parasuraman et

al (1991) evenacknowledge the interrelationship of the proposed dimensionsprompting the needfor oblique rotation of factor solutions in order to obtain moreinterpretable factorpatterns

O'NeillandPalmer(2003)pointoutthat"Manystudieshavefailedtoreplicate thefive dimensions of quality found in the original research, suggestinglittlegeneralizability of these emerged dimensions" (p 187) Finn and Lamb (1991)raisedthe question asto whether the dimensions ofservice quality are indeedgeneric and suggestthat the construct validity of SERVQUAL should be examinedspecific to theindustry under study before it is used to obtain data andmeasurecustomerperceivedservicequality.Theirexaminationindicatedthatt h e instrument's five dimensions were insufficient to measure quality across differenttypes ofretail service settings Babakus and Boiler (1992), likewise, conclude thatthedimensionality of service quality may depend on the type of servicesunderstudy.Theyultimatelysuggestthat:“Itmaynotbefruitfultopursuethedevelopment

of a standard measure scale applicable to a wide variety of services.The domain ofservice quality may be factorially complex in some industries andvery simple andunidimensional in others As such, measures designed forspecificserviceindustriesmaybeamoreviableresearchstrategytopursue”(P.265)

CroninandTaylor(1992)positthatscaleitemsthatareusedtod e f i n e service quality inone industry may be entirely different in another They suggestthat high involvement services such as, forinstance, health care services, are likelyto have different service quality definitions

fastfood.Thisindicatesthatasimilarargumentmightbemaderegardingtheconstructionofscaleitemsrelativetoindustrialfieldservice

ProcessOrientation.Buttle(1996)citesthatanothercriticismofSERVQUAL is

focus on process or functional quality, but its lack of measurementof technical oroutcome quality Sureshchandar et al (2002) likewise question thecompleteness ofthe SERVQUAL 22 item scale in addressing critical dimensions ofservice quality;their contention being that most of the items focus mainly on humanaspects of servicedelivery with the remaining on tangibles — what Bitner (1992)refers to as "servicescapes" Some, however,Higgins et al (1991) suggest thatoutcome quality is contained within thedimensions such as reliability, competence,and security Chumpitaz andPaparoidamis (2004) likewise associate reliability witha technical dimension While some inter-

thatindicatoritemsspecifictooutcomequalitymustbedevelopedasaseparate dimension

in order to adequately capture this attribute of service quality inthe industrial fieldservice environment Hypothesis tests will then be conducted todetermine ifrelationships exist between outcome quality and key functionalqualitydimensionsintheindustrialfieldservicesetting

Performance-based Measures Numerous researchers that have

questionedtheP-EgapSERVQUALmodelandhavearguedthataperformance,orperceptions-only,

approach offers a more accurate measure service quality Croninand Taylor (1992)contend that performance-based measures better reflect long-term service qualityattitudes in cross-sectional studies Their investigation of theservice qualityconstruct across four industries compared SERVQUAL with theperformance-onlybased instrument SERVPERF Their findings claim the latter tooutperform theformer in perceived service quality variance explanation well as inpredictingcustomer behavioral intentions Lee et al (2000), in a more recent study,likewise,found that the performance-basedmeasures ofs e r v i c e q u a l i t y

c a p t u r e moreofthevariationofservicequalitythandodifferencemeasures.Otherreplication studies have also found the perceptions-only model to be superior to theP-Egap model in this respect (Behara et al 2002; Brady, Cronin, & Brand,2002;Jain&Gupta,2004;Sureshchandaretal.2002)

onlymeasures,SERVPERF,correlatebetterwithoveralls e r v i c e quality measuresthan does the SERVQUAL gap measures (Babakus & Boiler,1992; Brady et al.,2002; Lee et al., 2000) Brown et al (1993) for instance, foundthat the perceptionscomponent outperforms SERVQUAL 31 to 26 in predictingbehavioral intentions,consistent with Cronin and Taylor's (1992) findings.Oliver(1997),however,cautionsthatperformancealoneisanunreferencedc o n c e p t ,wheremeaningisattachedonlywhenitcanbecomparedtosomestandard.

Otherresearchershavealsofoundthroughempiricalanalysisthatperceptions-Carman (1990) concluded that while expectations are important, andthatservice providers should indeed discover what customers expect, it is notnecessaryto do so at every administration of a perceptions battery He furthermaintained thatthe difference scores between expectation and perception certainlyshould not befactor analyzed Spreng et al (1996), furthermore, caution that theexpectationsportion ofthe battery,as administered priorto the performanceportionofthebattery,canactuallyinfluenceperceptionsofanevent

Nonetheless, to many researchers it is intuitively compelling that the Emeasurement provides a more logical and meaningful index than P alone(MorrisonCoulthard, 2004) It is argued that if performance is measured alone,respondentswill mentally compute P-E regardless, using their own ambiguousconceptions of Eto deliver their response (Llosa et al., 1998; Morrison Coulthard,2004)

P-Moreover,giventhatuniversalperformancestandardsmaybeimpracticaltoemploy,theconverse may indeed apply to the use of disconfirmation scales, in that respondentsmay mentally ascribe standards

ownexpectations.ThisagreeswithreasoningputforthbyRust,Zahorik,andKeiningham(1996), who argue that service quality can essentially be likenedtodisconfirmationinsatisfactiontheoryandadvocateitsdirectmeasurementinrelation toexpectations of the perception items in SERVQUAL In industrial fieldservice,then, it is important to understand realistic customer expectations anddirectperformanceeffortstomeetorexceedthoseexpectations

Although the effectiveness of SERVQUAL in evaluating service qualityhasbeenquestionedbydifferentauthorsfordiversereasons,Sureshchandar,etal.(2002), pointout that there is a general agreement that the 22 items arereasonablygoodpredictorsofservicequalityinitsentirety.Whiletheperceptions-

onlyassessmentofperceivedservicequalityhasbeensupportedbymany,othershowever,argue that gap scores are not problematic and can in fact provide morediagnosticinformation than performance-only scores (Parasuraman et al., 1994;Schneider &White, 2004; Spreng & MacKoy, 1996) Oliver (1993) furthermore,acknowledgesthatdespite ambiguity surrounding the expectations referent "theSERVQUALinstrument illustrates the core of what service quality maymean,namely,acomparisontoexcellenceinservicebythecustomer"(p.71)

ve of antecedents, satisfaction is the consumer's response to the evaluationofthe perceiveddiscrepancy between

perceivedperformanceo f theproductorserviceafteritsconsumption(Tse&Wilton,1988).Fromtheperspectiveofconsequence,customersatisfactionisthegeneratorofrepeatedbuying behavior and the advantage of sustenance and development to anybusiness(Dubrovski, 2001) From the perspective of dissatisfaction, Kondo (2001)assertedthat customer satisfaction is reducing customer complaints, which couldlead todissatisfaction Oliver (1997) described satisfaction: Satisfaction is theconsumer'sfulfillmentresponse.Itisajudgmentthataproductorservicefeature,ort h e producto r s e r v i c e i t s e l f , p r o v i d e d ( o r i s p r o v i d i n g ) a p l e a s u r a b l e l e v e l of

consumption-relatedfulfillment,includinglevelsofunder-oroverfulfillment (p.13)

Oliver(1997)definessatisfactionasthesummarypsychologicalstateresultingwhentheemotionsurroundingdisconfirmedexpectationsiscoupledwitha consumer’sprior feeling about the consumer experience Since the early 1990s,service and satisfaction research has grown

to include an emphasis on cumulativesatisfaction, defined as a customer’s overallevaluation ofa product or serviceprovider to date (M D Johnson & Fornell, 1991).Grisaffe (2001) suggests thatsatisfaction is an indicator of met or exceededexpectations Satisfaction is onedriver of recommend and repurchase intentions If

orheexpected,thecustomerismostlikelytobesatisfied(Reichheld,1996)

Johnson (2001) proposed that there are mainly twoconceptualizationsofcustomer satisfaction The first category of conceptualizationcan be represented byOliver (1980) who suggested that measurement ofsatisfaction should be based onparticular product or service transactions which can

post-selectionevaluativejudgmentsrelatedtospecificbuyingdecisions.A n o t h e r conceptualization was established by such researchers as (Anderson, Fornell, &Lehmann, 1994); Garbarino and Johnson(1999); Mittal et al (1999) who perceivedsatisfaction intermsofaconsumer'stotalcumulativeexperienceswitha

firm,productorservice(citedinSrivastava&Rai,2013)

Thediversityofcustomersatisfaction definitionsrepresentsthecomplexityof this construct However, Oliver's definition used in his 1997 study seems tobemoreconsistentwiththetheoreticalandempiricalevidence

2.1.2.1 Satisfaction

There is no one clear consensus on the definition of satisfaction,however,manyconcurthatitinvolves"anevaluative,affective,oremotionalresponse"(Oliver, 1989, p.l) According to Churchill and Surprenant (1982) conceptually,satisfaction is an outcome that results

costsofthepurchaseaconsumermakesrelativetoanticipatedconsequences.They

furthermore distinguish that, operationally, satisfaction can be likened toattitude,given that it can be assessed as an aggregate of particular satisfactions withthevariousattributesofaservice.

Pfaff (1977) suggests that satisfaction may be alternatively describedfromboth cognitive and affective models LaTour and Peat (1979), on the otherhand,contendthatthedistinctionsbetweensatisfactionandattitudearedeterminedprimarilybytemporalpositioning Followingthisreasoning,attitude ispositionedasapre-decisionconstruct,whereassatisfactionispost-decisionc o n s t r u c t (Churchill

& Surprenant, 1982) Rust and Oliver (1994 conclude that customersatisfaction is "a summary cognitive andaffective reaction to a service incident (orsometimestoalong-termservicerelationship).Satisfaction(ordissatisfaction)results from experiencing aservice quality encounter and comparing that encounterwithwhatwasexpected"(p.2).2.1.2.2 Attitude

Attitude is typically associated with long term evaluations of productsorservices Satisfaction, consequently, eventually becomes an input to attitude,whichis less dynamic in nature (Oliver, 1981; Bolton & Drew, 1991b) In pointingout thedistinction between the two constructs of customer satisfaction and attitude,

it isnoteworthy that customer satisfaction refers to a customer's evaluation of aspecifictransaction, whereas customer's attitude relates more to a global evaluation

of theproduct or service (Bolton & Drew, 1991b, Holbrook & Corfman, 1985:Olshavsky,1985)

(Miller,1977:C h u r c h i l l & S u r p r e n a n t , 1 9 8 2 ) O t h e r s , h o w e v e r , c o n t e n d t

h a t e x p e c t a t i o n s

The concept of "meeting expectations" frequently surfaces inconsiderationsof service quality (Coye, 2004) In industrial field service, forinstance,

settingrealisticcustomerexpectations,andthenstrivingtomeetorexceedthoseexpectatio

ns can have a large impact on how a firm is perceived Parasuraman et al.(1988)argue that the term "expectations" is used differently in the service qualityliteraturethan it is in the consumer satisfaction literature Their contention isthatexpectations,intheconsumersatisfactionliterature,areviewedaspredictionscustomers make about what is likely to happen in the course of a transactionorexchange.ThisissimilartoOliver's(1981)assessmentthatexpectationsareconsumer-defined probabilities of the occurrence of positive or negativeoutcomesrelativetosomeundertakenbehavior.Incontrast,Parasuramanetal

(1988)distinguish that expectations, in the service quality literature, are viewed asdesiresorw a n t s o f c u s t o m e r s , i n o t h e r w o r d s , w h a t c u s t o m e r s f e

e l a s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r shouldprovideasopposedtowouldprovide.Thisindicatesthat,w o u l d expectationsinferaprobabilisticlikelihood,whereasshouldexpectations,i n f e rwhatthecustomerultimatelydesiresorconsidersasideal

2.1.2.4 Disconfirmation

The disconfirmation paradigm is widely accepted as a view of the processbywhich customers develop feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Cadotte et al.,1987) Disconfirmation,according to Oliver (1981) essentially refers to "a mentalcomparison of an actualstate of nature with its anticipated probability" (p.35) Assuch disconfirmationoperates as a fundamental intervening variable relative to thesatisfaction construct.Churchill & Surprenant (1982) inform that "Disconfirmationarises fromdiscrepancies between prior expectations and actual performance It ispresumablythe magnitude of the disconfirmation effect that generatessatisfactionanddissatisfaction"(p.492)

SwanandTrawick(1981)distinguishbetweeninferredandperceiveddisconfirmation They first point out that inferred and perceived disconfirmationmay appear tomeasure the same construct, and therefore qualify the differences.Inferreddisconfirmation is ascribed as being the difference between the customer'spost-ratingandpre-

ratingofaproductorservice.Perceivedd i s c o n f i r m a t i o n (Oliver,1980),ontheotherhand,relatestothecustomer'sperceptionthatperformance was better or worse thanexpected Woodruff et al (1983), furtherexpound that the effects of customers'prior experiences can also influence thedisconfirmationprocess

expectations.Expectationsarethuseitherpositivelydisconfirmed(performanceexceedsexpectations),confirmed(performanceequalsexpectations),ornegativelydisconfirmed(performance is short of expectations) The result of this comparisonprocess issome perceived level of disconfirmation In the third step perceiveddisconfirmation determines a level of satisfaction In the fourth step,satisfactiondetermines the intentions to either patronize or not patronize the store inthe future,where intentions are a customer's anticipation of future behavior toward