The Service Industries Journal

Vol. 33, No. 2, February 2013, 200-217 I<Routledge

~~or.~rancis'roup

Perceived quality versus quality of processes: a meta concept of service

quality measurement
Wieslaw Urban*

Management Department, Bialystok University of Technology, Bialystok, Poland

(Received 5 November 2010; jinal version received 20 July 201 1)

Service quality measurement methods are mostly focused on customer perception.

There is a lack of method, combining organisational quality with perceived customer
quality. This study proposes a measurement concept focusing equally on both of the
above-mentioned factors. For validating this approach, experimental measurements
were conducted in five service companies. The gathered feedback allowed the
acceptance of the proposed concept. This is not a strictly defined method, but a
measurement scheme which is supplemented by a set of known measurement
techniques. The proposal constitutes extending the integrated measurement of
service quality, which facilitates a deeper understanding of relationships between
processes and customer perceptions.

Keywords: service quality; customer perception; process improvement

Introduction
Aiming at excellence, managers permanently look for more effective management tools,
techniques and approaches - all of these in order to develop their organisations, and to
achieve a better position in their sector, as well as to gain better business results. For a
long time, quality management has provided a valuable contribution in this field, propos-
ing management ideas, concepts, tools and techniques. Most of them emerged and were
improved in the manufacturing environment, but they are applicable in all kinds of organ-
isations, including services, public administration and NGOs. However, the service-
oriented point of view has recently been very fruitful as a field of new management
ideas and concepts.
Despite the fact that service quality measurement has been an object of interest for
quite a long time, consultants and researchers still propose new methods and test existing
ones. Considering quality evaluation, services are very challenging just by the simul-
taneous interactions between customers and the service provider. On one hand, there is
a customer with hislher needs, value systems and subjective perceptions, and on the
other hand, an organisational system with staff, staff motivation, organisational culture,
routines and a quality control system. It is intriguing to know more about how an organ-
isational system affects customer quality perception.
Assuming that we still need new, more effective methods for measuring service
quality, this study presents the concept of the P/P Quality Map (PIP QM), which is
based on previous experience, tries to combine two fundamental perspectives of service
encounter: customer quality perceptions and organisational processes. The objectives of

*Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507online

 The Service Industries Journal

this study are to clarify the PIP QM service quality measurement method and to analyse
relevant background literature beforehand. The study also aims to test the method in
service companies from different service trades, which allows the verification of its
reliability and usability.

Service quality measurement

The discussion on service quality measurement began with attention being devoted to cus-
tomer perceptions of quality. Services are customer-centric by nature, so it was essential to
take into account customer perspective. Therefore, most of the methods are focused on
customer perceptions. In the literature, a variety of methods are available, and they will
be analysed considering the perspective that they adopt and what is inherent in the
measurement.

Quality measurement by attributes

In the literature, there aremany proposals for quality attribute measurement methods, and
they differ from one another in attributes. The majority of them are designed for particular
services, like methods for banking services (Bahia & Nantel, 2000; Chen, 2009; Jayaward-
hena, 2004), web-based services (Li, Tan, & Xie, 2002), ARCHSECRET - a method for
charity services (Vaughan & Shiu, 2001), INDSERV - for software services (Gounaris,
2005), LibQUAL - for library services (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2001) and others.
All of them are based on questionnaires; data are gathered by surveys. However, some
sets of attributes are applicable in a wider scope of services. These are: tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988).
These attributes, which are the basis of the SERVQUAL method, are employed for
measuring only customers' perception and are called the SERVPERF method (Cronin
& Taylor, 1992; Jain & Gupta, 2004; Johns, Avci, Karatepe 2004; Marshall & Smith,
2000). The set of service quality attributes proposed by SERVQUAL is probably the
most cited and discussed in the literature. But there are opinions also calling into question
these attributes as universal (Carman, 1990; Morrison Coulthard, 2004; Smith, 1995;
Sureshchandar, Rajendran, & Kamalanabhan, 2001). Dabholker, Thorpe, and Rentz
(1995) propose five other dimensions: physical aspects, reliability, personal interaction,
problem solving, and policy. Among other interesting proposals, we can also find the
set based on Maslow's theory of needs (Chiu & Lin, 2004). Most of the proposals vary
greatly, which suggests that there is no chance of finding one universal set of service
quality attributes: 'The number of dimensions required to capture the phenomenon can
be injinite, depending on the purpose of the measurement and the level of abstraction'
(Schneider & White, 2004). From the above-mentioned proposals, we could also
come to the conclusion that attributes vary with time, and that their number is even not
limited.

Disconfirmation model
The disconfirmation model is also based on attributes, but due to a different measurement
logic, it is appropriate to treat it separately. During the measurement process service
quality worsens, and this is the essence of disconfirmatiot. The service quality measure
is the size of the gap between customers' perception of quality and their expectation.
SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) is the method for measuring this gap. Its attributes
 W. Urban

are presented above. SERVQUAL is widely used by academics and managers in a variety
of industrial, commercial and not-for-profit settings (Bahia & Nantel, 2000; Chiu, 2002;
Sachdev & Verma, 2004). There are also some critical views. Disconfirmation as a con-
ceptualisation of service quality might be questionable. There are problems with the esti-
mation of customers' expectations (Morrison Coulthard, 2004), especially because
customers generally expect more than they get (Rosen, Karwan, & Scribner, 2003).
Some studies show that due to the limitations of SERVQUAL, the measurement of only
the perception of quality is more efficient (Carman, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Jain
& Gupta, 2004; Jayawardhena, 2004; McAlexander, Kaldenberg, & Koening, 1994).
Moreover, authors mention that the disconfirmation measurement provides limited hints
as to how to improve service quality (Morrison Coulthard, 2004; Oppewal & Vriens,
2000; Taylor & Cronin, 1994). Attribute measurement and quality disconfirmation in
fact constitute one family of quality measurement, whole particular methods based on
structured measurement scales and broad surveys with customers.

Incident measurement
The critical incident technique (CIT) and related methods do not establish particular
quality variables or attributes. Instead, they propose asking customers open-ended ques-
tions about incidents that happen in any interaction with a service provider. The
numbers of positive and negative incidents make the generic indicator of service
quality. CIT is used in many kinds of services. In the literature, CIT applications are
found in the restaurant industry (Mack, Mueller, & Crotts, Broderick, 2000), retail services
(McKenzie, 2006), airline services (Edvardsson, 1992), health services (Lockwood, 1994),
hotels (Gilbert & Morris, 1995) web-services (Sweeney & Lapp, 2004) and other service
industries. According to the literature, CIT is a method that is often used to identify the
moments of truth (Edvardsson & Roos, 2001). Researchers also underline that CIT
measures overall service quality and satisfaction from services (Bitner, Booms, &
Stanfield, 1990; Edvardsson, 1992). Moreover, the usefulness of recommendations for
improvements is underlined (Grijnroos, 2003; Wong & Sohal, 2003).

Quality measurement by observation

According to the definition proposed by quality guru Crosby, the notion quality is under-
stood as being free from any flaws, being in compliance with accepted standards (Crosby,
1979). The quality measurement based on observation examines the degree of established
standard fulfilment, and one particular method of observation is Mystery Shopping (MS).
MS consists of participating and non-participating observation. The outcome of observers'
research is the service rating and performance index (Erstad, 1998). MS rapidly became
the accepted practice from the 1980s (Calvert, 2005). The literature shows that MS is
used quite extensively in many service industries, such as financial services, leisure1
travel, transporthtilities, motoring, retail and government departments (Wilson, 1998).
MS is a useful diagnostic tool which tracks the key elements of the service delivery
process (Morrison, Colman, & Preston, 1997), and measurement results identify the
service delivery aspects that should be improved. Additionally, benchmarking of other
service providers is a very important advantage of MS measurement programmes
(Calvert, 2005). All the methods mentioned above might be named as customer oriented,
but this does not exhaust the quality measurement possibilities. Service quality is also a
measured form an organisational point of view.
 The Service Industries Journal

Process measurement
Imai (1997) considers that there are two types of quality: the quality of outcome, and the
quality of processes. Also, Juran (1979) classifies the measurement of quality in service
organisations as internal and external; the internal with regard to process measurement
(Sachdev & Verma, 2004). Moreover, some researchers suppose that the perceived
quality is the sum of prior customer expectations plus actual process quality and actual
outcome quality (Ghobadian, Speller, & Jones, 1994). All these justify the importance of
organisational process measurement in services. With regard to measurement methods,
Six Sigma and Statistical Process Control provide a variety of useful tools and techniques
applicable in services. The most important measure is the number of defects in processes,
and also such measures as: lead-time, queuing time, the time taken to restore the service if
a fault has been reported, etc. (Antony, 2006; Bure, 2003; Chakrabarty & Tan, 2007).
Unfortunately, measurement of service quality from a process perspective is very often
treated separately from a measurement and a customer perspective. Therefore, there may
be difficulties in understanding how quality is really created.

The link between internal quality and customer quality

Considering a targeted service quality measurement method design that combines organ-
isational and customer sides, it is valuable to review the link between internal quality and
customer quality in the literature.
It is noticeable that most studies have considered only customer perceptions of service
quality (Mukherjee & Malhotra, 2006). This fact is reflected in measurement methods,
where the majority of them measure the customer viewpoint. Foundations for the link
between internal and external sides in services are given by Heskett, Jones, Loveman,
Earl Sasser, and Schlesinger (2008) in the concept of the Service-Profit Chain, where
profit and precedent customer satisfaction are affected by the service delivery system,
and all have their sources in internal service quality. Another theory explains customer
quality by gaps which appear in a service organisation. This is the five quality gaps
model proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). Also, Reichheld and Sasser (1990) under-
line the link between defects in services and customer loyalty as the effect of freedom from
defects.
Simultaneous consideration of customer perception and organisational factors still
seems to be a very valuable and progressive research direction in the service area.
Czepiel (1990) states that research in services should take into consideration the perspec-
tives of both parties involved in this human interaction. According to Svensson (2006) a
simultaneous focus on both the service provider's perspective and the service receiver's
perspective in service encounters is very desirable. There is more research which is con-
tinuing to follow these suggestions.
We can find many pieces of research which look for predicators of customer service
quality and customer satisfaction in different spheres of an organisation. According to
some authors customer-contact employee job standardisation might lead to a higher
level of service quality (Hsieh & Hsieh, 2001). Others underline the role of staff empow-
erment in achieving high service quality (Ueno, 2008; Yagil, 2006). Management tech-
niques (Kantsperger & Kunz, 2005) and employees' effort, involvement and abilities
(Cheung & To, 2010; Specht, Fichtel, Meyer, 2007) are also treated as factors predicating
customers' perceived quality. Others underline the front line staff as fundamental in the
delivery of service quality to customers (Dean & Rainnie, 2009; Tam & Wong, 2001).
 W. Urban

In the service literature, there are also concepts which try to grasp what is specific to a
service organisation. Above all, the service climate concept (Schneider, White, & Paul,
1998) is most important. According to Schneider et al. (1998), the service climate consists
of practices, procedures, and behaviours that are expected, supported and rewarded in an
organisation. Research results indicate that the service climate leads to customer percep-
tions of service quality (Schneider et al., 1998), which has also been demonstrated by
others (Little & Dean, 2006). Also, similar constructs, like service orientation, are
found as affecting service quality (Lytle & Timmerman, 2006; Vella, Gountas, &
Walker, 2009).
Analysing the service provider, many authors quite often turn to the process approach,
which emerges as a practical and useful conceptualisation of what happens in a service
organisation. Johnston and Clark (2005) underline the importance of service processes
in creating customers' service experience. Likewise, Soltani, Lai, Van Der Meer, and
Williams (2008) see success or failure of service quality in the process of service
quality management and service delivery. Also, Gupta, McDaniel, and Herath (2005)
underline the key role of business processes improvement as a predicator of an increase
in service quality level. There are more voices underlining processes and business
process management as critical factors of customer quality in services (Chang & Chella-
duri, 2003; Kumar, Smart, Maddern, & Maull, 2008; Mascio, 2007; Tsikriktsis & Heineke,
2004; Verboom, van Iwaarden, & van der Wiele, 2004).

PIP Quality Map

Among concepts that build bridges between internal quality and quality perceived by cus-
tomers, the five quality gaps model by Parasuraman et al. (1988), along with detailed tools
proposed by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Beny, (1990), allows exhaustive measurement
of both sides. Beside this, Chow-Chua and Komaran (2002) propose a customer-service
provider matrix, a model driven from quality function deployment. This matrix is the
kind of diagnostic tool which allows a service provider to assess to what extent it meets
service expectations, and enables the utilisation of a company's resources more effec-
tively. Also, Svensson (2003) proposes a very interesting generic conceptual framework
of interactive service quality. His concept considers both the service provider's and the
service consumer's expectations and perceptions in service encounters. Svensson's propo-
sal is very innovative and shows the importance of a multi-perspective view of service and
its quality assessment. From other works emerges the need for a deeper understanding of a
service provider and its system, and on the other hand, the customer's perceptions
(Dedeke, 2003). The proposed concept tries to continue the summarised ideas.
In the literature, we also have direct encouragement of innovative research designs and
alternative methodological approaches to management problems in services (Svensson,
2006). Scholars also mention that one crucial issue for managers is to combine quality
of inner processes with perceived service quality (Rust & Oliver, 1994). The author's
prior research on service quality measurement concluded that service managers are not
fully satisfied with current methods, and that they are still looking for better, more
effective ones (Urban, 2009). There were sufficient rationales to start conceptual work
on a concept combining two basic perspectives of the service encounter. The framework
of PIP QM starts with measuring customer perceptions and, at the same time, measuring
processes. Finally, two outputs meet together on a map; this map is termed PIP because it
connects Perceived customer quality with Process quality. The assumptions of the
measurement are as follows:
 The Service Industries Journal

(1) The starting point is the identification of the attributes of a service that is
measured. Hitherto, the prevailing research indicates that for precise and adequate
customer perceptions valuation by the measurement of an individually identified
set of quality attributes is necessary. It is also generally accepted in the literature
that there might be no universal quality attributes (Dedeke, 2003). To identify
attributes, a focus group with customers might be employed, but better results
are achieved by conducting workshops with customer-contact staff, as conducted
by Yang (2003).
(2) Having the set of quality attributes, it is possible to design a customer survey based
on the wide knowledge concerning this issue. The questionnaire should be
extended to weighting attributes.
(3) When quality attributes are defined, it is necessary to analyse which processes
influence perceived service quality. Only those which have a direct impact on per-
ceived customer quality are in the field of interest. The processes should be clearly
specified, and the strength of impact on customer quality should be identified.
(4) Having the processes on which the measurement is focused, we need to design
measures and appropriate techniques for data gathering. While designing the
measures, the catalogue of typical measures should be taken into consideration,
e.g. reaction cycle time, waiting time, mistakes rate, complaints rate, standards
fulfilment rate, etc. If we do not rely on the available data in systems, the measure-
ment might take as long as several months.
( 5 ) The data concerning customer perceptions and process quality allow the counting
of appropriate indicators and weights for each quality attribute and for each
process. The crucial step is an indicator of standardisation and aggregation,
which allows the calculation of the final indicator PP.All standardised indicators
have the range from 0 to 1, where 0 is the minimum theoretically possible score,
and 1 represents the maximum score - excellent quality.
(6) Indicators and weights for attributes and processes can be graphically presented on
a map. This idea allows better communicativeness and interpretation, and gives
the possibility to use the maps in the 'organisation line'. The logic of the
quality map is shown in Figure 1.
(7) Now the PP QM is a real map of the way service quality is formed in an organ-
isation. Studying the map, we can more easily find improvement directions, and
goals can be marked out with ease on the map.
On a quality map, all components which altogether form service quality are named, as well
as their levels and weights (Figure 1). On the left hand side of the quality map, we see listed
processes which are treated as having a significant influence on customer perceptions. Each

- Indicator
Quabty aunbute (measuredfom 0 to 1)
-(from
lndlcator
0 to 1)

- Indicator
(fromo to l) (measuredfrom 0 to 1) / \ Qual~tyattr~bute(measuredfrom0 to 1)
-(from
Indicator /
0 to 1)

Figure 1. P P QM scheme.
 W. Urban

process has an individual standardised measure and weight; weights symbolise the impact
strength on customer perceptions. Usually, to measure a process, several indicators are
required, as mentioned in the method assumptions above. Turning to the right-hand side
of the quality map, we have quality attributes weighted and measured, also on the standar-
dised scale from 0 to 1. The quality of each of the both sides of the service encounter is
measured and reduced to a single indicator for each side. The PIP indicator takes the
centre place on the quality map. P/P should not be interpreted as a mathematical proportion,
but rather as a kind of balance sheet, which shows - in a synthetic manner -two aggre-
gated measures of quality. It might instead be compared with the human blood pressure
indicator, which is also composed of two separate measures shown together, and which is
interpreted together by physicians.

Verification in practice
The concept summarised above was tested in service organisations. The testing was aimed
at the verification of the reliability and usability of P/P QM. The testing process is based on
performing several measurements in chosen service organisations and observing how
measurement is passed on, and also whether it brings valuable results, particularly from
a manager's viewpoint. During testing, drawbacks and weaknesses were identified, as
well as the collection of suggestions for improvement. Most of the improvements were
implemented during the testing process in subsequent measurement projects.

Testing method
For testing, a multiple case study method was employed. Before testing, companies from
five different service trades were selected. Selecting objects for testing, the diversity
between the chosen service trades was noted, as well as the strong market and competitive
position of the selected companies. The companies on which the PIP QM was tested to
represent the following services:
(1) Banking services. The company is a fast-growing bank operating in several
regions of the country. The company has noted two-digit growth in the last five
years. They do not have a formalised quality management system, like IS0 9001.
(2) Accounting services. They serve the B2B market, accounting and auditing services
mostly for SMEs. However, they also have clients listed on the stock market. They
care seriously about quality, and they believe that quality is their key success
factor. The P/P QM was tested only in accounting services.
(3) Household equipment services. A branch of a multinational company covering the
whole country, with warranty and after-warranty repair services. The company
produces branded household equipment. The brands are perceived as prestigious
and high quality. The company uses the IS0 9001 system.
(4) Car services. This is an authorised car service of a major European carmaker. The
service is highly standardised. This company also uses IS0 9001.
(5) Security services. The company provides security services on a regional scale.
While the P/P QM project occurred they were implementing IS0 9001.
Research in companies lasted from two to four months in each. Some unexpected
delays occurred. In each company, the research scheme included similar phases:
initialising meeting with company CEOs,
workshop focused on customer perceived quality, field research,
 The Sewice Industries Journal

workshop focused on process quality, data gathering,

map preparation, conclusions, reporting,
final presentation in a company, feedback from managers.
All testing projects were conducted by the author. No company refused to take part in this
testing project. The surveys with customers tending to assess quality attributes were made
as simple as possible - the managers emphasised the simplicity and ease of customer
surveys. The research samples ranged from 80 to 150 respondents, depending on the
characteristics of the customer populations. Where it was possible and necessary, statisti-
cal techniques were employed with the support of Statistics 8.019.0 software. For the
quality map itself, only the testing of measurement scales' reliability was necessary, but
in some cases, further relationship analyses were prepared for extended purposes.
The most important points of each of the five testing measurements were the final
presentations of maps in front of whole teams, including top managers. At each final
meeting, feedback from managers was gathered. Five open questions concerned PIP
QM evaluation. Improvement suggestions were asked for and managers answered them
in a written form. Twenty-five completed forms were received. The content of manager
and staff opinions was analysed in a qualitative manner. NVivo 8.0 software supported
content analysis.

An example of P/P QM
Five reports were prepared and presented to managers, each containing a quality map. In
this paper, there is no space to present all the quality maps, and therefore one example will
be briefly summarised - car services. The first workshop with a project team was devoted
to service quality attribute identification. Car repair and warranty services are highly
standardised; this is the way of keeping the quality level by the automotive sector. Six
attributes of customer perceived quality were identified: (1) location, appearance of
buildings and parking places, (2) proper organisation and transparency of the service
process, (3) understanding and willingness to help, (4) consultants' and mechanics'
competence and workmanship, (5) staff appearance and equipment maintenance, (6)
quality of the final result. During the same meeting, the survey details were figured out,
and roles assigned. Each quality attribute was expressed as a question in the questionnaire,
for all of them applying a five-point Likert scale. The weights were gathered by pointing
out only one quality criterion.
The clients were interviewed just after the service was done, directly after getting back
their cars. One hundred reliably completed questionnaires were gathered. Before counting
the indicators, the internal consistency of the constructs was examined based on
Cronbach's alpha. The reliability analysis shows an acceptable level of internal
consistency. The alpha coefficient became 0.915. This level of coefficient, according to
George and Mallery (2006), can be treated as excellent.
After a few weeks, while the customer survey was underway, the next workshop
devoted to processes was held. Four processes are considered as having a significant influ-
ence on perceived service quality: (1) customer reception, (2) order execution, (3) car
delivery and (4) employees' motivation and skills improvement. Process measurement
was carried out by using several techniques, namely calculation based on data available
in the IT database, employee survey, forms for making records by staff, and an MS tech-
nique designed and conducted specially for this project. A further three meetings were
required to help the team to gather data in a proper manner. The MS research was prepared
 W. Urban

and conducted only with the cooperation of a team leader from the company. Finally, there
was sufficient data to map the quality. The results are presented in Figure 2.
The map (Figure 2) shows the measured processes and customer attributes of quality.
In the process perspective (left side), we have all the processes considered to significantly
affect customer quality. For measuring them, unequal numbers of indicators were
employed, from one to four. Unfortunately, processes had a different potential for
designing measures. For a certain process, it was decided to employ only one measure,
i.e. about the car delivery process. The one indicator shown on the map, that is, the
customer service standards fulfilment, was calculated as the effect of a dozen standards
which the service provider is obligated to abide by. In the customer perspective
(right side), we have all the attributes according to which customers perceive car
service quality.
Having all these issues determined in standardised indicators, as well as knowing
weights, we have a very wide outlook on quality. Therefore, we have a view on service
quality 'structure' and 'sources'. Through the calculation of indicators, based on defining
the maximum and minimum possible scores, and then the calculation of the degree of
fulfilment, the final indicators (PIP) were obtained by multiplying standardised indicators
and weights for both sides. On the map, the weights are presented at the end of attributes1
processes bars; the quality indicators are afterwards presented on the other sides in boxes.
The final quality indicator equals 0.7310.84.The maximum score for both components is 1,
so we consider that the company's processes work at a level of 73% and customers' quality
perception is at 84% in terms of satisfaction.
Thanks to the graphic presentation, we can follow the interactions between whole vari-
ables with ease, particularly interaction processes - customer perception. In the case of car
services, we see that the customers' most important quality attribute is also the quite highly
scored one - staff competence and workmanship, which is a very good situation. On the
processes side, order execution is also scored highly. This variable is the most important
predicator of the above-mentioned customers' variable, so the fact that both have good
scores is expected, and it also authenticates the concept. In a similar way, we can
follow many more relationships between variables. Improvement directions formulated
based on this quality map are also very beneficial.

& delayrand \ staff competence and

workmanship
cus'omerabrence- customer reception
Lncansirtency- \
y m e r rervicq__/ /
standards qualily of the final result a,84

FJ----eficacy -1 \ . 0.38
/
-
order execution understand% and willingness to
0.26 help
,
.
0.15

0.08, organisation and transparency

serdce- @ car delivery ,"'26y
standards

0.22
/ \

location, appearance of buildings

0.03

\ staff appearance and equipment

maintenance

Figure 2. PIP QM of car services.

 The Service Industries Journal 209

The final indicator would be commented on further, based on the whole of the gathered
results of testing. Theoretically, both measurement sides should bring equal final indi-
cators, but in whole cases, the scores of processes were lower than customer perceptions.
In one case (out of five), a noticeably huge difference between the processes and percep-
tion indicators was noticed. The inconsistency was 0.3 (0.58/0.88), and it was finally inter-
preted as a systemic defect, which was apparent in the company's management system.
This suspicion was proved during the final presentation to managers, as some organis-
ational standards were completely coherent.

The feedback from managers

During meetings in companies, when final maps were presented, there were vibrant discus-
sions each time on the current state of companies' services and potential improvement
directions, and many questions were asked which had not seen the daylight before. At
the end of each final presentation, questions concerning managers' opinions about P/P
QM were asked. These were five open questions relating to (1) advantages of P/P QM,
(2) reliability and (3) compatibility to particular services, (4) usability, and if the
concept is perhaps not clear and has weak points, and (5) suggested improvements. Man-
agers shared and wrote down their opinions spontaneously without any signs of inside or
outside pressure. Some of them decided to send their opinions later via e-mail. All the
feedback was carefully analysed with the support of NVivo software. A concise
summary is presented in Table 1.
The feedback from managers and other project participants was very positive, and
slightly surpassed expectations from the beginning of the testing project. The P/P QM
and conclusions drawn from it, as well as the figured out improvements were mostly per-
ceived as very interesting, revelatory and useful. Participants of the final presentations
expressed thoughts such as: 'Yes, this is a very valuable method, which might be and
should be used by managers for service development' (accounting services, manager),
'It allows us to catch sight of something we had dzficulty in expressing in words' (account-
ing services, manager), 'P/P QM allows us to show and assess the actual level of services
provided to customers. The essential issue is consideration of many potential improvement
directions' (car services, staff). Also, some particular benefits of the concept: 'The graphic
picture of quality is a very good expression of what is really happening in our company,
and what is the cause of what; the arrows on the picture force the imagination of the
project team; it was easier tofind what we should do' (accounting services, staff), 'Rela-
tively not many indicators show relatively much value' (security services, line manager).
Participants also expressed the reliability of the method: 'The method seems to be very
reliable. This approach to service measurement accurately expresses the specificity of
security services' (security services, senior manager), 'After yourfinal presentation I con-
sider that P/P QM is reliable and valuable, and objectively and exhaustively measures our
service quality' (banking services, branch manager).
The method was accepted as reliable by five companies. Only in one case was there a
brief note that the method might be broadened to loyalty. From the validation point of
view, the most important indicators were spontaneous decisions to employ P/P QM
once again by organisations. There were no questions concerning this issue, nor any sug-
gestions concerning this issue. Three out of the five companies declared that they would
use the method again, either in the future for the same services or for different services
which they serve. This fact and positive answers in final interviews allow us to consider
that the PIP QM concept is valid. The research pointed out some drawbacks of the
Table 1. Summary of managers' feedback.

Willingness to use P/P QM

Suitability to services in the future (not asked
Service sector If beneficial If reliable provided by company If understandable and clear during research)
Banking Definitely yes, 'This is a Yes Yes, there should be a The head proposed in a
services good way to identify little adjustment year and half
areas for improvement'
Accounting Yes, 'Many suspicions have Acceptable, 'Customer Yes, but managers OK, after the final Not by CEO, but staff
services been proved' loyalty should be taken consider that more presentation the concept suggested it
into consideration' stress on loyalty is became fully clear
required
Household Definitely yes, 'Very Yes Fully The country director
equipment efficient way of quality decided to repeat
services diagnosis' measurement in 1 year
Car services Definitely yes Yes Yes, managers suggest OK They are willing to use P/P
that customer sample QM for different
should be bigger services
Security services Yes, they discovered 'Many Yes Acceptable, 'Processes Acceptable No
new things' might be measured
better'
 The Service Industries Journal

concept. There was still a noticeable insufficiency of deep understanding of customers'

perception and a precise measuring of it. Also, some methods for measuring selected
aspects of organisational processes appeared to be insufficient. But in general, P/P QM
was evaluated as very useful. It informs us about the state of service quality, helps
better understanding of quality, and it is helpful in service quality improvement.

Implications
Up to the present time, service quality has been a measured from two basic perspectives,
primarily from the customers' perspective, and separately from the organisational one.
The proposed concepts of P/P QM, following some already indicated directions, try to
provide a framework for simultaneous measurement of the two above-mentioned
perspectives. The former of the perspectives is the core of service marketing, while
the latter has its origins in quality management and business process management.
Combining these two perspectives, which are in fact in some way separate research
spheres, the concept aims to contribute in conjunction with both, and with mutual com-
plementation of each other. Thanks to this, we may deeply understand the mechanism of
quality formation in services by relating customer perception with the roots of its state
being located in organisational processes. Hopefully, this proposal of a unified and
coherent measurement framework enclosing two perspectives will be valuable to both
academia and industry.
The concept of P/P QM is not a strictly defined method, but a measurement scheme
which is supplemented by a set of 'tried and true' measurement techniques. In particular,
organisations might employ different techniques. For example, the MS technique was
used in the case of car services because of its high standardisation level, but it was not
used in all the researched companies. The freedom of choice of specific techniques is
both an advantage and a disadvantage. First of all, it allows for an organisation to
choose the most suitable techniques and to measure the correct variables. It allows the
concept to be employed in different services. The feedback from managers shows that
P/P QM was proved successfully in five different services. It also meets the tendencies
in the literature of proposing tailored measurement methods for particular kinds of
services. Certainly, if something is not fully described and defined, it might not be used
properly, or there might appear many drawbacks in usage. This mainly concerns the
organisational methods.
The concept supports and suits most of the tips and postulates of Svensson (2003,
2006). Some steps of P/P QM are very similar to the generic model of interactive
service quality proposed by him (Svensson, 2003). It also fits other authors' works
which underline organisational processes as customer quality predicators (Chang &
Chelladuri, 2003; Gupta et al., 2005; Johnston & Clark, 2005; Kumar et al., 2008;
Tsikriktsis & Heineke, 2004). The process approach to a service organisation worked
well during the testing stage. It proved to be useful because of its prevalence among
organisations, but also thanks to the IS0 9001 quality system's wide utilisation. On the
other hand, the process approach might not fully describe soft aspects affecting customer
quality, which are contained, for example, in the service climate (Schneider et al., 1998).
The concept also supports these works which see the sources of customer quality in
some aspects of an organisation, especially in human factors (Ekinci & Dawes 2009;
Kumar et al., 2008; Specht et al., 2007; Ueno 2008; Yagil, 2006). Underlined in the
literature, human factors also appeared as important in the conducted research, as in the
 W. Urban

testing sample in the whole of the five service organisations processes were pointed out
which were closely tied to human resources.
During the five research projects, inequality was noticed between the process and per-
ception indicators in the resultant PIP. Similar inequality is reported in the literature, e.g.
Peiro, Martinez-Tur, and Ramos, (2005) state that employees' perceptions of service
quality are greater than customers' perceptions, or vice versa. Also Athanassopoulos
(1997) reports differences. According to him, managers believe they give a higher
quality of service than they think their customers believe they receive. Svensson (2003)
also presents a similar observation of dissonance between service providers and receiver
expectations, as well as perceptions in a service encounter. In this project, the process
quality was systematically lower than customer quality. This inequality might be
explained by the fact that both measures come from different objects, which have different
natures, and different methods are employed for both sides. Moreover, staff always know
more about a service, and customers cannot see everything, and that is why the customers'
evaluation is slightly better. Finally, the project brings one more proof that there are
inherent differences between organisational and customer quality.
Marketers are traditionally focused on customer perceptions; line mangers follow pro-
cesses trying to establish clearly defined standards for operations. The maps might help to
find a fully coherent view of services, and also to formulate well-coordinated improvement
aims. The issue of quality improvement was the most frequent theme in the stories gath-
ered from managers. The feedback from managers also underlines the advantages of a
graphic presentation of quality on a map. The PIP QM is the kind of quality tool that
brings many benefits, also during preparation of the map. This research constitutes a poten-
tial framework which might be helpful in explaining customers' behaviour in the context
of marketing tactics. Managers might discover new insights into the reasons for, and
mechanisms of, customers' market decisions. Customer loyalty and customer satisfaction
explanations are also potentially interesting practical fields.

In conclusion, we might consider that there is a credible rationale for accepting the PIP
QM concept as reliable and beneficial. Connecting customer quality perception with
the quality of organisational processes, we achieved a concept which is potentially
valuable, considering managerial and theoretical points of view. PIP QM is a holistic
glance at service quality, and one which tries to take into consideration all crucial
factors.
Another conclusion drawn from this study is that while analysing service quality, it is
advisable to consider at the same time the perspectives of both customer perceptions and
organisational processes. The literature suggests service quality's influence on some
crucial performance indicators, especially customer satisfaction (Liang & Wang, 2006)
and customer loyalty (Chen, Shen, & Liao, 2009; Liang & Wang, 2006). Hopefully, in
following the proposed approach further, some new aspects and new paths of achieving
these performance outcomes might be discovered.
The proposed model provides an extended conceptualisation of service quality. In
comparison to concepts discussed above, namely the Service-Profit Chain (Heskett
et al., 2008), and the five quality gaps model (Parasuraman et al., 1988), it tends not to
show only the logic of internallexternal relationships in a service organisation, but most
of all, proposes a practical approach to measuring quality and the way to follow exter-
nallinternal relationships individually in an organisation. Of course only with reference
 The Service Industries Journal

to some service organisation aspects, P/P QM proposes a relatively simple mechanism of

weighting and standardising indicators, which aim to link together measures from two
different spheres. For the proposed concept, one approach for measuring customer
service perceptions was chosen, the one which is the most advantageous for established
assumptions. But other techniques still have significant prevalence in particular fields.
The CIT technique, for example, certainly provides very valuable qualitative insights
into customer perceptions of service.
It is also necessary to point out the universality of the proposed concept in terms of
service product characteristics and service trades. P/P QM seems to be applicable in differ-
ent services. In each service sector, the results were coherent according to managers'
opinions, even in B2B services. In each, it brought interesting discoveries regarding the
organisation and its customers.
According to the literature, measurement is potentially one of the highest leverage
activities any organisation can perform. However, its importance is not realised for
many reasons (Spitzer, 2007). Measurement systems create the basis for effective manage-
ment (Reichheld, 2001). This demonstrates the importance of the proposed measurement
concept in practice. P/P QM is a kind of 'big picture' of the quality state in an organisation.
Thanks to the quality map managers who can more easily follow the cause-effect relation-
ships across processes and customer perceptions. Individual measures are not interpreted
separately, but as an integrated collection of indicators. Knowing the relationships
between measures on a map, one can analyse many aspects of a service in trade-offs
logic, and this allows the choice of the best option with reference to many organisational
issues, most of all improvement programmes. Graphic visualisation of quality is also
important in getting a better understanding and in communicating the quality state to all
of the staff within an organisation. The concept might be employed for monitoring
service quality, as well as for benchmarking purposes. From this study, a very important
managerial message is sent that parallels a deep insight into the organisational and the
customer side is necessary.
Certainly, PIP QM has more limitations besides those mentioned above. The biggest
one is probably the way in which the concept is defined, and there is much space for clar-
ification and hints to particular services. The fact that the concept is merely a framework,
with much room for interpretation, might sometimes mislead users. Indeed, the concept
does not provide a certainty that some significant factors would not be omitted. Some
steps might bring particular drawbacks, e.g. while standardising indicators, there woild
be hesitancy, where there are minimum and maximum scores, while counting measures
of failures in processes. The concept should be tested in further services, and more detailed
guidelines might be helpful.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Polish Ministry of Science for financially supporting the
research presented in this study (Number: N N115 326834).

References
Antony, J. (2006). Six sigma for service processes. Business Process Management Journal, 12(2),
234-248.
Athanassopoulos, A.D. (1997). Another look into the agenda of customer satisfaction: Focusing on
service providers' own and perceived viewpoints. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
15(7), 264-278.
 W. Urban

Bahia, K., & Nantel, J. (2000). A reliable and valid measurement scale for the perceived service
quality of banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(2/3), 84-92.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., & Stanfield, T.M. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71 -84.
Bure, G. (2003). Design for six sigma. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Calvert, P. (2005). It's a mystery. Mystery shopping in New Zealand's public libraries. Library
Review, 54(1), 24-35.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of SERVQUAL
dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33-55.
Chakrabarty, A., & Tan, K.C. (2007). The current state of six sigma application in services.
Managing Service Quality, 17(2), 194-208.
Chang, K., & Chelladuri, P. (2003). System-based quality dimensions in fitness services:
Development of the scale of quality. The Service Industries Journal, 23(5), 65-83.
Chen, S.H. (2009). Establishment of a performance-evaluation model for service quality in the
banking industry. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 235-247.
Chen, Y.C., Shen, Y.C., & Liao, S. (2009). An integrated model of customer loyalty: An empirical
examination in retailing practice. The Service Industries Journal, 29(3), 267-280.
Cheung, M.F.Y., & To, W.M. (2010). Management commitment to service quality and organiz-
ational outcomes. Managing Service Quality, 20(3), 259-272.
Chiu, H. (2002). A study on the cognitive and affective components of service quality. Total Quality
Management, 13(2), 265-274.
Chiu, H., & Lin, N. (2004). A service quality measurement derived from the theory of needs. Service
Industries Journal, 24(1), 187-204.
Chow-Chua, C., & Komaran, R. (2002). Managing service quality by combining voice of the service
provider and voice of their customers. Managing Service Quality, 12(2), 77-86.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, B. (2001). LibQUAL+: One instrument in the new measures
toolbox. Journal of Library Administration, 35(4), 41 -47.
Cronin, J.J., & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-69.
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Czepiel, J.A. (1990). Service encounters and service relationships: Implications for research. Journal
of Business Research, 56, 55-68.
Dabholker, P., Thorpe, D., & Rentz, J. (1995). A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale
development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 3- 16.
Dean, A.M., & Rainnie, A. (2009). Frontline employees' views on organizational factors that affect
the delivery of service quality in call centers. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(5),
326-337.
Dedeke, A. (2003). Service quality: A fulfilment-oriented and interactions-centered approach.
Managing Service Quality, 13(4), 276-289.
Edvardsson, B. (1992). Service breakdowns: A study of critical incidents in an airline. International
Journal o f Service Industry Management, 3(4), 17-29.
Edvardsson, B., & Roos, I. (2001). Critical incident techniques: Towards a framework for analysing
the criticality of critical incidents. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
12(3), 251 -68.
Ekinci, Y., & Dawes, P.L. (2009). Consumer perceptions of frontline service employee personality
traits, interaction quality, and consumer satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal,
107(125), 503-521.
Erstad, M. (1998). Mystery shopping programmes and human resource management. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(1), 34-38.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ghobadian, A., Speller, S., & Jones, M. (1994). Service and quality concepts models. International
Journal of Quality, & Reliability Management, 11(9), 43-66.
Gilbert, D.C., & Moms, L. (1 995). The relative importance of hotels and airlines to the business tra-
veller. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(6), 19-23.
Gounaris, S. (2005). An alternative measure for assessing perceived quality of software house ser-
vices. The Service Industries Journal, 25(6), 803-823.
 The Service Industries Journal 215

Gronroos, C. (2003). Service management and marketing. A customer relationship management

approach (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley, & Sons.
Gupta, A., McDaniel, J.C., & Herath, S.K. (2005). Quality management in service firms: Sustaining
structures of total quality service. Managing Service Qualify, 15(4), 389-402.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Earl Sasser, W., Jr., & Schlesinger, L.A. (2008, July-
August). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 118- 129.
Hsieh, Y.M., & Hsieh, A.T. (2001). Enhancement of service quality with job standardisation. The
Service Industries Journal, 21(3), 147- 166.
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen: A commonsense, low-cost approach to management. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jain, S.K., & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs SERVPERF scales.
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 29(2), 25-37.
Jayawardhena, C. (2004). Measurement of service quality in internet banking: The development of
an instrument. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(1/2), 185-207.
Johns, N., Avci, T., & Karatepe, O.M. (2004). Measuring service quality of travel agents: Evidence
from Northern Cyprus. The Service Industries Journal, 24(3), 82- 100.
Johnston, R., & Clark, G. (2005). Service operations management (2nd ed.). Harlow: Prentice-Hall.
Juran, J.M. (1979). Quality control handbook (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kantsperger, R., & Kunz, W.H. (2005). Managing overall service quality in customer care centers.
Empirical findings of a multi-perspective approach. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 16(2), 135- 151.
Kumar, V., Smart, P.A., Maddern, H., & Maull, R.S. (2008). Alternative perspectives on service
quality and customer satisfaction: The role of BPM. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 19(2), 176- 187.
Li, Y.N., Tan, K.C., & Xie, M. (2002). Measuring web-based service quality. Total Qualify
Management, 13(5), 685-700.
Liang, C.J., & Wang, W.H. (2006). The behavioural sequence of the financial services industry in
Taiwan: Service quality, relationship quality and behavioural loyalty. The Service
Industries Journal, 26(2), 119- 145.
Little, M.M., & Dean, A.M. (2006). Links between service climate, employee commitment and
employees' service quality capability. Managing Service Quality, 16(5), 460-476.
Lockwood, A. (1994). Using service incidents to identify quality improvement points. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(1/2), 75-80.
Lytle, R.S., & Timmerrnan, J.E. (2006). Service orientation and performance: An organizational
perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2), 136-147.
Mack, R., Mueller, R., Crotts, J., & Broderick, A. (2000). Perceptions, corrections and defections:
Implications for service recovery in the restaurant industry. Managing Service Quality,
10(6), 339-346.
Marshall, K.P., & Smith, J.R. (2000). SERVPERF utility for predicting neighborhood shopping
behavior. Journal of Nonprofit, & Public Sector Marketing, 7(4), 45-58.
Mascio, R.D. (2007). A method to evaluate service delivery process quality. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 18(4), 418-442.
McAlexander, J.H., Kaldenberg, D.O., & Koenig, H.F. (1994). Service quality measurement.
Journal of Health Care Marketing, 14(3), 34-39.
McKenzie, B. (2006). Retail service quality success factors in Estonia: A qualitative approach. Baltic
Journal of Management, 1(3), 352-369.
Morrison Coulthard, L.J. (2004). Measuring service quality. International Journal of Market
Research, 46(4), 479-497.
Morrison, L.J., Colman, A.M., & Preston, C.C. (1997). Mystery customer research: Cognitive pro-
cesses affecting accuracy. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2), 349-361.
Mukherjee, A,, & Malhotra, N. (2006). Does role clarity explain employee-perceived service
quality? A study of antecedents and consequences in call centres. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 17(5), 444-473.
Oppewal, H., & Vriens, M. (2000). Measuring perceived service quality using integrated conjoint
experiments. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(4/5), 154-170.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
 W. Urban

Peiro, J.M., Martinez-Tur, V., & Ramos, J. (2005). Employees' overestimation of functional
and relational service quality: A gap analysis. The Service Industries Journal, 25(6),
773-788.
Reichheld, F.F. (2001). The loyalty effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, W.E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard
Business Review, 68(5), 105- 11 1.
Rosen, L.D., Karwan, K.R., & Scribner, L.L. (2003). Service quality measurement and the
disconfirmation model: Taking care in interpretation. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 14(1), 3- 15.
Rust, R.T., & Oliver, R.L. (Eds.). (1994). Service quality, new directions in theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sachdev, S.B., & Verma, H.V. (2004). Relative importance of service quality dimensions: A multi-
sectoral study. Journal of Services Research, 4(1), 93-1 16.
Schneider, B., & White, S.S. (2004). Service quality, research perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Schneider, B., White, S.S., & Paul, M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions
of service quality: Test of a casual model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150- 163.
Smith, A.M. (1995). Measuring service quality: Is SERVQUAL now redundant? Journal of
Marketing Management, 1l(1-3), 257-276.
Soltani, E., Lai, P.C., Van Der Meer, R., & Williams, T.M. (2008). Managerial approaches towards
service quality: The case of three service organisations. The Service Industries Journal,
28(10), 1399-1414.
Specht, N., Fichtel, S., & Meyer, A. (2007). Perception and attribution of employees' effort and abil-
ities. The impact on customer encounter satisfaction. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 18(5), 534-554.
Spitzer, D.R. (2007). Transforming perfornzance measurement. New York, NY: American
Management Association.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C., & Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001). Customer perceptions of service
quality: A critique. Total Quality Management, 12(1), 11 1- 124.
Svensson, G. (2003). A generic conceptual framework of interactive service quality. Managing
Service Quality, 13(4), 267-275.
Svensson, G. (2006). New aspects of research into service encounters and service quality.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(3), 245-257.
Sweeney, J.C., & Lapp, W. (2004). Critical service quality encounters on the Web: An exploratory
study. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(4), 276-289.
Tam, J.L.M., & Wong, Y.H. (2001). Interactive selling: A dynamic framework for services. Journal
of Services Marketing, 15(5), 379-396.
Taylor, S.A., & Cronin, J.J. Jr., (1994). Modeling patient satisfaction and service quality. Journal of
Health Care Marketing, 14(1), 34-44.
Tsikriktsis, N., & Heineke, J. (2004). The impact of process variation on customer dissatisfaction:
Evidence from the US domestic airline industry. Decision Sciences, 35(1), 129-42.
Ueno, A. (2008). Is empowerment really a contributory factor to service quality? The Service
Industries Journal, 28(9), 1321- 1335.
Urban, W. (2009). Service Quality Evaluation Methods - State and Outlook. Leipziger Beitrage zur
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 1st International Symposium on Services Science: ISSS'09, March
23-25, Leipzig, Germany, Vol. 5, pp. 125- 136.
Vaughan, L., & Shiu, E. (2001). ARCHSECRET: A multi-item scale to measure service quality
within the voluntary sector. International Jourrzal of Nonprojt & Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 6(2), 131- 145.
Vella, P.J., Gountas, J., & Walker, R. (2009). Employee perspectives of service quality in the
supermarket sector. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(6), 407-421.
Verboom, M., van Iwaarden, J., & van der Wiele, T. (2004). A transparent role of information
systems within business processes: a case study. Managing Service Quality, 14(6), 496-504.
Wilson, A.M. (1998). The role of mystery shopping in the measurement of service performance.
Managing Service Quality, 8(6), 414-420.
Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2003). A critical incident approach to the examination of customer relation-
ship management in a retail chain: An exploratory study. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 6(4), 248-262.
 The Sewice Industries Journal

Yagil, D. (2006). The relationship of service provider power motivation, empowerment and burnout
to customer satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(3),
258-270.
Yang, C.C. (2003). Establishment and applications of the integrated model of service quality
measurement. Managing Service Quality, 13(4), 310-324.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A,, & Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing cus-
tomer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.