identifying the

7/27/2019 Identifying The

1/6

[ 111 ]

International J ournal ofBank Marketing15/ 4 [1997] 111116

MCB University Press[ISSN 0265-2323]

Ident if ying the crit ical determinants of servicequali t y in retail banking: import ance and ef fect

Robert JohnstonReader in Operations Management, Warwick Business School, University ofWarwick, Coventry, UK

Provides managers with anempirically derived frame-

work to help them assess thelikely impact of any servicequality initiative. Categorizes

quality factors in terms oftheir relative importance and

their effect on satisfactionand dissatisfaction. Statesthat the study is based on an

analysis of over 200 customeranecdotes of incidents in theUK banking industry and 100

interviews. Research suggeststhat certain actions, such asincreasing the speed of pro-

cessing information andcustomers, are likely to have

an important effect in termsof delighting customers,

however other activities, suchas improving the reliability ofequipment, will lessen dissat-isfaction rather than delight

customers. Suggests that it ismore important to ensurethat the dissatisfiers are dealt

with before the satisfiers.Also suggests that there are

two areas where banks couldachieve a distinct advantage,genuine commitment and

attentiveness by front-linestaff. States that some otherareas are not worth much

attention and any time andmoney put into these areasmight be better redirected

elsewhere.

Introduction

A disturbing paradox in the UK banking

industry is the amount of reported customer

dissatisfaction with banks, despite large-scale

efforts of the banks, over many years, to try to

improve their service to customers. A pollconducted in 1993 for the National Consumers

Counci l by MORI found that only 34 per cent

of respondents were very satisfied with their

banking services, compared to 62 per cent i n

1983 (MORI, 1994). The Consumers Associa-

tions magazineWhich?continues to report

high levels of customer dissatisfaction. The

magazine in 1994 claimed that customer per-

ception of the quali ty of service provided by

banks remains at best mediocre and at worst

poor; By and large, banks arent delivering on

service promises. Laudable exceptions apart,

banking services are all too often second rate.

Thousands of customers have cause to deplorethe high-handed ineptitude of those they trust

with their cash (Which?, 1994).

In response to increasing competition,

enhanced customer needs and consumer

group pressure, the high street banks and

building societies have taken some steps to try

to improve service quality over the last ten

years. These developments include, for exam-

ple, increasing the speed of handling telephone

calls, improving attentiveness and poli teness

of face-to-face encounters, trying to reduce

time spent in queues, improving the reliability

of ATMs, improving the environment of the

banking halls and extending the availability of

electronic and telephone banking.

Reasons for t he paradox?

One reason for the number of problems is the

huge volume of transactions that banks and

building societies process. National Westmin-

ster, for example, one of the largest banks i n

the UK, handles 15 mil li on transactions every

day for its six mill ion customers, maintain-

ing, for example, over 32.5 mill ion direct

debits/ standing orders. I t is therefore not too

surprising that mistakes occur, in view of thevolume of transactions handled. However, the

size of the problem is worrying. A MORI

survey of 1,879 customers (1994) found that

nearly half of all customers (48 per cent) had

experienced at least one mistake during the

previous 12 months.

A second reason, and the theme for this

paper, is that managers may tend to focus,

quite understandably, on doing the things that

will improve customer satisfaction, yet what

customers and consumer associations maynotice more are the things that lead to dissat-

isfaction. While many quality initiatives are

in evidence, do managers know which are the

cri tical activi ties and do they understand the

difference between satisfaction and dissatis-

faction creation, and which of these are the

most important to their customers?

Service quality determinants

Underpinning our understanding of service

quality is an array of factors or determinants.

A number of researchers have provided listsof quality determinants, for example,

Albrecht and Zemke (1985); Armistead (1990);

Grnroos (1990); and Walker (1990). Probably

the best known determinants emanate from

two groups of researchers, Parasuraman and

colleagues from the USA and J ohnston and

colleagues in the UK .

Parasuraman et a l. (1985) provided a list of

ten determinants of service quali ty; access,

communication, competence, courtesy, credi-

bil ity, reliability, responsiveness, security,

understanding and tangibles. The research

team found a high degree of correlation

between communication, competence, cour-

tesy, credibili ty and security, and between

access and understanding and so they com-

bined them into two broad dimensions of

assurance and empathy, i.e. a total of five con-

solidated dimensions (Berry et a l., 1985). They

then used the five dimensions, tangibles, relia-

bility, responsiveness, assurance and empathy

as the basis for their service quali ty measure-

ment instrument, SERVQUAL (Parasuraman

et a l., 1988; Zeithaml et a l., 1990). Parasuraman

et a l. (1988) stated that although the relative

importance of the categori es would vary from

one service industry to the next, we believethe determinants of servi ce quality in most (if

not all) consumer servi ce industries are

included in this list (Berry et a l., 1985). These

dimensions, and the perception-based


2/6

[ 112 ]

Robert JohnstonIdentifying the criticaldeterminants of service

quality in retail banking:importance and effect

International Journal ofBank Marketing15/ 4 [1997] 111116

SERVQUAL instrument, have been the subject

of some cri ticism for their completeness,

appropriateness in a variety of settings and

the use of a perception-based instrument formeasuring service quali ty (see for example

Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; and

Finn and Lamb, 1991). Despite this cri ticism,

these dimensions and the SERVQUAL instru-

ment have formed the basis for a considerable

amount of research and application in the

field of service management.

In terms of the focus of this study there are

two additional concerns with Parasuramanet

al.s (1988) work. First, although the

SERVQUAL instrument allows users to

include relative weightings for the dimen-

sions, there is some uncertainty about theirrelative importance. Parasuramanet a l. (1988)

reported that, regardless of the service being

studied, reliabil ity was the most cri tical

dimension, followed by responsiveness, assur-

ance and empathy. The tangibles were of least

concern to service customers. While one could

argue that tangibles are not a quali ty dimen-

sion but an element of the service itself,

whereas the reliabil ity or functionality, for

example, of the tangibles are quali ty dimen-

sions, it seems evident that in some service

situations, such as retail ing, the tangibles

constitute the core purchase. Second, Parasur-

aman et a l. (1988) do not distinguish betweenthe effect of the dimensions in terms of cre-

ation of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. It is

assumed that they are the two sides of the

same coin implying, for example, that a bank

which opens and closes erratically (unreliabil-

ity) will lead to dissatisfied customers, and

therefore a bank which opens and shuts pre-

cisely on time will lead to deli ghted customers!

J ohnstonet a l. (1990) undertook some test-

ing of the comprehensiveness of Parasura-

man et a l.s service quality determinants in

the light of empirical data gathered in ten UK

service organizations. Their analysis,although generally supportive of the ten

determinants, suggested a refined list of 12.

After fur ther testing and development the

team provided 18 determinants of service

quality providing probably the most compre-

hensive and detailed list of determinants of

service quali ty (J ohnston, 1995). The 18 factors

are; access, aesthetics, attentiveness/helpful-

ness, availabili ty, care, cleanli ness/ tidiness,

comfort, commitment, communication, com-

petence, courtesy, flexibil ity, friendliness,

functionality, integrity, reliabil ity, responsive-

ness and security (see Appendix).

Importance and effectThere has been some work to assess the

importance and effect of the service quali ty

factors. In terms of importance, Berry et a l.

(1985) and J ohnston (1995) identified respon-

siveness as an important factor but were

unable to weight the other factors at an indus-

try level. Rosen and Karwan (1994) identifiedthe relative importance of Parasuraman et

a l.s (1988) five quality dimensions for four

types of service organizations, though not

banks. Bitner et a l. (1990), identified employ-

ees willi ngness to respond to a problem and

their employees responsiveness to customer

needs as key factors in service quality. Avki-

ran (1994), in a study of an Australi an trading

bank, found elements of credibili ty and

responsiveness to be the most important.

In terms of the factors effect on satisfaction

and dissatisfaction Silvestro and J ohnston

(1990), inspired by Herzbergs motivating andhygiene factors (Herzberget a l., 1959), identi-

fied three types of factors; hygiene (dissatis-

fiers), enhancing (satisfiers) and dual factors

(factors capable of both satisfying and dissatis-

fying). They defined dissatisfying factors as

those factors which i f in evidence will cause

dissatisfaction, however if they are not evident

will not be a source of delight. A dirty banking

hall may dissatisfy customers, however, once

clean no end of polishing is likely to delight

customers. Satisfiers are those factors which

when improved beyond adequacy have a posi-

tive effect on perceptions. However, when these

factors are either not in evidence, or poorlyperformed, their performance does not detract

from customer perceptions of service quali ty. A

teller who does not provide a personal greeting

on the second visit to a branch is not likely to

dissatisfy the customer, however, if the teller

does recognize the customer and remembers

his/her name, the customer may be quite

delighted. Cri tical factors are those which can

be both satisfying and dissatisfying and there-

fore any changes in levels of performance can

have both a negative and a positive effect (see

also J ohnston and Heineke, forthcoming).

Cadotte and Turgeon (1988) identified afourth category; neutral factors (see also

Lockwood, 1994). Neutral factors are the least

sensitive to changes in performance. Any

change in levels of performance in these

factors will have little impact on perceptions.

Some testing of these categories has been

provided by Smith et a l. (1992) and Mersha

and A dlakha (1992), however, the most com-

prehensive testing to date has been carried

out by J ohnston (1995). He concluded that the

causes of dissatisfaction are not necessari ly

the obverse of the causes of satisfaction. He

identified attentiveness, responsiveness, care

and fri endliness as the main sources of satis-faction, and integrity, reliabil ity, responsive-

ness, availabili ty and functionality as the

main sources of dissatisfaction. The problem

with thi s work, and with assessing effect


3/6

[ 113 ]




without consideri ng importance, may be a

distortion of priori ties. For example, securi ty

in J ohnstons study was infrequently men-

tioned suggesting that it could be a neutralfactor. Security, however, is more li kely to be a

highly dissatisfying factor which customers

did not report as breaches of security are few

and far between. What i s required is an

approach that assesses both the effect and

importance of the quali ty factors.

Research quest ions

This study seeks to combine the classification

of quali ty factors into satisfiers and dissatis-

fiers together with their relative importance.

Its purpose is to identify, through empiricalresearch in the UK banking industry, the

importance and effect of the determinants of

service quali ty so that managers might be

better armed to decide how to allocate limited

resources to improve or stabil ize service

quality. This is summarized in terms of two

research questions:

1 Which quality factors are the most impor-

tant to customers? and

2 Which quality factors are the ones which

tend to deli ght customers and which are

those that tend to dissatisfy?

Identif ying the critical determinants

One major UK high street bank agreed to be

involved and to provide direct access to its

personal account customers from several

branches. Two studies were undertaken, one

to assess the effect of the factors and a second

to assess their relative importance. Two sepa-

rate studies were required as combining them

would have jeopardized the findings. An open

format approach (see below) was used to iden-

tify effect. This allowed customers free

response rather than limiting them to fixedcriteria which would have constrained the

range of responses. The list that was generated

from this survey was then used as the basis for

the second survey to identify importance.

EffectThe critical incident technique which had

been used in many of the earlier studies was

chosen because it allows customers to express

their perceptions in their own words and

classify them into satisfying and dissatisfying

stories. Based on the earlier studies by, for

example Smith et a l. (1992), the questionnaire

comprised two main questions. The first ques-tion asked customers to think of a time when

they felt very pleased and satisfied with the

service received and to describe the service

situation and why they felt so happy. The

second question required customers to think

of a time when they were unhappy and dissat-

isfied with the service they received and to

ask them to describe, in a few sentences, whythey felt this way. The questionnaire also

requested some demographic details includ-

ing sex, age and level of education.

A random sample of 1,500 customers was

chosen from a high street banks customer

base. More than 15 per cent of the question-

naires were returned, yielding 223 (usable)

completed questionnaires. There was a high

level of correlation between the locations

regarding the sex, level of education and age

of respondents which were consistent with

the population of over-16-year-olds with bank

accounts.Each anecdote was numbered and summa-

rized into a li st of keywords and phrases

which encapsulated the customers experi-

ence of the service. This was then recorded on

to an index card. Two sets of cards were cre-

ated, one for the anecdotes relating experience

of good service (the satisfiers) and one for the

anecdotes of poor service (the dissatisfiers).

The summaries were then classified indepen-

dently by two researchers. Discrepancies were

identified, discussed and resolved. There were

no key words or phrases used which were not

captured by the 18 quality factors.

ImportanceA convenience sample of one hundred bank

customers between the ages of 18 and 60, of

both sexes, were interviewed over a period of

three weeks, by five postgraduate students, in

the banking halls of five banks chosen, to try

to reflect a mix of socio-economic back-

grounds. The classification scheme was

explained to the customers and they were

asked to rate, from 0 to 4, the relative impor-

tance of the 18 factors i n terms of the service

provided by their high street bank. Each

factor was accompanied by a bri ef descrip-tion and the categori es were also described.

There was no significant difference between

the results from the five different locations.

Analysis and discussion

The frequencies of mention, classified by

their satisfying or dissatisfying effect, are

normalized and summari zed in Table I. Each

factors average importance on a five point

scale (4=very important, 0=unimportant) are

also shown in Table I.

Spearmans coefficient of rank correlationwas used to compare the difference between

the rank orders of the frequency of mentions

of satisfiers and dissatisfiers. The null

hypothesis that there was no difference


4/6

[ 114 ]




between the satisfiers and dissatisfiers wasrejected at the 90 per cent level suggestingthat the determinants associated with dissat-isfaction are significantly different fromthose that create satisfaction.

It is interesting to note that the main satis-fiers, i.e. the factors that may delight cus-tomers, tend to be concerned more with theintangible nature of the service, commitment,

attentiveness, friendliness, care and courtesy.The main sources of dissatisfaction appear tobe cleanliness, aesthetics, integrity, function-ali ty, reliabili ty and securi ty which are asso-ciated with either the more tangible aspectsof service or systemic issues.

In terms of importance, the averages in theTable show that all the factors were felt to beat least of some minor importance. This, how-

ever, does not reveal the spread of responses,

indeed some respondents felt that aesthetics,cleanliness and comfort were of no impor-

tance. The majority of factors spread across

three points of the 0-4 scale, competence cov-ered just two points and flexibil ity all five.

Six zones have been added to Figure 1 to tryto suggest how managers can identify priori -

ties for improving customer satisfaction. It issuggested that any factors lying below 2 (onlyof limited importance), such as comfort, are

worthy of only minimal time and effort. In thenext zone, between 2 and 2.5, any factors lyinghere should be provided to a basic standard. It

is interesting to note that all of the three fac-tors here are dissatisfiers rather than satis-fiers. The factors with potential to dissatisfy

above 2.5 on the satisfaction scale need to be

managed to ensure that problems do not occur.The availabil ity of service facil ities, staff andgoods to the customer cannot be ignored asunavailabil ity will dissatisfy customers, and,

this is seen to be important to them. Likewise,communication (the ability of the service tocommunicate with the customer in a way he

or she will understand) cannot be ignored. Thefactors in the high importance and high poten-tial to dissatisfy require special attention. I t is

suggested that organizations cannot afford tofail in these areas. Whereas care and commu-nication are somewhat more neutral in their

effect, functionali ty, securi ty, reliability andintegri ty are seen as vital traits of a bankingservice. Failing in these factors wi ll result in a

significant degree of dissatisfaction. There aremany areas in which managers could consider

improving the level of service provided whichwill have a positive impact on customer satis-faction. Care (the concern, consideration,

sympathy and patience shown to thecustomer), friendliness, flexibili ty, responsive-ness and courtesy are traits which are not

necessarily expected but, if delivered, couldsignificantly influence customer perceptionsof the service provided. The high-importance

factors with a high potential to delight, such ascommitment and attentiveness, are areas

where banks might be able to develop a reputa-tion for excellence. Unl ike courtesy, which canbe scripted, or responsiveness which can be

designed-in through staff rotas and routines,the demonstration of commitment and atten-tiveness rely on the genuine abili ty of front-

li ne staff to empathize with and respond toeach individual customer and is so much moredifficult to achieve.

Conclusion and managerial

implicationsThis research has provided managers with aframework to help them assess the li kelyimpact of any service quality initiativein terms of its effect and importance.

Table I

Relative effect on satisfaction/ dissatisfaction

and importance

Fa ct o rs Sa t is fy in g Diss at i sf ying I mp or t a nc e

Commitment 100 0 3.2

Attentive/ help 96 4 3.7

Friendliness 96 4 3.0

Care 81 19 2.6

Courtesy 77 23 3.3

Responsiveness 67 33 3.5

Flexibility 60 40 3.2

Competence 51 49 3.8

Comfort 50 50 1.7

Communication 49 51 3.6

Availability 42 58 3.3

Access 33 77 2.2Cleanliness/ tidy 17 83 2.2

Security 17 83 3.4

Reliability 15 85 3.6

Functionality 7 93 3.3

Integrity 0 100 3.6

Aesthetics 0 100 2.1

Figure 1

Priorities for improving customer satisfaction


5/6

[ 115 ]




Responsiveness has been shown to be animportant factor, supporting previous workby, for example, Berry et a l. (1985), Bitner et

a l. (1990) and Avki ran (1994). This would sug-gest that effor ts to increase speed of process-ing information and customers is likely tohave an important and positive effect on cus-tomer satisfaction.This work has also clearly identified other

factors, such as the functionality ofmachines, the reliabili ty of transactions, theintegrity of the staff and the confidentiali ty ofthe service. Functionali ty, securi ty, reliabili tyand integrity, although they would not lead todelighted customers, are areas where bankscannot afford to make mistakes as they arevery important to customers and are poten-

tially highly dissatisfying factors. Time andmoney spent in these areas would li kelyreduce time and effort spent deali ng withdissatisfied customers and potentially losingtheir business.

Furthermore, it is suggested that it is moreimportant to ensure that these dissatisfiersare dealt with before the satisfiers. Havingpolite and courteous staff is li ttle consolationfor a customer who feels highly dissatisfiedbecause of an integrity- or security-typeerror, for example.

It has also been suggested that there are twoareas where a bank could achieve a distinct

advantage; the commitment and attentive-ness shown by staff dur ing encounters withcustomers. These are areas which are consid-ered to be very important by customers andones which provide the greatest opportunityto deli ght. Commitment and attentivenesshowever, are difficult to scri pt-in to a serviceencounter and any disingenuous show ofwarmth and empathy would throw into doubtthe integrity of staff, an important dissatis-fier. The challenge for banks wishing todeli ght their customers i s to get their staff todemonstrate genuine warmth and empathy totheir customers.

More straightforward areas which wouldhave a positive though not as great impact onsatisfaction are flexibili ty, friendliness, cour-tesy, communication and competence. Theseare areas where well-designed routines andresponses could be used to gain maximumimpact.The research has also shown that there are

some areas which are not worth much atten-tion. Any time and money, beyond a basicprovision, put into comfort, cleanli ness andaesthetics for example, would be better re-directed elsewhere.

ReferencesAlbrecht, K. and Zemke, R. (1985),Ser vi ce

America, Dow J ones-Ir win, Homewood, IL .

Armistead, C.G. (1990), Service operations strat-

egy: framework for matching the service

operations task and the service delivery sys-

tem, In ter nat iona l Journ a l of Ser v ice Indu s-

tr y M anagement, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 6-17.

Avkiran, N.K . (1994), Developing an instrumentto measure customer service in branch bank-

ing, In ter na t iona l J ou r na l o f Bank M arket -

i n g, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 10-18.

Berry, L .L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A .

(1985), Quality counts in services, too, Bus i-

ness H ori zons, May-J une, pp. 44-52.

Bitner, M.J ., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S.

(1990), The service encounter: diagnosing

favorable and unfavorable incidents, Jou rna l

of M arket ing, Vol . 54, J anuary, pp. 71-84.

Cadotte, E.R. and Turgeon, N. (1988), Dissatis-

fiers and satisfiers: suggestions for consumer

complaints and compliments, Jou rna l of

Consum er Satisfaction, Di ssati sfaction an d

Compla i n in g B ehav ior, Vol. 1, pp. 74-9.

Carman, J .M. (1990), Consumer perceptions of

service quality: an assessment of the

SERVQUAL dimensions,Journ a l of Reta i l -

ing, Spr ing, pp. 33-55.

Cronin, J .J . and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring

service quali ty: a reexamination and exten-

sion, Jou rna l o f M arket ing, Vol. 56, J uly,

pp. 55-68.

Finn, D.W. and L amb, C.W. (1991), An evaluation

of the SERVQUAL scales in a retail ing set-

ting,A dvan ces in Consumer Resear ch, Vol. 18,

pp. 483-490.

Grnroos, C. (1990),Ser vi ce M ana gement and

M arket ing, Lexington Books, MA.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.

(1959),Th e M ot iva t ion to Work, Wiley, New

York, NY.

J ohnston, R. (1995), The determinants of servi ce

quali ty: satisfiers and dissatisfiers, In te rna -

t iona l Journ a l of Ser v ice In dustr y M anage-

ment, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 53-71

J ohnston, R. and Heineke, J . (1998), Exploring

the relationship between perception and

performance: priori ties for action,Ser vi ce

In dustr ies Journ a l, Vol. 18 No. 1, forthcoming.

J ohnston, R., Silvestro, R., Fitzgerald, L. and Voss,

C. (1990), Developing the determinants of

servi ce quality, in thePr oceedi ngs of th e 1st

I nterna tional Research Semi nar in Ser vice

M anagement, La Londes les Maures, J une.

Lockwood, A . (1994), Using service incidents to

identify quality improvement points, In te r -

nat iona l J ourna l of Contemporar y Hosp i ta l i ty

M anagement, Vol . 6 No. 1/2, pp. 75-80.

Mersha, T. and Adlakha, V. (1992), Attributes of

service quality: the consumers perspective,

In ter nat iona l J ourna l of Ser v ice In dustr y

M anagement, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 34-45.

MORI (1994), Satisfaction wi th bank and build-

ing society services, research conducted for

the Bri tish Bankers A ssociation, summer.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.

(1985), A conceptual model of service quali ty

and implications for future research, Jou r -

na l of M arket ing, Vol . 49, Autumn, pp. 41-50.


6/6

[ 116 ]




Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L .

(1988), SERVQUA L: a multiple-item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service

quality, Journ a l of Reta i l i ng, Spring, pp 12-40.Rosen, L.D. and Karwan, K.R. (1994), Priori tizing

the dimensions of service quality: an empir i-

cal investigation and strategic assessment,

In ter nat iona l Journ a l of Ser v ice Indu str y

M anagement, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 39-52.

Silvestro, R. and J ohnston, R. (1990), The deter-

minants of service quali ty enhancing and

hygiene factors, in the Pr oceedi ngs of t he

QUIS I I Symposium, St J ohns University, New

York, NY, J uly.

Smith, W.L., Weatherly, K .A. and Tansik, D.A.

(1992), A customer-based service quali ty study:

use of the sorting/cluster analysis methodol-

ogy, in thePr oceedin gs of t he 2nd I ntern a-

ti onal Resear ch Semi nar in Ser vice M ana ge-

ment, La Londes les Maures, J une, pp. 591-603.

Walker, D. (1990),Customer F ir st: A Str ategy for

Qual ity Ser vice, Gower, Aldershot.

Which? (1994),Dont B ank on a Good Ser vice, The

Consumers A ssociation, December.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A . and Berry, L .L.

(1990),Deli ver in g Ser vice Qual ity, Free Press,

New York, NY.

Appendix: Definitions of the 18determinants of service qualityAccessThe physical approachabili ty of servi ce location,

including the ease of finding ones way around theservice environment and clar ity of route.

AestheticsExtent to which the components of the service

package are agreeable or pleasing to the customer,

including both the appearance and the ambience

of the service environment, the appearance and

presentation of service facili ties, goods and staff.

Attentive/ helpfulnessThe extent to which the servi ce, particularly

contact staff, either provide help to the customer

or give the impression of being interested in the

customer and show a will ingness to serve.

AvailabilityThe availabil ity of servi ce facili ties, staff and

goods to the customer. In the case of contact staff

this means both the staff/ customer ratio and the

amount of time each staff member has available to

spend with each customer. In the case of servi ce

goods, availability includes both the quantity and

range of products made available to the customer.

CareThe concern, consideration, sympathy and

patience shown to the customer. Thi s includes the

extent to which the customer is put at ease by the

service and made to feel emotionally (rather than

physically) comfortable.

Cleanliness/ tidinessThe cleanliness, neat and tidy appearance of the

tangible components of the servi ce package,

including the servi ce environment, facil iti es,

goods and contact staff.

ComfortThe physical comfort of the servi ce environment

and facil iti es.

CommitmentStaff s apparent commitment to their work,

including the pride and satisfaction they appar-

ently take in their job, their dili gence and thor-

oughness.

CommunicationThe abili ty of the servi ce to communicate with

the customer in a way he or she will understand.

This includes the clari ty, completeness and accu-

racy of both verbal and wr itten information com-

municated to the customer and the abil ity to

listen to and understand the customer.

Competence

The skil l, expertise and professionali sm withwhich the service is executed. This includes the

carr ying out of correct procedures, correct execu-

tion of customer instructions, degree of product

or service knowledge exhibited by contact staff,

the rendering of good, sound advice and the gen-

eral abili ty to do a good job.

CourtesyThe poli teness, respect and propriety shown by

the service, usually contact staff, in dealing with

the customer and his or her property. This

includes the ability of staff to be unobtrusive and

uninterfering when appropriate.

Flexibility

A will ingness and abil ity on the part of the serviceworker to amend or alter the nature of the service

or product to meet the needs of the customer.

FriendlinessThe warmth and personal approachabil ity (rather

than physical approachabili ty) of the service, par-

ticularly of contact staff, including cheerful atti-

tude, the abil ity to make the customer feel welcome.

FunctionalityThe servi ceabili ty and fitness for purpose or

product quality of service facil ities and goods.

IntegrityThe honesty, justice, fair ness and trustworthiness

with which customers are treated by the serviceorganization.

ReliabilityThe reliabil ity and consistency of performance of

service facil ities, goods and staff. This includes

punctual service delivery and abili ty to keep to

agreements made with the customer.

ResponsivenessSpeed and timeli ness of service delivery. This

includes the speed of throughput and the ability of

the service to respond promptly to customer

service requests, with mini mal waiti ng and queu-

ing time.

SecurityPersonal safety of the customer and his or her

possessions while participating in or benefiting

from the service process. Thi s includes the main-

tenance of confidentiali ty.

identifying the

Documents