International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and ManagementEmerald Article: Service quality models in banking: a reviewJaya Sangeetha, S. Mahalingam

Article information:

To cite this document: Jaya Sangeetha, S. Mahalingam, (2011),"Service quality models in banking: a review", International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 4 Iss: 1 pp. 83 - 103

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538391111122221

Downloaded on: 17-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 44 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Rasem N Kayed, M. Kabir Hassan, (2011),"Saudi Arabia's economic development: entrepreneurship as a strategy", International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 4 Iss: 1 pp. 52 - 73http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538391111122203

Shirshendu Ganguli, Sanjit Kumar Roy, (2011),"Generic technology-based service quality dimensions in banking: Impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 29 Iss: 2 pp. 168 - 189http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652321111107648

Khaliq Ahmad, Ghulam Ali Rustam, Michael M. Dent, (2011),"Brand preference in Islamic banking", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 2 Iss: 1 pp. 74 - 82http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17590831111115259

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Service quality modelsin banking: a review

Jaya SangeethaModern College of Business and Science (MCBS),

Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, and

S. MahalingamBSMED, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to appraise various service quality models and identify issuesfor future research based on the analysis of literature.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines 14 different service quality modelsreported in the literature applicable to the banking sector. The critical review of the differentservice quality models is intended to compile the various dimensions which emerged out of the studies,compare the commonality between them, study their relevance and importance in banking in thevarious cultural and cultural contexts and highlight the limitations of the studies.

Findings – The review of various service quality models in banking revealed that the meaning ofservice quality may have some universal aspects, as demonstrated by the similarities in the underlyingdimensions as proposed in the different studies. This paper lends support to the contention that thedimensionality of SERVQUAL and importance of the dimensions vary with the cultural and countrycontext even within the banking industry.

Research limitations/implications – This paper comprises a compiled report on the differentservice quality models and the effect of application of SERVQUAL in banking in different countries.

Practical implications – Service quality has some common dimensions across the different models,however, the items involved and their operationalization in different cultural contexts within the samebanking sector may vary. The paper indicates that a generic instrument for measurement of servicequality or even one specifically developed for banking may not be applicable in its original form for allcultural contexts including Islamic society and banks. Development of the customized scale formeasuring the service quality for a particular cultural or country context at that particular time iswarranted. This paper brings a lot of information on service quality in banking under one roof andprovides new directions to service quality researchers.

Originality/value – This paper offers practical help to researchers and practitioners in providing adirection for service quality improvement by indicating the common theme that emerges from theservice quality models. Also, the differences in the relevance and importance of the dimensions, due tothe change in the cultural and country contexts, have been brought to the forefront.

Keywords Banking, SERVQUAL, Customer satisfaction, Customer services quality,Customer behaviour, Electronic channels

Paper type Literature review

IntroductionDuring the past two decades or so, regulatory, structural and technological factorshave significantly changed the banking environment throughout the world

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8394.htm

The authors are grateful to Dr Badr-El-Din A. Ibrahim, Dean, MCBS, and the two anonymousreviewers for their constructive comments and valuable ideas on earlier versions of themanuscript.

Service qualitymodels

83

International Journal of Islamic andMiddle Eastern Finance and

ManagementVol. 4 No. 1, 2011

pp. 83-103q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1753-8394DOI 10.1108/17538391111122221

(Angur et al., 1999). In a milieu which becomes increasingly competitive, service qualityas a critical measure of organizational performance continues to compel the attention ofbanking institutions and remains at the forefront of services marketing literature andpractice (Lasser et al., 2002). The interest is largely driven by the realization that highservice quality results in customer satisfaction and loyalty, greater willingness torecommend to someone else, reduction in complaints and improved customer retentionrates (Levesque and McDougall, 1996). There has been a continued research on thedefinition, modeling, measurement, data-collection procedure, data analysis, etc. issuesof service quality, leading to development of sound base for the researchers.

This documented knowledge base through several studies on the subject can be ofgreat use to researchers and practitioners in the banking industry in providing a directionon how to explore/modify the existing service quality concepts with the changing worldscenario (shift from conventional personalized services to web-enabled services).

For an organization to gain competitive advantage it must use technology to gatherinformation on market demands and exchange it between organizations for the purposeof enhancing the service quality. Researchers and managers thrive for learning detailsabout components of service quality in their organization for obvious reasons ofcustomer satisfaction, increased profitability, etc. In this context, model gains specificimportance as it not only helps in learning the factors associated with it, but alsoprovides a direction for improvements.

A conceptual model attempts to show the relationships that exist between salientvariables. It is a simplified description of the actual situations. It is envisaged thatconceptual models in service quality enable management to identify quality problemsand thus help in planning for the launch of a quality improvement program therebyimproving the efficiency, profitability and overall performance.

This paper makes an attempt to study various service quality models covering theaspects of conventional services to web-interacted services for banking. The primaryaim of these models is to enable the management to understand and enhance thequality of the organization and its offering. A total of 14 conceptual service qualitymodels reported during the period (1984-2006) which are applicable to the bankingsector (both conventional and Islamic) are reviewed in this paper. Each of them isrepresentative of a different point of view about services.

The organization of this paper is as follows: initially after highlighting the need forthe present study, a generalized framework of the study is presented. This is followed bya brief discussion of the models and the next section deals with summary, discussion andconclusion of the same. Finally, the agenda for future research is spelt out.

1. Need for present studyRecently, globalization and liberalization are affecting economies of not only developing,but also developed countries. The focus areas for organizations are also changing fromprofit maximization to maximizing profits through increased customer satisfaction. Thepressures of competition are forcing the organizations to not only look at the processes,but also on the way they are delivered. During past two decades, business scenario haschanged drastically. Some of the key changes that have taken place in the business are:

. horizontal business processes replacing vertical functional approach;

. greater sharing of information with all connected links and customers;

IMEFM4,1

84

. greater emphasis on organizational and process flexibility;

. necessity to coordinate processes across many sites;

. employee empowerment and the need for rules-based real-time decision supportsystems;

. competitive pressure to introduce new service/products more quickly;

. integrated customer-driven processes;

. quick response to customers’ needs;

. worldwide relationships between various trade partners, suppliers, etc.;

. easily accessible information through internet;

. flexible and efficient service/product customization; and

. emergence and growing importance of Islamic economies.

Owing to the factors like opening up of markets, increase in use of IT, increasedcustomer knowledge and awareness, etc. it becomes a must to deliver the servicesbetter than its competitor at agreed price. In this context, the subject of service qualityneeds a fresh understanding in the current business scenario.

This study can help to identify the various general models applicable for banking andthe changes found in the results owing to context or cultural changes in the variouscountries including conventional and Islamic banking system. It is also aimed to reviewthe models specifically developed for the banking industry, their strengths and limitations.This study thus attempts to provide benefits to practicing managers and researchers bycompiling a large amount of information on service quality in banking at one place.

2. Framework for studyThe subject of service quality is very rich in context of definitions, models andmeasurement issue. Several researchers explored the subjects with varying perspectivesand using different methodologies. The following factors seem to be suitable forcomparative evaluations of the models:

. identification of factors affecting service quality;

. flexibility to account for changing nature of customers perceptions;

. directions for improvement in service quality;

. suitability to develop a link for measurement of customer satisfaction;

. diagnosing the needs for training and education of employees;

. flexible enough for modifications as per the changes in the environment/conditions;

. accommodates use of IT in services; and

. capability to be used as a tool for benchmarking.

With these issues as focus this present study is undertaken to understand the servicequality models in the above light.

3. Service quality modelsThe present study is an attempt to review service models in the light of the changedbusiness scenario as applied to conventional and Islamic banking and analyze the models

Service qualitymodels

85

for the suitability/need for modification in the current context. In this section, we wouldprovide a brief explanation of all the major service quality models which are applicable tobanking and those that have been developed for banking. The models are presentedusing a standard structure, i.e. covering brief discussion and the major observations onthe models. The brief discussions on the models are as under.

3.1 SQ1: GAP modelParasuraman et al. (1985) proposed that service quality is a function of the differencesbetween expectation and performance along the quality dimensions. They developed aservice quality model (Figure 1) based on GAP analysis. The various GAPs visualizedin the model are:

GAP 1. Difference between consumers’ expectation and management’s perceptionsof those expectations, i.e. not knowing what consumers expect.

GAP 2. Difference between management’s perceptions of consumers’ expectationsand service quality specifications, i.e. improper service quality standards.

GAP 3. Difference between service quality specifications and service actuallydelivered, i.e. the service performance GAP.

GAP 4. Difference between service delivery and the communications to consumersabout service delivery, i.e. whether promises match delivery?

Figure 1.GAP analysis model

Words of mouthcommunication

Consumer

Marketer

Personal needs Past experience

Expected service

Perceived service

Service delivery (includingpre and post contacts)

Translation of perceptionsinto service quality

specifications

Mangement perceptions ofthe consumer expectations

Externalcommuni-

cationsto the

consumer

Source: Parasuraman et al. (1985)

GAP 5

GAP 4

GAP 3GAP 1

GAP 2

IMEFM4,1

86

GAP 5. Difference between consumers’ expectation and perceived service. ThisGAP depends on size and direction of the four GAPs associated with thedelivery of service quality on the marketer’s side.

According to this model, the service quality is a function of perception andexpectations and can be modeled as:

SQ ¼Xk

j¼1

ðPij 2 EijÞ

where:

SQ ¼ overall service quality;

k ¼ number of attributes;

Pij ¼ performance perception of stimulus i with respect to attribute j; and

Eij ¼ service quality expectation for attribute j that is the relevant norm forstimulus i.

This exploratory research was refined with their subsequent scale named SERVQUALfor measuring customers’ perceptions of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988). At thispoint, the original ten dimensions of service quality collapsed into five dimensions:reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, assurance (communication, competence, credibility,courtesy and security) and empathy which capture access and understanding/knowingthe customers. Later SERVQUAL was revised in 1991 by replacing “should” word by“would” and in 1994 by reducing the total number of items to 21, but five-dimensionalstructure remaining the same. In addition to this empirical research, the authorscharacterized and further delineated the four GAPs identified in their research of 1985.This led to extended service quality model (Figure 2). According to this extended modelmost factors involve communication and control process implemented in organizations tomanage employees.

3.2 SQ2: Technical and functional quality modelA firm in order to compete successfully must have an understanding ofconsumer perception of the quality and the way service quality is influenced(Gronroos, 1984).

Managing perceived service quality means that the firm has to match the expectedservice and perceived service to each other so that consumer satisfaction is achieved.The author identified three components of service quality, namely: technical quality,functional quality and image:

(1) Technical quality is the quality of what consumer actually receives as a resultof his/her interaction with the service firm and is important to him/her and tohis/her evaluation of the quality of service.

(2) Functional quality is how he/she gets the technical outcome. This is importantto him and to his/her views of service he/she has received.

(3) Image is very important to service firms and this can be expected to build upmainly by technical and functional quality of service including the other factors(tradition, ideology, word of mouth, pricing and public relations).

Service qualitymodels

87

Figure 2.Extended modelof service quality

Marketing researchorientation

Upwardcommunication

Levels of management

Managementcommitment toservice quality

Goal setting

Task standardization

Perception offeasibility

Team work

Employee job fit

Technology job fit

Perceived control

Supervisory controlsystems

Role conflict

Role ambiguity

Horizontalcommunication

Propensity tooverpromise

Source: Zeithaml et al. (1988)

Gap 4

Gap 3

Gap 2

Gap 1

Tangibles

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

Gap 5(servicequality)

IMEFM4,1

88

3.3 SQ3: Service quality attributes from customers’ perspective by Mersha and Adlakha(1992)The purpose of the study was to identify and rank quality attributes from the consumers’perspective, the authors modified and extended the SERVQUAL instrument as per theHaywood-Farmer and Stuart model by including additional questions to assess servicecore, service customization and knowledge and information. This was an attempt tomake SERVQUAL more applicable in professional settings. However, the approach usedis different. Here, the attributes of “good” and “poor” quality of services are identifiedand ranked separately. The use of this approach was initiated by the expectation that aparticular attribute may have different degrees of importance as an indicator of “poor” or“good” quality of service.

Five services were selected for the study – physician services, retail banking,auto maintenance, colleges/universities and fast food restaurants.

As per the study, the top six attributes for good service quality were:

(1) knowledge of the service;

(2) thoroughness/accuracy;

(3) consistency/reliability;

(4) reasonable cost;

(5) willingness to correct errors; and

(6) timely/prompt service.

And the most important attributes for poor service quality were:. lack of knowledge about the service;. employee indifference or “I don’t care” attitude;. reluctance to correct errors;. service inconsistency;. sloppy service; and. high cost.

For retail banking service type, the most important characteristics of good quality werefound to be:

. willingness to correct errors;

. thoroughness/accuracy of service;

. consistency/reliability; and

. knowledgeability.

And the most important characteristics of poor service quality were found to be:. reluctance to correct errors;. employees’ indifference;. lack of knowledge about the service; and. sloppy service.

Service qualitymodels

89

3.4 SQ4: Importance-performance analysis and service quality by Ennew et al. (1993)Approaches to the measurement of service quality have typically been based on theanalysis of the relationship between customer expectations of a service and theirperceptions of the quality of provision. Operationalizing these measures has been eitheras simple comparisons of mean scores or extensive and detailed statistical modeling.In this study, the authors examine the problems associated with the measurement ofthe quality of service provision and present a set of indices to provide measures ofexpectations, perceptions and overall satisfaction. As a result they propose acompromise solution in the form of a series of indices and related scores which makesmore thorough use of survey data on expectations and perceptions and which isconsiderably less complex than the widely used statistical models.

The 11 dimensions of service quality used in this analysis have been acknowledgedby the authors as relatively narrow and are listed as follows:

(1) knows business;

(2) knows industry;

(3) knows market;

(4) gives helpful advice;

(5) wide range of services;

(6) competitive interest rates;

(7) competitive charges;

(8) speed of decision;

(9) tailors finance;

(10) deal with one person; and

(11) easy access to loan officer.

The authors suggest that the method provides easily interpretable results, indicatingareas which might be of concern to the banking sector as a whole, or to individualbanks.

3.5 SQ5: Customer service quality scale by Avkiran (1994)The purpose of the research was to develop a utilitarian multi-dimensional instrumentthat can be applied to measuring customer service quality as perceived by branch bankcustomers. In developing the measurement instrument, results of the first stage scalepurification by Parasuraman et al. (1985) was used as the starting point.

A 17-item four-dimensional scale emerged following a study to develop aninstrument for measuring customer service quality at trading bank branches, with afocus on retail banking. The four dimensions that emerged are staff conduct, credibility,communication and access to teller services:

(1) Staff conduct – responsiveness, civilized conduct and presentation of branchstaff that will project a professional image to the customers.

(2) Credibility – maintaining staff-customer trust by rectifying mistakes, andkeeping customers informed.

(3) Communication – fulfilling banking needs of customers by successfullycommunicating financial advice and serving timely notices.

IMEFM4,1

90

(4) Access to teller services – the adequacy of number of staff serving customersthroughout business hours and during peak hours.

The instrument can be applied as part of branch performance measurement, as well ashelp diagnose problems in delivery of service and segment the bank’s customer basefor healthier decision making in marketing.

3.6 SQ6: Service quality model by Blanchard and Galloway (1994)The objective of the authors was to determine the perceptions of customers regardingthe requirements of quality service in retail banking using SERVQUAL. The failureof the SERVQUAL model to provide any particularly useful insights into howservice might be improved led to the attempt to develop an alternative model of greaterutility. The model proposed by the authors is based on three dimensions which are asfollows:

(1) Process/outcome – key issues with regard to service design and outcome.

(2) Subjective/objective – provides a measure of the degree to which the quality ofthat aspect of the service under consideration can be objectively specified.

(3) Soft/hard – hard represents physical aspects of the service while soft representsinterpersonal interaction.

3.7 SQ7: Service quality factors based on satisfaction by Johnston (1997)A disturbing paradox found by the author in the UK banking industry is the amount ofreported customer dissatisfaction with banks, despite large-scale efforts of the banks,over many years, to try to improve their service to customers. This led him to derivea framework to help assess the likely impact of any service quality initiative.The study categorizes quality factors in terms of their relative importance and theireffect on satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The 18 determinants of service qualityproposed are:

(1) Access – the physical approachability of service location, including the ease offinding one’s way around the service environment and clarity of route.

(2) Aesthetics – extent to which the components of the service package areagreeable or pleasing to the customer, including both the appearance and theambience of the service environment, the appearance and presentation ofservice facilities, goods and staff.

(3) Attentive/helpfulness – the extent to which the service, particularly contactstaff, either provide help to the customer or give the impression of beinginterested in the customer and show a willingness to serve.

(4) Availability – the availability of service facilities, staff and goods to thecustomer. In the case of contact staff, this means both the staff/customer ratioand the amount of time each staff member has available to spend with eachcustomer. In the case of service goods, availability includes both the quantityand range of products made available to the customer.

(5) Care – the concern, consideration, sympathy and patience shown to thecustomer. This includes the extent to which the customer is put at ease by theservice and made to feel emotionally (rather than physically) comfortable.

Service qualitymodels

91

(6) Cleanliness/tidiness – the cleanliness, neat and tidy appearance of the tangiblecomponents of the service package, including the service environment, facilities,goods and contact staff.

(7) Comfort – the physical comfort of the service environment and facilities.

(8) Commitment – staff’s apparent commitment to their work, including the pride andsatisfaction they apparently take in their job, their diligence and thoroughness.

(9) Communication – the ability of the service to communicate with the customerin a way he or she will understand. This includes the clarity, completeness andaccuracy of both verbal and written information communicated to the customerand the ability to listen to and understand the customer.

(10) Competence – the skill, expertise and professionalism with which the service isexecuted. This includes the carrying out of correct procedures, correct execution ofcustomer instructions, degree of product or service knowledge exhibited by contactstaff, the rendering of good, sound advice and the general ability to do a good job.

(11) Courtesy – the politeness, respect and propriety shown by the service, usuallycontact staff, in dealing with the customer and his or her property. This includesthe ability of staff to be unobtrusive and uninterfering when appropriate.

(12) Flexibility – a willingness and ability on the part of the service worker to amendor alter the nature of the service or product to meet the needs of the customer.

(13) Friendliness – the warmth and personal approachability (rather than physicalapproachability) of the service, particularly of contact staff, including cheerfulattitude, the ability to make the customer feel welcome.

(14) Functionality – the serviceability and fitness for purpose or “product quality”of service facilities and goods.

(15) Integrity – the honesty, justice, fairness and trustworthiness with whichcustomers are treated by the service organization.

(16) Reliability – the reliability and consistency of performance of service facilities,goods and staff. This includes punctual service delivery and ability to keep toagreements made with the customer.

(17) Responsiveness – speed and timeliness of service delivery. This includes thespeed of throughput and the ability of the service to respond promptly tocustomer service requests, with minimal waiting and queuing time.

(18) Security – personal safety of the customer and his or her possessions whileparticipating in or benefiting from the service process. This includes themaintenance of confidentiality.

3.8 SQ8: Technology in delivery of perceived service quality by Joseph et al. (1999)The use of technology in the delivery of banking services is becoming increasinglyprevalent as it is being employed to reduce costs and eliminate uncertainties. Thisresearch investigates the role that technology plays in Australian banking and itsimpact on the delivery of perceived service quality.

Martilia and James (1977) developed a simple importance/performance techniquewhose most attractive feature is that the mean importance and performance results canbe graphically illustrated on a two-dimensional grid.

IMEFM4,1

92

Hemmasi et al. (1994) redeveloped the importance-performance grid by drawing theaxes based on the overall importance and performance means rather than based on themidpoint of the scale. Arguably, the Hemmasi et al. (1994) grid provides a usefulalternative tool for strategy development as it provides a clearer picture of the factorsthat are critical for resource allocation.

The authors use the Hemmasi et al. (1994) importance-performance grid andidentified a six-factor model consisting of:

(1) convenience/accuracy;

(2) feedback/complaint management;

(3) efficiency;

(4) queue management;

(5) accessibility; and

(6) customization.

3.9 SQ9: Banking service quality model by Bahia and Nantel (2000)The instruments available for measuring service quality include either scale contextuallydeveloped by specific banks to cope with occasional problems or instruments notespecially designed for banking service but rather to measure the perceived servicequality across a broad spectrum of services. In view of the non-availability of publiclyavailable and standard scale to measure the perceived quality of banking services, theauthors propose the banking service quality (BSQ) scale comprising of 31 items spanningsix dimensions, namely:

(1) effectiveness and assurance;

(2) access;

(3) price;

(4) tangibles;

(5) services portfolio; and

(6) reliability.

3.10 SQ10: Service quality model by Sureshchander et al. (2001)The criticisms about SERVQUAL in the research literature, made the authors undertakea careful scrutiny of the 22 items of SERVQUAL and it implied that the items at largedeal with the element of human interaction/intervention in the service delivery andthe rest on the tangible facets of service. The instrument seems to have overlooked someother important factors of service quality, namely: service product or the core service,systematization/standardization of service delivery (the non-human element) andthe social responsibility of the service organization. In an effort to conceptualize servicequality, Sureshchandar et al. (2001) identified five factors of service quality covering atotal of 41 items as critical from the customer’ point of view. These factors are:

(1) Core service or service product – the content of a service.

(2) Human element of service delivery – aspects such as reliability,responsiveness, assurance, empathy and service recovery, which are part ofthe human element in service delivery.

Service qualitymodels

93

(3) Systematization of service delivery – the process, procedures, systems and thetechnology that make a service seamless.

(4) Tangibles of service – the equipment, signage, appearance of employees andthe man-made physical environment surrounding the service, which iscommonly known as the “servicescape”.

(5) Social responsibility – the ethical behavior of the service provider.

3.11 SQ11: SYSTRA-SQ by Aldaigan and Buttle (2002)The authors’ objective to develop a new scale based on the Gronroos model of servicequality. In doing so, the authors undertook a three-phase, four-sample, quantitativestudy to derive a new 21-item scale comprising four dimensions:

(1) Service system quality. This factor is the strongest among the four. It represents theevaluation of service quality that can be clearly attributed to the service organizationas a system rather than individuals within the system. It contains a combination ofitems that are related to both functional and technical performance at anorganizational level. The functional quality attributes include listening to customer,ease of availability and accessibility, speed or response and organizationalappearance. The technical organizational attributes include quality of advice,flexibility and customized service solutions, promise fulfillment, employeeempowerment and customer updating on services.

(2) Behavioral service quality (BSQ). This factor represents the evaluation of howthe service is performed by employees. It is composed of FSQ/behavioralattributes, such as politeness, courtesy, friendliness and helpfulness of theemployees. It also contains the employee’s service attitude.

(3) Service transactional accuracy. This TSQ factor focuses on employee andsystem accuracy. It is derived from the customers’ experience of the frequencyof errors in transactions and employees’ mistakes when performing service forcustomer. This dimension is a measure of how accurate the transaction is asexperienced by customers in relation to both the system output and employeesoutput.

(4) Machine service quality. This factor focuses on machine and equipment quality.It is related to the reliability of machines as well as their performance in terms ofsatisfactory output when used by customers.

3.12 SQ12: Automated service quality model by Al-Hawari et al. (2005)Automated service quality has been regained as the factor which determines the successor failure of electronic commerce. The authors claim that the models currently availableto measure automated service quality are limited in their focus, encompassing only oneelectronic channel – the internet – thereby ignoring attributes of the other automatedservice channels. In relation to the banking sector, research has identified that bankcustomers tend to use a combination of banking automated service quality. As such,in this research, the authors strive to develop a comprehensive model of bankingautomated service quality taking into consideration the unique attributes of eachdelivery channel and other dimensions that have a potential influence on quality issues.They propose five factors as follows:

IMEFM4,1

94

(1) ATM service;

(2) internet-banking service;

(3) telephone-banking service;

(4) core service; and

(5) customer perception of price.

3.13 SQ13: Service quality scale for banking by Karatepe et al. (2005)Karatepe et al. (2005) developed a 20-item survey instrument to measure bank customers’perceptions of service quality in Northern Cyprus. The results showed that servicequality could be conceptualized and measured as a four-dimensional constructconsisting of:

(1) service environment (four items);

(2) interaction quality (seven items);

(3) empathy (five items); and

(4) reliability (four items).

Interaction quality is found to be the most important dimension of service qualityfollowed by empathy, reliability and service environment.

The technology dimension of service quality was initially considered based on thequalitative stage of the study. However, it did not emerge as a viable dimension in thelater stages when subjected to empirical criteria.

3.14 SQ14: Customer expectations and perceived service quality by Ehigie (2006)In the attempt to examine how customer expectation, perceived service quality andsatisfaction predict loyalty among bank customers in Nigeria, measurement scaleswere developed to measure the variables of the study using qualitative technique toexplore customers’ expectations from bank services. The measures of bank customers’expectation in Nigeria were found to be:

(1) bank workers’ possession of required skill;

(2) bank workers possession of knowledge and experience;

(3) continuity of service to customer in future years;

(4) understand customers’ needs;

(5) offering of fast and efficient service;

(6) providing physical safety to customer;

(7) confidentiality of transactions;

(8) positive attitude of staff to customer services;

(9) trustworthiness of bank;

(10) bank’s good reputation;

(11) staff friendliness;

(12) keeping people informed;

(13) listening to customers;

Service qualitymodels

95

(14) introduction of Saturday banking;

(15) extended banking closing hours; and

(16) insurance cover for customers.

The same 16 constructs were used to measure the performance of the customers.

4. Summary, discussion and conclusionIn this section, an attempt has been made to summarize the following:

(I) The different service quality models that have been developed for the bankingsector and the generic service quality models which have been applied to thebanking sector worldwide.

(II) The studies using the GAP model in different countries all over the world and thecomparison of the results obtained thereof.

I General service quality models applicable to banking and the specific service qualitymodels developed for bankingA summary of the salient features of the service quality models has been provided inTable I. A common theme emerging from these comparisons is that the meaning ofservice quality may have some universal aspects as demonstrated by the similarities inthe underlying dimensions.

Essentially, service quality has some common dimensions across the differentmodels, however, the items involved and their operationalization in different culturaland country contexts within the same banking sector – i.e. for conventional andIslamic systems – may vary.

II Results from application of GAP model in different countriesStudies have revealed mixed results on:

. dimensionality of SERVQUAL;

. the order of importance of SERVQUAL dimensions; and

. the identification of GAPs in the dimensions.

The dimensionality of service quality in different countries with respect toSERVQUAL highlights many differences. The study by Levesque and McDougall(1996) in Canada identified 17 items based on SERVQUAL but categorized under threedimensions – core, relational and labeled features. Tangibles were found to becaptured by core and relational factors. Newman and Cowling (1996) in their study inthe UK found that reliability comprises of a mixture of both hard and soft qualityelements and found a degree of overlap between empathy and assurance. Lasser et al.(2002) in their study in the USA and South America propose that empathy may containelements of both technical and functional quality. The study by Caruana (2002) inMalta proposes three factors – “people/process” factor (comprising of responsiveness,assurance and empathy), tangibles and reliability. Cui et al. (2003) undertook a study inSouth Korea for measurement of service quality in banking sector found that:

. the weighted SERVQUAL consisted of three dimensions – tangibles, reliabilityand empathy;

IMEFM4,1

96

SQ1

SQ2

SQ3

SQ4

SQ5

SQ6

SQ7

SQ8

SQ9

SQ10

SQ11

SQ12

SQ13

SQ14

Var

ious

di

men

sio

ns o

f SQ

Para

sura

man

et a

l (1

988)

Gro

nroo

s m

odel

(1

984)

Mer

sha

&

Adl

akha

(1

992)

Enn

ew,

Ree

d &

B

inks

(1

993)

Avk

iran

(1

994)

Bla

ncha

rd

&

Gal

low

ay

(199

4)

Rob

ert

John

ston

(1

997)

Mat

hew

Jo

seph

et

al (

1999

)

Bah

ia &

N

ante

l (2

000)

Sure

shc

hand

ar

et a

l (2

001)

Ald

aiga

n &

B

uttle

(2

002)

Moh

d. A

l-H

awar

i et a

l (2

005)

Kar

atep

e et

al

(20

05)

Ben

jam

in O

saya

we

Ehi

gie

(200

6)

* A

ccur

acy

*Com

mitm

ent

*Rel

iabi

lity

Rel

iabi

lity

*Rel

iabi

lity

*Fun

ctio

nal

qual

ity*R

elia

bilit

y

*Dea

l w

ith o

ne

pers

on*S

taff

C

ondu

ct*I

nteg

rity

*Con

veni

ence

/ ac

cura

cy*R

elia

bilit

y

*Ser

vice

tr

ansa

tiona

l ac

cura

cy*R

elia

bilit

y

*Con

tinui

ty o

f se

rvic

e to

cust

omer

s in

fut

ure

year

s

*Spe

ed

of

deci

sion

*Hel

pful

ness

*Pos

itive

atti

tude

*Res

pons

iven

ss*S

taff

fri

endl

ines

s

*Ava

ilabi

lity

*Fri

endl

ines

s*R

espo

nsiv

enes

s*R

espo

nsiv

enes

s

*Tim

ely/

pr

ompt

se

rvic

e

*Giv

es

help

ful

advi

ce*C

redi

bilit

y*C

are

*Fee

dbac

k/

com

plai

nt

mgm

t.*F

ast a

nd e

ffic

ient

se

rvic

e

*Kno

ws

busi

ness

*Com

mun

icat

ion

*Eff

icie

ncy

*Kee

ping

peo

ple

info

rmed

*Com

pete

nce

*Que

ue

Mgm

t.*T

rust

wor

thin

ess

*Kno

ws

indu

stry

*Cou

rtes

y*P

oses

sion

of

reqd

. ski

ll

*Sec

urity

*Pos

essi

on o

f re

qd.

know

ledg

e &

ex

peri

ence

*Kno

ws

mar

ket

*Phy

sica

l saf

ety

*Ass

uran

ce*A

ssur

ance

*Kno

wle

dge

*Com

mun

icat

ion

*Eff

ectiv

enes

s &

as

sura

nce

*Int

erac

tion

qual

ity*C

onfi

dent

ialit

y of

tr

ansa

ctio

n

*Tai

lors

fi

nanc

e*A

cces

s*U

nder

stan

ding

cu

stom

er n

eeds

*Com

fort

*Lis

teni

ng to

cus

tom

ers

*Em

path

y*E

mpa

thy

*Will

ingn

ess

to c

orre

ct

erro

rs

*Eas

y ac

cess

to

loan

of

fice

r

*Acc

ess

to

telle

r se

rvic

es

*Pro

cess

/ su

bjec

tive/

so

ft

aspe

cts

*Fle

xibi

lity

*Acc

essi

bili

ty*A

cces

s*H

uman

el

emen

t

*Beh

aivo

ral

serv

ice

qual

ity*E

mpa

thy

*Int

rodu

ctio

n of

sa

turd

ay b

anki

ng

*Tan

gibl

es*T

angi

bles

*Har

d as

pect

s*A

esth

etic

s*T

angi

bles

*Ser

vice

-sc

apes

*Mac

hine

se

rvic

e qu

ality

*Ser

vice

en

viro

nmen

t*E

xten

ded

bank

ing

clos

ing

hour

s.

(con

tinu

ed)

Table I.Comparison of

dimensions proposed bythe service qualitymodels in banking

Service qualitymodels

97

SQ

1S

Q2

SQ

3SQ

4S

Q5

SQ

6S

Q7

SQ

8S

Q9

SQ

10S

Q11

SQ

12S

Q13

SQ

14

Var

ious

di

men

sion

s of

SQ

Par

asur

aman

et a

l (1

988)

Gro

nroo

s m

odel

(1

984)

Mer

sha

&

Adl

akha

(1

992)

Enn

ew,

Ree

d &

B

inks

(1

993)

Avk

iran

(1

994)

Bla

ncha

rd

&

Gal

low

ay

(199

4)

Rob

ert

John

ston

(1

997)

Mat

hew

Jo

seph

et

al (

1999

)

Bah

ia &

N

ante

l (2

000)

Sur

eshc

hand

ar

et a

l (2

001)

Ald

aiga

n &

B

uttl

e (2

002)

Moh

d. A

l-H

awar

i et a

l (2

005)

Kar

atep

e et

al

(20

05)

Ben

jam

in O

saya

we

Ehi

gie

(200

6)*C

ompe

titi

ve

inte

rest

ra

tes

*Pri

ce*C

ore

serv

ice

*Com

peti

tive

ch

arge

sT

echn

ical

qu

alit

y /

outc

ome

*Tec

hnic

al

qual

ity

*Rea

sona

ble

cost

*Wid

e ra

nge

of

serv

ices

*Out

com

e/

Obj

ecti

ve

aspe

cts

*Fun

ctio

nali

ty*C

usto

miz

ati

on*S

ervi

ce

Por

tfol

io

*Cor

e se

rvic

e/

serv

ice

prod

uct

*Ser

vice

sy

stem

qu

alit

y*P

erce

ptio

n of

pri

ce

*Ins

uran

ce c

over

for

cu

stom

ers

*AT

M

serv

ice

*Int

erne

t ba

nkin

g

Syst

emat

izat

ion

*Sys

tem

ati

zati

on*P

hone

ba

nkin

g

Soci

al

resp

onsi

bil

ity

*Soc

ial

resp

.

Cor

pora

te

imag

e*I

mag

e*B

ank'

s go

od r

eput

atio

n

Table I.

IMEFM4,1

98

. SERVQUAL scale showed only three dimensions – tangibles, empathy and thirdwhich includes items of reliability and responsiveness; and

. original and weighted SERVPERF was acceptable only when the 21 originalitems were aggregated into five items.

Jabnoun and Tamimi (2003) study in the UAE leads to a 22-item modified scaleconsisting of three factors – human skills, tangibles and empathy. Beerli et al. (2004)adapted the SERVPERF scale to 20 items and used it for their study in Spain andmention that the dimensionality of the service quality scale varies from industry toindustry. Mukherjee and Nath (2005) in their study in India suggest that 25 items (fourmore than SERVQUAL) were needed to suit the Indian banking context. Also, pattern ofloading of each item did not exactly follow the five-dimensional structure of SERVQUALand had to be reorganized among the five dimensions. Wang et al. (2003) in their study inChina found that apart from 21 items over five dimensions in SERVQUAL, otherdimensions like product convenience (three items), product availability (three items),overall product quality (three items) and bank reputation (two items) needed to beincluded. The findings also indicate that not all antecedents contribute equally to qualityand their contributions might be subject to variation in different industries and differentcountries at different times. Angur et al. (1999) findings in India indicate thatimplications of culture, marketing and service quality in the country-context need to beconsidered in the service quality instrument. This compilation of literature studyreiterates the contention that the dimensionality of SERVQUAL varies with the culturalcontext even within the banking industry. Hence, a generic instrument for measurementof service quality or even one specifically developed for banking may not be applicable inits original form. Development of the customized scale for measuring the service qualityfor a particular cultural and country context and at a particular time is warranted.

Changes in the order of importance of the SERVQUAL dimensions have beenreported in the different studies. The original study of Parasuraman et al. (1988) in theUSA found reliability as the most critical dimension followed by assurance, tangibles,responsiveness and last was empathy. A study in Singapore (Kwan and Hee, 1994) ratedresponsiveness and reliability as most important and tangibles as the least important.In the UK, the study conducted by Dotchin and Oakland (1994) found the dimensions tobe important in the following order – assurance, tangibles, reliability, responsivenessand finally empathy. Newman and Cowling (1996) in their study in the UK foundreliability, assurance and responsiveness to be the three most critical and tangibles to beleast valued by customers. Yavas et al. (1997) find tangibles, responsiveness andempathy to be significant predictors of consumer satisfaction in Turkey. Angur et al.(1999) from their study in India report the following order – reliability andresponsiveness were the most important followed by empathy, tangibles and last cameassurance. Lasser et al. (2002) found that empathy was found to be significantly andpositively related to overall satisfaction in the USA and South America. Newman (2001)found in their study in the UK that responsiveness, empathy and assurance are critical inservice marketing provided reliability of service delivery is satisfactory. According toWang et al.’s study in, 2003 in China, assurance and responsiveness were found to be thetwo most important drivers of overall service quality and tangibles and reliability to bemost significant drivers of overall product quality. In Spain, Beerli et al. (2004) foundreliability, responsiveness and assurance to be the most important followed by empathy

Service qualitymodels

99

and then tangibles. Yavas et al. (2004) in Germany found reliability and responsivenessto be positively related to satisfaction. Tangibles and empathy were found to influenceconsumer commitment and positive word-of-mouth. Arasli et al. (2005) found in Cyprusthat assurance dimension had largest influence on customer satisfaction. Najjar andBishu (2006) found responsiveness and reliability to be most important and directlyrelated to overall service quality in the USA and Tahir and Abu Bakar (2007) in Malaysiafound responsiveness to be most important followed by reliability, tangibles, assuranceand empathy. The significantly varying order of importance of the dimensions drawsattention to the fact that the importance of the dimensions needs to be assessed for eachand every study on service quality pursued in a country and for the specific industry atthat time. Even within the banking sector due consideration must be given to whetherthe banking system is conventional or Islamic.

SERVQUAL has been proposed as a useful instrument for diagnostic purposes.It has been found to effectively identify the GAPs in the dimension and thus helpthe service organization to assess service quality and do the needful to bridge theGAP. Kwan and Hee (1994) in their study in Singapore found the widest GAP inempathy and the smallest GAP in tangibles. Newman and Cowling (1996) in the UKfound the biggest GAP for reliability followed by responsiveness. Arasli et al. (2005)found the largest GAP in empathy dimension by using SERVQUAL scale inCyprus.

These results also draw attention to the need to probe more into the service qualitydimensionality in the Islamic banking context in view of its growing importanceconsidering that the population of Muslims in the world is expected to reach 2 billionby year 2010 (Lada et al., 2009).

5. Implications, weaknesses and future scope of researchFrom the study of these models, it appears that the key ingredients to service qualityimprovements are:

. clear market and customer focus;

. motivated staff;

. clear understanding of concepts of service quality and factors affecting the same;

. effective implementation, measurement and feedback system;

. efficient customer care system; and

. effective, problem-free availability of the electronic channels.

The study also brings forth the different practical and managerial implicationsemerging from the results obtained from the various service quality studies.The use of SERVQUAL in the different studies has helped to identify the followingissues:

. SERVQUAL does not attempt to measure quality of core service.

. The dimensionality and the items under each dimension vary with the contextand hence the reliability and validity of the instrument needs to be assessed forevery study.

. The importance of the dimensions varies with the context of the study and henceneeds to be assessed in every study.

IMEFM4,1

100

The study has also identified the future scope for research which is as follows:. The components of service quality and overall service offering should encompass

not only the identified construct (e.g. core, relational), but also constructs/itemsthat reflect the service offering, i.e. it should focus on complete service package.

. More cross-country and cross-cultural comparative studies will help indiscovering the commonalities in the regional and/or cultural contexts and thedifferences especially in Islamic countries and banking.

. More studies can help to investigate the sources that cause such deviation fromthe original factor structure and the changes in terms of importance anddimensionality of service quality.

. Studies on the Islamic banks of GCC region and other Muslim countries and theircomparison with the conventional commercial banks would shed light on thesimilarities and differences and would help conceive the future strategic courseof action for banks in the Islamic countries.

. More studies on assessment of service quality from the management perspectiveswould help understand and enhance the concept and implementation of servicequality.

. Inter-group assessment of service quality in countries with major ethnic/regionalgroups and consideration of demographic characteristics would help assessservice quality from a better perspective.

References

Aldlaigan, A.H. and Buttle, F.A. (2002), “SYSTRA-SQ: a new measure of bank service quality”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 362-81.

Al-Hawari, M., Hartley, N. and Ward, T. (2005), “Measuring banks’ automated service quality:a confirmatory factor analysis approach”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 16 No. 16, pp. 1-19.

Angur, M.G., Natarajan, R. and Jahera, J.S. Jr (1999), “Service quality in the banking industry:an assessment in a developing economy”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 116-25.

Arasli, H., Katircioglu, S.T. and Mehtap-Smadi, S. (2005), “A comparison of service quality in thebanking industry: some evidence from Turkish and Greek speaking areas in Cyprus”,The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 Nos 6/7, pp. 508-26.

Avkiran, N.K. (1994), “Developing an instrument to measure customer service quality in branchbanking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 10-18.

Bahia, K. and Nantel, J. (2000), “A reliable and valid measurement scale for the perceivedservice quality of banks”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2,pp. 84-91.

Beerli, A., Martin, J.D. and Quintana, A. (2004), “A model of customer loyalty in the retailbanking market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 253-75.

Blanchard, R.F. and Galloway, R.L. (1994), “Quality in retail banking”, International Journal ofService Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 5-23.

Caruana, A. (2002), “Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role ofcustomer satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 7/8, pp. 811-28.

Cui, C.C., Lewis, B.R. and Park, W. (2003), “Service quality measurement in the banking sector inSouth Korea”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 191-201.

Service qualitymodels

101

Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S. (1994), “Total quality management in services. Part 1:understanding and classifying services”, International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 9-26.

Ehigie, B.O. (2006), “Correlates of customer loyalty to their bank: a case study in Nigeria”,The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 494-508.

Ennew, C.T., Reed, G.V. and Binks, M.R. (1993), “Importance-performance analysis and themeasurement of service quality”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 59-70.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Hemmasi, M., Strong, K. and Taylor, S. (1994), “Measuring service quality for planning andanalysis in service firms”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 24-34.

Jabnoun, N. and Al-Tamimi, H.A.H. (2003), “Measuring perceived service quality at UAEcommercial banks”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20No. 4, pp. 458-72.

Johnston, R. (1997), “Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retail banking:importance and effect”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 111-16.

Joseph, M., McClure, C. and Joseph, B. (1999), “Service quality in the banking sector: the impact oftechnology on service delivery”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17No. 4, pp. 182-93.

Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T. and Tekinkus, M. (2005), “Measuring service quality of banks: scaledevelopment and validation”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12 No. 5,pp. 373-83.

Kwan, W. and Hee, T.J. (1994), “Measuring service quality in Singapore retail banking: a GAPanalysis & segmentation approach”, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-12.

Lada, S., Tanakinjal, G.H. and Amin, H. (2009), “Predicting intention to choose Halal productsusing theory of reasoned action”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle EasternFinance and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 66-76.

Lasser, W.M., Manolis, C. and Winsor, R.D. (2002), “Service quality perspectives and satisfactionin private banking”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 244-71.

Levesque, T. and McDougall, G.H.G. (1996), “Determinants of customer satisfaction in retailbanking”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 12-20.

Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977), “Importance-performance analysis”, The Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 41 No. 1.

Mersha, T. and Adlakha, V. (1992), “Attributes of service quality: the consumers’ perspective”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 34-45.

Mukherjee, A. and Nath, P. (2005), “An empirical assessment of comparative approaches toservice quality measurement”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 174-84.

Najjar, L. and Bishu, R.R. (2006), “Service quality: a case study of a bank”, The QualityManagement Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 35-44.

Newman, K. (2001), “Interrogating SERVQUAL: a critical assessment of service qualitymeasurement in a high street retail bank”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19No. 3, pp. 126-39.

Newman, K. and Cowling, A. (1996), “Service quality in retail banking: the experience of twoBritish clearing banks”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 3-11.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 41-50.

IMEFM4,1

102

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale formeasuring consumer perception of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 12-37.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001), “Customer perceptions ofservice quality: a critique”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-24.

Tahir, I.M. and Abu Bakar, N.M. (2007), “Service quality GAP and customers’ satisfactions ofcommercial banks in Malaysia”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 3No. 4, pp. 327-36.

Wang, Y., Lo, H. and Hui, Y.V. (2003), “The antecedents of service quality and product qualityand their influences on bank reputation: evidence from the banking industry in China”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 72-83.

Yavas, U., Bilgin, Z. and Shemwell, D.J. (1997), “Service quality in the banking sector in anemerging economy: a consumer survey”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 15No. 6, pp. 217-23.

Further reading

Baumann, C., Burton, S., Elliott, G. and Kehr, H.M. (2007), “Prediction of attitude and behaviouralintentions in retail banking”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 102-16.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 6, July, pp. 55-68.

Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005), “Dimensions of servicequality in developed and developing economies: multi-country cross-culturalcomparisons”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-78.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of theSERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as acomparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-24.

Seth, N. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2005), “Service quality models: a review”, The International Journalof Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 913-49.

Soteriou, A.C. and Stavrinides, Y. (2000), “An internal customer service quality data envelopeanalysis model for bank branches”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5,pp. 246-52.

Yavas, U., Benkenstein, M. and Stuhldreier, U. (2005), “Relationships between service quality andbehavioral outcomes: a study of private bank customers in Germany”, InternationalJournal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 144-57.

Zhu, F.X., Wymer, W.J. and Chen, I. (2002), “IT-based services and service quality in consumerbanking”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 69-90.

Corresponding authorJaya Sangeetha can be contacted at: jayasangeeta@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Service qualitymodels

103