Understanding Customer Relationships: Evolution of Research Based on the Gap Model (SERVQUAL) - Free Essay

Introduction

|The Gap Model, otherwise referred to as the Service Quality (SERVQUAL), is conventionally accepted as an instrument essential for recognizing the service quality and the relationship between business organizations and their customers. Fundamentally, it helps the said organizations maintain the present benefits enjoyed by a company and attract potentialities that aid the organization in expanding processes (Carvallo & Kammen, 2019). Because of the services and how they are offered, customers are invited or discouraged by a company. Therefore, a service is considered an act of performance, which is intangible and, therefore, does not give rise to possession of anything (Franceschini & Mastrogiacomo, 2018). Additionally, its generation may or may not be bound up with a physical by-product. This paper seeks to assess how research based on the gap model of service quality has evolved and how it is handy in understanding customer relationships with organizations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Evolution of Research Based on the Gap Model of Service Quality

There are quite a considerable number of researchers who have conducted a study on the gap model of service quality, which was proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithalml, and Berry in 1985 (Franceschini & Mastrogiacomo, 2018). The research has touched on both the theoretical-conceptual and the methodological-operational crucial aspects applied in the gap model of service quality. The Gap model study and the service quality have resulted in majorly from the continuous discussions by marketing experts in the last decades (Franceschini & Mastrogiacomo, 2018). The expectation-confirmation theory played a critical role in research on the gap theory and service quality. For instance, this theory suggests how consumers evaluate the quality of service and consider the determinant factors of service quality from a diverse perspective. It was not until the end of the eighties that the original publications of the gap model. Recent studies have attempted to employ the theoretical aspects of the gap model, especially by using SERVQUAL calibration in distinct service areas and geographical locations (Tsegaye, 2019). Unsurprisingly, some scholars have criticized the gap model, by, for instance, making analogizing between presuppositions and impressions linked to specified performance as a constraint of the model.

Attempts to prove and verify the gap model's reliability heightened as more researchers sought to seek clarification. As a result, it was found that service quality is a diverse concept in which customers show their vital needs, which are categorized into five major components (Tsegaye, 2019). Firstly, the said components include tangibility, which consists of physical characteristics, apparatus, and human resources. Secondly, reliability, which entails an organization's ability to deliver the services promised in a professional manner and to customer satisfaction (Tsegaye, 2019. The third component is responsiveness, the willingness of an organization to offer assistance to the users, and promptness. The fourth aspect is the assurance, professional accomplishment, and courtesy of the personnel in an organization that provides certain services to their end-users (Tsegaye, 2019). The last but also fundamental aspect is empathy, and it entails the personalized assistance given by an organization to its various shoppers. It is done to ensure it suits customer specifications.

The Model Development and the Associated Doctrinal Discussion

The study on the development of the gap model has elicited debate among scholars who argue based on both the theoretical-conceptual objectives and the gap model's methodological-operational objectives. These approaches are discussed below.

Theoretical-conceptual objections

It consists of the following aspects.

Expectation-confirmation Theory. Due to some authors' existing disputes on the assessment of the expectation perceptions, there is an emergence of two distinct perspectives. Resultantly, an integrated approach has been prioritized, and it examines attitudes as an outcome of the cognitive experience of the customer (Mordecai & Doris, 2017). Pre-eminently, it concurs that customer expectations are built on prejudice about the service, which is complex to interpret and can change the experience and friendliness of the users concerning the service (Mordecai & Dori, 2017). Contrarily, as maintained by some scholars, a double measurement is valueless because the expectations outperform the actual discernment in most of the experiences. This situation made it difficult to effectively use the Service Performance (SERVPERF) because it does not practice the units of expectation of the end-users. Thus, researchers are still examining the best method between SERVPERF and SERVQUAL.

An ambiguity of the Concept of Expectations. This concept was the basis of the gap model in 1985. It was later elaborated by the SEVQUAL writers in 1993 when its features were exhausted into a suitable service and sufficient service (Mukhtar & Anwar, 2016). These two, in conjunction with the expected service, greatly influence and determine the perceived service. However, the said aspects may be interpreted differently, but the existing literature takes them as bearing similar meanings. Consequently, it prompts the research on the development of the gap model.

The ambiguity of the Concept of Perceived Service Quality and Customer Contentment. The expectation-confirmation theory application has further raised concerns, which have made some authors criticize the Gap model. For instance, the user contentment approach as paving the way for, and percussing the appraised service caliber is insufficient. In support, the existing literature highlights that the primary trend is taking service standards as a precursor and a constituent of customer complacency (McKecnie & Roy, 2011). Many scholars, including Parasuraman, have partly assented with this view, but have left it for an open discussion. As a result, the research based on the gap model is evolving.

Competitions, Perceptions, and Expectations. Economically, it is perceived that the market associations are vital for the expectations and perceptions of the general market developments. Furthermore, this concept considers the recognition of quality scales and the actual performance of a particular firm. Initially, the competition was not included in the gap model but was later incorporated by scholars in 1993, though conditioned to a constraint role of perceived service options (Udo & Kirs, 2010). In the gap model, such is considered to deploy an impact on the pre-determined service's adequate service element. However, this pressure does not affect satisfactory service.

On the other hand, the customer has a different perspective. For instance, they do not recognize that the competitor market communication has a significant role. Nonetheless, recent research has shown that competitor marketing communication holds a critical power on end-user perceptions, which has also influenced research development on the gap model.

Minor Role of Communication. It is critical for the firm has to control information. The gap model assumes that both the interior and exterior forms of communication are mainly managed by the firm (Kheng & Ramayah, 2010). Nonetheless, this assumption does not consider the other structures or potential information origins, which the customer holds, or may be able to have access to such kind of information. In general, there are two primary sources of information the gap model considers. Firstly, the interpersonal sources, which are mainly controlled by the customers, and the impartial otherwise referred to as the independent origins, are tremendously seen in the hospitality industry (Kheng & Ramayah, 2010). All the other remaining or additional information sources give their endowments to expectation or the pre-determined development and instantly impact the quality views and the degree of user contentment. This concept has provided a way for the evolution of research based on the gap model.

Methodological-operational Objections to the Gap Model

It includes the following aspects.

Dimensions and Operational Applicability of the Model to Distinct Sectors. Scholars hand over the SERVQUAL approach as a measurement procedure of quality standard, which can quickly be taken on to diverse sectors and industries. Notwithstanding, efforts to carry out the model to some locations, separate from the primary areas, have resulted in challenges, particularly the five-dimensional approach, the wording and number of questions, and the caliber employed (Orel & Kara, 2014). Because of these challenges, researchers considered dimensions, objects, including addition or subtraction of other items, as per the specified context in which the SERVQUAL is deployed.

Additionally, it becomes a threatening challenge to estimate the effects of anomalies because their occurrence cannot be underestimated. This case is more frequent when making an assessment or modifications to the gap model, the methodology to be undertaken, and the number of items to capture. Resultantly, Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml approve their initial standing and make recommendations for further slight adjustments to the model to ensure it is maintained and relevant (Butt & de Run, 2010). This approval provides possibilities for new research, hence making it an open-ended discussion.

Perception-expectations Analysis.

The SERVQUAL approach is dependent on the examination of quality assessment by the category of respondents who have encountered the service in a span of the preceding three months. Illustratively, it implies that the solicitation of perceptions and expectations analysis appears coinciding in time after the end-users realistic incident (Rezaei & Kroesen, 2018). Resultantly, this performance influences doubtlessly expectations, which to some extent, may change, even innermost feelings following the service consumption. Consequently, this experience calls for research on the analysis, possibly before the service delivery, to point out a more realistic picture of the gap model and functioning.

Items Wording.

The wordings and content of quizzing have been sharply found fault with, especially for applying the phraseology ‘should expectations’ (Gregory, 2019). This format is more or less likely to generate extremely high expectations analysis, resulting in unrealistic performance. Moreover, for the gap model to serve effectively in other service sectors and industries, it may necessitate the revision of the said vocabulary to make it more specified, comprehensive, and conclusive for the benefits of all the customers of particular services. Some of the challenges were made known to authors, who felt the need to make the necessary adjustments to improve the gap model. An approach aligned to examine the degree of customer expectations over a given service was taken into account to ensure the expectations associated correctly with a specific sector industry. This scenario indicates how the research based on the gap model is evolving.

Measurement Scale.

Various scales could be taken into consideration. However, the SERVQUAL employs the seven-point Likert calibration. It has two major troublesome points. First, it experiences the challenge of lack of some basic options like ‘don’t know, and secondly, lack of the number of values (Haming & Putra, 2019). Fundamentally, it should be a priority to consider those users who may not possess the service's prerequisite incidences and desire not to reply or select a median value because they do not have a proper answer to the presented questions.