Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL

RESEARCH NOTE

ZONES OF TOLERANCE: ALTERNATIVE SCALES

FOR MEASURING INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SERVICE QUALITY1

By: William J. Kettinger level of IS service desired, and (2) adequate ser-
Moore School of Business vice: the minimum level of IS service customers
University of South Carolina are willing to accept. Defining these two levels is
Columbia, SC 20208 a zone of tolerance (ZOT) that represents the
U.S.A. range of IS service performance a customer would
bill@sc.edu consider satisfactory. In other words, IS customer
service expectations are characterized by a range
Choong C. Lee of levels, rather than a single expectation point.
Graduate School of Information This research note adapts the ZOT and the
Yonsei University generic operational definition from marketing to the
Seoul IS field, assessing its psychometric properties.
KOREA Our findings conclude that the instrument shows
cclee@yonsei.ac.kr validity of a four-dimension IS ZOT SERVQUAL
measure for desired, adequate, and perceived
service quality levels, identifying 18 commonly
applicable question items. This measure ad-
Abstract dresses past criticism while offering a practical
diagnostic tool.
The expectation norm of Information Systems
SERVQUAL has been challenged on both concep- Keywords: IS service quality, zones of tolerance,
tual and empirical grounds, drawing into question IS management, SERVQUAL, evaluation, user
the instruments practical value. To address the expectations, information services function
criticism that the original IS SERVQUALs expec-
tation measure is ambiguous, we test a new set of
scales that posits that service expectations exist at
two levels that IS customers use as a basis to
assess IS service quality: (1) desired service: the Introduction
Over the past decade, SERVQUAL has garnered
1 considerable scholarly and managerial attention as
V. Sambamurthy was the accepting senior editor for this
paper. Christopher L. Carr and Richard T. Watson a diagnostic tool for uncovering areas of informa-
served as reviewers. tion systems service quality strengths and weak-

MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 607-623/December 2005 607

Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
nesses. Praised for its practical relevance (e.g.,
Jiang, Klein, and Carr 2002; Jiang, Klein, and
Crampton 2000; Kettinger and Lee 1994, 1997;
Pitt et al. 1995, 1997; Watson et al. 1998), it has
often been criticized on conceptual and psych-
ometrics grounds (Lee and Kettinger 1996;
Kohlmeyer and Blanton 2000; Van Dyke et al.
1997, 1999). A primary area of criticism concerns
SERVQUALs reliance on gap scores that are
derived by calculating the difference between IS
users perceived levels of service and their
expectations for service. Critics both in marketing
(e.g., Brown et al. 1993; Cronin and Taylor 1992,
1994; Teas 1993, 1994) and in IS (e.g., Kettinger
and Lee 1997; Van Dyke et. al. 1997, 1999) point
to conceptual and empirical difficulties with the
original SERVQUAL instrument and have sug-
gested that alternatives to the original gap scored
IS-adapted SERVQUAL be explored.
In their 1997 article Kettinger and Lee2 called for
the further study of an alternative instrument
adapted from marketing referred to as the zones
of tolerance (ZOT) service quality measure. This
zones of tolerance measure is conceptualized to
overcome one of the most significant points of
criticisms with the original SERVQUAL instrument;
namely, the need for a more parsimonious con-
ceptualization of service quality expectations, while
retaining the practical diagnostic power of under-
standing service expectation levels. This research
note tests the psychometric properties of an IS
ZOT service quality instrument. Structured as a
context-only extension (Berthon et al. 2002), this
study finds that the IS zones of tolerance service
quality measure offers significant promise as a
diagnostic tool for IS managers and as an
alternative to overcome problems with the existing
IS SERVQUAL instrument.
2
As the work on which the SERVQUAL research focuses
originated from that of the marketing scholars A.
Parasuraman (P), Valarie Zeithaml (Z), and Leonard
Berry (B), and because we will make frequent reference
to their various joint publications, we will refer to them as
PZB, PBZ, ZBP BPZ, or ZPB, as the case may be. As
we will make frequent reference to the authors Leyland
Pitt, Richard Watson, and C. Bruce Kavan, we will refer
to them as PWK and likewise, William J. Kettinger and
Choong C. Lee will be refer to as K&L.
608 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
Research Challenges with
SERVQUAL and the Recon-
ceptualization of the
Expectation Norm
In marketing consumer research, satisfaction can
be broadly characterized as a post-use evaluation
of product or service quality given pre-use expec-
tations. SERVQUAL was developed to measure
service quality. In developing their SERVQUAL
instrument, the intent of Parasuraman, Zeithaml
and Berry (hereafter PZB) was to derive a service
quality measure that transcended multiple mea-
surement contexts. Over the years, SERVQUAL
has been adapted to the measurement of many
service delivery contexts, including IS service
delivery. With its widespread application, studies
in marketing emerged questioning the conceptual
and empirical integrity of the SERVQUAL instru-
ment. These articles focused primarily around two
major concerns related to SERVQUALs use of
difference or gap scores. Researchers such as
Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) questioned the
predictive superiority of SERVQUALs gap mea-
sure (perceived service quality minus expected
service quality) over a performance only service
quality score (SERVPERF); in essence, ques-
tioning the need to measure expectations or
calculate a gap score. Marketing scholars such as
Teas (1993, 1994) questioned the conceptual
integrity of SERVQUALs expectation measure,
stating that it suffered from different interpre-
tations. Considerable debate and subsequent
study have occurred both in marketing and in IS
concerning these challenges to the expectation
measure of the original SERVQUAL concep-
tualization.
Gap Measure Versus Single
Perceived Score
Numerous researchers have shown that the
original gap (difference) scored SERVQUAL instru-
ment demonstrates poorer predictive validity than
a perceived performance only (SERVPERF) ser-
vice quality measure. In fact, it was PZB (1991)
who first reported that the SERVPERF scores

produced higher adjusted R2 values when com-
pared to SERVQUALs gap scores for each of the
five dimensions (e.g., reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, empathy, and tangibles). The superior
predictive power of the performance-only scores
was further confirmed by Babakus and Boller
(1992), Cronin and Taylor (1992), Boulding et al.
(1993), and PZB (1994b). These same results
were later demonstrated with an IS adapted
SERVPERF measure by Lee and Kettinger in
1996, by PWK in 1997, and by Van Dyke et al. in
1999. Given these findings, some researchers in
both Marketing and Information Systems have
argued for a single item comparative of perception
and expectation (Cronin 1992, 1994; Peter et al.
1993; Van Dyke et al. 1997).
While conceding the improved predictive power of
the perceived performance only instrument, advo-
cates (e.g., PZB 1994b; PWK 1997) of the original
gap-scored SERVQUAL measure argue the value
of difference scores both on practical and
theoretical grounds. PZB (1994b, p. 116) state,
executives in companies that have
switched to a disconfirmation-based
measurement approach tell us that the
information generated by this approach
have greater diagnostic value. Moreover,
examining only performance rating can
lead to different actions than examining
those ratings relative to expectation.
They rhetorically ask,
Are managers who use service quality
measurements more interested in ac-
curately identifying service shortfalls or
explaining variance in an overall measure
of perceived service quality? (p. 116).
In the IS context, PWK (1997) argue that the richer
information contained in IS SERVQUALs discon-
firmation-based measurements provides IS man-
agers with diagnostic power that typically out-
weighs statistical and convenience benefits de-
rived from the use of IS SERVPERF. K&L (1997),
while agreeing with PZB (1994b) and PWK (1997)
that difference scores offer more meaningful pre-
Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
scriptive insights, take a slightly different tack
where they state that conceptual problems iden-
tified with the original SERVQUAL expectation
measure push for exploration of alternative con-
figurations of an expectation-based IS SERVQUAL
measure.
Rethinking the Expectation Measure
A second major criticism of the original
SERVQUAL expectation measure challenges the
ideal service (PZB 1988) and excellent service
(PZB 1991) expectation norm of comparison used
in difference scoring. This criticism highlights an
important distinction between the two main stan-
dards that represent expectations in the confirma-
tion/disconfirmation literature. One standard re-
presents the expectation as a prediction of future
events (Churchill and Suprenant 1982; Miller
1977), defined as an objective calculation of the
probability of performance. The other standard is
a normative expectation of future events (Miller
1977; PZB 1988; Swan and Trawick, 1980; ZBP
1993), operationalized either as a desired or ideal
expectation. Although these two standards use
different expectation measures, expectation and
perceptions are treated as linked via the dis-
confirmation of expectation paradigm (Oliver
1980), which states that the higher the expectation
in relation to the actual performance, the greater
the degree of disconfirmation and lower satis-
faction. Critics of the normative standards such as
Teas (1993) in marketing and Van Dyke et al.
(1997, 1999) in IS argue that SERVQUALs expec-
tation measure suffers from multiple interpretations
depending on whether a customer bases his/her
assessment on a prediction of what will occur in
the next IS service encounter or on what ideally
should occur.
Recognizing a need for improvement, ZBP (1993,
p. 3) acknowledged that their original definition of
the expectations was broadand did not stipulate
norms of expectations used by customers in
assessing service quality. Citing empirical sup-
port (e.g., Tse and Wilton 1988) for both a pre-
dicted and ideal expectation standard, ZBP point
MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005 609
Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
to a service quality confirmation/disconfirmation
process involving complex, simultaneous inter-
actions that include more than one expectation
comparison. Similarly other confirmation/discon-
firmation researchers (e.g., Oliver et al. 1997)
indicate that a range of satisfaction exists beyond
minimum expectations that may move even
beyond desired levels of expectations into a range
of service surprise sometimes termed delight.
Based on this rethinking of expectations, ZBP
offered a reconceptualized model of customer
services (see Figure 1). Their revised service
quality expectation comparison norm delineates
two types of expectations. First, a normative
expectation was termed desired expectations (e.g.,
Spreng and MacKoy 1996; Swan and Trawick
1980), which was defined as the level of service
the customer wanted to be performed. Second, a
minimum tolerable expectation (Miller 1977) was
defined as the lowest level of performance accep-
table to a customer that incorporates the influence
of predicted service and situational factors.
Further clarifying their conceptualization, PZB
(1994b, p. 112) recommended comparative norms
as two different comparison norms for service
quality assessment: desired service (the level of
service a customer believes can and should be
delivered) and adequate (minimum) service (the
level of service the customer considers accep-
table). Separating these two levels is a zone of
tolerance that represents the range of service
performance a customer would consider satisfac-
tory. In other words, customer service expecta-
tions are characterized by a range of levels
(between desired and adequate service), rather
than a single point. Even though the zones of
tolerance (ZOT) SERVQUAL instrumentation had
not been empirically validated, it has subsequently
been practically applied to numerous services
contexts such as the assessment of the student
service quality of a business school (Caruna et al.
2000) and in assessing the service quality of
university and research libraries (e.g., Blixrud
2002; Cook et al. 2003).
The previous discussion leads us to the following
questions concerning the validity of the ZOT
610 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
SERVQUAL concept in the IS setting: Is an IS-
adapted ZOT SERVQUAL psychometrically
sound? More specifically, do the two expectation
levels of IS service quality (desired and adequate)
and the perceived IS service level possess the
same dimensions of SERVQUAL (including com-
mon items)? To address these questions, we
adapted PZBs (1994a) ZOT SERVQUAL concept
to the IS context, whereby the IS adapted
measures were subjected to reliability and validity
testing.
Research Methods
and Analysis
A preferred method to cross-validate an instru-
ments dimensionality is to examine the factor
structure of one sample within the factor structure
of a second sample, commonly referred to as the
holdout sample (Chin and Todd 1995). Since the
objective of this study requires a refining process
to obtain a common set of validated items and
factors for all three levels of IS service quality
(desired, adequate, and perceived), we followed
Chin and Todds approach to examine the service
quality of two different sample groups: a university
IS services sample and an industrial IS service
sample. The first sample was used to test the
factor structure of IS ZOT SERVQUAL using an
exploratory factor analysis, and the second sample
was used as a holdout sample for a confirmatory
factor analysis to cross-validate the derived
dimensionality from the first sample.
Using the three column ZOT format proposed by
PZB (1994a) and the IS adapted items of K&L
(1994), the IS ZOT SERVQUAL instrument was
pretested through a series of interviews with IS
professionals and IS graduate students. Based on
the results of pretesting, additional wording
adjustments were made in the instruction section,
such as the original word of adequate service in
PZBs scale was changed to minimum service in
order to clearly differentiate the desired and the
minimally adequate service levels. It should also
be noted that while researchers (e.g., K&L 1994;
PZB 1991) have questioned the strength of the
Tangible dimension, the Tangible dimension was

Perceived
Service
Superiority
Perceived
Service
Adequacy
Figure 1. Dual Expectation Comparison Standards: Desired and Adequate IS
Service (Adapted from V. Zeithaml, L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman, The Nature of
Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service Quality, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science (21:1), 1993, pp. 1-12)
retained in this study given the fact that the original
PZB ZOT (1994a) instrument included Tangible
and this dimension has been included in subse-
quent ZOT operationalizations in other organiza-
tional contexts (e.g., Caruana et al. 2000).
After pre-testing and refining the instrument, two
samples were chosen for the cross validation: an
initial sample from the university setting and a
holdout sample from the industry setting. Two
U.S. universities formed the initial sample for
testing of the IS-adapted ZOT SERVQUAL.
Anonymous, self-administered questionnaires
containing items from the IS-adapted ZOT
SERVQUAL (sample 1) instruments were distri-
buted to approximately 560 upper-level under-
graduate and graduate students in several MIS
and management sciences courses in the two
universities. Total sample size was 250 with the
response rates averaging about 45 percent at both
organizations. Such a student sample has been
used in past research as a general measure of
service quality (see Boulding et al. 1993; Ford et
al. 1999; Rigotti and Pitt 1992) and in the IS ser-
vice quality context (K&L 1994; Kettinger et al.
1995), showing high consistency with measures
tested in industrial settings in terms of its reliability
Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
Expected Service
Desired Service
Adequate Service
Perceived Service
and validity. For example, Jaing, Klein and
Crampton (2000) revalidated the original Kettinger
and Lee findings in the industrial context with
similar results. In addition, there is ongoing sup-
port for ZOT SERVQUALs continued use in
educational institutions (Caruna et al. 2000; Cook
et al. 2003). As a holdout sample, another set of
data (sample 2) was collected from four large
companies in Asia (two banks, one telecommuni-
cation, and one IS consulting firm). Question-
naires were distributed to a total of 500 em-
ployees;188 were returned for a response rate of
37.6 percent.
In both the university and industry settings, users
had access to the full array of IS services (e.g.,
network access and IDs, application software
access on their PCs and shared servers, Web
intranet accounts, e-mail accounts, help desk, con-
sulting support, trainingboth online and tutorial
network dial-in, Internet access, laptop hook-up,
online access to records and accounts, etc.). All
users had at least 1 year of experience with the
provided computing and network services, en-
suring a basic level of computer and network
access competence. In addition, all users had at
least a minimum level of face-to-face interaction
MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005 611
Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
with information service function (ISF) staff at each
sample site whereby they established their net-
work, e-mail, and software user authorization;
many had also taken advantage of help desk and
training services. In general, the users from each
sample can be described as motivated by either
class or work responsibilities to actively make use
of the IS resources and to avail themselves of IS
support.
Our objective was to determine if there are a
validated, common set of factors and items among
three levels of service quality. Therefore, a dual
design of statistical approaches (exploratory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis) was
applied for two different samples respectively and
sequentially. The perceived service scale was
selected as a calibration scale for exploratory
factor analysis of sample 1 because, as was
discussed previously, it is the one SERVQUAL
indicator that has not been the subject of debate
concerning its format throughout the long history of
criticism concerning SERVQUALs expectation
measurement.
Results
To use the ZOT method, its three IS service
quality levels must share the same constructs and
the corresponding items. This requires a test to
determine whether the dimensions of IS ZOT
SERVQUAL are the same for all three levels. This
study examined whether the common constructs of
perceived service, desired service, and minimum
service expectations captured equivalent dimen-
sions with equivalent question items and mapped
into a diagnostic method using all of these three
levels of IS service quality.
Given the extent of revision to the IS ZOT
SERVQUAL to bring it into the IS context, an
exploratory factor analysis3 for items of the original
3
Principal component analysis was applied on the
sample 1 data since we wanted to derive the minimum
number of factors that account for the maximum portion
of the total variance in an exploratory manner.
612 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
five service quality dimensions on the perceived
service level was completed on the sample 1 data.
Using commonly accepted factor selection criteria
as specified in Table 1, four constructs with 18
items were derived. Three original SERVQUAL
constructs emerged from the exploratory factor
analysis (tangibles, reliability, and responsive-
ness). However, two of the original dimensions,
empathy and assurance, merged into one dimen-
sion. Based on a review of the retained items and
the seeming similarity of the constructs when
applied in the IS context, the new merged con-
struct was named rapport because the construct
items focus on an IS service providers ability to
convey a rapport of knowledgeable, caring, and
courteous support. Past researchers using ZOT
SERVQUAL in different service contexts have also
experienced such a merging of the original five-
factor structure (e.g., Caruana et al. 2000).
The derived factor structure and items from the
exploratory factor analysis on the perceived scale
(refer to Table 1) were then subjected to confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability testing
using the holdout sample for the three different IS
service quality levels. Covariance matrices, the
Mardias non-normality coefficient, and descriptive
statistics for three sets of service levels of the
holdout sample are reported in Appendix A. To
overcome the limitation of maximum likelihood
method regarding multivariate non-normality4 the
parameters were estimated using the maximum
likelihood [ML, Robust] method, which in the first
attempt with the holdout sample resulted in good
fits of the models for each of the three different
levels, as shown in the composite fit index of
Table 2.
In confirming the validity of the IS ZOT
SERVQUAL at three levels, the guidelines sug-
gested by Andersen and Gerbing (1988) were fol-
4
Like most continuous data collected from a ques-
tionnaire, our raw data possess a non-normal shaped
distribution. However, aware of the risk of assuming the
data to be multivariate normal, a sandwich parameter
covariance estimator (Satorra and Bentler 1990) was
implemented to correct potential bias in estimating the
standard errors. EQSs maximum likelihood, robust
option provides these estimators.
 Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL

Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis*: Perceived Service Level for Sample 1

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Communality
P1 0.104 0.813 0.037 -0.104 -0.035 0.685
P2 0.283 0.626 -0.052 0.132 -0.028 0.493
P3 0.034 0.759 -0.087 0.098 0.076 0.600
P4 0.008 0.771 -0.001 0.011 0.065 0.598
P5 -0.036 0.745 0.086 -0.068 0.116 0.581
P6 0.038 0.448 0.284 0.232 0.098 0.346
P7 0.044 0.560 0.171 0.322 -0.040 0.461
P8 0.260 0.056 0.092 0.592 0.081 0.437
P9 0.153 0.239 0.066 0.575 0.038 0.417
P10 0.499 0.273 0.106 0.219 0.076 0.388
P11 0.594 -0.080 0.043 0.265 0.137 0.450
P12 0.780 0.099 -0.024 -0.064 -0.008 0.623
P13 0.759 0.165 0.065 -0.190 -0.007 0.644
P14 0.663 0.001 -0.013 0.145 0.070 0.455
P15 0.732 -0.083 0.074 0.168 0.095 0.586
P16 0.680 0.046 0.174 0.102 -0.006 0.505
P17 0.777 -0.017 0.069 0.037 0.037 0.612
P18 0.096 0.040 0.726 0.052 0.003 0.541
P19 0.024 0.202 0.447 0.124 0.321 0.360
P20 0.034 0.045 0.198 -0.064 0.657 0.478
P21 0.423 -0.077 -0.068 0.078 0.525 0.471
P22 0.008 0.297 -0.044 0.122 0.516 0.371
*Principal Components Analysis
Selection Criteria: Oblique rotation, factor loading $ 0.5, no multiple loadings, no single loading, items not meeting these
criteria were dropped as indicated by the struck-out lines.

Table 2. CFA Test Results for IS ZOT SERVQUAL Measure on the Holdout Sample
Recommended
Fit Indices Perceived Desired Minimum Fit Criteria*
Satorra-Bentler Scaled Chi-Square/d.f. 1.947 1.337 1.521 < 3.0
Bollen (IFI) 0.932 0.973 0.965 > 0.90
LISREL AGFI 0.796 0.828 0.817 > 0.80
Root Mean Squared Residual (RMSR) 0.120 0.076 0.107 < 1.0
Comparative Fit Index 0.918 0.943 0.928 > 0.90
Robust CFI 0.931 0.972 0.964 > 0.90
*Segars and Grover (1993)

MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005 613

Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
lowed. Significant factor loading coefficients and
the satisfactory fits of the three CFA models con-
firm the convergent validity of the four IS service
quality dimensions. Next, formal tests of discrim-
inant validity were performed (Bagozzi and Phillips
1982). The chi-square differences between the all-
possible constrained models (each correlation
between four dimensions was subsequently con-
strained to 1.0) and the final model was tested and
showed significant chi-square differences, indi-
cating discriminant validity for all three levels.
Reliability tests for the final derived four dimen-
sions with 18 items were conducted with a
Cronbach Alpha test, resulting in acceptable levels
of reliability for all dimensions at three levels (refer
to Table 3). In sum, a total of 18 items loaded into
four dimensions at all three IS ZOT levels, indi-
cating strong support for construct validity of the
measures as well as demonstrating a common
structure of four dimensions and items among
three levels of IS service quality. These results
provide the statistical legitimacy for use of IS ZOT
SERVQUAL in the IS setting. The final version of
items retained is displayed in Table 4.
Implications for Research
and Practice
This study introduced and validated the ZOT
concept in the IS setting using a dual measure of
IS service quality expectations. The findings
represent an important step toward addressing
past concerns with the original IS SERVQUALs
expectation measure and gap-scoring. As will be
discussed later in the section, the new IS ZOT
SERVQUAL instrument has strong practical poten-
tial as a diagnostic tool through which managers
can quickly visualize their current IS service quality
situation and design corrective actions. However,
to further establish the instruments external
validity and reliability, additional applications in
multiple industrial contexts need to be undertaken.
Future researchers also should attempt to further
distinguish the responsiveness dimension of IS
ZOT SERVQUAL from the reliability dimension.
In this study, two of the original IS SERVQUAL
614 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
responsiveness items loaded more closely with the
reliability factor than the responsiveness dimen-
sion, leaving the derived responsiveness construct
with only two items. The authors recognize that
such a two-item construct has potential validity
problems. Future researchers might consider
improving the responsiveness measure around the
concept of anticipated preparedness to perform a
service, which can be inferred by the two retained
responsiveness items (i.e., willingness to help
and readiness to respond).
Research should explore the application of this
instrument and its diagnostic strength. For
example, researchers might examine the meaning
of exceeding desired service levels. Some litera-
ture suggests that this offers the service provider
benefits by bringing their customers into a level of
surprised satisfaction sometimes called customer
delight (Oliver et al. 1997), while a different stream
of literature reminds us that there is a cost of
quality and one must be mindful to make sure that
IS service quality has a bottom line impact on the
firm. In this regard, future research should investi-
gate the relationships of IS ZOT service quality to
overall ISF performance and, ultimately, business
performance.
The survey length of the IS ZOT SERVQUAL adds
some complexity when compared to a single point
(perception only) measure. Researchers need to
determine the relative diagnostic value of mea-
suring IS customer expectations within a zones of
tolerance scheme over the use of a perceived-only
(SERVPERF) measure. In cases where brevity,
cost, or predictive validity concerns demand, the
seemingly less clinical perception-only (SERV-
PERF) measure might be a better option.
Learning how and when managers use the IS ZOT
as a diagnostic tool to shape their service delivery
strategies needs to be investigated both quali-
tatively and quantitatively in multiple industry
contexts before the relative value of this measure
is fully understood.
In terms of practice, employing the IS ZOT
SERVQUAL in a periodic IS service quality man-
agement program is important for two reasons.
 Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL

Table 3. Revised IS ZOT SERVQUAL Constructs and Reliabilities of the Holdout

Sample
Reliabilities*
Original Items
Constructs Retained** Perceived Desired Minimum
Reliability 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 0.88 0.84 0.86
Responsiveness 8, 9 0.78 0.74 0.73
Rapport 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 0.81 0.92 0.84
Tangibles 20, 21, 22 0.86 0.81 0.85
*Cronbach Alpha values for Perceived, Desired, and Minimum service levels.
**Refer to Table 4 for retained item descriptions

Table 4. Operationalization of the IS ZOT SERVQUAL Constructs Before and After

Factor Analysis
IS ZOT SERVQUALs Anchor Questions and Format for Item Descriptions (below):

Minimum Service Level the expected minimum level of service performance you consider adequate.
Desired Service Level the level of service performance you desire.
My Perception of
the [Organizations
Computer Service
My Minimum My Desired Level Units Name]
Service Level is: of Service is: Performance is:
Low High Low High Low High
When it comes to
1. Providing service as promised 123456789 123456789 123456789
Original Final
Item Descriptions Constructs Constructs
1Providing services as promised Reliability Reliability
2Dependability in handling customers service problems Reliability Reliability
3Performing service right the first time Reliability Reliability
4Providing services at the promised time Reliability Reliability
5Maintaining the reliable technology and system Reliability Reliability
6Keeping customers informed about when service will be made Responsiveness Dropped
7Prompt service to customers Responsiveness Reliability
8Willingness to help customers Responsiveness Responsiveness
9Readiness to respond to customers requests Responsiveness Responsiveness
10IS employees who instill confidence in customers Assurance Dropped
11Making customers feel safer in computer transactions Assurance Rapport
12IS employees who are consistently courteous Assurance Rapport
13IS employees who have the knowledge to answer customers
questions Assurance Rapport
14Giving customers individual attention Empathy Rapport
15IS employees who deal with customers in a caring fashion Empathy Rapport
16Having the customers best interest at heart Empathy Rapport
17IS employees who understand the needs of customers Empathy Rapport
18Convenient business hours Empathy Dropped
19Up-to-date technology Tangibles Dropped
20Visually appealing facilities Tangibles Tangibles
21IS employees who appear professional Tangibles Tangibles
22Useful support materials (such as documentation, training, videos,
etc.) Tangibles Tangibles
*Items dropped after factor analyses are struck out; final constructs are in bold.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005 615

Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
First, as a diagnostic tool, it has the potential to
measure changes in IS service quality relative to
customers expectations over time. Second, it can
be a basis for corrective actions leading to
strategies to manage minimum service level
expectations, to improve perceived service levels,
or to allocate IS resources to specific IS customer
segments based on an identified need.
ZOT customer service expectations are charac-
terized by tolerance bands. These tolerance
bands, representing the difference between
desired service and the level of service considered
minimally adequate, can differ in size. Over time
these bandwidths may either expand, contract, or
move up or down based on expectation changes.
Variations can also exist in different customers
tolerance zones. Some customers may have a
small zone of tolerance, which may require a
consistent level of service by an IS provider to hit
within a small band, whereas other customers may
tolerate a greater range of service quality. The
potential for IS managers to learn to identify and
manipulate expectation tolerance bands to im-
prove IS service strategies offers great promise
over the single SERVPERF measure.
To illustrate this potential, we examine the actual
ZOT results from our sample 1 (two universities).
As Figure 2 demonstrates, if University 1 relied
solely on the perceived service measure, it may
mistakenly identify the rapport dimension as a
more problematic area than the reliability area,
since the single perception-only indicator shows a
lower score of rapport than reliability. However,
incorporating the ZOT band, one can visually
pinpoint the area of deficiency; namely, the
reliability dimension, where the perceived perfor-
mance pointer is furthest outside the ZOT band.
There are three criteria that help provide the basis
for diagnosis and judgments concerning IS service
quality deficiencies and service quality manage-
ment:
(1) Is the perceived service quality pointer
outside and below the ZOT? If so, how great
is the distance from the ZOT (adequate
service level) to the perceived service quality
pointer?
616 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
(2) What is the relative position of the perceived
service pointers within each ZOT band? Are
the perceived service pointers closer to the
desired expectation level than the minimum
level?
(3) If all the perceived service pointers are within
their respective zones, what is the compara-
tive size and the relative positioning of ZOT
bands?
These criteria can be examined to determine
whether possible expectation management could
extend the band and possibly lower expectation
levels. For example, in University 2, the respon-
siveness dimensions should be picked as the
second most troubled IS service quality dimension,
given the relative positioning of the pointers within
the ZOT.
Further diagnosis related to this targeted respon-
siveness dimension for university 2 might be
obtained by comparing different customer user
segmentations (refer to Figure 3). In this illustra-
tion, responsiveness of different customer groups
is compared. The Grad Student Class 1 customer
segment shows the most serious deficiency
despite a relatively large ZOT band. It is possible
that IS service delivery faults have occurred with
this group, placing their current perceptions of
actual responsiveness of the information system
function (ISF) far below minimum service quality
levels. This group might be prime for a special
service recovery activity by the IS provider to win
back confidence that they are responsive to this
groups IS needs. Looking at Grad Class 2, it is
observed that while the band is smaller and the
single pointer higher, these graduate students are
also unsatisfied with current the level of service
given the distance between the perceived service
pointer and the ZOT.
Since the perceived service level pointers for both
undergraduate student groups are within their
respective ZOT bands, this might point the ISF to
offer more specialized services targeted to grad-
uate students. Such a segmentation services stra-
tegy could be applied to departmental, divisional,
or even company segments. Benchmarking com-
parisons with external companies would be pos-
 Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL

University 1's IS Service Quality University 2's IS Service Quality

9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5

Reliability
Responsiveness

Responsiveness
4 4
Reliability

Rapport

Tangibles

Tangibles
Rapport
3 3
2 2
1 1

Boxes for each dimension represent the zone of tolerance

Legend:
between desired service quality levels and minimum
acceptable levels.
Perceived Service Pointer

Figure 2. Assessments of the Service Quality of Two University IS Departments

Using the Zones of Tolerance Approach

Responsiveness dimension for University 2 across multiple customer service segments

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Boxes represent the
2 Legend: zone of tolerance of
different customer
1 segments for the
Responsiveness
dimension.
Undergrad 1
Undergrad 2
Grad Class 2

Grad Class 1

Perceived Service
Pointer

Figure 3. Illustration of Zone of Tolerance Dimensional Assessment Comparing

Customer Service Segments

MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005 617

Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
sible to provide relative service quality levels. For
example, going back to Figure 2 and comparing
these two universities, University 2 shows rela-
tively better IS service quality than University 1,
given its larger ZOT bands and with three of the
four perceived service pointers inside the ZOT
dimensional bands.
Longitudinal study should be carried out to better
learn the efficacy of managerial interventions (as
discussed above) to manipulate ZOTs minimum
expectation levels. To gain this insight, we need to
better understand the antecedents of expectation
levels and their possible managerial implications.
A customers level of minimum service is
influenced by a least four factors (Berry and
Parasuraman 1997; ZBP 1993). First, transitory
service intensifiers are temporary, usually short-
term, individual factors that lead customers to a
heightened sensitivity to service. Second, per-
ceived service alternatives are customers percep-
tions of the degree to which they can obtain better
service through providers other than the focal IS
service provider. A third factor is the customers
self-perceived service role. This can be defined as
the customers perceptions of the degree to which
they themselves influence the level of service they
receive. Fourth, levels of minimum service
adequacy are influenced by situational factors,
defined as service-performance contingencies that
customers perceive are beyond the control of the
service provider. For IS researchers, these four
antecedents of minimum expectations provide a
valuable starting point for future study. IS man-
agers should note that these four factors share a
common implication for expectation management
strategies and customer communication. Speci-
fically, IS providers must convince customers of
the benefits of using IS services, inform them of
their roles and limits in using IS services, and
clarify the line of responsibility in the case of IS
service problems.
Finally, this article focuses on the service quality
levels of internal IS service providers who
seemingly would desire to have IS customers with
large ZOT bands. In the case of an external IS
service providers point-of-view, such as an IS
outsourcing vendor, a different implication might
emerge. Namely, if external customers have
relatively large zones of tolerance, establishing
618 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
customer loyalty may be more difficult based on
distinguished service delivery that substantially
exceeds minimum levels. This raises the question:
Would superior IS service vendors be better off
attempting to narrow IS customers tolerance
zones by striving to move minimum service levels
up to reduce the competitive appeal of a mediocre
IS providers? As this question suggests, the appli-
cation of the IS ZOT SERVQUAL and its asso-
ciated expectation management schemes are
flexible to different service contexts and begin to
offer ISF providers a more exact tool to shape
service quality strategies.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the excel-
lent direction of the senior editor and the important
insights and contributions of the reviewers.
References
Andersen, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psycho-
logical Bulletin (103:3), 1988, pp. 411-423.
Babakus, E., and Boller, G. W. An Empirical
Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale, Journal
of Business Research (24:2), 1992, pp. 253-
268.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Phillips, L. W. Representing
and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic
Construal, Administrative Science Quarterly
(27:3), 1982, pp. 459-489.
Berry, L., and Parasuraman, A. Listening to the
CustomerThe Concept of a Service-Quality
Information System, Sloan Management
Review (38:3), 1997, pp. 65-78.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Ewing, M., and Carr, C. L.
Potential Research Space in MIS: A Frame-
work for Envisioning and Evaluating Research
Replication, Extension, and Generation, Infor-
mation Systems Research (13:4), 2002, pp.
416-427.
Blixrud, J. C. Evaluating Library Service Quality:
Use of LibQUAL+ TM, IATUL Proceedings
(New Series), Volume 12, Partnerships, Con-
sortia and 21st Century Library Service, Kansas
City, MO, June 2-6, 2002.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., and Zeithaml,
V. A. A Dynamic Process Model of Service
Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Inten-
tions, Journal of Marketing Research (30:1),
1993, pp. 7-27.
Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., Jr., and Peter, J. P.
Research Note: Improving the Measurement
of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing (69:1),
1993, pp. 127-139.
Caruana, A., Ewing, M. T., and Ramaseshan, B.
Assessment of the Three-Column Format
SERVQUAL: An Experimental Approach,
Journal of Business Research (49:1), 2000, pp.
57-65.
Chin, W. W., and Todd, P. A. On the Use,
Usefulness, and Ease of Structural Equation
Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution,
MIS Quarterly (19:2), 1995, pp. 237-246.
Cook, C., Heath, F., and Thompson, B. Zones of
Tolerance In the Perceptions of Library Service
Quality: A LibQUAL+ Study, Libraries and
the Academy (3:1), 2003, pp. 113-123.
Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. A. Measuring Ser-
vice Quality: A Reexamination and Extension,
Journal of Marketing (56:3), 1992, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. A. SERVPERF
Versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-
Based and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations
Measurements of Service Quality, Journal of
Marketing (58:1), 1994, pp. 125-131.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., and Surprenant, C. An
Investigation Into the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research
(19), November 1982, pp. 491-504.
Ford, J. B., Joseph, M., and Joseph, B. Impor-
tance-Performance Analysis as a Strategic Tool
for Service Marketers: The Case of Service
Quality Perceptions of Business Students in
New Zealand and the USA, Journal of Services
Marketing (13:2), 1999, pp. 171-186.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Carr, C. Measuring
Information Systems Quality: SERVQUAL from
the Other Side, MIS Quarterly (26:2), 2002, pp.
145-166.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Crampton, S. A Note
on SERVQUAL Reliability and Validity in Infor-
mation System Service Quality Measurement,
Decision Sciences (31:3), 2000, pp. 725-745.
Kettinger, W. J., and Lee, C. C. Perceived
Service Quality and User Satisfaction with the
Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
Information Services Function, Decision
Sciences (25:5), 1994, pp. 737-766.
Kettinger, W. J., and Lee, C. C. Pragmatic Per-
spectives on the Measurement of Information
Systems Service Quality, MIS Quarterly (21:2),
1997, pp. 223-240.
Kettinger, W. J., Lee, C. C., and Lee, S. Global
Measures of Information Service Quality: A
Cross-National Study, Decision Sciences
(26:5), 1995, pp. 569-588.
Kohlmeyer J. M., and Blanton, J. E. Improving IS
Service Quality, Journal of Information Theory
and Applications (2:1), 2000, pp. 1-10 (available
online at www.jitta.org).
Lee, C. C., and Kettinger, W. J. A Test of the
Psychometric Properties of the IS Adapted
SERVQUAL Measure, Paper presented at the
1996 National INFORMS Meeting, Atlanta
Georgia, November 4, 1996.
Miller, J. A., Studying Satisfaction, Modifying
Models, Eliciting Expectations, Posing Prob-
lems, and Making Meaningful Measurements,
in Conceptualization and Measurement of Con-
sumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, K. Hunt
(Ed.), Report No. 77-103, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA, 1977, pp. 72-91.
Oliver, R. L. A Cognitive Model of the Antece-
dents and Consequences of Satisfaction Deci-
sions, Journal of Marketing Research (17),
November 1980, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R. L. Rust, R. T., and Varki S. V. Custo-
mer Delight: Foundations, Findings and Mana-
gerial Insight, Journal of Retailing (73:3), 1997,
pp. 311-336.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., and Zeithaml, V. A.
Research Note: More on Improving Quality
Measurement, Journal of Retailing (69:1),
1993, pp. 140-147.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L.
Alternative Scales for Measuring Service
Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on
Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria, Journal
of Retailing (70:3), 1994a, pp. 201-229.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L.
A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its
Implications for Future Research, Journal of
Marketing (49), Fall 1985, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L.
Refinement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale, Journal of Retailing (67:4),
1991, pp. 420-450.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005 619
Kettinger & Lee/Alternative Scales for IS SERVQUAL
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L.
Reassessment of Expectations as a Compari-
son Standard in Measuring Service Quality:
Implications for Further Research, Journal of
Marketing (58), January 1994b, pp. 111-124.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L.
SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Mea-
suring Consumer Perceptions of Service Qual-
ity, Journal of Retailing (64:1), 1988, pp. 12-40.
Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., Jr., and Brown, T. J.
Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in
Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer
Research (19), March 1993, pp. 655-662.
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., and Kavan, C. B. Mea-
suring Information Systems Service Quality:
Concerns for a Complete Canvas, MIS Quar-
terly (21:2), 1997, pp. 209-221.
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., and Kavan, C. B.
Service Quality: A Measure of Information
Systems Effectiveness, MIS Quarterly (19:2),
1995, pp. 173-187.
Rigotti, S., and Pitt, L. F. SERVQUAL as a
Measuring Instrument for Service Provider
Gaps in Business Schools, Marketing
Research News (15:3), 1992, pp. 9-17.
Satorra, A., and Bentler., P. M. Model Conditions
for Asymptotic Robustness in the Analysis of
Linear Relations, Computational Statistics and
Data Analysis (10), 1990, pp. 235-249.
Segars, A., and Grover, V. Re-examining Per-
ceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Con-
firmatory Factor Analysis, MIS Quarterly (17:4),
1993, pp. 517-527.
Spreng, R. A., and MacKoy, R. D. An Empirical
Examination of a Model of Perceived Service
Quality and Satisfaction, Journal of Retailing
(72:2), 1996, pp. 201-214.
Swan J., and Trawick, F. Satisfaction Related to
Predictive vs. Desired Expectation, in Refining
Concepts and Measures of Consumer Satis-
faction and Complaining Behavior, H. K. Hunt
and R. L. Day (Eds.), Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, IN, 1980, pp. 7-12.
Teas, R. K. Expectations as a Comparison
Standard in Measuring Service Quality: An
Assessment of a Reassessment, Journal of
Marketing (58), January 1994, pp. 132-139.
Teas, R. K. Expectations, Performance Evalua-
tion and Consumers Perception of Quality,
Journal of Marketing (57:4), 1993, pp. 18-34.
620 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 4/December 2005
Tse D. K., and Wilton, P. C. Models of Consumer
Satisfaction Formation: An Extension, Journal
of Market Research (25), May 1988, pp. 204-
212.
Van Dyke, T. P., Kappelman, L. A., and Prybutok,
V. R. Caution on the Use of SERVQUAL Mea-
sures to Assess the Quality of Information
Systems Services, Decision Science (30:3),
1999, pp. 877-891.
Van Dyke, T. P., Kappelman, L. A., and Prybutok,
V. R. Measuring Information Systems Service
Quality: Concerns on the Use of the SERV-
QUAL Questionnaire, MIS Quarterly (21:2),
1997, pp. 195-208.
Watson, R. T., Pitt, L. F., and Kavan, C. B., Mea-
suring Information Systems Service Quality:
Lessons from Two Longitudinal Case Studies,
MIS Quarterly (22:1), 1998, pp. 61-79.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. L., and Parasuraman, A.
The Nature and Determinants of Customer
Expectations of Service Quality, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science (21:1) 1993, pp.
1-12.
About the Authors
William J. Kettinger is an associate professor of
Information Systems at the Moore School of Busi-
ness, University of South Carolina. He teaches
and researches in the areas of strategic infor-
mation management, business process change,
and IS performance measurement. He consults
domestically and abroad on these topics and has
published numerous books and research articles
including five previous articles in MIS Quarterly.
Choong C. Lee is Associate Dean of the Gradu-
ate School of Information at Yonsei University,
Seoul, Korea. He has a Ph.D. degree in MIS from
the University of South Carolina and previously
served as an associate professor at Perdue
School of Business, Salisbury University. Actively
involved with research and consulting projects in
IS performance measurement, he also works as a
Senior Researcher/Consultant for enterpriseIQ in
Lausanne, Switzerland. His past research results
have been published in MIS Quarterly, Decision
Sciences, Journal of MIS, Communications of the
ACM, and Information and Management.
Appendix A
Covariance Matrix, Univariate, and Multivariate Statistics of the Holdout Sample

Table A1. Perceived Service Level (n = 188)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P7 P8 P9 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P20 P21 P22
P1 1.609
P2 1.121 1.93
P3 0.979 1.251 1.864
P4 0.936 1.082 1.185 2.171
P5 0.945 1.026 1.090 1.154 1.899
P7 0.793 1.112 1.059 1.144 0.956 2.065
P8 0.893 1.145 1.186 1.283 0.979 1.526 2.803
P9 0.637 0.840 0.953 1.049 0.903 1.147 1.539 1.951
P11 0.720 0.946 0.988 0.891 0.982 1.206 1.546 1.417 2.604
P12 0.819 0.891 0.957 1.017 0.996 1.002 1.354 1.058 1.720 2.295
P13 0.893 0.997 1.162 1.163 1.063 1.174 1.204 0.918 1.374 1.456 1.879
P14 0.517 0.729 0.844 1.006 0.623 1.073 1.803 1.174 1.338 1.172 1.048 2.377
P15 0.699 0.877 0.852 0.818 0.668 0.916 1.390 0.943 1.496 1.346 1.146 1.360 1.988
P16 0.585 0.746 0.949 0.968 0.798 1.009 1.490 0.953 1.484 1.385 1.239 1.400 1.422 2.049
P17 0.623 0.859 0.889 0.914 0.814 1.047 1.496 1.024 1.344 1.418 1.228 1.405 1.497 1.503 2.168
P20 0.854 0.952 0.952 1.027 0.833 1.066 1.509 1.149 1.261 1.180 1.133 1.431 1.105 1.187 1.448 2.098
P21 0.735 0.815 0.845 0.965 0.756 1.009 1.454 1.078 1.335 1.212 1.173 1.313 1.015 1.106 1.187 1.448 2.098
P22 0.778 1.035 0.950 0.979 0.808 1.036 1.417 0.950 1.233 1.206 1.049 1.245 1.096 1.168 1.265 1.353 1.693 2.590
Item 5.5699 5.6183 5.6398 5.7634 5.7849 5.4462 4.8280 5.2742 5.5645 5.7312 5.8656 4.9570 5.4409 5.3656 5.3656 5.2258 5.1237 5.1613
Means
Skew- -0.0776 0.668 -0.3016 -0.5330 -0.320 -0.1441 0.2247 0.0879 -0.2403 -0.1559 -0.0344 0.1520 0.0339 0.0722 0.3207 0.1967 0.1581 0.2280
ness
Kurtosis -0.2422 -0.1167 -0.140 0.1727 -0.6730 -0.3227 -0.3919 -0.2505 -0.5108 -0.3734 -0.2413 0.0107 -0.0679 -0.3093 -0.2482 -0.2052 0.3919 -0.0869
Standard 1.2553 1.3831 1.3653 1.4734 1.3782 1.4369 1.6741 1.3969 1.6137 1.5149 1.3708 1.5416 1.4101 1.4316 1.4725 1.4529 1.4485 1.6094
Deviation

Multivariate normality index for all 22 items: Mardias Coefficient = 67.04; Normalized Estimate = 17.04
 Table A2. Desired Service Level (n = 188)
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D7 D8 D9 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 D20 D21 D22
D1 1.359
D2 0.895 1.534
D3 0.742 0.901 1.513
D4 0.860 0.853 0.958 1.644
D5 0.727 0.976 0.955 1.064 1.654
D7 0.707 0.827 0.799 1.011 0.953 1.513
D8 0.766 0.980 0.862 0.973 1.011 0.987 1.899
D9 0.640 0.791 0.714 0.849 0.989 0.771 0.952 1.335
D11 0.686 0.801 0.870 0.786 0.811 0.873 0.963 0.738 1.574
D12 0.828 0.914 0.781 0.970 0.932 0.878 1.030 0.859 1.082 1.702
D13 0.669 0.584 0.839 0.911 0.830 0.823 0.797 0.625 0.860 0.921 1.368
D14 0.699 0.821 0.862 0.769 0.790 0.876 1.169 0.853 1.074 1.080 0.803 2.013
D15 0.739 0.806 0.943 0.992 0.848 0.937 0.937 0.876 1.084 1.339 0.947 1.304 1.955
D16 0.849 0.987 0.91 0.831 0.949 0.853 1.105 0.955 1.129 1.157 0.772 1.164 1.023 1.743
D17 0.888 1.033 0.937 0.948 1.100 0.953 1.073 1.009 1.113 1.376 0.903 1.268 1.372 1.358 2.056
D20 0.749 0.829 0.852 0.688 0.771 0.760 0.866 0.792 0.950 0.994 0.721 1.059 1.043 1.108 1.168 1.683
D21 0.632 0.616 0.760 0.652 0.668 0.538 0.819 0.647 0.947 0.896 0.797 1.009 1.070 0.976 1.089 1.037 1.899
D22 0.737 0.723 0.613 0.648 0.680 0.690 0.849 0.638 0.829 0.922 0.830 1.102 0.922 0.977 1.116 1.091 1.127 2.029
Item 7.6596 7.5213 7.6064 7.6383 7.7500 7.7074 7.1915 7.2766 7.4415 7.6223 7.5798 6.7606 7.3298 7.3723 7.3138 7.117 7.1915 7.0904
Means
Skew- -0.8557 -0.8783 -0.6528 -0.8282 -0.9766 -0.7607 -0.6789 -0.5114 -0.7630 -1.0590 -0.6253 -0.5303 -0.7070 -0.8896 -0.9981 -0.8271 -0.4945 -0.7050
ness
Kurtosis 0.1891 0.1439 -0.2654 -0.0854 0.2242 -0.2391 -.0017 -0.3235 0.1937 0.9565 -0.4185 -0.0371 0.1186 0.3728 0.7528 0.9417 -0.5125 0.4884
Standard 1.1659 1.2387 1.2299 1.2821 1.2860 1.2300 1.3780 1.1544 1.2346 1.3044 1.1696 1.4184 1.3982 1.3202 1.4339 1.2972 1.3780 1.4245
Deviation

Multivariate normality index for all 22 items: Mardias Coefficient = 124.61; Normalized Estimate = 31.83
 Table A3. Minimum Service Level (n = 188)
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M7 M8 M9 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M20 M21 M22
M1 1.372
M2 0.789 1.616
M3 0.866 0.875 1.781
M4 0.770 1.046 1.099 1.896
M5 0.708 0.890 0.980 0.913 1.850
M7 0.643 0.822 0.936 1.023 0.801 2.074
M8 0.535 0.709 0.926 0.921 0.821 1.118 2.202
M9 0.545 0.667 0.947 0.887 0.946 1.044 1.105 1.718
M11 0.602 0.638 0.956 0.793 0.846 1.128 1.013 1.051 1.997
M12 0.680 0.738 0.740 0.794 0.902 0.884 0.993 0.863 1.397 1.905
M13 0.674 0.673 1.015 0.849 0.885 1.043 1.058 0.919 1.318 1.134 1.725
M14 0.442 0.563 0.929 0.566 0.802 0.865 1.378 1.101 1.186 1.016 1.136 2.176
M15 0.848 0.550 0.830 0.787 0.664 0.930 1.041 0.934 1.325 1.271 1.138 1.151 1.851
M16 0.601 0.754 0.788 0.830 0.739 0.966 1.148 0.962 1.171 1.198 1.076 1.078 1.119 1.816
M17 0.656 0.665 0.882 0.819 0.867 1.054 1.231 1.081 1.516 1.500 1.187 1.339 1.473 1.455 2.314
M20 0.550 0.673 0.793 0.678 0.624 0.805 1.045 0.886 1.233 1.072 0.970 1.163 1.030 1.021 1.136 1.881
M21 0.649 0.580 0.901 0.796 0.687 0.710 1.041 0.865 1.133 0.939 1.069 1.201 1.125 0.963 1.059 1.140 1.944
M22 0.720 0.727 1.079 0.810 0.955 0.976 1.092 1.063 1.321 1.065 1.253 1.512 1.147 1.077 1.284 1.325 1.514 2.239
Item 5.6862 5.7394 5.6436 5.8298 5.9894 5.8511 5.2553 5.4043 5.6383 5.7979 5.7128 5.0244 5.5691 5.6220 5.5372 5.3032 5.2766 5.2660
Means
Skew- 0.6770 0.2000 -0.0053 -0.1479 0.0065 -0.1689 0.1469 -0.0192 0.0648 0.2438 -0.0430 -0.3867 0.1478 0.2679 -0.1943 0.0038 0.1034 0.0198
ness
Kurtosis 0.0953 -0.2839 -0.1932 -0.0610 -0.4778 0.2850 -0.1758 0.1200 0.0836 -0.2443 -0.1038 0.0503 -0.0421 -0.2193 0.0200 0.0504 0.1341 0.2688
Standard 1.1711 1.2713 1.3347 1.3770 1.3602 1.4401 1.4839 1.3107 1.4131 1.2804 1.3132 1.4750 1.3602 1.3478 1.5212 1.3714 1.3944 1.4963
Deviation

Multivariate normality index for all 22 items: Mardias Coefficient = 122.03; Normalized Estimate = 31.18