Satisfaction

Customer Satisfaction during during Delivery

the Service Delivery Process Process

Peter J. Danaher
University of Auckland, New Zealand, and 5
Jan Mattsson Received September 1993
University of Karlstad, Sweden Revised April 1994

Satisfaction versus Service Quality: Siamese Twins?

To date service quality research has focused mainly on methods for monitoring
operations to ensure conformance to specifications (operations perspective) and
for measuring customer satisfaction (marketing perspective). Some well-known
work from the latter stream of research is the development of the SERVQUAL
instrument[1,2], that measures the gap between expectations and perceptions
of the service by the customer, as an indication of service quality. Although this
and other work in the area invoke the disconfirmation paradigm from consumer
behaviour research, there seems to be considerable debate about the
relationship between the core constructs of consumer satisfaction and
perceived quality as well as about the appropriateness of the gap approach[3].
Evaluating their own contributions, Parasuraman et al.[4] found that the
usefulness of analysing the expectations and gap scores remains unresolved.
However, they maintain that customer satisfaction is distinct from service
quality. Satisfaction is thought to result from the comparison between predicted
service and perceived service, whereas service quality refers to the comparison
between desired service and perceived service[5]. However, affective states[6]
and perceived performance have been shown to be strong and direct
determinants of both customer satisfaction[7] and service quality[8] of the
service encounter.
Another distinction between service quality and satisfaction has been
suggested. The evaluation of individual service transactions has been termed
satisfaction judgements. In contrast, the perceived service quality would be
similar to an individual’s general attitude towards the service firm[9]. Although
implying a close relationship between service encounter satisfaction and
perceived service quality, too little attention has been paid to the measurement
and nature of the satisfaction construct as it also fits the description of an
attitude[10]. For instance, marketers have tended not to conceptualize
satisfaction as a cognitively based evaluation of attributes found in other
literatures but as an emotional response to a product or service use[11].
We have reason to believe that the summation of all the service encounters is
evaluated by the customer and not just the interaction with the service provider.
Therefore the process as such may play a greater role than the actual outcome European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 5, 1994, pp. 5-16.
in determining the overall satisfaction[12]. It has been suggested that there may © MCB University Press, 0309-0566
European be distinct “objects” in the service system that may be evaluated along unique
Journal attribute dimensions[13]. However, the service delivery process itself has to date
not been adequately studied. We know very little about how satisfaction
of Marketing judgements evolve during the process[14]. Armstrong[15] modelled the delivery
28,5 process as a system and analysed underlying service quality perceptions but
used aggregate case data in retrospect. Boulding et al.[8] studied how
6 perceptions of service quality were influenced by a customer’s prior
expectations of what will and should transpire during a service encounter.
Investigating the service process in a laboratory experiment they did not,
however, obtain objective measures of the actual dimensions of the service
encounter for each individual. Furthermore, measures were collected only at
one point in time.
We therefore attempt to fill this apparent hole in the service literature by
modelling an actual hotel service delivery process in five service encounters
which were evaluated by a sample of guests during their stay. The focus is on
how underlying quality factors are related to different service encounters and
how cumulative satisfaction levels impact on one another and over time. The
article is structured as follows. First, methodological issues are discussed as to:
model, data collection and measures. Second, results are discussed and, finally,
some conclusions and implications are drawn for service quality research .

Method
The Model
The purpose of the study design was to measure a few, but important, context
specific factors during the various encounters along the path of the customer
(hotel guest). We suggest that these factors may be based on an underlying
theory as to their content or dimension. Hartman[16] has defined a formal
model of the value realm based on three generic value dimensions, being,
emotional (E), practical (P) and logical (L, with E > P > L). These dimensions
have found support in research from different disciplines, such as
philosophy[17,18], psychology[19], education[20], social psychology[21] and
business administration[22,23].
As we know of no other formal theory pertaining to the entire value realm of
human experience, we selected the axiological model proposed by Hartman[16].
Because of its formal character the impact of the same type of value dimension
may be compared across different encounters. Moreover, the actual wording of
a certain item becomes less crucial, as it is presumed to correspond to a given
dimension. Also, it is evaluated simultaneously with two other items which
pertain to complementary value dimensions. As each value dimension may
have both a positive and negative inclination, the rating scale corresponding to
each item was anchored as very negative or positive at scale ends and neutral
in the middle.
A recent study developed and tested a rating form of 18 items corresponding
to the values of an hotel stay[23]. In this study, a simpler approach was taken.
For each defined encounter three context specific items (emotional, practical
and logical) were formulated pertaining to each one of the generic value
dimensions. These items will henceforth be termed underlying quality factors. Satisfaction
In order to let the underlying generic dimension stand out as much as possible during Delivery
the items were expressed with as few words as possible in a question format.
The aim was to phrase the essential elements of the item, namely, the “object”
Process
and the corresponding “value term”, e.g. correct (value term) booking (object),
as conforming as close to theory as possible.
The emotional items (Ei , for the ith encounter of the service delivery process) 7
therefore focused on the feeling of the respondent with regard to the “Gestalt
experience” of the encounter. The practical encounter items (Pi ) targeted on
physical and functional aspects of the encounter such as good, abundant and
easy to get food. The items corresponding to the logical dimension (Li ), finally,
centred on rational and abstract characteristics of the encounter, i.e. right or
wrong, correct or incorrect, etc. The wordings of the items were carefully
selected and pretested with regard to the applicability for the different
encounters during the service delivery process.
Our model of how the underlying quality factors impact on satisfaction may
be expressed as follows. There are a number of encounters through which
customers go in the course of their entire service experience. In our case there
are five such encounters, check-in, the room itself, the restaurant, breakfast and
check-out. At each encounter a customer’s cumulative satisfaction is affected by
both the most recent encounter of the whole hotel stay and by earlier
encounters.
The level of satisfaction at the ith encounter (labelled S i ) is a statement
about the service process up to the point of measurement. Si is determined by
the joint factors of the most recently experienced encounter (labelled Ei , Pi
and L i , for the emotional, practical and logical factors of the ith process
respectively). These factors need to be contextually developed and should
correspond to theoretically based value levels of human experience. In addition
to the experience factors of the most recent encounter of the service encounter,
S i is affected by E i-1, Pi-1 and Li-1, and so on, back to the initial encounter of
check-in. The final satisfaction level (S5 ) is then stored in long-term memory
until the service process is repeated the next time the guest either thinks about
or actually stays at the same hotel.
In this way, we hypothesize that a succession of encounters will affect the
overall satisfaction level differently during the service delivery process. By
measuring how satisfaction is affected by various encounters we are in a
position to relate quality endeavours to actual customer experiences, that is the
importance that these have in the eyes of the customers whom we consider to be
the key element in effective quality improvement work. Encounters that
decrease total satisfaction must then be the object of scrutiny. Which attributes
or quality factors impact negatively on satisfaction? Should these encounters be
improved or should they be removed?

Data Collection
The underlying aim was to measure how a total satisfaction measure was
affected during the service process. For each one of these five encounters (check-
European in, room, restaurant, breakfast and check-out) three context specific quality
Journal factors were formulated and pretested before the data collection. Also, an
of Marketing overall measure of satisfaction was asked for at the conclusion of the survey.
The collection of data was carried out during five busy weeks in early
28,5 December 1992 and in February 1993. Four target groups of the hotel were
included, namely, private, business, conference and group travellers. Normal
8 check-in periods during the weekdays (5.30 p.m.-8 p.m.) were used to pick out
business and conference hotel guests on a random basis until at least 35-40
guests had been included in each target group (and both genders). For
weekends, when mainly group and private travellers stayed at the hotel, more
flexible time periods were used. Respondents were screened so that only those
who were staying one night were surveyed. This way each respondent
experienced each encounter just once. In addition, there was a reasonably short
time between check-in and check-out, so that respondents easily recalled all
their encounters when making their overall evaluation of the service.
Items were formulated as a short question and answers were rated on an 11-
point scale, where each scale step was divided into five minor steps. Rating was
done by marking the degree of quality somewhere on the scale. Three faces
(smiling = 10, angry = 0 and neutral = 5) anchored the scale ends and the
middle part.
In this way, quick and spontaneous ratings of the four measures (Ei, Pi, Li and
S i ) were given on a rating form for each encounter immediately after
experiencing it. The relevant part of the form was then torn off the main form
along a perforated line and handed in to the hotel manager, an assistant or a
specially designed letter-box at reception. Thereafter data were collated by the
accounts manager.
Data were collected from some 150 guests who were selected in a random
manner by asking every fifth arrival to participate in the study. The hotel
manager asked the guest, just having checked in, if he or she wanted to
participate in the study. If the guest agreed, he or she was informed about how
to rate each encounter and how to put the relevant part of the form in the letter
box. An incentive (a small present) was sent to the home address of respondents
who completed the entire form (or just the encounters relevant to them).

Measures
Each part of the form concerned an encounter along “the path” of the hotel
guest. The check-in encounter had the following questions (comprising the
quality factors): Nice treatment? (E1) Quick check-in? (P1) and Correct booking?
(L1) How satisfied are you now? (S1) The first item refers to the emotional value
dimension, i.e. you feel something about your first encounter. The second item
concerns the practical value dimension. Were the activities of the receptionist
efficient? Did you have to stand in line and wait long? The third item refers to
the logical dimension. Was the booking correct, i.e. did you as a guest receive
what you had agreed on? In other words was it right or wrong? Finally, the
satisfaction measure is expressed as the degree of satisfaction at a certain point Satisfaction
in time, i.e. after checking-in. during Delivery
The room encounter had the following quality factors for the three value
dimensions. Cosy room? (E2) Are furniture and equipment useful? (P2) Value for
Process
money? (L2) The first refers to the feeling of the atmosphere in the room, the
second to its practicality and the third to the rational money aspect. The three
restaurant value dimensions were: Fine atmosphere? (E3) Good food? (P3) Value 9
for money? (L 3) The breakfast encounter had the following factors: Calm
atmosphere? (E4) Abundant and easy to get food? (P4) Good selection of food?
(L4) The changes in wording were done to capture essential characteristics of a
Scandinavian hotel where breakfast is normally included in the room-rate and
not directly paid for by the guest. Instead, guests seem to pay attention to the
abundance of food and to getting through the meal quickly.
The final check-out encounter had the same wording for the emotional
and practical quality factors as for check-in. The logical value dimension
was changed to Correct bill? (L 5), as this often is of great concern to guests
and faults may easily materialize. The hotel’s managers told us that this is a
critical moment that may crucially determine the final outcome of satisfaction,
especially if anything goes wrong.
Results and Discussion
Figure 1 gives the average satisfaction scores for each of the five encounters of
the hotel stay. It is important to note that all the differences in the means are
significant at the 5 per cent level. There is a clear trend in the results: check-in
results in high satisfaction, the room is not so satisfying, the restaurant rates
the worst (for those 72 guests that used the restaurant), the satisfaction scores
rise again after the breakfast experience and rise once more after check-out.
Notice, in particular, that the average satisfaction score after check-out is
lower than the check-in score, perhaps indicating a drop in service quality
subsequent to check-out. This drop might also be a result of a learning process
for the guests. The check-in process seems to be pleasant, perhaps giving
guests the impression the hotel is “classy”. However, as guests proceed with
their stay, the room and restaurant are not consistent with their initial
impressions and, therefore, there is a drop in satisfaction scores. This drop is
partially made up for by good breakfast and check-out experiences. Whatever
the possible reasons might be for the overall drop in satisfaction from
beginning to end of the stay, the fact is that the rooms and restaurant do not
compare favourably with check-in and check-out, although breakfast compares
favourably with the restaurant.
Recall that the satisfaction question “How satisfied are you now?” was asked
four times, subsequent to each of the first four encounters of service delivery.
Hence, S i is determined jointly by the components of the most recently
experienced encounter (Ei, Pi and Li) and all of the components of the previous
encounters (Ei-1, Pi-1 and Li-1) and so on, back to the initial encounter of check-in.
It is natural to expect respondents to be influenced by the most recent encounter
of their entire service encounter when formulating their current satisfaction
European level. For instance, S 4 , the current satisfaction score after the breakfast
Journal encounter, is expected to be largely influenced by E4, P4 and L4, the quality
factors of the breakfast encounter, rather than quality factors of the check-in
of Marketing encounter.
28,5 We examined this by conducting a factor analysis based of all 4 × 5 = 20
answered questions. This enabled us to find the encounters and quality factors
10 that were most closely related. As there were five encounters, we hypothesized
a five-factor solution. In fact, this solution explained 78 per cent of the variation.
The rotated factor loadings (using varimax rotation) are given in Table I. Factor
1 is made up of the breakfast encounter and overall satisfaction, showing the
strong relationship of the breakfast encounter to both its quality factors and, in
turn, to overall satisfaction. Factor 2 is mostly check-in and check-out. In
particular, the emotional and practical factors of the checking in and out
encounters are related. Factor three is entirely the room encounter, while factor
four is entirely the restaurant. Finally, the fifth factor is the logical part of
check-in and check-out. All of the first four encounters load highly and
collectively on one of the factors. The check-out encounter’s satisfaction
question differs from the others in that the question was more global “How
satisfied are you with your stay at the hotel, in its entirety?” This is probably the
reason why S5 does not correlate very strongly with the E5, P5 and L5, but rather
with the encounter that relates strongly with overall satisfaction, namely, the
breakfast. It is also interesting to see how check-in and check-out are paired up
by respondents, despite the time lapse between the evaluation of these two
encounters.
The factor analysis of Table I shows the strong influence of the most recent
encounter on current guest satisfaction. Furthermore, it shows that S i is
strongly related to Ei, Pi and Li, as opposed to the quality factors of the previous
encounters (Ei-1, Pi-1, Li-1, etc.). Hence we regard Si as a proxy for the satisfaction
scores for the three quality factors of the ith encounter. For this reason, we
conducted a two-step approach to assess the impact of quality factors on overall
satisfaction. The first step was to investigate the influence of the first four
major encounters on overall satisfaction. The second step examined the
influence of the ith encounter’s quality factors on the current satisfaction level
(Si). The nested models are depicted below.
Dependent variable Independent variables
Step 1
S5 S4S3S2 S1
Step 2
S1 E1P1L1
S2 E2P2L2
S3 E3P3L3
S4 E4P4L4
S5 E5P5L5
We used logistic regression rather than OLS for each of the six regression
models as the dependent variable was highly skewed towards 9 and 10, thereby
 Satisfaction
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 during Delivery
Check in E1 –0.015 0.770* 0.277 0.077 –0.142 Process
P1 –0.055 0.747* 0.158 0.032 0.010
L1 –0.110 –0.027* 0.383 0.219 0.627*
S1 –0.002 0.721* 0.263 0.039 0.193
11
Room E2 0.133 0.120 0.765* 0.133 –0.099
P2 0.038 0.333 0.639* 0.024 0.043
L2 0.532 0.169 0.598* –0.011 –0.077
S2 0.110 0.189 0.820* 0.208 0.235
Restaurant E3 0.309 –0.029 0.336 0.610* –0.335
P3 0.186 0.235 0.224 0.511* –0.492
L3 0.185 0.102 0.023 0.836* 0.041
S3 0.091 0.055 0.147 0.912* 0.151
Breakfast E4 0.769* 0.281 –0.068 0.272 0.098
P4 0.882* –0.038 0.084 0.101 –0.220
L4 0.850* –0.118 0.174 –0.022 –0.281
S4 0.804* 0.057 0.130 0.367 0.085
Check-out E5 0.199 0.568* 0.433 0.011 –0.312
P5 0.473 0.711* –0.085 –0.053 0.138
L5 0.490 0.373 –0.158 –0.123 0.495*
S5 0.816* 0.073 0.301 0.184 0.145 Table I.
Rotated Factor Pattern,
Note:
Using Varimax
The highest loadings on each variable have been asterisked. Some 78 per cent of the Rotation, for All
variation is explained by these five factors Variables in the
Questionnaire

violating the normality assumption of OLS regression[24]. Moreover, as a

sizeable proportion of the respondents actually scored 10 out of 10, no
transformation of the dependent variable would alleviate the skewness[25].
Therefore, each dependent variable was categorized into four categories of
< 7.5, ≥7.5 < 8.5, ≥ 8.5 < 9.5 and ≥ 9.5. As the dependent variable is now ordinal
rather than ratio-scaled, OLS regression is inappropriate. Instead, we used
logistic regression with the four-category dependent variable. The SAS
procedure LOGISTIC[26] was used with the proportional odds link function.
The stepwise feature of this procedure was used to find the subset of the
independent variables that gave the most efficient model. Only the 46 people
who filled in all 20 parts of the questionnaire were used in these regressions as
regression requires responses for all of the independent variables. Obviously
this biases the sample to only those who rated each of the five delivery stages.
Less than half the guests used the restaurant and this was the main reason for
there being only 46 respondents used in the logistic regression analysis. We
calculated the average satisfaction scores for these 46 guests and found that
European their scores were very close to those shown in Figure 1, indicating that the
Journal subset of guests used in the logistic regression analysis was not very different
from the entire sample.
of Marketing Table II gives the final models resulting from the stepwise analysis, with only
28,5 significant independent variables shown (p-value <0.05). Notice that the order
of presentation of the quality factors also indicates the order of importance of
12 the factors.
The results of step 1 are interesting. The breakfast has the largest impact on
overall satisfaction, followed by the room, with nothing else being significant at
the 5 per cent level. It is particularly noteworthy that the restaurant is not a
significant factor in determining overall satisfaction, yet it had the worst
satisfaction scores in Figure 1. That is, although the restaurant rates poorly, it
is not important in determining the overall satisfaction with the hotel stay. One
possible explanation for the non-importance of the restaurant is that guests
make a distinction between the hotel and the restaurant, one being where you
stay and the other where you eat (note that the breakfast is deliberately
associated with the hotel, being included with the room rate). Therefore their
overall satisfaction with the hotel appears to be an assessment of the hotel and
not its restaurant. This has major managerial implications. Should
management revamp the restaurant to improve its standard or axe it
altogether? The results here favour the latter. This contrasts with the usual gap
analysis where managers would focus on the part of the process that has the
largest gap between customer expectations and service delivery. Hence,
although it is natural to focus on the part of the hotel that rates the poorest, the
restaurant, this will not have an influence on overall satisfaction with the hotel.
Of course, the availability of a restaurant may be a satisfaction factor that
might become important if it were removed.
The significance of the room is even more striking when it is realized that the
room part of the questionnaire is filled in before the restaurant, and certainly
well before the final check-out part of the questionnaire. As we noted earlier,

10
9.0
8.4 8.6
8.3
7.8
8
Average satisfaction score

Figure 1. 2
Average Satisfaction
Scores at Each of the
Five Encounters of the 0
Check-in Room Restaurant Breakfast Check-out
Hotel Stay
respondents tend to be influenced by the most recent encounter when filling in Satisfaction
the current satisfaction score. Therefore it is remarkable that the room still has a during Delivery
significant influence on overall satisfaction, even after the check-out encounter.
Table II also gives the results of the second step of the analysis. These results
Process
are specific to particular encounters of the hotel and can be used to improve that
part of the process. At check-in the most influential factor is nice treatment of
the guests. Guests like to be pampered and made to feel important. Improving 13
this factor will improve satisfaction with the check-in encounter. The hotel’s
receptionists are reputed to be very friendly and call the guests by their first
name. Clearly this friendliness is important to the guests.
The room is evaluated precisely according to the value realm theory of E > P
> L. In fact, it is the only encounter where all three factors are significant.
Another factor that may influence respondents’ ratings of their room is that this
is the encounter to which they are exposed for the longest time. Hence, they
have more time to consider their opinions of the room.
Recall from Figure 1 that the restaurant had a comparatively poor rating.
Table II shows that what is important to guests is not the food but the value for
money and the atmosphere. As it happens the restaurant is quite expensive and
is very large and rather “cold”. As many of the business guests have a fixed
meal allowance, they are very conscious of the expense of the restaurant.
The breakfast encounter is dominated by the desire for a calm atmosphere
(almost all guests have breakfast in a special breakfast room rather than in their
own room). Here the food is important, not the assortment, but rather the
quantity.

Step 1
Overall satisfaction (S5) Current satisfaction at breakfast encounter (S4)
Current satisfaction at room encounter (S2)
Step 2
Satisfaction after check-in encounter (S1) Nice treatment at check-in (E1)
Correct booking at check-in (L1)
Satisfaction after room encounter (S2) Cosy room (E2)
Room furniture and equipment easy to use (P2)
Value for money for the room (L2)
Satisfaction after restaurant encounter (S3) Value for money in the restaurant (L3)
Nice atmosphere in the restaurant (E3)
Satisfaction after breakfast encounter (S4) Calm atmosphere at breakfast (E4)
Table II.
Abundant and easy to get food at breakast (P4) Results of the Nested
Satisfaction after check-out encounter (S5) Correct bill at check-out (L5) Logistic Regressions
Quick check-out (P5) Showing Only the
Significant Independent
Note: Variables, in Order of
Sample size is 46, being only those people who answered all parts of the questionnaire Importance at Each
Encounter
European Finally, the check-out encounter is not emotional. Guests just want to check out
Journal and be done with it. Therefore the correct bill and quick check-out are important.
of Marketing
Conclusion
28,5 It is evident that the service delivery process can be broken down into distinct
encounters that comprise the main parts of the entire process. Some of these may
14 be an interaction with the provider (such as check-in), while others may not (such
as the room). The notion of the process and its outcome really refers to sub-
processes and their satisfaction outcomes. To maintain overall satisfaction, each
encounter has to maintain its own satisfaction levels separately. As Si can be
viewed as a proxy for Ei, Pi and Li, it is difficult to distinguish between the
quality factors of the encounter and its satisfaction output. Each encounter
becomes an “object” in the service delivery process. Therefore we have found
additional support for modelling different “objects” in the service[13]. Each
object (as seen in Table II) is evaluated differently, both as to total satisfaction
outcome, and along the value dimensions (E, P and L) that correspond to the
different types of attributes for each encounter. This supports a cognitive-based
approach to measuring satisfaction, which infers a wider interpretation of the
satisfaction concept than marketing scholars have hitherto taken. However, this
necessitates a context-specific number of attributes pertaining to a particular
encounter. A standard approach of measuring gaps[4] is less valuable for
measuring micro-processes within a wider service delivery process. We
recommend process-specific attributes to be the focus of quality improvement
work.
Of high managerial value is the result that overall satisfaction with the entire
service delivery depends mainly on the room and breakfast encounters. This is
the core of the hotel process, and indicates that quality improvement efforts
should be directed primarily at these two encounters in order to raise overall
satisfaction. The restaurant encounter may be viewed as unnecessary, almost as
another “object”. Closing down this part of the business means that considerable
resources can be redirected into improving other encounters. However, the
restaurant accounts for about half of the staff of the hotel, so closing it down may
not be a viable option. In addition, management believe it is traditionally
necessary to operate a large restaurant to cater for conference guests, even
though the restaurant impacts negatively on satisfaction and runs at a loss. As
it is, the customer who views the parts of the process determines which “objects”
the service provider delivers. If the hotel management is unwilling to close the
restaurant, an alternative strategy might be to integrate it with the usual
functions of the hotel, such as breakfast.
Since only three quality factors explained a large part of the variation for each
encounter’s satisfaction, we have found further evidence to support Hartman’s
value dimensions. Of course, it is important to have as few items as possible
when measuring satisfaction during service processes via a self-completion
questionnaire, as the ratings have to be recorded quickly and spontaneously
subsequent to the experienced encounter. The three-factor value dimensions
provided a succinct summary of each encounter, without going into details of Satisfaction
specific experiences (sub-attributes), resulting in a simple, one-page during Delivery
questionnaire. This contrasts with telephone surveys of customer satisfaction, Process
where the methodology permits much more detailed evaluation of the sub-
attributes of the service encounter[3,27].
In this study we used scales with symbols (from smiling to frowning faces).
Other popular scales are semantic differentials and Likert-type, such as 15
excellent, good, fair and poor[3,24,27]. Further research is needed to assess
which scale is best for eliciting reliable ratings for process measures.
The satisfaction with the final check-out encounter was not assessed in
exactly the same way as for the other encounters. Instead respondents were
asked to rate the entire process, rather than the most recent encounter. This had
a predictable effect on the logistic regression for S5, namely the fit of S5 against
E5, P5 and L5 was not so good as for the other four regressions (see Table II). It
seems that valid satisfaction scores have to be measured directly after encounter
exposure. Hence encounter-specific satisfaction should be measured
immediately after the process is complete, while overall satisfaction should be
measured after the complete service delivery.
We believe this study demonstrates the practicality of measuring cognitively-
based satisfaction during an actual service delivery process. To instigate quality
improvements for a particular encounter, further research into the details of that
encounter are usually required to capture the dynamics of that sub-process. We
can make one global conclusion, namely, that processes have to be managed
around the “core” encounters which impact significantly on overall satisfaction.
If managers understand the process dynamics of their service operations, they
are better placed to deliver quality service.

References
1. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L., “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and
Its Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 49, Fall 1985, pp. 41-50.
2. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L., “SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for
Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring
1988, pp. 12-40.
3. Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. and Kenningham, T.L., “Return on Quality:A Decision Support
System for Profit-based Quality Improvements”, working paper, Vanderbilt University,
1993.
4. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. A., “Refinement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, 1991, pp. 420-50.
5. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A., “The Nature and Determinants of
Customer Expectations of Service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21
No. 1, 1993, pp. 1-12.
6. Wirtz, J. and Bateson, J.E.G., “Consumer Satisfaction with Services: Opening up the
Disconfirmation Paradigm”, paper presented at the 2nd International Research Seminar in
Service Management, 5-8 June 1992, La-Londe-les-Maures, France.
7. Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T., “The Relationship between Service Quality, Satisfaction
and Intentions”, working paper 273, Swedish School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsinki, Finland, 1992.
European 8. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. A., “A Dynamic Process Model of
Service Quality: From Expectations to Intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30,
Journal February 1993, pp. 7-27.
of Marketing 9. Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. and Tetreault, M.S., “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable
28,5 and Unfavorable Incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, January 1990, pp. 71-84.
10. Claycomb, V. A. and Mowen, J.C., “On Consumer Managerial Judgements of Product
Quality and Satisfaction: The Marketing Lens Model”, paper presented at the QUIS3
16 Conference, 14-17 June 1992, Karlstad, Sweden.
11. Oliver, R., “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, Fall 1981, pp. 25-48.
12. Brown, S.W. and Swartz, T.A., “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, April 1989, pp. 92-8.
13. Singh, J., “Understanding the Structure of Consumers’ Satisfaction Evaluations of Service
Delivery”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 223-44.
14. Mattsson, J., “Improving Service Quality in Person-to-Person Encounters: Integrating
Findings from a Multidisciplinary Review”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1,
1994 (in press).
15. Armstrong, P.K., “Analyzing Quality in the Service Delivery Process”, paper presented at
the Service Productivity and Quality Challenge Conference, The Wharton School, 23-24
October 1992.
16. Hartman, R.S., The Structure of Value: Foundations of a Scientific Axiology, Southern
Illinois Press, Carbondale, IL, 1967.
17. Hartman, R.S., The Hartman Value Profile (HVP): Manual of Interpretation, Research
Concepts, Muskegon, MI, 1973.
18. Moore, M., “Is an Ethical Theory Defensible?”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Department
of Philosophy, University of Tennessee, 1973.
19. Elliott, B.C., “Item Homogeneity and Factorial Invariance for Normative and Ipsative
Responses to the Hartman Value Inventory”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of
Psychology, University of Tennessee, 1969.
20. Lohman, J.S., “The Professor’s Influence on the Student’s Capacity to Value”, unpublished
PhD dissertation, Department of Education, Boston University, 1968.
21. Austin, J.J. and Garwood, B.A., “The Relationship of the Hartman Value Profile (HVP),
Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (AVL) and
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development (KMD): A Series of Axiometric Studies”, paper
presented at the 1977 National Association of School Psychologists Convention, Cincinnati,
1977.
22. Mattsson, J., Better Business by the ABC of Values, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1991.
23. Mattsson J., “A Service Quality Model Based on an Ideal Value Standard”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1992, pp. 18-33.
24. Petersen, R.A. and Wilson, W.R., “Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Fact and Artifact”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, 1992, pp. 61-71.
25. Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and Kutner, M.H., Applied Linear Statistical Models, 2nd edition,
Irwin, IL, 1985.
26. SAS Institute, SAS/STAT User’s Guide, SAS Institute, North Carolina, NC, 1992.
27. Danaher, P.J. and Gallagher, R., “Modelling Customer Satisfaction in Telecom New
Zealand”, unpublished Working Paper, University of Auckland, 1990.

Further Reading
Bitner, M.J., “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee
Responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 54, April 1990, pp. 69-82.