Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery ...

Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011)

439

Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have Different Viewpoints? Chia-Lin Hsu1 1

Chin-Sen Lin2

Mu-Chen Chen3*

Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology 2 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, China University of Science and Technology 3 Institute of Traffic and Transportation, National Chiao Tung University (Received 08/2009; Revised 10/2010; Revised 11/2010; Accepted 12/2010)

Abstract This paper attempts to investigate and discuss the discrepancy between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations (Gap 1) in the home delivery (HD) industry. This paper utilizes a review of the literature to postulates that: the significant relationships between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and the sociodemographic variables; and there are significant differences between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations. Theses hypotheses are tested in an empirical study with data from a survey among 105 management executives of HD companies and 426 customers who had used HD services within one year. From the results, we find the relationship between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations (Gap 1) presents a significant difference. Nonetheless, no evidence has been found to support the relationships between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and the sociodemographic variables. This paper explores the status of logistics service quality from the viewpoints of service providers and customers in the home delivery industry. Keywords: logistics, home delivery, service quality, SERVQUAL

1. INTRODUCTION Past research indicated that effective quality management can improve organizational performance (Ahire et al., 1996; Samson and Terziovski, 1999). Furthermore, service quality had been viewed as an important weapon which is used to create competitive advantage in logistics service environment. The important of service quality in the context is manifest. We acknowledge that service quality has been a frequently studied topic in the service marketing literature, and it has been tried by investigators to study and define what service quality *

Correspondence: Institute of Traffic and Transportation, National Chiao Tung University 4F, No. 118, Section 1, Chung Hsiao W. Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan, R.O.C. E-mail: [email protected]

440

Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have Different Viewpoints?

really is in the last three decades. Parasuraman et al. (2005) found from early studies that service quality stems from the comparison of what customers feel a company should offer and the company’s actual service performance. Even though companies are realizing the importance of service quality and customer satisfaction; however, it is not easy to achieve these goals for these companies. In recent years, studies on service encounters have increased in the fields of relationship marketing, and it is because the interaction between frontline and customers can directly provide clues for management to improve and maintain the service quality to retain customers. Moreover, since services are easy to be imitated and introduced, the practitioners need to provide attractive tangible and intangible services to keep their customers and improve the service quality, and finally the perceived value will be delivered to their customers. For the logistics industry, nowadays, the providers of transportation, warehousing and other logistics services involved in the collection, consolidation, storage, handling, reloading, tracking and controlling the movement and storage of goods represent a significant part of the logistics transactions. The new type of logistics services, for example, door-to-door (D2D) delivery (or home delivery) service, has become essential based not only on product features but also superior logistics services. In particular, providing a home delivery service (HDS) has played a critical role in improving the convenience of on-line transactions and the physical distribution of goods. Thereby, many companies have come to accept the notion that the superior delivery process toward customers can create a sustainable competitiveness in the market. A consequence is that a growing number of shippers require fast, reliable, customized and cost-effective logistics processes and services (Persson and Virum, 2001). Moreover, from the past few years, the emerging e-grocery business provides the grocers with the keys to nothing less than a shopping revolution (Smjaros et al., 2000). Efforts in the e-grocery business have focused on improving the purchase transaction and physical distribution of goods. In order to become a profitable growth business, Smjaros et al. (2000) concluded that the e-grocers have to move from simply selling physical products to offering their customers with convenience and free time. Hence, HDS is undoubtedly of value for busy families or people who are limited in their capacity to go to the store. HDS has recognized as a means to gain a competitive advantage. One aspect has remained unchanged, that is perfect logistics performance is difficult to achieve due to lateness of delivery, product damage, stock-out, and other failures which negatively impact the performance (Voss et al., 2005). In order to pursue higher levels of service and improve performance, many firms have begun to measure their service quality levels in order to discover home delivery (HD) opportunities yet to be leveraged. Literature on assessing service quality has been well discussed in the past three decades (e.g., Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988, 1993). Yet we believe that these laudable studies need some further grounded empirical research to help improve the validity of previous claims. Furthermore, in previous studies, relatively few have taken a dyadic view of the evaluation of consumer expectations and management perceptions of consumer expectations (Gap 1), that is, from the perspectives of both the customer and the service provider. Hence, additionally, we seek to provide supporting empirical evidence in our study and suggest to HD practitioners to improve their services by comparing consumer expectations with management perceptions of consumer expectations across dimensions. By doing so, service providers can identify the shortfalls or surplus concerning their service provision, and thereby redistribute resources to improve service quality (Parasuraman et al.,


441

1994). In summary, HDSs are selected as the object for investigation. In order to achieve the answer of above-research questions, in this study, we will use SERVQUAL instrument to investigate the discrepancy between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations. In addition, we will also verify whether there is a relationship between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and the sociodemographic variables. In this paper, we focus on studying one of the issues in Gap 1, what levels of performance on the service features are needed to deliver high quality service as indicated in Parasuraman et al. (1985). However, what features a service must have in order to meet customers’ needs as indicated in Parasuraman et al. (1985) is not considered in this study. The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2, the related literature is reviewed. The hypotheses of this study are proposed as an outcome of the literature review and as an extension of it. The research methodology involving the sample and data collection and measurement are presented in Section 3. In Section 4, the survey results of this study are analyzed. The conclusions and suggestions are respectively presented in Sections 5 and 6. Finally, the limitations and future directions of this study are provided in Section 7.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1

Home delivery industry and its services

In recent years, home delivery (HD) industry has become a critical component of extended supply chains which designed to build stronger relationships with customers (Boyer et al., 2003). Home delivery means all goods consigned to customers’ homes or another designated site by customers rather than customers have to personally pick the goods or ship them in person. Nowadays, however, the delivery process has been accomplished by specialty logistics firms rather than by customers themselves. In addition, there are several reasons to illustrate that HDSs are increasingly rising and developing. First, sellers can provide additional services to customers, for example, when the situation of stockout occurs, home delivery services are able to avoid customers to make another visit to stores. Secondly, the size or weight of goods makes it difficult to carry by customers themselves. Thirdly, more and more customers perform Internet and TV shopping. Thus, customers can receive the ordered goods via the HDS from sellers’ warehouses or joint service providers of third party logistics (3PLs) to homes. As described above, owing to the reasons, the need of HDSs is increasing, and HDSs are value-added services additionally provided by sellers. HDSs can be viewed as one part of the overall logistics services. Logistics services play a vital role for enterprise’s success (Mentzer and Williams, 2001). Excellent logistics has a positive impact on profit (Mentzer and Williams, 2001). For instance, anecdotal evidence from companies like Dehyuyll Computer Corporation, Nabisco, and Federal Express also suggested that logistics excellence has a significant impact on revenue and profitability (Mentzer and Williams, 2001). Therefore, effectively harmonizing logistics services with marketing can help a firm gain an advantage over competitors (Mentzer and Williams, 2001). Besides, sellers are expected to be able to provide more complete and integrated logistics services adapted and geared to the specific needs of customers (Persson and Virum, 2001). Andersen (1997) described that one of the most frequently mentioned competitive advantage opportunities for smaller firms is their provision of personal and value-added services. Therefore, HD or D2D service could be developed to become one of the primary customized types of logistics services. Coyle et al. (2003) indicated that the superior

442


logistics could then play a value-added role to enterprises instead of a cost-spent one.

2.2

Related service quality research

Historically, all service encounters virtually took place with an employee and a customer presence. Because of this, there are many service encounter studies which have focused on interpersonal interaction, mainly between customers and firm employees (Meuter et al., 2000). The service quality perceived by customers when they are receiving the service is considered to be highly important. Service quality is by nature a subjective concept, which means that understanding how the customer thinks about service quality is essential to effective management. In other words, service quality is the consumers’ judgment about the overall excellence or superiority of a service. Gronroos (1984) defined service quality as the outcome of an evaluation process where the consumer compares his expectations with the service he perceived he has received. Parasuraman et al. (1985) regarded service quality as the gap between customers’ expectation and their perception of the actual experienced services. Parasuraman et al. (1985) developed a conceptual model of service quality which indicates that consumers’ quality perceptions are influenced by a series of four distinct gaps occurring in organizations, and these four gaps are on the service provider’s side, and which impede the provision of services that consumers consider to be important. The four gaps are: Gap 1: Difference between consumer expectations and management perceptions of consumer expectations. Gap 2: Difference between management perceptions of consumer expectations and service quality specifications. Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered. Gap 4: Difference between service delivery and what is communicated about the service to consumers. Besides, from the consumer’s side, there is Gap 5 which is defined as the difference between consumer expectations and perceptions, and which is also described as the perceived service quality in the model. Moreover, Parasuraman et al. (1988) viewed service quality as the gap between consumer expectation and their perception of the actual service. Thus, the difference in Gap 1 from the management (service provider) side has been relatively rarely discussed in academic study, and it is valuable to discuss from this viewpoint, especially for service providers. Quality is distinguishable and derives from customers’ expectations. Thus, it is crucial to recognize and prioritize expectations for services and on the basis of these expectations to improve service quality (Goodman et al., 1986). Understanding customers’ expectations allow managers and employees to make effort to satisfy them. In addition, it is also worth to note that customers’ expectations from one type of service may not hold for another type of service (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).

2.3

The SERVQUAL instrument

The SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988) has become an important way to measure service quality by comparing customers’ expectations to their perceptions or experiences of actual services (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Of the SERVQUAL considered, five different dimensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) of service quality construct with a 22-item/variable were found to be of most importance to customers. SERVQUAL scale is regarded as a leading measure instrument of service quality (e.g., Karatepe et al., 2005).


443

Although numerous studies have the debate of whether SERVQUAL or SERVPERF should be used for measuring service quality (Cui et al., 2003; Hudson et al., 2004; Jain and Gupta, 2004; Kettinger and Lee, 1997; Mukherjee and Nath, 2005; Quester and Romaniuk, 1997), Carrillat et al. (2007) have showed that SERVQUAL and SERVPERF are equally valid predictors of overall service quality. Moreover, Carrillat et al. (2007) manifested that adapting the SERVQUAL scale to the measurement context improves its predictive validity; conversely, the predictive validity of SERVPERF is not improved by context adjustments. Additionally, in terms of validity and reliability, Robledo (2001) revealed that the SERVPERF was not an efficient measurement scale. Then, Carrillat et al. (2007) indicated that the SERVQUAL scale would have greater interest for practitioners due to its richer diagnostic value. By comparing customer expectations of service with perceived service across dimensions, managers enable to identify service shortfalls and use this information to allocate resources to improve service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1994). Thus, the SERVQUAL scale constitutes an important landmark in the service quality literature and has been widely applied in different service sectors. Nevertheless, researchers need to adapt the measure to the context of the study when SERVQUAL is used (Carrillat et al., 2007). Specifically, practitioners using SERVQUAL for overall service quality diagnostic purposes need to spend greater effort in modifying the scale for context. Furthermore, along with using SERVQUAL scale, Kassim and Bojei (2002) tested whether there is a significant relationship between the sociodemographic variables and the perception of service quality. They found that customers with different sociodemographic characteristics perceive quality in a different level. The finding provides an initial direction in determining companies’ optimal resources allocation when they offer services to customers with different sociodemographic characteristics. Numerous demographic characteristic studies have been accomplished in western countries (e.g., Webster, 1989; Gagliano and Hathcote, 1994; Webb, 1998). Demographic characteristic information in Taiwan is surely relatively lacking. This study, therefore, uses sociodemographic variables (such as gender, marital status, age, education, and seniority) that may influence executive perceptions of customers’ expectations in the HD industry. The following hypotheses describe the relationships between sociodemographic variables (gender, marital status, age, education and seniority) and executive perceptions of customers’ expectations, and the differences between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations in the HD industry. Hypothesis 1: There are significant relationships between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and sociodemographic variables. Hypothesis 2: There are significant differences between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations in the HD industry.

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1

Sample and data collection

The design of questionnaire follows the stages outlined by SERVQUAL, and some attributes are reworded to make them more applicable to HDS. After a review of the literature and interviews with HDS experts and executives, 22 service quality stating questions following SERVQUAL instrument are developed in the questionnaire. The object of the questionnaire is twofold: to distribute the customers who had used HDS within one year and to distribute the executives of HD

444


companies. The further details of the questionnaire will be clarified as following. The questionnaire for the consumers of HDS is divided into four parts. The first part is designed to realize the demographic profile such as the consumers’ gender, marital status, age, education and occupation. The second part is designed to realize the domain of respondents understanding the status of HD companies. The third part is designed to measure the expectation of services offered by HDS providers (1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important). The fourth part is designed to realize how the customers receiving service information from HDS providers, and it includes how many times using the HDS per year, the contents of packages, the perception of prices charged, and what factors affecting consumers’ perceptions of their service. The questionnaire for the management executives of HD companies is divided into two parts. The first part is designed to measure executive perceptions of customers’ expectations. The management executives are asked to rate each of the statements on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 indicating very unimportant to 5 indicating very important for perceptions of service providing. The second part is designed to realize the basic information of respondents (management executives of HD companies), and it includes the respondents’ gender, marital status, age, education, seniority, and business title of working department. Two different questionnaires are delivered to the customers of HDS and the management executives of HD companies separately. The questionnaires have been pre-tested and revised where necessary. The questionnaire’s content validity has been tested through a theoretical review and pilot test. Samples of the customers of HDS are collected from the consumers who have the experience using HDS in Taiwan. To summarize, the prospective respondents (customers) are randomly drawn from those customers who had used HDS within one year. A total of 537 questionnaires were sent and resulting in 426 useable responses, representing a response rate of 89%. In addition, for HD companies, data from 8 respondents (executives) are dropped because they fail to response the proper items. Thus, data from 105 respondents remained for inclusion in the analysis.

3.2

Measures

SPSS 12.0 is used to analyze the data including descriptive statistics and reliability. The reliability analysis of each construct is well above a Cronbach alpha value of 0.6, which is considered adequate for a satisfactory level of reliability (Sekaran, 1992). The result shows that the reliabilities of all the constructs (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) are between 0.63 and 0.90, and thus conforms the test of reliability. Next, regarding the validity analysis, we conduct two types to further prove its existence of convergent validity and discriminant validity. Nunnally (1978) proposed that convergent validity will hold when each indicator’s factor loading is more than 0.5. Table 1 presents the results of the test for convergent validity due to each indicator’s factor loading as being more than 0.5. In this context, discriminant validity is assessed by using Chi-square difference test (Torkzadeh et al., 2003). Observing the results shown in Table 2, all Chi-square differences show significance. The results of Table 2 provide evidence of discriminant validity among the latent variables as well.

4. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The empirical analyses are implemented by using appropriate statistics methods, such as descriptive statistics, correlation coefficient and t test.


445

Table 1. Measures of convergent validity for constructs Latent variable

Indicators

Completely standardized loadings

t-values

Tangibles

Tan1

0.68 a

----- a

Tan2

0.69

11.77

Tan3

0.74

12.30

Tan4

0.67

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

11.40 a

----- a

Rel5

0.66

Rel6

0.81

14.04

Rel7

0.78

13.75

Rel8

0.71

12.74 a

----- a

Res9

0.70

Res10

0.66

12.67

Res11

0.79

15.07

Res12

0.68

13.01

Res13

0.60

11.66 a

----- a

Ass14

0.76

Ass15

0.74

15.23

Ass16

0.74

15.30

Ass17

0.58

11.58

Ass18

0.59

11.92

Ass19

0.73

15.07 a

----- a

Emp20

0.78

Emp21

0.80

16.23

Emp22

0.58

11.58

Note: a Displays a parameter fixed at 1.0 in the original solution

Table 2. Measures of discriminant validity Factor

No. of items

Tangibles

Reliability

Tangibles

4

Reliability

4

(149.33)a

Responsiveness

5

(162.56)

(66.16)

Assurance

6

(189.76)

(231.99)

(47.65)

Empathy

3

(189.34)

(118.01)

(32.98)

Note: a Chi-square differences provided in parentheses (p < .01)

Responsiveness

Assurance

(63.82)

Empathy

446


4.1

Sociodemographic profile

The sociodemographic profile of respondents of customers is summarized as follows. Most of the respondents of customers are male (55.0%), unmarried (83.0%), 21-39 (76.0%) age group, had at least the college degree (93.0%), and are student (45.0%) and commercial (22.0%). The utilization information of HDS of respondents is summarized as follows. Most of the respondents get the source of the information from HDS station (e.g., convenient store) (79.0%), use the HDS less than 3 times (46.0%) and 4-6 times (35.0%) per year, deliver documents/books (35.0%) and daily essentials (32.0%), and have an appropriate service price perception (54.0%) and have an overly expensive service price perception (45.0%). The sociodemographic profile of respondents of executives is summarized as follows. Most of the respondents of executives are male (88.0%), unmarried (54.0%), 31-40 (44.0%) and 21-30 (42.0%) age groups, have the senior high school or below degree (61.0%), and have a less than 5 years seniority (73.0%).

4.2 The correlation between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and sociodemographic variables The results of Pearson Correlation Analysis are summarized in Table 3. The coefficient correlations are ranging from -.02 to .16 across all of the factors for the sample involved. A weak association exists between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and sociodemographic factors such as education (r = .16). As well, a weak level of association is evident between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and gender (r = -.11), marital status (r = -.10), age (r = -.02) and seniority (r = -.08); the negative coefficients indicating a larger difference between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and sociodemographic factors.

4.3

The analysis of Gap 1

Investigating the customers’ expectations and executive perceptions of customers’ expectations (Table 4), the highest expectation item for customers is that ‘There is a reasonable compensation provided if the package is damaged.’ Meanwhile, the most unexpected item for customers is that ‘There is no restricted time for receiving customer’s packages.’ Compared to executive perceptions of customers’ expectations, the managers collectively give the highest score of 4.71 for the item of the sales driver delivers the package with a safe manner and on schedule. The lowest score of 3.60 referred to the item of ‘there is no restricted time for receiving customer’s packages’. Therefore, comparing the results between customers’ expectations and executive perceptions of customers’ expectations has interesting findings, especially the differences among the 22 statements. ANOVA is Table 3.

Coefficient correlation

Sociodemographic variables

Executive perceptions of customers’ expectations

Gender

-.11

Marital status

-.10

Age

-.02

Education

.16

Seniority

-.08


447

conducted to determine if significant differences occur among the service quality dimensions. In general, there are highly significant differences among the dimensions (Table 5). In Table 4, a score of Gap 1 is computed by subtracting the expectation score from the perception score. If the expectation score is higher than the perception score, the result would be negative. A negative result indicates the existence of a service quality gap: the service provider does not meet the customers’ expectations. A positive score means that executive perceptions of customers’ expectations are higher than customers’ expectations. Specifically, the input of relevant resource may be surplus for service providers. Thus, when service providers undertake to cut costs, they are able to consider decreasing the level of service offering such as the service items that executive perceptions of customers’ expectations are higher than customers’ expectations. Table 4.

Results of Gap 1

Customers’ expectations scores

Executive perceptions scores

Gap scores a

Mean

Mean

Mean

Tan1

4.34

4.56

0.22

Tan2

4.12

4.51

0.39

Tan3

4.12

4.63

0.51

Tan4

4.34

4.63

0.29

Rel5

4.50

4.57

0.07

Rel6

4.70

4.59

-0.11

Rel7

4.67

4.60

-0.07

Rel8

4.43

4.70

0.27

Res9

4.58

4.66

0.08

Res10

4.33

4.13

-0.20

Res11

4.51

4.65

0.14

Res12

4.42

4.51

0.09

Res13

4.00

3.60

-0.40

Ass14

4.61

4.34

-0.27

Ass15

4.45

4.21

-0.24

Ass16

4.49

4.44

-0.05

Ass17

4.25

4.08

-0.17

Ass18

4.07

4.03

-0.04

Ass19

4.57

4.71

0.14

Emp20

4.57

4.67

0.10

Emp21

4.50

4.57

0.07

Emp22

4.22

4.25

0.03

Items Tangibles

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

Note: a Gap = Perception - Expectation.

448


Table 5. Gap scores of the five dimensions in SERVQUAL scale Service quality dimension Tangibles

P 4.58

E 4.23

Gap scores 0.35

F value 83.62

P value

Priority

0.000

a

3

a

5

Reliability

4.62

4.58

0.04

59.30

0.000

Responsiveness

4.31

4.37

-0.06

134.24

0.000 a

2

116.00

0.000

a

1

0.000

a

4

Assurance

4.30

Empathy

4.50

4.40 4.43

-0.10 0.07

136.33

Note: a Significant level at p < .05.

The negative score means the existence of a service quality gap, where the customers are not having their expectations fitted by executive perceptions of customers’ expectations, as shown in Table 4. The findings from Table 5 prove that there are some differences in the gap score among the 22 statements of service quality: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Some statements indicate that customers’ expectations are generally not met with the executive perceptions of customers’ expectations. Nevertheless, each dimension of service quality shows significantly different. The list of service quality could be ranked from the highest score to the lowest score. The priority of service quality has been evaluated through SERVQUAL, and gap scores are summarized in Table 5. Regarding the priority of service quality dimensions in Table 5, it is explained as that the larger absolute value of gap score, the more serious either the service quality shortfall for the customer viewpoint (P – E < 0) or surplus for the service provider viewpoint (P – E > 0). Specifically, as far as customer is concerned, service quality shortfall is more likely to lead to his or her dissatisfaction. In addition, as far as service provider is concerned, the service quality surplus means that the input resources may be surplus. As a result, when service providers attempt to cut the cost, they can consider the items that executive perceptions of customers’ expectations are greater than customers’ expectations. From Table 5, it is worth to note that the larger absolute value of negative gap score (P – E < 0), the more acute the service quality shortfall from the consumer viewpoint. Also, we realize that service quality shortfall will lead to customer dissatisfaction. Moreover, compared with satisfied customers, dissatisfied customers are more likely to seek information on alternatives, more likely to succumb to competitor overtures, and more likely to take steps to reduce dependence on that retailer (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003). Therefore, in order to improve customer satisfaction, service providers should take the most important dimension that is ‘‘Assurance” with a gap score of -0.10 (the largest gap score), as well as the second most important dimension that is ‘‘Responsiveness,’’ with a gap score of -0.06 into consideration. In addition, it is also worth to note that the larger positive gap score (P – E > 0), the more acute the service quality surplus from the service provider viewpoint. The service quality surplus means that the input resources may be surplus. As a result, when service providers attempt to cut the cost, they should take the most important dimension that is ‘‘Tangibles” with a gap score of 0.35 (the largest gap score) into consideration, in contrast, the least important dimension is ‘‘Reliability,’’ which has the lowest gap score of 0.04.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In this study, service quality and Gap1 are discussed. Firstly, this study shows that executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations have significant differences in


449

the HD industry. Namely, H2 is supported. In addition, the largest negative gap scores (P – E < 0) is found along ‘‘Assurance’’ dimension. This is alarming since it is regarded as the most important dimension in their overall perceptions. The result implies that service failure is difficult to avoid in service industry. Additionally, service failure is easy to result in customer dissatisfaction (Colgate and Norris, 2001), so that when competitive services are provided by other HD companies, customers may transfer loyalties to others. Thus, in order to avoid customer loss, HDS providers should take full responsibility for delivery damage if it is a fault in the service process. In addition, service providers also can provide discount, money or coupon and so on to compensate the loss of the failure in customers encounter. Consequently, for service providers, the successful service recovery is a strategic means to transform dissatisfied customer into loyalty one. Furthermore, the largest positive gap scores (P – E > 0) is found along ‘‘Tangibles’’ dimension. This implies that when service providers attempt to cut the cost, they can consider reducing resources input on the service items with regard to Tangibles dimension. Then, based on the analysis of the difference between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations (Gap1), the current study does offer crucial information that HD companies can use for adjusting their services. Secondly, although this study confirms that there are no significant relationships between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and sociodemographic variables (H1), this finding explains that sociodemographic variables are not the characteristics on which the HD companies’ efforts should be based. Possibly, the service providers should concentrate on understanding customers’ expectations for service quality. On the other hand, HD companies are encouraged to use customers’ expectations to segment HDS consumers. Specifically, with the results, HD companies are stimulated to use customers’ expectations to serve as a segment variable. The gap analysis of customers’ expectations and executive perceptions used in this study is believed to offer a useful approach to identify the critical practices that can contribute to upgrade service quality. Through the detailed analysis of customer expectations-executive perceptions can help service providers in discovering the weak points of services and redesigning the services to meet or exceed customers’ expectations.

6. SUGGESTIONS The chief benefit of HD is timesaving, thus, service providers have to recognize whether customers realize how to use the system. Generally, service problems are more likely to be induced in organizations that are not focused on the customers’ needs and expectations. To improve this, Foster et al. (1989) proposed that firms should put themselves in the customers’ shoes and create their policies based on customers’ preferences. Firms can also empower to frontline employees in order to give them the latitude to make decision about customers’ needs and expectations. The results of the questionnaire of 22 SERVQUAL items can provide managerial implications for the HDS practitioners seeking to improve their services. From Table 3, the items with negative values of the gap difference between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations are measured to be aware of improving the service quality for HD companies. The higher level of service quality will result in increase of cost. Taking the cost into consideration, HDS providers may hesitate to upgrade the quality in depth. HDS providers should change their image regarding the role of high-quality delivery service as a value-added one, but not cost-spent. Therefore, the gap between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and

450


customers’ expectations can be decreased as well as the expected level of service quality can be accurately projected to customers’ needs for gaining customer satisfaction. HDS providers perceive the customers’ needs and expectations and declare that they can meet the requirements by marketing activities, but the related operations can not keep up. Customers may be very disappointed with such situation of over marketing. Thus, a range of new meaningful services that can be customized to meet customer’s needs is suggested by our study from the viewpoint of management. Since the HD industry has become the profitable growth business in recent years, the valuable contributions for HD practitioners will be foreseen by the results of this study. The visible service and physical items (i.e., Tangibles) are good and enough in Taiwan’s HD industry. The in-depth service items should catch more concentration for quality improvement. These items can maintain customers and attract new customers. Besides, we acknowledge that the occurrence of service failure is difficult to avoid in service industry, implementation of service recovery is quite critical to HDS providers which again make dissatisfied customers into loyalty ones. The philosophy of zero defects is not proper in service industry because the mistakes in services are unavoidable (Hart et al., 1990). By failing to implement its promises, the relationship of trust of service providers and customers will be undermined (Gronroos, 1990). Therefore, it would be better to train employees to hold the skill, motivation and authority of service recovery. Additionally, service failure recovery is an activity of quality improvement to regain unhappy customers. The service recovery may increase costs; however, it can be viewed as an opportunity to improve service quality and make more customers satisfied (Firnstahl, 1989). Thus, this study also suggests that HDS providers should make much effort in service failure recovery. In summary, excellent service quality can be regarded as a successful policy for maintaining present customers and appealing latent customers. Additionally, in order to enhance customers’ satisfaction and loyalty the foremost thing that HD managers should do is to train their employees to fully satisfy the customers’ needs and wants, and thereby to earn customers’ trust.

7. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH In designing this study, efforts were made to minimize its limitations. But some still need to be addressed. Firstly, data collection focused on a particular HD industry. Thus, future research should attempt to apply the findings to other contexts in order to broaden our scope. Secondly, since this study was conducted solely in Taiwan, future research may also want to look at whether the findings of this research hold in different contexts in different countries. Thirdly, this study focused on the investigation of Gap 1, that is, the discrepancy between executive perceptions of customers’ expectations and customers’ expectations, but as indicated in Parasuraman et al. (1985), service firm executives may not always understand what features bring high quality to consumers in advance, what features a service must have in order to meet consumers’ needs, and what levels of performance on those features are needed to deliver high quality service. In this paper, what features a service must have in order to meet customers’ needs as indicated in Parasuraman et al. (1985) is not considered in this study, and future research can further study this issue. Finally, since this study was administered with a snapshot research approach, future research should collect data by carrying out a longitudinal study to track the gap of customers’ expectations and executive perceptions.


451

APPENDIX. THE MEASURES OF SERVICE QUALITY Tangibles: Tan1: There are enough package receiving locations and with clear signs. Tan2: There are tidy distributing vehicles and with a recognizable company mark. Tan3: The sales drivers are with neat looks. Tan4: The documents are clear and easily to be filled. Reliability: Rel5: The company can keep the contents of document filled to be confidential. Rel6: There is a reasonable compensation provided if the package is damaged. Rel7: The company can fulfill commitment with customers and accomplish in time. Rel8: The company is with good word-of-mouth, brand image, credibility, and well-known reputation. Responsiveness: Res9: The company can provide services with politeness, kindness and fastness to customers (package senders). Res10: The company provides services with no restricted location of package delivery. Res11: The company can provide with prompt and appropriate solutions to solve customer’s complaints. Res12: The company provides customers with an inquiring measure to know the current status of delivering the package. Res13: There is no restricted time for receiving customer’s packages. Assurance: Ass14: The company can provide with a proper time for delivering the package in accordance with deliverer’s or receiver’s special requests. Ass15: The company can contact and inform the package receiver in advance before package arrived. Ass16: The company can provide services in accordance with its agreement. Ass17: The company can provide different delivery services with normal, cold or refrigerating temperature storage. Ass18: The service providers can assist customers to fill up the delivery document. Ass19: The sales driver delivers the package with a safe manner and on schedule. Empathy: Emp20: When there is a delivery problem, the company can promptly inform the package senders. Emp21: The company provides a channel of complaining and pleading for the services to its customers. Emp22: The company can provide a temporary location to receive the packages when there is special events or on holidays.

452


References Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y. and Waller, M. A., 1996, Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs, Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56. Andersen, A. L. L. P., 1997, Small Store Survival: Success Strategies for Retailers, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Anderson, R. E. and Srinivasan, S. S., 2003, E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency framework. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 123-138. Boyer, K. K., Hult, G. T. and Frohlich, M., 2003, An exploratory analysis of extended grocery supply chain operations and home delivery, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(8), 652-663. Carrillat, F. A., Jaramillo, F. and Mulki, J. P., 2007, The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales: a meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490 Colgate, M. and Norris, M., 2001, Developing a comprehensive picture of service failure, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(3), 215-233. Coyle, J. J., Bardi, E. J. and Langley, C. J. Jr., 2003, The Management of Business Logistics: A Supply Chain Perspective, 7th Edition, Thomson Learning, Ohio. Cronin, J. J. Jr. and Taylor, S. A., 1992, Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension, Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68. Cui, C. C., Lewis, B. R. and Park, W., 2003, Service quality measurement in the banking sector in south Korea, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(4), 191-201. Firnstahl, T. W., 1989, My employees are my service guarantees, Harvard Business Review, 67(4), 28-32. Foster, M., Whittle, S. and Smith, S., 1989, A total-quality approach to customer service, Training & Development Journal, 43(12), 55-59. Gagliano, K. B. and Hathcote, J., 1994, Customer expectations and perceptions of service quality in retail apparel specialty stores, Journal of Services Marketing, 8(1), 60-69. Goodman, J. A., Marra, T. and Brigham, L., 1986, Customer service: costly nuisance or low-cost profit strategy, Journal of Retail Banking, 8(3), 36-48. Gronroos, C., 1984, A service quality model and its marketing implications, European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 35-42. Gronroos, C., 1990, Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: the marketing and organizational behavior interface, Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 3-11. Hart, C. W. L., Heskett, J. L. and Sasser, W. E. Jr., 1990, The profitable art of service recovery, Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 148-156. Hudson, S., Hudson, P. and Miller, G. A., 2004, The measurement of service quality in the tour operating sector: a methodological comparison, Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 305-312. Jain, S. K. and Gupta, G., 2004, Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs SERVPERF scales, The Journal for Decision Makers, 29(2), 25-37. Karatepe, O. M., Yavas, U. and Babakus, E., 2005, Measuring service quality of banks: scale development and validation, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(5), 373-383. Kassim, N. M. and Bojei, J., 2002, Service quality: gaps in the Malaysian telemarketing industry, Journal of Business Research, 55(10), 845-852. Kettinger, W. J. and Lee, C. C., 1997, Pragmatic perspectives on the measurement of information systems service quality, MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 223-241. Mentzer, J. T. and Williams, L. R., 2001, The role of logistics leverage in marketing strategy, Journal of Marketing Channels, 8(3/4), 29-48. Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Roundtree, R. I. and Bitner, M. J., 2000, Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters, Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50-64. Mukherjee, A. and Nath, P., 2005, An empirical assessment of comparative approaches to service quality measurement, Journal of Services Marketing, 19(3), 174-184.


453

Nunnally, J. C., 1978, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A., 1993, More on improving service quality measurement, Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 140-147. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L., 1985, A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L., 1988, SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L., 1994, Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research, Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-124. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Malhotra, A., 2005, E-S-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality, Journal of Service Research, l7(3), 213-233. Persson, G. and Virum, H., 2001, Growth strategies for logistics service providers: a case study, International Journal of Logistics Management, 12(1), 53-64. Quester, P. G. and Romaniuk, S., 1997, Service quality in the Australian advertising industry: a methodological study, Journal of Services Marketing, 11(3), 180-192. Robledo, M. A., 2001, Measuring and managing service quality: integrating customer expectations, Managing Service Quality, 11(1), 22-31. Samson, D. and Terziovski, M., 1999, The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance, Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 393-409. Sekaran, U., 1992, Research Methods for Business, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Smjaros, J., Holmstrom, J. and Ksamsarsainen, V., 2000, New service opportunities in the e-grocery business, International Journal of Logistics Management, 11(1), 61-73. Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X. and Pflughoeft, K., 2003, Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy, Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 263-275. Voss, M. D., Calantone, R. J. and Keller, S. B., 2005, Internal service quality: determinants of distribution center performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 35(3), 161-176. Webb, D., 1998, Segmenting police ‘customers’ on the basis of their service quality expectations, Service Industries Journal, 18(1), 72-100. Webster, C., 1989, Can consumers be segmented on the basis of their service quality expectations? Journal of Services Marketing, 3(2), 35-53.

454


宅配產業物流服務品質之探究：服務提供者與顧客有不同的觀點嗎？許嘉霖 1 1 2

林敬森 2

陳穆臻 3*

國立台灣科技大學企業管理系

中華科技大學工業工程與管理系 3

國立交通大學交通運輸研究所

(98/08 收件；99/10 修改；99/11 修改；99/12 接受)

摘

要

本論文試圖研究與討論宅配產業之顧客期望的管理者知覺與顧客期望之間差異 (缺口 1)。本論文藉由文獻探討而假設：顧客期望的管理者知覺與社經變數之間有顯著關係；以及顧客期望的管理者知覺與顧客期望之間有顯著性差異。我們利用來自於 105 位宅配公司之管理者及一年內曾使用宅配服務之 426 位顧客所獲得資料以檢定這些假說。結果顯示顧客期望的管理者知覺與顧客期望之間 (缺口 1) 有顯著性差異。然而，顧客期望的管理者知覺與社經變數之間沒有顯著性關係。本論文從宅配產業服務提供者及顧客之觀點，探究物流服務品質之狀況。關鍵詞：物流、宅配、服務品質、SERVQUAL

*

聯絡作者：國立交通大學交通運輸研究所，100 台北市忠孝西路一段 118 號 4 樓。 E-mail: [email protected]