Você está na página 1de 16

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 Hsu
1
Chin-Sen Lin
2
Mu-Chen Chen
3*
1
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: ittchen@mail.nctu.edu.tw








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
companys 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.,







Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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 enterprises 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 Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have
Different Viewpoints?










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 providers 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 consumers 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).







Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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 Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have
Different Viewpoints?










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 questionnaires 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 indicators factor loading is more than 0.5. Table 1 presents the results of the
test for convergent validity due to each indicators 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.







Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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 11.40
Reliability Rel5 0.66
a
-----
a

Rel6 0.81 14.04
Rel7 0.78 13.75
Rel8 0.71 12.74
Responsiveness Res9 0.70
a
-----
a

Res10 0.66 12.67
Res11 0.79 15.07
Res12 0.68 13.01
Res13 0.60 11.66
Assurance Ass14 0.76
a
-----
a

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
Empathy Emp20 0.78
a
-----
a

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 Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
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) (63.82)
Note:
a
Chi-square differences provided in parentheses (p < .01)










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










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 customers 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 customers 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







Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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
Items Customers expectations scores Executive perceptions scores Gap scores
a

Mean Mean Mean
Tangibles
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
Reliability
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
Responsiveness
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
Assurance
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
Empathy
Emp20 4.57 4.67 0.10
Emp21 4.50 4.57 0.07
Emp22 4.22 4.25 0.03
Note:
a
Gap = Perception - Expectation.








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










Table 5. Gap scores of the five dimensions in SERVQUAL scale
Service quality dimension P E Gap scores F value P value Priority
Tangibles 4.58 4.23 0.35 83.62 0.000
a
3
Reliability 4.62 4.58 0.04 59.30 0.000
a
5
Responsiveness 4.31 4.37 -0.06 134.24 0.000
a
2
Assurance 4.30 4.40 -0.10 116.00 0.000
a
1
Empathy 4.50 4.43 0.07 136.33 0.000
a
4
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







Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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 Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have
Different Viewpoints?










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 customers 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 Taiwans 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.








Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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 customers
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 customers packages.
Assurance:
Ass14: The company can provide with a proper time for delivering the package in accordance with
deliverers or receivers 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 Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have
Different Viewpoints?










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.







Journal of Quality Vol. 18, No. 5 (2011) 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, 2
nd
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 Exploring Logistics Services Quality in Home Delivery Industry: Do Service Providers and Customers Have
Different Viewpoints?











1

2

3*

1

2

3

(98/08 99/10 99/11 99/12 )


(
1)
105
426
( 1)


SERVQUAL

*
100 118 4
E-mail: ittchen@mail.nctu.edu.tw

Você também pode gostar