Information System Service Quality Research Articles

A Note on SERVQUAL Reliability and Validity in Information System Service Quality Measurement

Today's information system function includes a large service component. Recent research has examined the SERVQUAL instrument as a possible measure to assist managers and researchers in evaluating service quality. To further examine the appropriateness of the SERVQUAL measure, a large industry sample serves to verify the anticipated structure of the instrument. In addition, a high correlation with a common measure of user satisfaction indicates that the SERVQUAL metric may indeed represent accurate views of user perception. As such, the SERVQUAL instrument can serve as a useful indicator for information system managers attempting to identify areas of needed service improvement and to researchers seeking a success measure of information system services.

Measuring Service Quality in IT Services

ABSTRACT Recent growth of personal computing and networked systems have resulted in Information Systems (IS) departments facing a heavy demand on their services. Based on internal marketing concepts, IS services need to use a measure of service quality for their internal customers. Studies carried out recently, suggest SERVQUAL as a possible measure of IS service quality. However, there are some issues that relate to their discriminant validity and appropriateness. A bottom-up approach to elicit service quality dimensions is explored using service encounters in a health organization. The results indicate that while the dimensions of responsiveness and assurance seem to be important, there is a need to re-look at these broad dimensions as more specific dimensions may be more appropriate for IS settings.

Pragmatic Perspectives on the Measurement of Information Systems Service Quality

In this research note, we join the debate between Van Dyke, Kappelman, and Prybutok, and Pitt, Watson, and Kavan pertaining to the conceptual and empirical relevance of SERVQUAL as a measure of IS service quality. Adopting arguments from marketing, Van Dyke et al. (1997) question the SERVQUAL gap measurement approach, the interpretation and operationalization of the SERVQUAL expectation construct, and the reliability and validity of SERVQUAL dimensionality. In a response to those arguments, Pitt et al. (1997) defend their previous work (1995) in a point-by- point counterargument that suggests that the marginal empirical benefit of a perceptual-based (SERVPERF) service quality measure does not justify the loss of managerial diagnostic capabilities found in a gap measure. While siding with many of the positions taken by Pitt et al., we attempt to add value to the debate by presenting discrepancies we have with the two other research teams and by suggesting alternative approaches to resolve, or at least alleviate, problems associated with SERVQUAL. We believe that the theoretical superiority of an alternative IS service quality measure should be backed by empirical evidence in the IS context, hence, answering some of the criticism Van Dyke et al. and by offering a construct valid version of the IS-adapted SERVQUAL. From a pragmatic viewpoint, we believe that the justification of using SERVQUAL's gap measure should be driven by more effective ways to utilize expectations in IS service management. To this end, we introduce the newer Parasuraman et al. (1994b) measures, the concept of a zone of tolerance for expectation management and an illustration of its practical use in an IS setting. Overall, we attempt to set the direction of where we think this debate should lead the IS field, namely, toward practical and timely IS service quality measures.

Measuring Information Systems Service Quality: Concerns for a Complete Canvas

This paper responds to the research note in this issue by Van Dyke et al. concerning the use of SERVQUAL, an instrument to measure service quality, and its use in the IS domain. This paper attempts to balance some of the arguments they raise from the marketing literature on the topic with the well-documented counterarguments of SERVQUAL's developers, as well as our own research evidence and observations in an IS-specific environment. Specifically, evidence is provided to show that the service quality perceptions-expectations subtraction in SERVQUAL is far more rigorously grounded than Van Dyke et al. suggest; that the expectations construct, while potentially ambiguous, is generally a vector in the case of an IS department; and that the dimensions of service quality seem to be as applicable to the IS department as to any other organizational setting. Then, the paper demonstrates that the problems of reliability of difference score calculations in SERVQUAL are not nearly as serious as Van Dyke et al. suggest; that while perceptions-only measurement of service quality might have marginally better predictive and convergent validity, this comes at considerable expense to managerial diagnostics; and reiterate some of the problems of dimensional instability found in our previous research, highlighted by Van Dyke et al. and discussed in many other studies of SERVQUAL across a range of settings. Finally, four areas for further research in this area are identified.

Perceived Service Quality and User Satisfaction with the Information Services Function

A constant concern of management information systems (MIS) researchers and practitioners has been improving user satisfaction with the information services function (USISF). Due to the growth of end-user computing, decentralization, and alternative sources of supply, an organization's information services function (ISF) is now faced with serving customers that possess substantial discretion in their use and purchase of information systems (IS) services. This increasingly market-oriented environment demands sensitivity to IS customers' expectations and perceived value of ISF services. One important source of guidance in such an IS management environment is to look at marketing literature for frameworks that may permit the ISF to more effectively determine and convey the value of their services. Recognizing the need to improve existing MIS measures of user satisfaction with the ISF, this study adapts the SERVQUAL measure from marketing to provide more specific information about user satisfaction with the information service function. It was found that, while the three original dimensions of the traditional user information satisfaction (UIS) measure remain strong predictors of overall ISF user satisfaction, two aspects of IS service quality, “reliability” and “empathy,” are also significant predictors. The results suggest that the original dimensions of UIS may not be comprehensive enough to capture the more detailed dimensions of ISF service quality in SERVQUAL, and that the reliability and empathy dimensions of service quality may be needed to supplement the traditional UIS measure in determining user satisfaction with the information services function. Implications for research and practice resulting from these findings are discussed.

Perceived Service Quality and User Satisfaction with the Information Services Function*

AbstractA constant concern of management information systems (MIS) researchers and practitioners has been improving user satisfaction with the information services function (USISF). Due to the growth of end‐user computing, decentralization, and alternative sources of supply, an organization's information services function (ISF) is now faced with serving customers that possess substantial discretion in their use and purchase of information systems (IS) services. This increasingly market‐oriented environment demands sensitivity to IS customers' expectations and perceived value of ISF services. One important source of guidance in such an IS management environment is to look at marketing literature for frameworks that may permit the ISF to more effectively determine and convey the value of their services. Recognizing the need to improve existing MIS measures of user satisfaction with the ISF, this study adapts the SERVQUAL measure from marketing to provide more specific information about user satisfaction with the information service function. It was found that, while the three original dimensions of the traditional user information satisfaction (UIS) measure remain strong predictors of overall ISF user satisfaction, two aspects of IS service quality, “reliability” and “empathy,” are also significant predictors. The results suggest that the original dimensions of UIS may not be comprehensive enough to capture the more detailed dimensions of ISF service quality in SERVQUAL, and that the reliability and empathy dimensions of service quality may be needed to supplement the traditional UIS measure in determining user satisfaction with the information services function. Implications for research and practice resulting from these findings are discussed.