An empirical assessment of service quality dimensions in the Indian retail sector Ms

Customer perceived service is considered as one of the key determinants of business performance. In the process of creating this differentiation, the role of delivery of quality services is very vital. So far, in the Indian context, there is a dearth of tested instruments which can measure customer-perceived service quality of a retail store. Application of quality measurement scales, in Indian context, particularly retail service quality, is yet very limited. In order to understand the driving factors of a typical Indian retail customer, the key objective of this study was to empirically test the service quality dimensions. The study also opined to carry out the gap analysis and identify the areas for improvements in retail service quality. The instrument proposed by Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) RSQS(Retail Service Quality Scale) was used as the questionnaire with the addition of two more variables which were found to be relevant for the Indian context after a pilot survey among small group of consumers. A 5-point Likert scale (1strongly disagree, 5-strongly agree)was employed to measure the service quality of the retail shop. The findings of the RSQS in India are thus different from those of Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz. Introduction India has now regained the top position in the Global Retail Development Index (AT Kearney 2009). With the purchasing power of the urban Indian growing proportionately with the earning power, the retailer has the opportunity to offer the shopper the entire world on a platter. This would mean an increase in demand for better shopping ambience, superior quality products, and improved service. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR) Vol. 4 Issue 2 April 2010 A Journal of the Academy of Business and Retail management (ABRM) 2 Empirical research also points to the fact that retail environment is changing more rapidly than ever before and customer expectations have grown manifold thanks to the global exposure (Dabholkar, 1996). It is a challenge to retailers to differentiate them by serving the needs of their customer better than their competitors. According to Berry, (1986); Hummel and Savitt, (1988); Reichheld and Sasser, (1990), the basic competitive advantage in retailing is the delivery of high service quality. Since services are intangible, heterogeneous, and inseparable, it is difficult to measure service quality objectively. While many researchers have proposed service quality models, the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985 is the most predominant and most widely used. In order to understand the driving factors of a typical Indian retail customer, the key objective of this study was to empirically test the service quality dimensions. The study also opined to carry out the gap analysis and identify the areas for improvements in retail service quality. Review of Literature Over the years, many researchers have proposed and evaluated alternative service quality models and instruments for measuring service quality. Among these models, as noted above, SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985) is the most prominent and the most widely used. The authors of this model proposed that the consumer’s opinion of quality is formed by an internal comparison of performance with expectations. Good service quality means that the customers’ perceptions of service performance meet or exceed their expectations of what the service firm should provide. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) identified five determinants of service quality which include tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The SERVQUAL scale has been widely used to measure service quality in different service contexts. According to the study of Gagliano & Hathcote, (1994), measuring service quality is highly complicated and difficult especially in apparel specialty retailing because it combines the selling of goods and services to the customers and also the customers’ expectations of knowledgeable, helpful staff to assist them during their shopping. They had conducted a study among the Customers of specialty clothing stores and have used a refined SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1991), for their study, in that the five-factor structure used was reduced to four factors. Dabholkar et al. (1996) developed a measurement scale and empirically validated the scale to assess retail service quality. Dabholkar et al. had conducted the study on customers of seven selected stores from two department store chains. Their scale known as Retail Service Quality Scale (RSQS) was developed to suit the retail environment after making some modifications to SERVQUAL. A hierarchical factor structure was conceptualized by them comprising of five dimensions, with three of five dimensions having two sub dimensions each and overall service quality as a second order factor. While consumers think of retail service quality at three levels — a dimensional level, an overall level, and a sub dimensional level, Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) suggested five dimensions — physical aspects, reliability, personal interaction, problem solving, and policy. They also gave sub-dimensions of each dimension to combine related attributes into subgroups. The first dimension — physical aspects — includes the appearance of the physical Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR) Vol. 4 Issue 2 April 2010 A Journal of the Academy of Business and Retail management (ABRM) 3 facilities and the convenience offered to the customer by the layout of the physical facilities. Therefore the sub-dimensions of this dimension are appearance (statements 1 to 4 in the scale*) and convenience (statements 5 and 6 in the scale). The second suggested dimension is reliability. It has two sub-dimensions and other variations. Customers view reliability as a combination of keeping promises (Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz, 1996). Westbrook (1981) found that availability of merchandise is also a measure of reliability. So, the sub-dimensions of reliability are promises (statements 7 and 8 in the scale) and doing it right (statements 9 to 11 in the scale). The third suggested dimension is personal interaction. It has two sub-dimensions — service employees inspiring confidence (statements 12 to 14 in the scale) and being courteous/helpful (statements 15 to 20 in the scale). These sub-dimensions are very closely related and capture how the customer is treated by the employee. The fourth suggested dimension is problem solving which addresses the issues of handling of goods returned and goods exchanges as well as complaints. Service recovery is recognized as a critical part of good service . Recognizing and resolving problems should emerge as a separate factor in customer evaluation. Westbrook (1981) found that customers were quite sensitive to how service providers attend to problems and complaints. Westbrook (1981) and Mazursky et al (1985) also mention that the ease of returning and exchanging merchandise is very important to retail customers. This dimension does not have any sub-dimension. The fifth proposed dimension — policy — captures aspects of service quality that are directly influenced by store policy. For example, when customers evaluate a store on the basis of convenient hours, it is viewed as whether the store’s policy is responsive to customers’ needs. Westbrook (1981) and Mazursky et al (1985) have reported that an important criterion on which customers evaluate stores is the credit and charge account policies of the store. Customers also value parking availability as important for retail shopping (Oliver, 1981). This instrument also captures, apart from the common dimensions that are likely to be shared by pure service environments and retail environments, additional dimensions of retail service quality relevant to the retail environment. However, very few studies have utilized the instrument for evaluating service quality of retail stores. Like SERVQUAL, the reliability and validity of this instrument could also be questioned. Only one study by Boshoff (1997) was found which evaluated the reliability and validity of the instrument in South African retail environment. Although the study found the instrument to be valid and reliable for measuring retail service quality in South Africa, its applicability in India must be investigated through a formal research. Christo & Terblanche(1997) had conducted a study on hypermarket shoppers by using RSQS (Dabholkar et al., 1996). Confirmatory factor analysis had conducted for hierarchical factor structure. The five factor structure of retail service quality dimensions suggested by Dabholkar et al. (1996) was in a reasonable fit. Mehta et al. (2000) in their study on the Customers of supermarkets and electronic goods retailers, had used RSQS (Dabholkar et al., 1996) and SERVPERF (Cronin &Taylor, 1992). Leung & To (2001)had conducted study on undergraduate students who were shoppers at fashion storesReliability and correlation analysis Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation had applied in their study. A 34-item scale developed by Leung & Fung (1996) for measuring service quality specifically in fashion chain stores has been used. The scale, comprising of five factors, possessed high internal consistency but low temporal stability. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR) Vol. 4 Issue 2 April 2010 A Journal of the Academy of Business and Retail management (ABRM) 4 Siu & Cheung (2001) had conducted a study on customers of five stores from a multinational department store chain; RSQS (Dabholkar et al., 1996) had been used. Confirmatory factor analysis with partial disaggregation was used. RSQS was found to be suited more in a “more goods, less services” environment, i.e. supermarket, while SERVPERF was better for a retailing context where the service element is prevalent. A modified scale resulting from a combination of RS