解释一下什么是SERVQUAL和GAPS MODEL以及他们之间的关系啊中英文都可以.这些我也都找到了,可是主要想知道具体那5个GAP或者是7个GAP的解释.为什么有的资料上是5个GAPS有的就是7个GAPS

解释一下什么是SERVQUAL和GAPS MODEL以及他们之间的关系啊中英文都可以.这些我也都找到了,可是主要想知道具体那5个GAP或者是7个GAP的解释.为什么有的资料上是5个GAPS有的就是7个GAPS
解释一下什么是SERVQUAL和GAPS MODEL以及他们之间的关系啊
中英文都可以.
这些我也都找到了,可是主要想知道具体那5个GAP或者是7个GAP的解释.为什么有的资料上是5个GAPS有的就是7个GAPS

解释一下什么是SERVQUAL和GAPS MODEL以及他们之间的关系啊中英文都可以.这些我也都找到了,可是主要想知道具体那5个GAP或者是7个GAP的解释.为什么有的资料上是5个GAPS有的就是7个GAPS
SERVQUAL理论是20世纪80年代末由美国市场营销学家帕拉休拉曼(A.Parasuraman)、来特汉毛尔（Zeithaml）和白瑞（Berry）依据全面质量管理(Total Quality Management,TQM)理论在服务行业中提出的一种新的服务质量评价体系,其理论核心是“服务质量差距模型”,即：服务质量取决于用户所感知的服务水平与用户所期望的服务水平之间的差别程度（因此又称为“期望－感知”模型）,用户的期望是开展优质服务的先决条件,提供优质服务的关键就是要超过用户的期望值.其模型为:Servqual 分数= 实际感受分数- 期望分数.
　　SERVQUAL将服务质量分为五个层面：有形设施(Tangibles)、可靠性(Reliability)、响应性 (Responsiveness)、保障性(Assurance)、情感投入(Empathy),每一层面又被细分为若干个问题,通过调查问卷的方式,让用户对每个问题的期望值、实际感受值及最低可接受值进行评分.并由其确立相关的22 个具体因素来说明它.然后通过问卷调查、顾客打分和综合计算得出服务质量的分数,
　　近十年来,该模型已被管理者和学者广泛接受和采用.模型以差别理论为基础,即顾客对服务质量的期望,与顾客从服务组织实际得到的服务之间的差别.模型分别用五个尺度评价顾客所接受的不同服务的服务质量.研究表明,SERVQUAL适合于测量信息系统服务质量,SERVQUAL也是一个评价服务质量和用来决定提高服务质量行动的有效工具.
　　Model of Service Quality Gaps:
　　There are seven major gaps in the service quality concept, which are shown in Figure 1. The model is
　　an extention of Parasuraman et al. (1985). According to the following explanation (ASI Quality
　　Systems, 1992; Curry, 1999; Luk and Layton, 2002), the three important gaps, which are more
　　associated with the external customers are Gap1, Gap5 and Gap6; since they have a direct relationship
　　with customers.
　　· Gap1: Customers’ expectations versus management perceptions: as a result of the lack of a
　　marketing research orientation, inadequate upward communication and too many layers of
　　management.
　　· Gap2: Management perceptions versus service specifications: as a result of inadequate
　　commitment to service quality, a perception of unfeasibility, inadequate task standardisation and an
　　absence of goal setting.
　　· Gap3: Service specifications versus service delivery: as a result of role ambiguity and conflict,
　　poor employee-job fit and poor technology-job fit, inappropriate supervisory control systems, lack of
　　perceived control and lack of teamwork.
　　· Gap4: Service delivery versus external communication: as a result of inadequate horizontal
　　communications and propensity to over-promise.
　　· Gap5: The discrepancy between customer expectations and their perceptions of the service
　　delivered: as a result of the influences exerted from the customer side and the shortfalls (gaps) on the
　　part of the service provider. In this case, customer expectations are influenced by the extent of
　　personal needs, word of mouth recommendation and past service experiences.
　　· Gap6: The discrepancy between customer expectations and employees’ perceptions: as a result
　　of the differences in the understanding of customer expectations by front-line service providers.
　　· Gap7: The discrepancy between employee’s perceptions and management perceptions: as a
　　result of the differences in the understanding of customer expectations between managers and service
　　providers.
　　SERVQUAL methodology:
　　Clearly, from a Best Value perspective the measurement of service quality in the service sector should
　　take into account customer expectations of service as well as perceptions of service. However, as
　　Robinson (1999) concludes: "It is apparent that there is little consensus of opinion and much
　　disagreement about how to measure service quality". One service quality measurement model that has
　　been extensively applied is the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman et al . (1985, 1986,1988, 1991, 1993, 1994; Zeithaml et al. , 1990). SERVQUAL as the most often used approach for
　　measuring service quality has been to compare customers' expectations before a service encounter and
　　their perceptions of the actual service delivered (Gronroos, 1982; Lewis and Booms, 1983;
　　Parasuraman et al. , 1985). The SERVQUAL instrument has been the predominant method used to
　　measure consumers’ perceptions of service quality. It has five generic dimensions or factors and are
　　stated as follows (van Iwaarden et al. , 2003):
　　(1) Tangibles . Physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel.
　　(2) Reliability. Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
　　(3) Responsiveness . Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
　　(4) Assurance (including competence, courtesy, credibility and security). Knowledge and courtesy of
　　employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence.
　　(5) Empathy (including access, communication, understanding the customer). Caring and
　　individualized attention that the firm provides to its customers.
　　In the SERVQUAL instrument, 22 statements (Appendix I) measure the performance across these
　　five dimensions, using a seven point likert scale measuring both customer expectations and
　　perceptions (Gabbie and O'neill, 1996). It is important to note that without adequate information on
　　both the quality of services expected and perceptions of services received then feedback from
　　customer surveys can be highly misleading from both a policy and an operational perspective. In the
　　following, the application of SERVQUAL approach is more specified with an example in a catering
　　company.
　　Example:
　　In an investigation conducted by Bryslan and Curry (2001) in a catering company, a total of 140
　　questionnaires were distributed to all of the previous year’s customers and 52 useable questionnaires
　　were returned, resulting in a 37 per cent response rate. As can be seen from Table I, all questionnaire
　　responses were negative and an overall departmental weighted SERVQUAL score of – 1.6 was
　　recorded, indicating a significant shortfall in meeting customer expectations across all service areas
　　and dimensions. The summary scores for each dimension are shown in Table I, with the weighted
　　average scores per dimension having been totalled to achieve the overall SERVQUAL score. As can
　　be seen from Table I, the highest gap scores were for Reliability and Responsiveness; this is real cause
　　for concern and provides a definite staring point for service improvements. As can be seen from the
　　results, the customer expects most from the Reliability dimension of the catering service. The
　　relatively low importance of Tangibles could be attributable to the fact that customers are aware of the
　　financial constraints which are typical in the local authority funding context, and simply do not expect
　　much when it comes to aesthetics; instead, they attach more importance to the delivery aspects of the
　　service. Customers allocated to Assurance the lowest weighting, indicating it to be of least importance
　　to them, yet they expect most from this service dimension. This apparent anomaly is probably due to
　　the fact that customers expect staff to be knowledgeable about the service and therefore they can see
　　no reason for this dimension not to be achieved. It is assumed that for this reason, customers have
　　weighted this dimension lowest.
　　Discussion:
　　The research on measuring service quality has focused primarily on how to meet or exceed the
　　external customer’s expectations, and has viewed service quality as a measure of how the delivered
　　service level matches consumer’s expectations. These perspectives can also be applied to the
　　employees of a firm and in this case, other major gaps could be closed in the service quality gaps
　　model (Kang et al. , 2002).
　　The concept of measuring the difference between expectations and perceptions in the form of the
　　SERVQUAL gap score proved very useful for assessing levels of service quality. Parasuraman et al.,
　　argue that, with minor modification, SERVQUAL can be adapted to any service organisation. They
　　further argue that information on service quality gaps can help managers diagnose where performance
　　improvement can best be targeted. The largest negative gaps, combined with assessment of where
　　expectations are highest, facilitates prioritisation of performance improvement. Equally, if gap scores
　　in some aspects of service do turn out to be positive, implying expectations are actually not just being
　　met but exceeded, then this allows managers to review whether they may be "over-supplying" this
　　particular feature of the service and whether there is potential for re-deployment of resources into
　　features which are underperforming.
　　It seems that in almost all the existing resources, the SERVQUAL approach has been used only for
　　closing Gap 5. However, its application could also be extended to the analysis of other gaps. It is
　　important to note that SERVQUAL is only one of the instruments used in service quality analysis and
　　there are different approaches which might be stronger in closing gaps. SERVQUAL has been
　　extensively criticised on both theoretical and operational grounds (see Buttle, 1996 and Asubonteng et
　　al., 1996), although Asubonteng et al. (1996) conclude that: "Until a better but equally simple model
　　emerges, SERVQUAL will predominate as a service quality measure". It is also evident that
　　SERVQUAL by itself, useful though it may be to a service manager, will not give a complete picture
　　of needs, expectations and perceptions in a service organization context. As Gaster (1995) comments,
　　"because service provision is complex, it is not simply a matter of meeting expressed needs, but of
　　finding out unexpressed needs, setting priorities, allocating resources and publicly justifying and
　　accounting for what has been done". Service organizations are responsible and accountable to citizens
　　and communities as well as to customers and service users. There are wider service organization
　　agendas than simply service quality: improving access to existing services; equity and equality of
　　service provision; providing efficient and effective services within political as well as resource
　　constraints. The definition of service quality therefore takes on a wider meaning and accordingly its
　　measurement becomes both more complex and more difficult.
　　Besides the discussed weaknesses, a particular advantage of SERVQUAL is that it is a tried and
　　tested instrument which can be used comparatively for benchmarking purposes (Brysland and Curry,
　　2001). SERVQUAL does, however, benefit from being a statistically valid instrument as a result of
　　extensive field testing and refinement. It therefore escapes the pitfall of being perceived by service
　　users and providers as "something that has been invented off the top of the head" or a questionnaire
　　that has been skewed to elicit certain types of response. As a generic and universally-applicable
　　instrument, SERVQUAL can also be administered on a repeated, regular basis and used for
　　comparative benchmarking purposes. To appreciate more fully the benefits of using SERVQUAL,
　　surveys should be conducted every year, for the following reasons:
　　- to allow yearly comparisons;
　　- to determine how service improvements have affected customers’ perceptions and
　　expectations of the service over time; and
　　- to determine the effectiveness of service development and improvement initiatives in targeted
　　dimensions.
　　It is important to note that the measurement systems themselves are often inappropriate because the
　　system designers do not know enough about what is to be measured. Measuring customer perceptions
　　of service may increase expectations and measuring too often may well result in customers losing their
　　motivation to answer correctly. Finally, there is no point in measuring service quality if one is not
　　willing to take appropriate action on the findings.