Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose The study was undertaken with a purpose to investigate if any generalization in importance of service quality dimensions is possible. Service providers are often not sure of the amount of tangibilisation necessary and the right mix of other service quality dimensions – reliability, assurance, empathy, responsiveness, and the role of price‐added by researcher. Design/methodology/approach A two stage analysis was deployed. First free listing of important service quality concerns for 16 services across the four service types (as suggested by Lovelock) was done to see if any rank correlation was possible. This was followed by two‐step cluster analysis to reveal natural grouping (or clusters) within a data set for each service quality dimension that would otherwise not be apparent. Findings Generalization of quality dimensions was not possible among all types of services taken together, however important insights were available pertaining to each service type. Practical implications Some generalizations within the service types were possible for different services. Thus, service providers can consider these finding when designing service delivery. Originality/value Considering the two important dimensions – tangibility of service act and whether such an action is targeted at the customer or their possessions, the paper details what service quality issues are important for which service type.
Chowdhary et al. (Sat,) studied this question.