Customer expectations and perceptions of service quality of mobile phone

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),

Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 50-65 © IAEME

50

CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF

SERVICE QUALITY OF MOBILE PHONE SERVICE

PROVIDERS IN KERALA - A GAP ANALYSIS

KANNAN KS

Research Scholar, School of Management and Entrepreneur Development,

Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Dr. BINO THOMAS

Associate Professor, Department of Commerce and Centre for Research, Bishop Abraham Memorial

College, Thuruthicad, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala, India

ABSTRACT

Using the SERVQUAL model a gap analysis was conducted to determine the difference

between the perceived satisfaction of customers and their expectations, if any, on the service quality

of mobile phone service providers. A total of 238 current mobile phone users of top five mobile

phone service providers were participated in the study. The analysis was carried out based on the five

dimensions of the SERVQUAL model, viz, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and

tangible aspects. The outcome of the study reveals that reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and

empathy had a positive influence on the customer attitude in terms of satisfaction and loyalty.

Key Words: Service Quality, SERVQUAL, Rater Model, Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility,

Empathy, Responsiveness and Gap analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Telecom industry is the world’s fastest growing telecom industry. It is also the

second largest tele communication network in the world in terms of number of wireless connections

after China. Cellular service can be divided into two categories: Global system for Mobile

Communications (GSM) and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA). The GSM sector is

dominated by Airtel, Vodafone, and Idea Cellular, while the CDMA sector is dominated by Reliance

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

ISSN 0976-6502 (Print)

ISSN 0976-6510 (Online)

Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 50-65

© IAEME: http://www.iaeme.com/IJM.asp

Journal Impact Factor (2015): 7.9270 (Calculated by GISI)

www.jifactor.com

IJM

© I A E M E



51

and Tata Indicom. Deregulation and new technology have created increased competition and

widened the range of network services available throughout the world. To retain customers,

companies have to enhance the quality of services provided to them.

The quality of service provided are directly proportional to the customer satisfaction and

word of mouth as each customer generally compares the tangible services with his/her own

expectations and if the tangible one falls below his/her expectations, the customer generally is

disappointed and that affects his/her loyalty towards the company.

Quality is generally regarded as a key factor in the creation of worth and in influencing

customer satisfaction. Hence, each of the mobile phone service providers has to be strategically

positioned to provide quality services to satisfy customers. To provide improved quality service,

mobile phone service providers need to investigate degree of customers’ sensitivity and expectations

toward service quality.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To conduct a GAP analysis on customer perception and expectation on the following dimensions of

Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry’s SERVQUAL method.

a) Reliability of the service provided

b) Assurance given by the customer service executive

c) Tangibility aspect of the service provider’s store

d) Empathy of the customer service executive

e) Responsiveness of the customer service executive

LITERATURE REVIEW

Importance of Service Quality

Service quality can be described as a rationale of differences between expectation and

competence along the important quality dimensions. In the ‘Journal of Marketing’ (Parasuraman,

Zeithaml and Berry 1985) identified ten requirements useful for customers’ evaluation of the quality

of services: reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, communication, credibility, security, competence,

courtesy, understanding the customers and service accessibility. (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry

1990) proposed a service quality scale (SERVQUAL), a generic instrument that has five dimensions

of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles, the constructs were

found to have high correlation.

This instrument continues to be widely used in marketing studies of customer satisfaction and

consumer preference (P. Kotler, G. Amstrong 2006), in spite of some argument that other models

may be better (A. Q. Othman, L. Owen 2000, 2001). The stage of performance that a top quality

service will need to give was conditioned through the expectation of the customers. Service quality is

judged low when the performance was below expectation. The SERVQUAL model is a common

diagnostic tool used to measure customer service and perceived satisfaction. Reliability is the service

company ability to deliver promises on time. In this study we focused on five factors that could

predict the quality of the service provided by the investigated telecommunication service provider.

Responsiveness is the degree to which customers perceive service providers’ readiness to assist them

promptly. Assurance is the degree of courtesy of service providers’ workers and their ability to

communicate trust to customers. Empathy is the care and importance the service provider gives to an

individual customer, and the degree to which specific customer needs and preferences can be

understood and articulated. Lastly, tangibility is the evidence of facilities, personnel, and



52

communication materials used by the company while offering services to customers (Zeithaml,

Parasuraman, and Berry 1990) and (Hernon P, Nitecki D.A 2001).

Service Quality Dimensions

Reliability

• Provides service as promised.

• Dependability in handling customer service problems

• Performing services right at the first time.

• Providing services at the promised time.

• Maintaining error-free records.

Responsiveness

• Keeping customers informed as to when services will be performed.

• Prompt service to customers.

• Willingness to help customers.

• Readiness to respond to customers’ request.

Assurance

• Employees who instill confidence in customers.

• Making customers feel safe in their transactions.

• Employees who are consistently courteous.

• Employees who have the knowledge to answer customer questions.

Empathy

• Give customers individual attention.

• Employees who deal with customers in a caring fashion.

• Having the customer’s best interest at heart.

• Employees who understand the needs of their customers.

• Convenient business hours.

Tangibles

• Modern equipments.

• Visually appealing facilities.

• Employees who have a neat, professional appearance.

• Visually appealing materials associated with the service.

Service Quality Gap

A gap is the difference, imbalance or disparity which is determined to exist between

customers’ perception of performance and their prior expectation. Service quality (SQ) perceived by

customers is therefore as a result of a comparison of customers’ expectation (E) of services that the

organization should offer versus their perception of the performance (P) delivered by the service

organization.



53

Service Quality (SQ) = Customer’s Perception (P) – Customer’s Expectations (E)

Management of service quality largely focuses on managing the gaps between expectations and

perceptions of customers [9]. The goal of the firm is to minimize the gap between (P) and (E).

Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is a personal feeling of either pleasure or disappointment resulting

from the evaluation of services provided by an organization to an individual in relation to

expectations. Service providers frequently place a higher priority on customer satisfaction, because it

has been seen as a pre requisite to customer retention. As a positive outcome of marketing activities,

high customer satisfaction leads to repeated visit to stores, re-purchase of product, and word-of-

mouth promotion to friends.

Quality of Service

Service quality refers to an attitude formed by a long-term overall evaluation of a firm’s

performance. A successful relationship between businesses and a customer is centered on mutually

satisfying goals. These goals tend to evolve with time, technology and financial and political

environment. In the book ‘Principles of Marketing’ (Armstrong & Kotler, 1996) described customer

satisfaction as an emotion resulting from the evaluation of the balance between the services

described and provided against the felt needs that motivated the purchase decision. (Bitner &

Zeithaml, 2003) identified that satisfaction is the customers’ evaluation of the fulfilment of their

requirements and expectations from a product or service. As said by (Boselie, Hesselink, & Wiele,

2002) satisfaction is a positive, affective state resulting from the review of all aspects of an

organization’s working relationship with another.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Methods of Data Collection An empirical study is conducted on the data collected through an online survey based on

customers of Kerala. It is an exploratory research in which respondents were asked to assess their

perception of various items of different constructs, including factors identified as the five dimension

of SERVQUAL. Assessment was based on a three point likert scale.

Sample Design and Sample Size

Primary data were collected from customers of different telecom service providers across

Kerala.

Sampling Unit: Target group (Mobile phone users of top five Service providers viz. Airtel,

Vodafone, BSNL, Idea, & Docomo).

Sample Size: 238 (mobile phone users across the state of Kerala).

Statistical Techniques Used

Simple percentage method and cross tabulation using Microsoft Excel are used in this study.



54

Data Analysis

Table-1: Personal Profile of Customers

Profile Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 122 51

Female 116 49

Age 21-30 225 95

31-40 11 5

41-50 2 -

Education Graduate 133 56

Post Graduate 102 43

Ph.D 3 1

Monthly

Income

Below Rs. 25,000 94 39

25,000-49,999 68 29

50,000-74,999 27 11

75,000-99,999 16 7

1,00,000-1,24,999 16 7

1,25,000-1,49,999 8 3

1,50,000-1,74,999 9 4

Table -2: Consumer Preference towards Mobile Phone Service Provider

Service Provider Frequency Percentage

Airtel 69 29

BSNL 78 33

Docomo 19 8

Idea 28 12

Vodafone 44 18

GAP analysis based on the ‘Reliability’ aspect of Customer Service

Table -3: Gap Analysis - Vodafone

Vodafone customers - Reliability Aspect

(Likert Scale - 1 being the highest & 3 the lowest)

Likert Scale Perception% Expectation% GAP%

1 36 41 5

2 25 57 32

3 39 2 37

Considering the reliability aspect of Vodafone customers, based on their response obtained,

41% of customers expect high priority for service reliability; meanwhile only 36% are actually

satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a 5% gap. Similarly 57% of customers expect

moderate reliability in service but only 25% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2).

Hence there is a 32% gap.

Analysing the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a gap of 37% which include

unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1 and 2.



55

Table -4: Gap Analysis - Airtel

Airtel customers - Reliability Aspect



1 49 48 1

2 30 51 21

3 20 1 19

Considering the reliability aspect of Airtel customers, based on their response obtained, 41% of

customers expect high priority for service reliability, against which 49% are satisfied in this category

(likert scale 1). Hence there is a positive gap of 1% gap. Similarly 51% of customers expect

moderate reliability in service but only 30% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2).

Hence there is a 21% gap. Looking at the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a gap of

19% which include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1 and 2.

Table -5: Gap Analysis - BSNL BSNL customers - Reliability Aspect



1 28 44 16

2 42 54 12

3 29 3 26

For BSNL customers, based on their response obtained, 44% of customers expect high

priority for service reliability while only 28% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence

there is a gap of 16%.

Considering the customers under moderate category, 54% of customers expect moderate

service but only 42% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a 12% gap.

Analysing the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a positive gap of 26% which

include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1 and 2.

Table -6: Gap Analysis - Idea

Idea customers - Reliability Aspect



1 18 25 7

2 21 68 47

3 61 7 54

Considering the reliability aspect of Idea customers, based on their response obtained, 25% of

customers expect high priority for service reliability, instead 18% are satisfied in this category (likert

scale 1). Hence there is a gap of 7% gap.

Similarly 68% of customers expect moderate reliability in service but only 21% are actually

satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a 47% gap. Looking at the customer category



56

under likert scale 3 there is a positive gap of 54% which include unsatisfied customers of likert scale

category 1 and 2.

Table -7: Gap Analysis – Docomo

Docomo customers - Reliability Aspect



1 58 37 21

2 16 63 47

3 26 0 26

For Docomo customers, based on their response obtained, 37% of customers expect high

priority for service reliability, meanwhile a whopping 58% are satisfied in this category (likert scale

1). Hence there is a positive gap of 21%.

Considering the customers under moderate category, when 63% expect moderate service but

only 16% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a 47% gap.


include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 2.

GAP analysis based on the ‘Assurance’ aspect of Customer Service

Table -8: Gap Analysis – Vodafone

Vodafone customers - Assurance Aspect



1 34 82 48

2 34 14 20

3 32 5 27

Considering the assurance aspect of Vodafone customers, 82% of customers expect high

priority for service assurance whereas only 34% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 1).

Hence there is a 48% gap. 14% of customers expect moderate assurance in service but 34% are

actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 20%. Analysing the

customer category under likert scale 3 there is a gap of 27% which include unsatisfied customers of

likert scale category 1 and 2.


Airtel customers - Assurance Aspect



1 41 81 40

2 35 17 18

3 25 1 24



57

Considering the assurance aspect of Airtel customers, 81% of customers expect high priority

for service assurance, while 41% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a gap of

40%.

17% of customers expect moderate assurance in service but a whopping 35% are actually

satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 18%. Looking at the

customer category under likert scale 3 there is a gap of 24% which include unsatisfied customers of

likert scale category 1 and 2.

Table -10: Gap Analysis - BSNL

BSNL customers - Assurance Aspect



1 23 85 62

2 40 13 27

3 37 3 34

For BSNL customers, 85% of customers expect high priority for service assurance;

meanwhile only 23% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a 62% gap.

Considering the customers under moderate category when 13% expect moderate service 40% of

customers are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap 0f 27%.



Table -11: Gap Analysis – Idea

Idea customers - Assurance Aspect



1 25 75 50

2 36 21 15

3 39 4 35

Considering the assurance aspect of Idea customers, 75% of customers expect high priority

for service assurance, against which 25% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is

a gap of 50% gap.

21% of customers expect moderate assurance in service but a whopping 36% are actually

satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 15%.

Looking at the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a positive gap of 35% which



Docomo customers - Assurance Aspect



1 42 84 42

2 37 16 21

3 21 0 21



58

For Docomo customers, 84% of customers expect high priority for service assurance, instead

a mere 42% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a positive gap of 42%.

Considering the customers under moderate category, when 16% expect moderate service but

only 37% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 21%.


include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1 & 2.

GAP analysis based on the ‘Tangibility’ aspect of Customer Service


Vodafone customers - Tangibility Aspect



1 36 48 12

2 41 41 0

3 23 11 12

Considering the tangibility aspect of Vodafone customers, 48% of customers expect high

priority for service tangibility, against which only 36% are actually satisfied in this category (likert

scale 1). Hence there is a 12% gap.

Considering the customers under the moderate category 41% of customers expect moderate

tangibility aspect in service and the same 41% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2).

Hence there is no gap.




Airtel customers - Tangibility Aspect



1 28 46 18

2 46 39 7

3 26 14 12

Considering the tangibility aspect of Airtel customers, 46% of customers expect high priority

for service tangibility, mean while only 28% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence


39% of customers expect moderate tangibility in service but 46% are actually satisfied in this

category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 7%. Looking at the customer category

under likert scale 3 there is a gap of 12% which include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category

1 and 2.



59


BSNL customers - Tangibility Aspect



1 21 47 26

2 40 44 4

3 40 9 31

For BSNL customers, 47% of customers expect high priority for service tangibility, against

which only 21% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a 26% gap.

Considering the customers under moderate category when 44% expect moderate service,

40% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a slight gap of

4%.Analysing the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a positive gap of 31% which



Idea customers - Tangibility Aspect



1 29 50 21

2 43 43 0

3 28 7 21

Considering the tangibility aspect of Idea customers, 50% of customers expect high priority

for service tangibility, instead only 29% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a

gap of 21% gap.

43% of customers expect moderate tangibility in service and the same 43% are satisfied in

this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a no gap.




Docomo customers - Tangibility Aspect



1 37 37 0

2 37 47 10

3 26 16 10

For Docomo customers, 37% of customers expect high priority for service tangibility, and the

same 37% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1).Hence there is no gap.

Considering the customers under moderate category, when 47% expect moderate service, but

only 37% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 10%.


include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 2



60

GAP analysis based on the ‘Empathy’ aspect of Customer Service


Vodafone customers - Empathy Aspect



1 84 32 52

2 7 32 25

3 9 36 27

Considering the empathy aspect of Vodafone customers, 32% of customers expect high

priority for service empathy, against which a whopping 84% are actually satisfied in this category

(likert scale 1). Hence there is a positive gap of 52%. Considering the customers under likert scale 2,

32% of customers expect moderate empathy in service but only 7% are actually satisfied in this

category. Hence there is a gap of 25%.


include overwhelmed customers who received high priority similar to category 1.


Airtel customers - Empathy Aspect



1 41 72 31

2 40 22 18

3 19 6 13

Considering the empathy aspect of Airtel customers, 72% of customers expect high priority

for service empathy, while only 41% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a

gap of 31%.

Considering the customers under likert scale 2, 22% of customers expect moderate empathy

in service but 40% are actually satisfied in this category. Hence there is a positive gap of

18%.Looking at the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a positive gap of 13% which



BSNL customers - Empathy Aspect



1 24 70 46

2 39 21 18

3 37 9 28

For BSNL customers, 70% of customers expect high priority for service empathy, instead

only 24% of customers are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a 46% gap.

Considering the customers under moderate category when 21% expect moderate service, 39% are

actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 18%.



61

Analysing the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a positive gap of 28% which include

unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1 and 2.


Idea customers - Empathy Aspect



1 79 25 54

2 11 32 21

3 10 43 33

Considering the empathy aspect of Idea customers, 25% of customers expect high priority for

service empathy, against which a whopping 79% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence

there is a positive gap of 54% gap.

32% of customers expect moderate empathy in service but only 11% of customers are

satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a 21% gap.


include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1 &2.


Docomo customers -Empathy Aspect



1 47 74 27

2 32 21 11

3 21 5 16

For Docomo customers, 74% of customers expect high priority for service empathy, but only

47% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1).Hence there is a gap of 27%.

Considering the customers under moderate category, when21% expect moderate service,

32% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 11%.


include unsatisfied customers of likert scale category 1

GAP analysis based on the ‘Responsiveness’ aspect of Customer Service


Vodafone customers - Responsiveness Aspect



1 64 43 21

2 25 32 7

3 11 25 14



62

Considering the responsiveness aspect of Vodafone customers, 43% of customers expect high

priority for service responsiveness, mean while 64% are actually satisfied in this category (likert

scale 1). Hence there is a positive gap of 21%.

Considering the customers under likert scale 2, 32% of customers expect moderate

responsiveness in service but only 25% of customers are actually satisfied in this category. Hence


Analysing the customer category under likert scale 3 there is a gap of 14% which means

those many customers received more than expected quality in service.


Airtel customers - Responsiveness Aspect



1 46 58 12

2 33 28 5

3 20 14 6

Considering the responsiveness aspect of Airtel customers, 58% of customers expect high

priority for service responsiveness, instead 46% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence


28% of customers expect moderate responsiveness in service but 33% are actually satisfied in

this category (likert scale- 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 5%.


means so many customers received superior service than expected.


BSNL customers - Responsiveness Aspect



1 25 82 57

2 37 17 20

3 38 1 37

For BSNL customers, 82% of customers expect high priority for service responsiveness,

against which only 25% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a 57%

gap. Considering the customers under moderate category when17% expect moderate service 37% of

customers are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 20%.





63


Idea customers - Responsiveness Aspect



1 43 39 4

2 30 32 2

3 27 29 2

Considering the responsiveness aspect of Idea customers, 39% of customers expect high

priority for service responsiveness, instead 43% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence

there is a positive gap of 4% gap.

32% of customers expect moderate responsiveness in service and 32% are satisfied in this

category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a 2% gap. Looking at the customer category under likert

scale 3 there is a gap of 2% which means that those customers received superior service that

expected.

Table -27: Gap Analysis - Docomo

Docomo customers - Responsiveness Aspect



1 26 89 63

2 37 11 26

3 37 0 37

For Docomo customers, 89% of customers expect high priority for service responsiveness,

but only 26% are satisfied in this category (likert scale 1). Hence there is a gap of 63%.

Considering the customers under moderate category, when11% expect moderate service,

37% are actually satisfied in this category (likert scale 2). Hence there is a positive gap of 26%.

Analysing the customer category under likert scale 3 none of the customers expect inferior quality in

responsiveness but 37% actually received inferior quality in responsiveness aspect of service quality

FINDINGS

‘Reliability’ aspect of customer service

From the gap analysis it is found that mobile service provider Airtel has the least gap of 1%.

This means that they almost meet the expectations of their customers (category 1). Docomo and

BSNL registered a gap of 21% and 16% respectively, which means these two service providers

where not successful in meeting their customer expectations (category 1).

• Airtel provide wide and best network coverage in the industry.

• They provide service as promised and right at the first time.

• Airtel is very keen in handling customer service problems

‘Responsiveness’ aspect of customer service The outcome of the gap analysis reveals that mobile service provider IDEA has the least gap

of 4%. This means that they almost meet the expectations of their customers (category 1). At the



64

bottom of the table we find Docomo and BSNL registering a gap of 63% and 57% respectively,

which means these two service providers where highly unsuccessful in meeting their customer

expectations (category 1).

• IDEA takes special care to inform customers as to when services will be performed.

• They provide prompt service to their customers.

• IDEA is always willing to help their customers.

‘Assurance’ aspect of customer service

From the gap analysis it is found that mobile service provider Airtel has the least gap of 40%.

This means that they are more or less able to meet the expectations of their customers (category 1).

BSNL registered a gap of 62%, which means this service provider was unsuccessful in meeting their

customer expectations (category 1).

• Airtel customer service executives instill confidence in their customers.

• These customer service executives are consistently courteous to their customers.

• Airtel customer service executives are knowledgeable in answering customer questions.

‘Empathy’ aspect of customer service

The outcome of the gap analysis reveals that mobile service provider IDEA has the least gap

of 4%. This means that they almost meet the expectations of their customers (category 1).

• IDEA customer service executives give individual attention to customers.

• IDEA customer service executives serve customers in a caring fashion.

• These customer service executives understand the needs of their customers.

‘Tangibility’ aspect of customer service

From the gap analysis it is found that mobile service provider Vodafone has the least gap of

4% in category 1 and they completely meet the expectations of customers in category 2 (gap 0%).

BSNL registered a gap of 26%, which means this service provider was unsuccessful in meeting their

customer expectations (category 1). The concept of ‘Vodafone Store’ was a hit among the customers.

The store provides an aesthetic sense to the visiting customers.

• Vodafone store use modern equipments and advanced IT to drive the customer service

effectively.

• The store provides visually appealing facilities.

• The customer service executives of Vodafone have a neat, professional appearance.

CONCLUSION

This study aims to conduct a gap analysis on the customer perceptions and expectations of

service based on the five dimensions of the SERVQUAL model. This study was carried out based on

an online survey conducted among the customers of different parts of Kerala. In this study the five

dimensions of service quality, according to Parasuraman and Berry’s SERVQUAL model, viz,

reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and responsiveness are used as a basis for measuring the

gap between customer perceptions and expectations of mobile phone customers of top five mobile

phone service providers. It is interesting to notice from the study that none of the top five service

providers were successful in meeting customer expectations across the dimensions (five dimensions

of SERVQUAL model). Service quality of mobile phone service hover around the following aspects

aggressive tariff plan, service innovations, voice quality, low call drops, best customer service setup,

customer relationship management cell, network quality, grievance redressal cell, value added

services etc.



65

Improved service quality will facilitate satisfaction of those unsatisfied customers of a mobile phone

service provider. It is to be mentioned that the mobile phone service provider need to make realistic

accurate promises that reflect the services actually delivered. A thorough market research need to be

conducted to determine the derived customer expectation and their requirement.

The gap model used in this study clearly identifies different types of gaps in service

marketing, namely, the customer gap and the provider gap. This model integrates the external

customers to internal services. According to this model the key success of a mobile phone service

provider depends on the extent to which he attempts to reduce the gap between the customer

expectation and customer perception.

REFERENCES

1. 12 manage.com website, 2011a, Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry SERVQUAL Method -1988,

[online] Available at-http://www.12manage.com/methods_zeithaml_servqual.html

2. Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P.1996, Principles of Marketing,7th, Prentice Hall, India.

3. Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P,2007, Principles of Marketing,12th, Prentice Hall, India.

4. Bitner, M. J. & Zeithaml, V. A.,2003, Service Marketing, 3rd,Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.

5. Boeselie, P., Hesselink, M. & Wiele, T.V,2002,Managing Service Quality, Empirical evidence

for the relationship between customer satisfaction and business performance, 12 issue:3,pp:184-

193.

6. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. & Zeithaml, V. A,1993,Journal of Marketing Research, A

dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions,pp:7-27.

7. Cronin Jr, J. J. & Taylor, S. A, 1992, Journal of Marketing Cronin Measuring service quality: a

re-examination and Extension, pp: 55-68.

8. Hernon P, Nitecki D.A. Service Quality: A Concept Not Fully Explored Library Trends. 2001.

49(4): 687-708

9. Kotler P, Amstrong G. Principles of Marketing, 11th Ed., New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall

2006

10. Kotler P, Keller L,2008,Marketing Management ,12, Prentice Hall

11. Lindgreen A, Palmer R, Vanhamme J and Wouters J,2006, Industrial marketing management, A

relationship management assessment tool: Questioning, identifying and prioritising critical

aspects of customer relationships,pp:57-76.

12. Nash.D, Nash.S,2002, Deliver Outstanding customer service, 2nd,pp:220, How To Books Ltd,

Oxford.

13. Parasuraman V.A., Zeithaml A, Berry L. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its

Implications for the Future Research. Journal of Marketing. 1985. Vol. 49, pp.41-50.

14. Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T. & Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality: A measure of information

systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249687

15. Reichheld, F,2001,The Loyalty Effect, Harvard Business School Press, Boston

16. Zeithaml, V. A., 1988, Journal of Marketing, Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value:

A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence, 52, July, pp: 2-22.

17. Zeithaml V.A., Parasuraman A, Berry L.L. Delivering quality service: Balancing customer

perceptions and expectations. 1990. New York: The Free Press.

18. Zineldin M,2006, Journal of Consumer Marketing, The royalty of loyalty: CRM, quality and

retention, Vol. 23 Issue: 7 ,pp.430 – 441.

19. Mr. G.C. Pandey, Dr. Rajeev Shukla and Dharmendra Kumar Singh, “Age Effect on Usage

Behavior of Mobile Phone Services” International journal of Electronics and Communication

Engineering &Technology (IJECET), Volume 5, Issue 6, 2014, pp. 26 - 32, ISSN Print: 0976-

6464, ISSN Online: 0976 –6472.