Expero meeting Ljubljana 23rd and 24th January 2006 Discovering theoretical frames for Expero model.

Expero meeting

Ljubljana 23rd and 24th January 2006

Discovering theoretical frames for Expero model

• Scientific literature about:– Quality of the Service– Customer Satisfaction– Psychologic and Economic field– Studies about Quality in Education

• Applied models/surveys in partners countries …

Main theoretical models• Servqual Parasuram et al, 1988-1991-

1994• ServPerf Taylor & Cronin, 1994• Evaluated Performance Model Teas,

1993 • HedPerf - Firdbaus 2004-2005• MultiDimensional models by

European School Kang & James, 2005• Retailed Service Quality & Perceived

Value Model -Sweeney, 1997• Needs Analyses - Chiu & Lin, 2005• Application of Herzberg’s factors to

ServQual -Kara, DeShields, 2005 • ServPerVal (Petrick, 2004)• Cognitive Dissonance and Stability of

Service Quality Perception (O’Neil & Palmer 2004)

• Value as Second Order Multidimensional Formative Construct (Lin, Sher, Shih, 2005)

• CRM – Customer Relationship Management Kotler

• Customer Based View Valdani & Busacca, 1998, 2005

• SYNTHESISED MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY, Brogowicz,1990

• ATTRIBUTE SERVITE QUALITY MODEL Hallywood, Farmer, 1988

• ANTECEDENTS AND MEDIATOR METHOD - Dabholkar, 2000

• SERVICE QUALITY, CUSTOMER VALUE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION MODEL - Oh, 1999)

• MODEL OF PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY AND SATISFACTION (Spreng and Mackoy 1996)

• INTERNAL SERVICE QUALITY MODEL Frost, Kumar ,2000

• PCP ATTRIBUTE MODEL Philips and Hazlett, 1997

• IDEAL VALUE MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY(Mattsson ,1995)

All these models are related to the SERVICE…

Quality models applied in Higher Education

• The congruence of quality values in higher education(Telford and Masson, 2005)

• Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education(Stefan Lagrosen, Roxana Seyyed-Hashemi and Markus Leitner, 2005)

• Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education(Stefan Lagrosen, Roxana Seyyed-Hashemi and Markus Leitner, 2005)

• Application of Quality Meanings in Education - Harvey and Green (1993)

• Stakeholder in higher education - Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2003)

All these models are related to the SERVICE…

Customer Satisfaction vs Quality of the Service

• Customer Satisfaction (CS) WILL– The customer is satisfied if s/he receives what

s/he foresaw (or something more…)(expectation = foreseen)

• Quality of the Service (QS) SHOULD– It is the level of correspondence between

what s/he would like to receive and her/his perception

(expectation = should be)

Difference between CS and QS

• A student foresees that the teacher WILL BE able to answer to a technical question

Focus on a specific match

• A student would like to have competent teachers

Generic carachteristic required

Expectation• Cognitive schema linked to:

– past experiences (Woodruff Jenkins, 1987: average or a particular one) – similar experiences– word of mouth – personal needs – environment– social (opinion leader, group, culture)– costs

• As prediction/ foreseen will happen– Confirm vs disconfirm (Miller, 1977, Swan 1980, Boulding e Zeithalm 1993)

• As factual desires should happen– Desires mediated through prediction

Which kind of satisfaction?

• Related To foresee

• Related To IDEAL EXPECTATION (factual desires)

• Related To the minimum level of tolerance• Related To comparison with alternatives

(Parakash, 1984)

Ideal Expectation (IE)

IE = f (D,PS)Ideal Expectations are composed by desires and

past schemas

DESIRES (D)PAST SCHEMA (PS)

… direct and indirect experiences…

What we would like the service to offer, despite past schemas

Humanneeds

Imagine

• It is a vehicle of meaning able to create values and to fix them in different frames (immaterial) continuously connected to the service (factual).

• It becomes the social memory of the service able to give identity to it and make the difference among other similar services.

Educational Outcome• Expero focuses on Educational Outcome

– It means NOT the global school SERVICE– Educational Outcome is only a part of the global service:

it is the main result

Definition “competencies acquired in attending a training course, they are formed from the knowledges, the abilities and the professional behaviours acquired by the trainee”

The models have been reframed into the Educational Outcome

Stakeholders

– External (companies…)

Trainer

Tutor

Trainees

Factory Ministery

Parents

−Trainees (participating to the training)

−Internal (teachers, tutors, employees, ecc.)

3 main categories

Evaluation and Assessment

• To give an evaluation to school outcome– Quantitative ….to be put in the matrix

• To give indication about what to improve– Qualitative … to give contents to reflect on

Quality of the service (less importance to CS)

perceived quality and ideal expectationDifferent stakeholders (I-STK, T-SK and

E-STK) with different needs and perceptions

Indicators for educational outcome

A. External - evaluation of the knowledge and abilities developed during the training– Differences between initial and final status

EEEE - Educational Effectiveness

B. Self - evaluation of the personal improvement about the acquired knowledge and abilities by the trainees

– Self evaluationCK - Consciousness of the knowledge

C. Trainees satisfaction of the training outcomes – relation between expectation (will) and perception

SRSR - Satisfaction of the resultD. Stakeholders’ evaluation of the training outcomes

– relation between ideal expectation ideal expectation (should)(should) and perceptionQR -Quality of the result

EVALUATION of the OUTCOME

E. Imagine– value associated to the brand (social memory and identity) QB - Quality of

the brand

F. Trainees & Internal Stakeholders’ expectation of the training process– ideal expectation (should) TPTP

WHAT and HOW TO IMPROVE

by

T-S

TK

by

EX

-ST

Kb

y I

& T

-ST

K

EE

CK SR

QR QB TP

A -External - evaluation of the knowledge and abilities developed during the training

• Pre training theoretical knowledge • Pre training practical abilities

• Background (previous studies and job experiences, surrounding)

• Post training theoretical knowledge • Post training practical abilities• Final grades

• Already in use?• Standardization of scores

B. Self - evaluation of the personal improvement about the acquired knowledge and abilities by the trainees

• Adults are supposed to be conscious about their own learnt

• Subjective perception of – what s/he has learnt, both theoretically both

practically;– how much s/he has improved;

C. Trainees satisfaction of the training outcomes

• WILL• Problem “expectation vs perception”• ServPerf vs ServQual

• How I feel satisifed about…– What learnt theoretically– What learnt practically– Level of personal improvement

• Scores + qualitative explanation about negative scores

D. Stakeholders’ evaluation of the training outcomes

• SHOULD = Ideal Expectation

• What should a student learn in this course? • What have the student learnt in this course?

• How much the student competencies fit for the purpose (satisfied Your needs)?

• 2 different moment of questioning

• Qualitative interview translated in quantitative score

E. Imagine

• Have You previously know about institute

• How?

• Which level of affidabilità

• Which level from outside?

F.

• How should be the training process?– Lesson timetable– Workload– Evaluation activities– Laboratories– Didactical aspects– stages

Glossary

• Which terms need to be included?

• Work group

ServQual(Parasuram et al, 1988-1991-1994)

Satisfaction = Expectation –– Perception• 5 indicators:

– reliability, – answer capability, – ensuring capability, – empathy, – factual aspects

• Internal and External customer survey• 4 gaps:

– don’t know what the customer wants– Wrong standard in quality of the service– Differences between standards and offered service– Promises that not responding to results

ServPerf(Taylor & Cronin, 1994)

• Perceptions contain Expectations Model perception only

• It uses the same questionnaire of ServQual limited to the perception scale

Teas, 1993• semantic differential New scale (taken from Osgood) measuring

opposite meanings using bipolar pairs • Multidimensional factors

Qi = –1[Σm j=1 wj I(Ajk –Ij )I ]

where:• Qi =The individual’s perceived quality of object i.• wj = Importance of attribute j as a determinant of perceived quality.• Aij = Individual’s perceived amount of attribute j possessed by object

i.• Ij = The ideal amount of attribute j as conceptualized in classical ideal

point• attitudinal models.• m = Number of attributes.

IDEAL VALUE MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY(Mattsson ,1995)

PCP ATTRIBUTE MODELPhilips and Hazlett, 1997

INTERNAL SERVICE QUALITY MODELFrost, Kumar ,2000

European School Brady and Cronin (2001)

MODEL OF PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY AND SATISFACTION

(Spreng and Mackoy 1996)

RETAIL SERVICE QUALITY AND PERCEIVED VALUE MODEL (Sweeney, 1997)

SERVICE QUALITY, CUSTOMER VALUE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION MODEL

(Oh, 1999)

ANTECEDENTS AND MEDIATOR METHOD(Dabholkar, 2000)

A study on the cognitive and affective components of service quality.

(Hung-Chang Chiu, 2002)

Chiu, Lin (2005)

VALUE AS A SECOND ORDER MULTIDIMENSIONAL FORMATIVE CONSTRUCT. (Lin, Sher , Shih, 2005).

CBV (Customer Based View) (Valdani, Busacca, 1998-2005)

soddisfazione pianificatadal management

soddisfazione desideratadal cliente

soddisfazione recepitadal personale

soddisfazione percepitadal cliente

soddisfazione offertadall’impresa

Gap valore

Gap sintonia

Gap consonanza

Gap allineamento

Gap progettazione

Gap coinvolgimento Gap realizzazione

Gap percezione

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND THE STABILITY OF SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS

O’Neill , Palmer , 2004

ATTRIBUTE SERVITE QUALITY

MODEL (Hallywood, Farmer,

1988)

SYNTHESISED MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY(Brogowicz,1990)

Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-

factor theory DeShields Jr, Kara, e Kaynak, 2005

The congruence of quality values in higher education(Telford and Masson, 2005)

Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education

(Stefan Lagrosen, Roxana Seyyed-Hashemi and Markus Leitner, 2005)

Harvey and Green (1993)

Stakeholder in higher educationSrikanthan and Dalrymple (2003)