服務質量差距模型

A. 怎樣寫汽車4S店服務質量規劃

汽車4S店 服務質量
一、服務質量理論的提出與服務質量差距模型
1.服務質量的提出背景
在加入 WTO 的新形勢下，汽車行業的競爭正逐步從產品和價格上的競爭發展為服務的競爭，越來越多的企業開始注意到服務的重要性。在競爭同樣激烈的汽車銷售行業，許多品牌專賣店也感受到了這種趨勢，並提出了以服務致勝的諸多思想。
目前，4S店的發展存在著很大壓力，主要來自於生產廠家的壓力和其他4S的競爭。汽車生產廠家對市場的控製表現為對經銷商的控制，經銷商必須按生產廠家的要求進行經營與服務，每季度、每年廠家都會對各4S店進行暗訪、考核。如果多次達不到廠家的標准，廠家就會以末位淘汰制將其淘汰出局。除了來自廠家的壓力外，還有來自於其他4S店的競爭，競爭車型逐漸降價，要想獲得更多的顧客就必須從服務入手，提高工作人員的素質，工作技能，制定一套標準的服務流程，從而提高與客戶的關系等。因此，服務質量問題越來越受到生產廠商和廣大經營者們的關注。
2.服務質量相關理論
服務質量是顧客評價服務的主要因素，顧客根據服務質量及其體驗到的總體滿意度來感知服務。在無形服務與有形產品混合在一起提供給顧客的情況下，服務質量是決定顧客滿意的關鍵因素。總的來說消費者滿意是一個廣義的感念，而服務質量專門研究服務的幾個方面，可感知的服務質量就是顧客滿意的一部分。關於汽車質量感知的研究顯示出其質量評價的6個維度：可靠性、服務性、美譽度、耐用性、功能性和易用性。請參見下圖1所示。
3.服務質量差距模型
服務差距模型（參見圖2所示）的核心是顧客差距，也就是顧客期望與顧客感知的服務之間的差距。期望的服務是顧客在一次服務體驗中的考察點；感知的服務是對受到服務的實際反映。中心思想在於公司想彌合所期望服務與所感知服務之間的差距，以使顧客滿意並與他們建立長期的關系。為了縮小這個重要的顧客差距，模型提出了四個其他需要縮小的差距——服務供應商差距。
服務供應商差距是引起顧客差距的根本原因：
差距1——不了解顧客的期望。
差距2——未選擇正確的服務設計和標准。
差距3——未按標准提供服務。
差距4——服務績效與服務承諾不相匹配。
二、汽車4S店現狀及發展前景
所謂4S是指：整車銷售（sale），零部件供應（spare parts）,售後服務（service）,信息反饋（survey）。汽車4S店是將這四項功能集於一體（簡稱為四位一體）的汽車銷售服務企業。現行的4S店一般都遵循各廠商硬體建設要求與服務標准：一是裝飾豪華、格調高雅、環境舒適的汽車展示廳。廳內可劃分為下列功能區：汽車展示與銷售區、咨詢服務區、維修服務接待區、配件陳列與銷售區、用戶休息區（有的還專設兒童樂園）；二樓設貴賓室、洽談室、經理人員辦公室、會議室等。二是展示廳與配件倉庫、維修車間建造成均能毗連相通，不但保證了售後服務各個環節之間的連續性和有效協作，而且，使用戶可以這三個相鄰業務區快捷地處理完所有業務，包括購買配件、付款，從而縮短了工作流程。 三是維修車間是售後服務的最主要環節，這里有人性化的廠房空間，高效率、高精度的設備和診斷測試儀器。四是採用先進管理模式與製造廠商聯網的配件倉庫，做到准確訂貨、快捷入庫、靈活結款。最後，電子計算機系統的建立實現了汽車銷售、配件供銷、服務接待與結算、業務管理等系統的內外聯網。
進入21世紀以來，隨著汽車工業競爭的日趨激烈，我國汽車銷售市場除傳統的汽車貿易市場外，出現了超市式大賣場、汽車一條街、特許經銷商、專賣店等多種形式。目前國內各大汽車廠商均在全國各大中城市設立特許經銷商（或專賣店）。各廠商均對獲受權的特許經銷商（或專賣店）以4S店的建設標准、投資規模、開業時間等提出要求。眼下，隨著新車型的出台，4S店還將如雨後春筍般蓬勃增長。
三、汽車4S店服務中存在的問題透視
1.人員問題
服務營銷三角形（即服務機構——雇員——消費者，內部營銷——外部營銷——互動營銷）形象地強調了人員對於公司信守承諾並成功建立顧客關系這一能力的重要作用。無論服務類型和顧客與服務系統的接觸水平如何，服務組織總需要依靠雇員來完成組織的使命，雇員的素質和對責任的承諾己經成為組織競爭優勢的重要來源。而汽車4S店從總體上看在服務流程的執行力度上還遠遠不夠，主要表現在接待服務、新車介紹能力及新車交付質量等方面存在不足，離用戶滿意還有一定的差距。
2.客戶關系問題
客戶關系管理（CRM, Customer Relationship Management）的核心是客戶價值管理，從最有價值的顧客出發，與每一位顧客建立一種學習關系的基礎。在提供從市場管理到客戶服務與關懷的全程業務管理的同時，對客戶購買行為和價值取向進行深入分析，為企業挖掘新的銷售機會，並對未來產品發展方向提供科學、量化的指導依據，使企業在快速變化的市場環境中保持發展能力。問題主要還是在執行的過程中，4S店目前還沒有充分發揮該系統的功能，從而忽視了顧客資料信息的建立和利用，未嚴格地執行客戶回訪制度，影響到與顧客的各種情感服務。 3.服務流程問題
汽車4S店對銷售與售後的流程的設計還是比較全面的，但是細節不夠。這主要的原因是公司的管理制度不完善，員工的服務水平和執行力度都有所欠缺。尤其在售後服務的細節上，銷售主管和銷售經理對銷售人員缺乏有效的監督，且流程規范標准不夠細致，未體現以顧客為中心的理念。
四、提升汽車4S店服務質量的對策
1.縮短服務差距
通過以上分析，為了適應當今汽車市場結構的新變化，進一步提高該4S店的服務水平，筆者認為應採取「提升服務質量，提高客戶滿意度」的營銷策略。提高員工的素質，技能水平，抓住機會，盡可能迅速地走近客戶，了解客戶的需求，加強服務營銷，從而提高客戶的滿意度。
(1)進行人員開發，保證服務質量。可通過銷售戰略、業務基本素質、銷售流程，銷售技巧、促銷手段和方法等相關培訓，使每一個員工詳盡了解服務營銷的運作，以及他們在與其他員工及其他職能部門和顧客相聯系時的角色。促使員工樹立「人人有責任進行服務營銷」的良好的工作態度。使員工具備相互溝通、銷售和服務的技能，並不斷提高。其最重要的是要讓員工了解到，不是為了提高員工知識水平而培訓，而是為了實現4S店的服務承諾而培訓。
(2)留住最好的員工。一方面，將員工納入公司的願景之中。要激勵並使員工對追隨和支持公司目標感興趣，就必須讓他們理解和分享公司的願景。整體傳遞服務的人員需要理解他們的工作是如何融入組織及其目標的宏大藍圖之中的。另一方面，評估並獎勵優秀員工。如果僅僅是獎勵工作的結果而不是評估和獎勵員工在服務工作中的行為，那麼員工在易受挫折的工作過程中就得不到激勵，內部營銷的目標將很難實現。
為此，針對銷售人員和售後服務人員設計日常服務調查問卷，由人力資源部每日向顧客進行抽樣調查，其結果納入月末考核。另外，設計員工年度績效評估表，該表將員工的目標完成情況、服務質量和培訓都納入考核內容。通過定期公布績效評估結果，能讓員工知道他們的工作幹得怎樣，而相應的獎勵則能增加他們令人滿意的服務行為。評估機制必須公正，否則效果適得其反。
2.加強顧客關系管理
(1)完善客戶資料信息，深度挖掘客戶信息。顧客資料信息是4S店開展顧客關系管理的基礎，所以首先注意完善顧客的資料庫。4S店應成立專門的客戶服務中心，組織專門人員來集中管理客戶信息，保證客戶關系管理的正常運作。 通過使用數據倉庫與數據挖掘工具對客戶信息進行細分，分析客戶對汽車產品,以及服務的反應，分析客戶滿意度、忠誠度和利潤貢獻度，以便更為有效地贏得客戶和保留客戶。
(2)嚴格執行客戶100%互訪制度。通過互訪，4S店可以與客戶溝通，傾聽客戶的意見，進行客戶滿意度調查，及時反饋服務質量信息，將信息反饋記錄表傳給相應的責任部門，從而在有效時間內改進服務，最終使客戶滿意，並且每月產生服務質量月報，對服務因子進行分析，提出改進意見。在互訪過程中，4S店還可以獲得關於競爭對手的情報，綜合這些情報，可以為4S店的市場部在制定營銷計劃時提供依據。
(3)提供各種情感服務。情感活動是建立與顧客的初級關系或者維系顧客關系的小技巧。這樣做雖然很難影響到顧客的最終決策，但它仍然是必不可少的。它包括：提醒服務、親情服務、告之服務等。
3.優化售後服務流程
服務過程中，顧客既是消費者，同時又是服務的生產者，在汽車服務，特別是汽車的售後服務上尤其如此。在汽車維修服務過程中，維修前台與顧客的對話、溝通共同構成服務的初級生產，維修顧問和顧客進一步詳細地交談共同構成服務的次級生產，維修技師同顧客的相互溝通最終構成了服務的產生。圖3構建了汽車4S店售後服務流程的優化效果，將顧客置於整個服務的中心位置。這一位置上的改變有助於讓所有員工重視顧客，形成以顧客為中心的理念。在整個服務過程中，強調了各個關鍵工序與顧客的互動。員工與顧客的充分互動有助於服務快速地、准確地產生，消費。這不僅提高了顧客滿意度，同樣也提高了員工的滿意度。

B. 如何利用服務質量差距模型對旅遊服務質量進行管理

既然有模型，那就將現有旅遊服務的要點一一對號入座，進入模型，如有缺失的環節則補齊，如不符合要求的改進。
然後按照模型運行。

C. 誰來幫幫我，解釋一下什麼是SERVQUAL和GAPS MODEL以及他們之間的關系啊

SERVQUAL理論是20世紀80年代末由美國市場營銷學家帕拉休拉曼(A.Parasuraman)、來特漢毛爾（Zeithaml）和白瑞（Berry）依據全面質量管理(Total Quality Management，TQM)理論在服務行業中提出的一種新的服務質量評價體系，其理論核心是「服務質量差距模型」，即：服務質量取決於用戶所感知的服務水平與用戶所期望的服務水平之間的差別程度（因此又稱為「期望－感知」模型），用戶的期望是開展優質服務的先決條件，提供優質服務的關鍵就是要超過用戶的期望值。其模型為:Servqual 分數= 實際感受分數- 期望分數。
SERVQUAL將服務質量分為五個層面：有形設施(Tangibles)、可靠性(Reliability)、響應性 (Responsiveness)、保障性(Assurance)、情感投入(Empathy)，每一層面又被細分為若干個問題，通過調查問卷的方式，讓用戶對每個問題的期望值、實際感受值及最低可接受值進行評分。並由其確立相關的22 個具體因素來說明它。然後通過問卷調查、顧客打分和綜合計算得出服務質量的分數,
近十年來，該模型已被管理者和學者廣泛接受和採用。模型以差別理論為基礎，即顧客對服務質量的期望，與顧客從服務組織實際得到的服務之間的差別。模型分別用五個尺度評價顧客所接受的不同服務的服務質量。研究表明，SERVQUAL適合於測量信息系統服務質量，SERVQUAL也是一個評價服務質量和用來決定提高服務質量行動的有效工具。

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
indivialized 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 concted 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 e 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 concted 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.

D. 服務滿意度的滿意度指數模型調查

宏觀角度衡量服務，跨行業/企業可比
1988年，美國學者Fornell將結構方程和滿意度形成心理路徑相結合，提出了新的滿意度模型，成為世界各國制定國家滿意度指數模型的基礎，瑞典最先應用推出SCSB，之後不斷發展為ACSI、ECSI。滿意度指數模型認為影響客戶滿意的因素，除了感知質量，還包括品牌形象、客戶預期、價值感知等。2001年開始，原信息產業部開始對全國各電信運營商進行顧客滿意度指數研究，並逐年公布電信行業顧客滿意度指數(TCSI)，並把滿意度測評分數納入KPI，這大大推動了滿意度指數模型在中國的推廣應用和技術發展。
服務質量不等於滿意度，滿意度指數模型認為除了「感知質量（即服務質量）」外，「品牌形象」、「用戶預期」、「價值感知」都是影響客戶滿意度的因素，並且在4個滿意度影響因素之間存在路徑和因果關系，形成一個結構方程。
滿意度指數模型適用於國家、行業層面的滿意度調查。因為企事業單位存在明顯的差異性，一個單位的感知質量滿意度模型不能適用另一個單位，所以如果要對整個國家或整個行業進行滿意度調查，就必須有一個無關企事業單位差異性的模型。滿意度指數模型是根據客戶滿意度形成的心理路徑設計，與企事業單位服務的差異性無關，因此滿意度指數調查具有跨行業、跨企業可比的特點。如中國電信行業的指數模型TCSI：
對於企事業單位的滿意度測評來說時，滿意度指數模型的好處在於更完整地揭示了滿意度的影響因素，站在一個更高的層面看問題；不足之處在於，滿意度指數模型的設計消除了單位差異性的影響，使得單位在許多個性化、細節上的問題得不到體現，而且「品牌」、「預期」、「價值」等因素屬於很難控制甚至不可控的因素，需要企業高層跨部門聯合才能推動，對於企業的服務管理部門來說，其服務改進重點仍只能著落於「質量」部分。因此，企事業單位在應用滿意度指數模型時，仍要結合感知質量模型，使得問卷長度大大增加。

E. 怎樣用服務差距模型來改進服務質量

不懂你的服務差距模式是什麼？不過現在人花錢都是買服務的，要先讓服務人員了解自己從事的服務行業是值得讓人尊重的，即使是洗碗工，也有他的服務價值，再呢，要讓服務人員了解自己服務的宗旨，也就是意義，例如飯店服務員，他們的目標就是讓顧客吃的舒心，要從細節抓客人，例如為顧客添水··讓顧客覺得自己別人重視著，這樣就會有回頭客哦，重點是細節！！最後是換位思考，假如自己是消費者，會有怎樣的消費心理，會想得到什麼樣的服務·這是我的拙見了··嘿嘿

F. 如何利用服務質量差距模型提高服務質量

和績效掛鉤一樣，只要把服務質量水平不同級別的人的工資差距拉大就可以了