服务质量差距模型

A. 怎样写汽车4S店服务质量规划

汽车4S店 服务质量
一、服务质量理论的提出与服务质量差距模型
1.服务质量的提出背景
在加入 WTO 的新形势下，汽车行业的竞争正逐步从产品和价格上的竞争发展为服务的竞争，越来越多的企业开始注意到服务的重要性。在竞争同样激烈的汽车销售行业，许多品牌专卖店也感受到了这种趋势，并提出了以服务致胜的诸多思想。
目前，4S店的发展存在着很大压力，主要来自于生产厂家的压力和其他4S的竞争。汽车生产厂家对市场的控制表现为对经销商的控制，经销商必须按生产厂家的要求进行经营与服务，每季度、每年厂家都会对各4S店进行暗访、考核。如果多次达不到厂家的标准，厂家就会以末位淘汰制将其淘汰出局。除了来自厂家的压力外，还有来自于其他4S店的竞争，竞争车型逐渐降价，要想获得更多的顾客就必须从服务入手，提高工作人员的素质，工作技能，制定一套标准的服务流程，从而提高与客户的关系等。因此，服务质量问题越来越受到生产厂商和广大经营者们的关注。
2.服务质量相关理论
服务质量是顾客评价服务的主要因素，顾客根据服务质量及其体验到的总体满意度来感知服务。在无形服务与有形产品混合在一起提供给顾客的情况下，服务质量是决定顾客满意的关键因素。总的来说消费者满意是一个广义的感念，而服务质量专门研究服务的几个方面，可感知的服务质量就是顾客满意的一部分。关于汽车质量感知的研究显示出其质量评价的6个维度：可靠性、服务性、美誉度、耐用性、功能性和易用性。请参见下图1所示。
3.服务质量差距模型
服务差距模型（参见图2所示）的核心是顾客差距，也就是顾客期望与顾客感知的服务之间的差距。期望的服务是顾客在一次服务体验中的考察点；感知的服务是对受到服务的实际反映。中心思想在于公司想弥合所期望服务与所感知服务之间的差距，以使顾客满意并与他们建立长期的关系。为了缩小这个重要的顾客差距，模型提出了四个其他需要缩小的差距——服务供应商差距。
服务供应商差距是引起顾客差距的根本原因：
差距1——不了解顾客的期望。
差距2——未选择正确的服务设计和标准。
差距3——未按标准提供服务。
差距4——服务绩效与服务承诺不相匹配。
二、汽车4S店现状及发展前景
所谓4S是指：整车销售（sale），零部件供应（spare parts）,售后服务（service）,信息反馈（survey）。汽车4S店是将这四项功能集于一体（简称为四位一体）的汽车销售服务企业。现行的4S店一般都遵循各厂商硬件建设要求与服务标准：一是装饰豪华、格调高雅、环境舒适的汽车展示厅。厅内可划分为下列功能区：汽车展示与销售区、咨询服务区、维修服务接待区、配件陈列与销售区、用户休息区（有的还专设儿童乐园）；二楼设贵宾室、洽谈室、经理人员办公室、会议室等。二是展示厅与配件仓库、维修车间建造成均能毗连相通，不但保证了售后服务各个环节之间的连续性和有效协作，而且，使用户可以这三个相邻业务区快捷地处理完所有业务，包括购买配件、付款，从而缩短了工作流程。 三是维修车间是售后服务的最主要环节，这里有人性化的厂房空间，高效率、高精度的设备和诊断测试仪器。四是采用先进管理模式与制造厂商联网的配件仓库，做到准确订货、快捷入库、灵活结款。最后，电子计算机系统的建立实现了汽车销售、配件供销、服务接待与结算、业务管理等系统的内外联网。
进入21世纪以来，随着汽车工业竞争的日趋激烈，我国汽车销售市场除传统的汽车贸易市场外，出现了超市式大卖场、汽车一条街、特许经销商、专卖店等多种形式。目前国内各大汽车厂商均在全国各大中城市设立特许经销商（或专卖店）。各厂商均对获受权的特许经销商（或专卖店）以4S店的建设标准、投资规模、开业时间等提出要求。眼下，随着新车型的出台，4S店还将如雨后春笋般蓬勃增长。
三、汽车4S店服务中存在的问题透视
1.人员问题
服务营销三角形（即服务机构——雇员——消费者，内部营销——外部营销——互动营销）形象地强调了人员对于公司信守承诺并成功建立顾客关系这一能力的重要作用。无论服务类型和顾客与服务系统的接触水平如何，服务组织总需要依靠雇员来完成组织的使命，雇员的素质和对责任的承诺己经成为组织竞争优势的重要来源。而汽车4S店从总体上看在服务流程的执行力度上还远远不够，主要表现在接待服务、新车介绍能力及新车交付质量等方面存在不足，离用户满意还有一定的差距。
2.客户关系问题
客户关系管理（CRM, Customer Relationship Management）的核心是客户价值管理，从最有价值的顾客出发，与每一位顾客建立一种学习关系的基础。在提供从市场管理到客户服务与关怀的全程业务管理的同时，对客户购买行为和价值取向进行深入分析，为企业挖掘新的销售机会，并对未来产品发展方向提供科学、量化的指导依据，使企业在快速变化的市场环境中保持发展能力。问题主要还是在执行的过程中，4S店目前还没有充分发挥该系统的功能，从而忽视了顾客资料信息的建立和利用，未严格地执行客户回访制度，影响到与顾客的各种情感服务。 3.服务流程问题
汽车4S店对销售与售后的流程的设计还是比较全面的，但是细节不够。这主要的原因是公司的管理制度不完善，员工的服务水平和执行力度都有所欠缺。尤其在售后服务的细节上，销售主管和销售经理对销售人员缺乏有效的监督，且流程规范标准不够细致，未体现以顾客为中心的理念。
四、提升汽车4S店服务质量的对策
1.缩短服务差距
通过以上分析，为了适应当今汽车市场结构的新变化，进一步提高该4S店的服务水平，笔者认为应采取“提升服务质量，提高客户满意度”的营销策略。提高员工的素质，技能水平，抓住机会，尽可能迅速地走近客户，了解客户的需求，加强服务营销，从而提高客户的满意度。
(1)进行人员开发，保证服务质量。可通过销售战略、业务基本素质、销售流程，销售技巧、促销手段和方法等相关培训，使每一个员工详尽了解服务营销的运作，以及他们在与其他员工及其他职能部门和顾客相联系时的角色。促使员工树立“人人有责任进行服务营销”的良好的工作态度。使员工具备相互沟通、销售和服务的技能，并不断提高。其最重要的是要让员工了解到，不是为了提高员工知识水平而培训，而是为了实现4S店的服务承诺而培训。
(2)留住最好的员工。一方面，将员工纳入公司的愿景之中。要激励并使员工对追随和支持公司目标感兴趣，就必须让他们理解和分享公司的愿景。整体传递服务的人员需要理解他们的工作是如何融入组织及其目标的宏大蓝图之中的。另一方面，评估并奖励优秀员工。如果仅仅是奖励工作的结果而不是评估和奖励员工在服务工作中的行为，那么员工在易受挫折的工作过程中就得不到激励，内部营销的目标将很难实现。
为此，针对销售人员和售后服务人员设计日常服务调查问卷，由人力资源部每日向顾客进行抽样调查，其结果纳入月末考核。另外，设计员工年度绩效评估表，该表将员工的目标完成情况、服务质量和培训都纳入考核内容。通过定期公布绩效评估结果，能让员工知道他们的工作干得怎样，而相应的奖励则能增加他们令人满意的服务行为。评估机制必须公正，否则效果适得其反。
2.加强顾客关系管理
(1)完善客户资料信息，深度挖掘客户信息。顾客资料信息是4S店开展顾客关系管理的基础，所以首先注意完善顾客的资料库。4S店应成立专门的客户服务中心，组织专门人员来集中管理客户信息，保证客户关系管理的正常运作。 通过使用数据仓库与数据挖掘工具对客户信息进行细分，分析客户对汽车产品,以及服务的反应，分析客户满意度、忠诚度和利润贡献度，以便更为有效地赢得客户和保留客户。
(2)严格执行客户100%互访制度。通过互访，4S店可以与客户沟通，倾听客户的意见，进行客户满意度调查，及时反馈服务质量信息，将信息反馈记录表传给相应的责任部门，从而在有效时间内改进服务，最终使客户满意，并且每月产生服务质量月报，对服务因子进行分析，提出改进意见。在互访过程中，4S店还可以获得关于竞争对手的情报，综合这些情报，可以为4S店的市场部在制定营销计划时提供依据。
(3)提供各种情感服务。情感活动是建立与顾客的初级关系或者维系顾客关系的小技巧。这样做虽然很难影响到顾客的最终决策，但它仍然是必不可少的。它包括：提醒服务、亲情服务、告之服务等。
3.优化售后服务流程
服务过程中，顾客既是消费者，同时又是服务的生产者，在汽车服务，特别是汽车的售后服务上尤其如此。在汽车维修服务过程中，维修前台与顾客的对话、沟通共同构成服务的初级生产，维修顾问和顾客进一步详细地交谈共同构成服务的次级生产，维修技师同顾客的相互沟通最终构成了服务的产生。图3构建了汽车4S店售后服务流程的优化效果，将顾客置于整个服务的中心位置。这一位置上的改变有助于让所有员工重视顾客，形成以顾客为中心的理念。在整个服务过程中，强调了各个关键工序与顾客的互动。员工与顾客的充分互动有助于服务快速地、准确地产生，消费。这不仅提高了顾客满意度，同样也提高了员工的满意度。

B. 如何利用服务质量差距模型对旅游服务质量进行管理

既然有模型，那就将现有旅游服务的要点一一对号入座，进入模型，如有缺失的环节则补齐，如不符合要求的改进。
然后按照模型运行。

C. 谁来帮帮我，解释一下什么是SERVQUAL和GAPS MODEL以及他们之间的关系啊

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
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. 服务满意度的满意度指数模型调查

宏观角度衡量服务，跨行业/企业可比
1988年，美国学者Fornell将结构方程和满意度形成心理路径相结合，提出了新的满意度模型，成为世界各国制定国家满意度指数模型的基础，瑞典最先应用推出SCSB，之后不断发展为ACSI、ECSI。满意度指数模型认为影响客户满意的因素，除了感知质量，还包括品牌形象、客户预期、价值感知等。2001年开始，原信息产业部开始对全国各电信运营商进行顾客满意度指数研究，并逐年公布电信行业顾客满意度指数(TCSI)，并把满意度测评分数纳入KPI，这大大推动了满意度指数模型在中国的推广应用和技术发展。
服务质量不等于满意度，满意度指数模型认为除了“感知质量（即服务质量）”外，“品牌形象”、“用户预期”、“价值感知”都是影响客户满意度的因素，并且在4个满意度影响因素之间存在路径和因果关系，形成一个结构方程。
满意度指数模型适用于国家、行业层面的满意度调查。因为企事业单位存在明显的差异性，一个单位的感知质量满意度模型不能适用另一个单位，所以如果要对整个国家或整个行业进行满意度调查，就必须有一个无关企事业单位差异性的模型。满意度指数模型是根据客户满意度形成的心理路径设计，与企事业单位服务的差异性无关，因此满意度指数调查具有跨行业、跨企业可比的特点。如中国电信行业的指数模型TCSI：
对于企事业单位的满意度测评来说时，满意度指数模型的好处在于更完整地揭示了满意度的影响因素，站在一个更高的层面看问题；不足之处在于，满意度指数模型的设计消除了单位差异性的影响，使得单位在许多个性化、细节上的问题得不到体现，而且“品牌”、“预期”、“价值”等因素属于很难控制甚至不可控的因素，需要企业高层跨部门联合才能推动，对于企业的服务管理部门来说，其服务改进重点仍只能着落于“质量”部分。因此，企事业单位在应用满意度指数模型时，仍要结合感知质量模型，使得问卷长度大大增加。

E. 怎样用服务差距模型来改进服务质量

不懂你的服务差距模式是什么？不过现在人花钱都是买服务的，要先让服务人员了解自己从事的服务行业是值得让人尊重的，即使是洗碗工，也有他的服务价值，再呢，要让服务人员了解自己服务的宗旨，也就是意义，例如饭店服务员，他们的目标就是让顾客吃的舒心，要从细节抓客人，例如为顾客添水··让顾客觉得自己别人重视着，这样就会有回头客哦，重点是细节！！最后是换位思考，假如自己是消费者，会有怎样的消费心理，会想得到什么样的服务·这是我的拙见了··嘿嘿

F. 如何利用服务质量差距模型提高服务质量

和绩效挂钩一样，只要把服务质量水平不同级别的人的工资差距拉大就可以了