Service Quality and the AuQS 2000 Quality Management System

By Asst. Prof. Teay Shawyun Ph.D.

http://www.qa.au.edu/page2/auqs2000/ServiceQuality.pdf

Service Quality Gap Model

,

The gap model (also known as the "5 gaps model") of service quality is an important customer-satisfaction framework. In "A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research" (The Journal of Marketing, 1985), A. Parasuraman, VA Zeitham and LL Berry identify five major gaps that face organizations seeking to meet customer's expectations of the customer experience.

The five gaps that organizations should measure, manage and minimize:

• Gap 1 is the distance between what customers expect and what managers think they expect - Clearly survey research is a key way to narrow this gap.
• Gap 2 is between management perception and the actual specification of the customer experience - Managers need to make sure the organization is defining the level of service they believe is needed.
• Gap 3 is from the experience specification to the delivery of the experience - Managers need to audit the customer experience that their organization currently delivers in order to make sure it lives up to the spec.
• Gap 4 is the gap between the delivery of the customer experience and what is communicated to customers - All too often organizations exaggerate what will be provided to customers, or discuss the best case rather than the likely case, raising customer expectations and harming customer perceptions.
• Finally, Gap 5 is the gap between a customer's perception of the experience and the customer's expectation of the service - Customers' expectations have been shaped by word of mouth, their personal needs and their own past experiences. Routine transactional surveys after delivering the customer experience are important for an organization to measure customer perceptions of service.

http://blog.vovici.com/blog/bid/18271/Service-Quality-Gap-Model

Kano Model - How to delight your customers

http://www.slideshare.net/LawrencePhillips/kano-model-rev-1

The KANO model… so good for User Experience

Must Have ( “Basic needs”)
These basic requirements are not always expressed but they are obvious to the customer and must be met.  If you don’t do it, “you’re dead !”
These requirements are not a source of satisfaction but can cause major disappointment.  They’re not the priority in term of development but must be there the D day.

E.g. brakes of a car; a bed in a hotel room …

Performance needs (”Linear”)
The need is expressed and customer satisfaction is proportional to the level of performance (and quality) of what is implemented.  It is a strong source of customer satisfaction and a priority for Development.
It must be shown as soon as possible to the Users.

User feedback on these functions is crucial.

Delighters ( “exciters “)
These requirements are not necessarily expressed.  Sometimes they’re unconscious. 

This is the happy surprise that can make a difference, and an important source of satisfaction. If not there, no dissatisfaction, no frustration: they’re not expected.
Thus  in terms of development, they are usually not a priority, except if it is your product or firm strategy.

E.g. The glass of champagne when you arrive at the restaurant, the wifi on the plane or in your hotel room, the mobile touch screen…
Exciters are the keys to Innovation.
 


http://www.agile-ux.com/2009/05/06/the-kano-model%E2%80%A6-so-good-for-user-experience/

Lim Wei Jie's Question about Airline's Liabilities to Passengers

What are the airline's liabilities to passengers, and what are the costs and operational impacts when flights are late?

Just concentrating on Delays & Cancellations, an airline's liability is determined by the cause of the AOG (Acft on Ground). 

The Airline is not liable during a force majeure or Act Of God, like the Eyjafjoell Volcano eruption. In those situations, any action on the part of the airline to rebook passengers/ provide free accommodation/ provide meal vouchers is entirely a gesture of goodwill of the airline. The airline can choose to do any or all of the above to selected pax or all of the pax. Logically, airlines should extend some form of aid. However, in reality, airlines are cautious in providing aid wholesale, because airlines would bleed terribly if they do so.

On the other hand, if it is a technical delay, eg. Engine unserviceable, fuel line ruptured, Aircon inoperable, etc. the airline is liable. However, the extent of liability is once again limited by several factors:

• Location of AOG (generally, airlines are legally obliged by stricter service recovery rules if location is in EU states)
• Distance of flight
• Cabin Class of traveling Pax
• Frequent Flyer status
• Length of delay
• Time of delay (overnight?)
• etc

 Next, Airlines would have to rebook Passengers, which will also be based on another matrix. 

Don't forget that not all Pax are travelling point-to-point. A delay who inadvertently mean that a Pax who miss most, if not all of his remaining connections. And if you are wondering if the airline at fault is responsible for rebooking the affected Pax, you would have to look at the airline's Rebooking Matrix. 


People always compare one airline's service recovery to another. Generally, it's not the airlines you fly with, it's the cabin class you fly in.
 

Most of the big airlines publish their DBC policies online. This is an example of the Denied Boarding Compensation (DBC) of Turkish Airlines.

AIRLINE QUALITY RATING 2010

http://downloads.aqr.aero/reports/2010aqr.pdf

Abstract

The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) was developed and first announced in early 1991 as an objective method for assessing airline quality on combined multiple performance criteria. This current report, the Airline Quality Rating 2010, reflects monthly Airline Quality Rating scores for calendar year 2009. AQR scores for 2009 are based on 15 elements in four major areas that focus on airline performance aspects important to air travel consumers.
The Airline Quality Rating 2010 is a summary of month-by-month quality ratings for U.S. airlines that are required to report performance by virtue of having at least 1% of domestic scheduled-service passenger revenue during 2009. Using the Airline Quality Rating system of weighted averages and monthly performance data in the areas of on-time arrivals, involuntary denied boardings, mishandled baggage, and a combination of 12 customer complaint categories, airlines’ comparative performance for the calendar year of 2009 is reported. This research monograph contains a brief summary of the AQR methodology, detailed data and charts that track comparative quality for domestic airline operations for the 12-month period of 2009, and industry results. Also, comparative Airline Quality Rating data for 2008 are included, where available, to provide historical perspective regarding performance quality in the industry.

Changi ground handling scene set for shake-up

SIX years ago, Changi Airport took a big step to liberalise its ground-handling market and awarded a new licence for the first time in almost three decades, to global giant Swissport.
It seemed a good move. Passenger, baggage and cargo handling rates fell as did charges for ramp handling which includes parking and towing as well as cleaning of aircraft. This made airlines happy and the airport more competitive. On the surface, the exercise had met its objectives.
But Swissport was bleeding and after four years of operations, called it quits in April last year, having suffered losses of more than $50 million.
Despite the failed attempt, Changi is at it again and intends to have another new player in the business next year, joining incumbents Singapore Airport Terminal Services (Sats) and Changi International Airport Services (CIAS).
Four parties - low-cost carriers Jetstar and AirAsia, Australia's Aero-Care and SIA Engineering - have already expressed interest in the proposal, undeterred by the failure of heavyweight Swissport.
They know that whoever bags the job this time will have a better chance of success in a new competitive landscape, driven by recent developments in the local aviation scene.
With a presence at 178 airports in 38 countries, Swissport is no small fry; yet it managed to secure just four airline customers in its four years here.
A key reason was the common practice of reciprocity, where a carrier with its own ground-handling operation agrees to use another airline's in return for a reciprocal arrangement elsewhere.
With Sats a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines (SIA), there was little hope for Swissport and indeed CIAS to chip away at its 80 per cent share of Changi's ground-handling business. To defend its turf, Sats also reportedly cut rates and renegotiated contracts with airline customers, locking them in for three to five years.
That was then. Today Sats stands alone, separated from SIA after a split last year. The rift was further deepened when Sats declared a few months ago that it was also breaking up with SIA's aircraft maintenance arm SIA Engineering, after obtaining its own ramp-handling licence.
Before, the two were ground-handling partners, with Sats taking care of catering and passenger, baggage and cargo handling while SIA Engineering took charge of ramp handling, including aircraft parking, towing and cleaning.
The big divorce presents opportunities, which Swissport did not have, for CIAS and the new ground handler, to move in on Sats' existing customer base.
Sats must be feeling the heat because it has, in the last 18 months or so, made strategic moves to reduce its reliance on the aviation industry by growing its food arm, most notably with the acquisition of food manufacturer and distributor, Singapore Food Industries.
The Sats factor aside, it is the recent boom in low-cost travel out of Changi Airport that the new ground handler will be able to cash in on.
In its specifications to interested parties, Changi Airport Group made clear that the ongoing hunt is for a firm that has operated in an environment 'with a mix of full-service air carriers and a growing base of low-cost air carriers'. It added that the ground handler should have implemented innovative products and service solutions, in particular to serve the needs of such carriers.
Handling machines and other tools of the trade may be similar but budget airlines often have different operational needs from the likes of SIA.
For instance, a no-frills carrier which sells food and drinks on board instead of offering meals as part of the air fare, may want an option that allows them to return to the ground handler food that is not sold. Also, they are less hung up on performance indicators like how fast a bag appears on the belt after a plane lands.
It is interesting to note that of the four firms in the running for the new licence, two are low-cost carriers and one already services such carriers in Australia.
Given the rate at which budget airlines have expanded their business at Changi, having a hold on this segment of the business would lock in significant market share for the chosen ground handler.
In just under six years, the number of low-cost flights in and out of Changi Airport has jumped by about 90 per cent, contributing to the boom in regional air traffic. Between 2004 and last year, passenger numbers between Singapore and the region grew by almost 40 per cent, outstripping overall growth.
Jetstar Asia, AirAsia and Tiger Airways - the three main low-cost carriers at Changi Airport - now operate a total of more than 1,200 to-and-fro flights a week, about 24 per cent of the airport's total.
When Jetstar's Australia-based boss Bruce Buchanan was in town several months ago, he told reporters that Jetstar and AirAsia, which recently formed an alliance to pool expertise and resources, have agreed that if either of them gets the ground-handling licence, the airline will also be assured of the other carrier's business.
An even bigger prize potentially is Qantas, which owns Jetstar Airways in Australia and 49 per cent of the Singapore-based arm, Jetstar Asia. Qantas is the second-biggest carrier operating at Changi Airport, after SIA.
With fresh opportunities and a new aviation landscape, Changi Airport's second attempt at opening up the ground-handling market looks set to give the industry a good shake-up.


~ The Straits Times, 12/07/10