调查内部服务质量、内部服务要素、内部顾客满意度三者的关系【外文翻译】

外文翻译原文the relationships between internal service quality and its dimensions, and internalcustomer satisfaction.Material Source: Total Quality ManagementV ol. 21, No. 2, February 2010Author: Minjoon Jun and Shaohan CaiThe concept of “customer-focused q uality” has long been contemplated throughout the history of total quality management (TQM) and continues to be a hot topic addressed by much academic and trade literature today (e.g. Anderson et al., 1994; Dean & Bowen, 1994; Flynn & Saladin, 2001; Sila, 2007). However, while strong emphasis has been consistently placed on external customer service quality, relatively little attention has been paid to internal customer service quality (Stanley & Wisner, 2001).Internal customers can be defined as individuals of other departments within an organization that an internal supplier serves. In this sense, an organization can be conceptualized as a chain of individual units that are linked together to satisfy external customers. Thus, the collaboration between work units, as internal customers and as internal suppliers, ultimately impacts on the company’s ability to meet or exceed external customers’ needs and expectations (Fredendall et al., 2005). Some researchers have argued that internal customers are equally important as external customers and that successful internal customer service may result in more efficient internal exchanges between various organizational members and departments, lower waste and costs, and improved external customer service quality (Finn et al., 1996; Stanley & Wisner, 2001; Wisner & Stanley, 1999).Despite its strategic importance in sustaining competitiveness in the marketplace, the issue of internal customer service has received relatively little attention from researchers.Moreover, most of the studies in this field have focused more on providing conceptual frameworks for achieving high internal customer service quality than on conducting an in-depth empirical investigation into the assertions posited in the literature (Wisner & Stanley, 1999).In view of the fact that the internal customer is a final judge of internal service quality, the authors, through this empirical study, have intended to contribute to abetter understanding of internal customers’ perceptions of service quality and their satisfaction. Particularly, this study has focused on the internal service of the purchasing department, whose primary function is to provide a wide variety of internal customers with various types of services, such as placing and tracking purchase orders, determining needs and specifications for internal customers, and helping to introduce new technology into product and process designs. Recently, the role of the department, as an intermediary between external suppliers and a buying organisation, has become increasingly important, as the number of companies implementing buyer–supplier strategic alliances and supply chain improvement programmes is fast growing.The specific objectives of this research are to (1) identify key underlying dimensions of internal customer service quality as perceived by the purchasing department’s internal customers;(2) assess the relationship between the identified internal service quality dimensions and internal customers’ perceptions of overall internal service quality; (3) examine the relationship between the internal service quality dimensions and internal customers’ satisfaction; and (4) measure the relationship between internal customers’ perceived overall service quality and their satisfaction.1 Internal service quality dimensionsCustomer perceived service quality can be defined as a global judgment or attitude related to the superiority of a service relative to competing offerings (Parasuraman et al., 1988).The term ‘perception’ pertains to the consumers’ beliefs concerning the received or experienced service (Parasuraman et al., 1988).In the past three decades, numerous studies have attempted to discover the global or standard dimensions of service quality that are considered important by external customers (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Pitt et al., 1999; Sasser et al., 1978). Among them, Parasuraman et al.’s (1985) work has been regarded as most prominent. This study uncovered, through a series of focus group sessions, 10 dimensions of service quality that are generic and relevant to services in general: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,communication,credibility,security, competence, courtesy, understanding the customer and access.Later, these 10 dimensions were condensed into five by using factor analysis: tangibles, reliability, responsibility, assurance and empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Based on these five dimensions, Parasuraman (1988) developed a global measurement for service quality, namely, SERVQUAL. Since then, the SERVQUALmeasurement has been applied to measure the external service quality in various service industries by many researchers. In the context of internal service quality, several researchers have also applied SERVQUAL. For example, Frost and Kumar (2001) employed SERVQUAL to measure internal service quality in a international airline and claimed that the measurement instrument could be successfully used to assess internal customer service quality.However, prior research suggests that service quality tends service-type-dependent (Saravanan & Rao, 2007). Moreover, since most of the existing measures of service quality, including the SERVQUAL instrument, were originally developed for assessing external customer service quality, it is somewhat questionable whether those measures are adequate to evaluate internal customer service quality (Marshall, 1998).Apparently, internal customers share many characteristics with external customers, yet they also have their own unique aspects. For example, Fin (1996) have differentiated internal customers from external ones as follows: most internal customers, unlike external customers who consume both goods and services, are customers of services alone; internal customers typically have little or no choice about their supplier while external ones can make their own choices. Similarly, Nagel and Cilliers (1990) argue that the internal customer is frequently committed to or a ‘captive’ of the internal supplier.Accordingly, various researchers have sought to identify key service quality dimensions tha t best fit purchasing’s internal customer service. Rossler and Hirsz (1995) have empirically identified seven underlying dimensions of purchasing service quality: collaboration, accuracy, communication, responsiveness, professionalism, technical knowledge, and internal customer concerns. Finn (1996) find, through a series of interviews with purchasing’s internal customers and mail surveys, six key service quality attributes: tender loving care, delivering value, correct and rapid order processing, effective vendor management, purchasing knowledge, and no surprises (keeping promises and keeping users informed). Later, Stanley and Wisner (1998,1999,2001) identify nine specific service quality dimensions based on their literature review and interviews with several purchasing executives familiar with the internal service quality philosophy: responsiveness, quality of product/service delivered, flexibility to meet customers’ changing needs, on-time delivery of products/services, ability to meet customer expectations, on-timedelivery of information, reliable delivery of information, explanation of delivery problems, and communication.2 Internal service quality dimensions and overall service qualityPrior research in external customer service quality suggests that not all service quality dimensions have equal impacts on consumers’ quality perceptions or their satisfaction (Jayasuriya, 1998; Johnston, 1995; Rosen & Karwan, 1994). The same logic can be applied to internal customer service quality. Thus, it is important to identify, among a variety of internal service quality dimensions, which dimensions are more crucial than others in enhancing the level of overall internal service quality as perceived by internal customers, and to measure to what extent they should be. By addressing these important questions, internal suppliers can understand what service areas they should concentrate on to effectively improve their internal service quality and internal customer satisfaction, while avoiding the investment of much money and other resources in providing service quality dimensions that may not pay off (Oliva , 1992).In examining the relative importance of internal service quality dimensions to overall internal service quality, Frost and Kumar (2001) utilize the SERVQUAL scale to measure the service quality as perceived by internal suppliers (support staff such as cabin cleaners and baggage handlers) in a airline and their internal customers (flight attendants).They find that, of the five SERVQUAL dimensions, internal customers perceive reliability as the most important dimension, followed by responsiveness and assurance. In relation to purchasing’s internal service quality, Young and Varble (1997) have employed the SERVQUAL instrument to assess the service quality as percei ved by purchasing’s internal customers. This study reveals the relative importance of internal service quality dimensions as follows: in descending order of importance, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles. Finn (1996) find that the order-processing dimension is considered the most important by purchasing’s customers, followed by tender loving care, vendor management, no surprises, knowledge, and delivering value.3 Overall internal service quality and satisfactionRegarding the rel ationship between customers’ perceptions of overall service quality and their satisfaction, some researchers argued that service quality was not related to customer satisfaction under certain circumstances. For instance, Parasuraman et al. (1985) have found several examples where even though consumers were satisfied with a particular service, they did not think that it was ofhigh quality. Along these lines, Storbacka (1994) also note that: ‘A customer could, respond on a questionnaire that a particular bank is of high quality, even if this did not mean this customer was satisfied with using the bank. Its interest rates on loans may be too high or it might not fit the customer’s preferences for some other reason’. Approaching this issue differently, other researchers (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Oliver, 1980) suggest that service quality would lead to customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. However, there has been some controversy in quality management literature over the issue of the sequential order of the two co nstructs, ‘quality influences satisfaction’ vs. ‘satisfaction influences quality’. For example, Cronin and Taylor (1992) and Parasuraman et al. (1988) have viewed customer satisfaction as a cumulative evaluation and a consequence of perceived service quality.译文调查内部服务质量、内部服务要素、内部顾客满意度三者的关系资料来源：全面质量管理（2号2010）作者：Minjoon Jun and Shaohan Cai 引言“以顾客为中心的质量”这一概念早已成为整个历史的全面质量管理（TQM），并继续作为一个热门话题被当今学术界和贸易界中诸多学者所强调（如Anderso等，1994；Dean和Bowen，1994；Flynn和Saladin，2001；Sila，2007）。