北京工商大学学报:社会科学版
北京工商大學學報:社會科學版
북경공상대학학보:사회과학판
JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS UNIVERSITY
2015年
2期
48~55
,共null页
快递企业 服务质量 差距分析 竞争性容忍区间 CZIPA
快遞企業 服務質量 差距分析 競爭性容忍區間 CZIPA
쾌체기업 복무질량 차거분석 경쟁성용인구간 CZIPA
courier enterprises; service quality; gap analysis; competitive zone of tolerance; CZIPA ( competitive ZOTservice quality based IPA)
服务质量的优化改进是提高顾客满意度和提升快速企业核心竞争力的关键。文章以SERVQUAL模型为基础,借助内容分析法和专家访谈法,构建了由可靠性、保证性、便利性、有形性、安全性和补救性构成的快递服务质量6维模型和评价体系,并将融合了差距分析和竞争性容忍区间的CZIPA法引入到快递服务质量评价中,利用问卷调研数据,以竞争对手的顾客感知质量和服务重要性为参照,对申通快递进行了测评。研究发现,中通快递服务的安全性、便利性、保证性和补救性维度依次处于优先改进的前4位,可靠性和有形性维度无须优先改进;在25个属性指标中,有10个指标无须优先改进,而“服务人员不滥用顾客个人信息”等15个指标需要根据企业资源能力和发展战略依次优先改进。
服務質量的優化改進是提高顧客滿意度和提升快速企業覈心競爭力的關鍵。文章以SERVQUAL模型為基礎,藉助內容分析法和專傢訪談法,構建瞭由可靠性、保證性、便利性、有形性、安全性和補救性構成的快遞服務質量6維模型和評價體繫,併將融閤瞭差距分析和競爭性容忍區間的CZIPA法引入到快遞服務質量評價中,利用問捲調研數據,以競爭對手的顧客感知質量和服務重要性為參照,對申通快遞進行瞭測評。研究髮現,中通快遞服務的安全性、便利性、保證性和補救性維度依次處于優先改進的前4位,可靠性和有形性維度無鬚優先改進;在25箇屬性指標中,有10箇指標無鬚優先改進,而“服務人員不濫用顧客箇人信息”等15箇指標需要根據企業資源能力和髮展戰略依次優先改進。
복무질량적우화개진시제고고객만의도화제승쾌속기업핵심경쟁력적관건。문장이SERVQUAL모형위기출,차조내용분석법화전가방담법,구건료유가고성、보증성、편리성、유형성、안전성화보구성구성적쾌체복무질량6유모형화평개체계,병장융합료차거분석화경쟁성용인구간적CZIPA법인입도쾌체복무질량평개중,이용문권조연수거,이경쟁대수적고객감지질량화복무중요성위삼조,대신통쾌체진행료측평。연구발현,중통쾌체복무적안전성、편리성、보증성화보구성유도의차처우우선개진적전4위,가고성화유형성유도무수우선개진;재25개속성지표중,유10개지표무수우선개진,이“복무인원불람용고객개인신식”등15개지표수요근거기업자원능력화발전전략의차우선개진。
Prioritizing improvements of quality attributes are very important for courier enterprises to make customer more satisfactory and enhance the core competence. Based on SERVQUAL model, this paper proposes a courier service quality six-di- mensional model including reliability, assurance, convenience, safety, tangibles and recovery. It applies a revised importance- performance analysis approach which integrates the concept of gap analysis and competitive zone of tolerance to evaluate the serv- ice quality of Chinese leading STO Express by benchmarking against competitors. The analysis reveals the order of priority for im- provements for STO Express's service quality dimensions is safety, convenience, assurance and recovery, while reliability and tangibles need little priority improvement. Furthermore, 10 out of the 25 service quality attributes are assigned a lower priority for improvements, while the other 15 attributes, such as" employees not abuse customers' personal information" need to be improved with a higher priority.