**2. Service quality models**

Service quality has been studied extensively across disciplines including marketing, management, and information systems science. Several foundational models that inform research on mobile service quality have been developed.

## **2.1 SERVQUAL model**

One of the most widely adopted service quality frameworks is the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988). This model characterizes service quality along five key dimensions:


The SERVQUAL model proposes that service quality depends not just on actual service delivery, but also the gaps between a customer's expectations and their perceptions of the service experience. By measuring both expectations and perceptions across these five dimensions through surveys or interviews, providers can identify areas where perceived service falls short of desired expectations. This framework equips organizations to understand customer perspectives and target improvements accordingly.

The SERVQUAL instrument has been applied in many industries and service contexts, making it one of the most widely utilized service quality models. However, SERVQUAL has faced some criticism. The expectation-perception gap approach can be difficult to implement reliably, with debate about whether customers can accurately recall preservice expectations [7]. The five dimensions may not fully capture all possible facets of service quality. Applicability across various service contexts has also been questioned [8].

Nonetheless, the SERVQUAL model pioneered the conceptualization of service quality as a multidimensional construct. It provides a useful foundation and starting framework that can be adapted or supplemented for specific service contexts. The model's focus on understanding customer perspectives through the gaps approach gives important insights for managing service quality. As such, SERVQUAL has strongly influenced subsequent service quality research and frameworks.

#### *2.1.1 SERVPERF model*

A widely employed adaptation of SERVQUAL is the SERVPERF model developed by Cronin and Taylor (1992). This streamlined model is based solely on perceived service performance rather than expectation-perception gaps. SERVPERF measures customer perceptions of quality across the same five SERVQUAL dimensions, without directly measuring prior expectations [7].

Cronin and Taylor (1992) empirically tested both SERVQUAL and SERVPERF approaches and found perceived performance alone accounted for more of the variation in customer satisfaction. They argued service providers should focus primarily on performance delivery rather than expectation management. The SERVPERF model simplifies data collection and analysis by relying only on performance measures. Subsequent studies have affirmed SERVPERF explains more variance in satisfaction and loyalty.

However, conceptual arguments for incorporating expectations remain strong. Customers often have preconceived service expectations that if unmet can undermine perceptions [9]. Measuring gaps can identify problem areas directly, rather than just low perception scores. Thus while SERVPERF offers advantages in execution, SERVQUAL provides richer diagnostics. Each approach has merits for developing mobile service quality frameworks.

#### *2.1.2 IT alignment model*

An important perspective for managing quality of technology-enabled services comes from the information systems (IS) success model developed by DeLone and McLean (2003). This model provides a comprehensive framework highlighting the interrelated dimensions of information quality, system quality, and service quality that drive intentions to use, user satisfaction, and net positive benefits. A key emphasis is the need to carefully adapt metrics and measures of IS success to the specific technology, application, and usage context [10].

#### *Measuring the Service Quality of Mobile Smart Devices: A Framework for Best Practices DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113993*

As mobile platforms transform service ecosystems, enabling new forms of service delivery, consumption, and value creation, the DeLone and McLean framework provides critical guidance to reevaluate service quality assessment. Traditional models like SERVQUAL may not fully capture new dynamics, interactions, and outcomes made possible by smart mobile technologies and interfaces. More adaptable, contextaware approaches are required.

The DeLone and McLean model defines quality constructs as follows:


A key insight is distinguishing the separate but interdependent roles of information, system, and service quality for overall user satisfaction and system success. For mobile service ecosystems, advanced interfaces and content delivery may exceed traditional support services in dominating quality perceptions.

The model also emphasizes relationships between quality constructs, usage intentions, user satisfaction, and net benefits. Service quality alone is insufficient—positive outcomes depend on optimizing information and system quality. High information and system quality can also compensate for some service delivery shortcomings.

This model provides a more holistic, context-aware perspective on service quality. It underscores the need for flexible, multidimensional approaches adaptable to evolving mobile platforms and usage contexts. As technology-enabled services transform, so must measurement frameworks to capture new drivers of quality perceptions and system success.

#### *2.1.3 Hierarchical model*

Brady and Cronin (2001) proposed a multidimensional, multilevel conceptualization of service quality known as the Hierarchical Model. This model asserts that customers form perceptions of quality based on evaluations of performance at different levels [11].

The three primary levels in the hierarchy are:


• Outcome quality – The highest level focused on the results and what is accomplished through the service act. It encapsulates perceptions of what the customer obtains from the service experience.

A key premise is that customers make bottom-up quality judgments across these levels. Interaction quality lays the foundation. The environment and conditions surrounding service delivery form the next facet of evaluation. Finally, the ultimate outcome achieved determines perceptions of highest-level quality.

The model further proposes three subdimensions of quality for each level:


By distinguishing between hierarchical levels and quality subdimensions, this model provides a more nuanced, multidimensional conceptualization of service quality. It moves beyond the SERVQUAL focus on just customer-employee interactions to also encapsulate broader environmental and outcome considerations.

For mobile service contexts, mapping quality perceptions to interaction, environment, and outcome levels can give greater diagnostic precision. Interaction may translate to human-device interactions and interfaces. The service environment consists of mobile hardware, operating platforms, and ecosystems. Outcomes depend on how technology-enabled services generate value across user contexts. A hierarchical approach allows linking specific quality issues to subdimensions within appropriate levels. This framework enhances understanding of multidimensional drivers to optimize mobile service quality.
