CASE STUDY

Suvillan Ford Auto word case study solution



Sullivan Ford Automobile: Case study solution

Both research academic and business practice are suggesting that a high level of quality of service provides businesses with significant benefits story to share market , productivity , costs, motivation of staff , differentiation from competence , loyalty and training of new clients. As a result of this evidence, the management of service quality has become a strategy and a growing priority over those who seek to define, measure and ultimately improve it (Poole, 2000, 22-41).

Unfortunately, defining and measuring quality has proven to be particularly complex in the area of services. Since the fact that quality is a concept yet to be defined (Nyeck, 2002, 101-107). In the literature on the subject, the model that has a higher spread is called Model Deficiencies (Zeithaml, 1990, 125-139), which defines service quality as a function of the discrepancy between consumer expectations about the service they receive and their perceptions of the service actually provided by the company. The authors suggest that reducing or eliminating the difference, called GAP 5, depends in turn on the efficient management of the company's four other service deficiencies or discrepancies (Figure 1). Then we analyze the five gaps in the proposed work and its impact (Luis, 2005, 1562-1572).

Figure 01

GAP 1: Discrepancy between customer expectations and perceptions that Sullivan Ford Auto world has on those expectations.

One of the main reasons, why the quality of service may be perceived as poor, is not knowing exactly what customers expect. Currently Sullivan ford is facing the same problem. The Gap 1, Gap Information Marketing is the only one who crosses the border that separates the customers of providers of service and arises when utilities do not know in advance which aspects are indicative of high quality for the customer, which are essential to meet their needs and performance levels are required to provide a quality service (Lefebvre, 2005, 845-859).

GAP 2: Discrepancy between the perception that managers have on customer expectations and quality specifications.

There are times that even with sufficient and accurate information about what customers expect, service companies cannot meet those expectations. This may be due to the quality specifications of the services are not consistent with the Perceptions about customer expectations. It is to say that the perceptions do not translate into customer-oriented standards.

The Sullivan Ford knows what consumers want, but do not turn that knowledge into clear and concise guidelines for the provision of services can be several reasons: the responsibility of setting standards consider that customer expectations are unrealistic and unreasonable. They believe that the inherent variability unviable services standardization, there is no process of establishing formal goals or standards and they are set to serve the interests of the company and not their customers (Luis, 2005, 1562-1572).

GAP 3: Discrepancy between the quality specifications and the service actually provided.

Understanding the expectations of customers and have guidelines that accurately reflect not guarantee the provision of a high quality of ...