exploring customers' perceptions in creating and delivering value

This article was downloaded by: [University of Utah]On: 10 October 2014, At: 05:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Services Marketing QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsmq20

Exploring Customers'Perceptions in Creating andDelivering ValueIsmet Anitsal a & Daniel J. Flint ba Department of Economics, Finance, andMarketing , Tennessee Tech University , Cookeville,TN, 38505, USAb Director of the Customer Value/Marketing StrategyForum, Department of Marketing and Logistics ,University of Tennessee , Knoxville, TN, 37996-0595,USAPublished online: 09 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Ismet Anitsal & Daniel J. Flint (2006) Exploring Customers'Perceptions in Creating and Delivering Value, Services Marketing Quarterly, 27:1,57-72, DOI: 10.1300/J396v27n01_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J396v27n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsmq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J396v27n01_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J396v27n01_04

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Exploring Customers’ Perceptionsin Creating and Delivering Value:Technology-Based Self-Service

as an Illustration

Ismet AnitsalDaniel J. Flint

ABSTRACT. Retailers increasingly rely on technology-based self-ser-vice (TBSS) options (e.g., self-checkouts in grocery stores) to provideservice to their customers. In TBSS environments, customers servethemselves at the convenience of these service options more than everbefore. Retailers try to create and sustain a competitive advantage by of-fering customer value based on the utilization of TBSS options, whilecustomers try to receive the best value for their participation in serviceproduction and delivery. The purpose of this exploratory qualitativestudy is to understand and address the potential gaps between retailer’svalue offering and customer’s perceptions, particularly in TBSS envi-ronments of retail and grocery stores. The current paper uses a series ofin-depth interviews based on a qualitative research design with groundedtheory methodology underpinnings. In the interest of discovery, initialresearch findings inspired us to think about the issues toward a gap idea,

Ismet Anitsal is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Economics, Fi-nance, and Marketing, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, TN 38505 (E-mail:[email protected]).

Daniel J. Flint is Assistant Professor of Marketing and Director of the CustomerValue/Marketing Strategy Forum, Department of Marketing and Logistics, University ofTennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0595.

The authors would like to thank ML Department for the financial support andCheryl J. Handler for her help in conducting interviews.

This research was funded by a scholarly research grant of the Department of Mar-keting and Logistics (ML), The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27(1) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/SMQ

© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J396v27n01_04 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

supported by the extant literature. Findings of the study provide helpfulinsights on the issues discussed, but further qualitative in-depth andquantitative empirical studies are also needed. [Article copies availablefor a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Customer value, value creation, value delivery, valuegaps, technology-based self-service, customer value model

INTRODUCTION

Creation and delivery of superior customer value will likely be a nextmajor source for competitive advantage (Woodruff, 1997). As one way toachieve this, retailers increasingly provide technology-based self-service(TBSS) options to their customers (Anitsal, Moon, and Anitsal, 2002b;Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee, 2003). In this rapidly emerging, technologi-cally-oriented service concept, customers provide the service for them-selves by utilizing self-service technology (SST) with or without helpfrom a retail contact employee (Dabholkar, 1994; Meuter and Bitner,1998), which creates customer value by helping customers checkoutmore quickly (Dabholkar, 1996), providing them a simple convenience(Berry, Seiders, and Grewal, 2002) and usually leading to higher per-ceived service quality (Dabholkar, 1990). Some examples of TBSS op-tions in major retail and grocery stores include vending machines, ATMs,coin machines, paycheck cashing machines, price checkers, coupon dis-pensers, coffee grinding stations, interactive game stations, self-scanningpayment devices, self-checkout systems, and electronic kiosks for tires,batteries or gift registry (Anitsal, Moon, and Anitsal, 2002a). Increaseduse of TBSS options seems to be shaping customers’ perceptions of valuethat are consistent with emerging demographic trends. A rise in the num-ber of working women, an increase in single-person households and timescarcity of consumers, for example, appear to strengthen American corevalues such as individualism, efficiency and practicality (Schiffman andKanuk, 2000; Sheth and Mittal, 2004).

Adoption of self-checkout systems, a rapidly emerging representative ofTBSS options, across retail sectors is still in its infancy. However, it hasbeen well established among large grocery retailers. Currently, 23 percentof grocery stores have already adopted self-checkout systems, while an ad-

58 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ditional 14 percent are likely to adopt within two years (RIS/Gartner,2003). According to another optimistic prediction, almost 90 percent ofgrocers will have self-checkout lines by 2005 (Schatz, 2003). On the part ofconsumers, adoption of self-checkout use, for example, is nearly 20 percentof all customers at UK Safeway and 46 percent in one store located in Scot-land (Hennessy, 1998). A recent online survey completed by 2,120 con-sumers also showed that the majority of respondents (59.7 percent) preferto have (including “must have,” “should have,” and “nice to have” choices)“self-scan and bag products at checkout,” while only 22 percent prefer notto have this shopping feature (Burke, 2002, p. 425). Rapid adoption pro-cess of SSTs is important for retailers to cover all of the fixed costs of thetechnology investment as fast as possible by retaining only the minimumnumber of employees from the beginning (Lee and Allaway, 2002). Con-sumers’ adoption of self-checkout use is currently slower than retailers’adoption of self-service utilization in their stores. Understanding customervalue can illustrate the potential gaps between the perceptions of retailersand customers. Closing these gaps should be helpful in developing betterTBSS options and facilitate more rapid adoption.

Retailers strive to create added value “by relieving the customer” and“by enabling the customer” (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996). However, addedvalue may not be sufficient when considered at the attribute level withoutrelevant consequences and accomplishment of personal overriding goals ina customer value/means-ends hierarchy model (Gutman, 1982; Woodruffand Gardial, 1996; Anitsal and Fairhurst, 2003). Indeed, retailers cannotobjectively determine customer value without considering what customersperceive. Customer value is “a customer’s perceived preference for andevaluation of those product [service] attributes, attribute performances, andconsequences arising from use that facilitate (or block) achieving the cus-tomer’s goals and purposes in use situations” (Woodruff, 1997, p. 142).Simply, customer desired value is “the customer’s perception of what theywant to have happen in a specific use situation, with the help of a product orservice offering, in order to accomplish a desired purpose or goal” (Wood-ruff and Gardial, 1996, p. 628). Therefore, in the beginning of a new ser-vice development process, “what exactly customers value” should be themajor concern for retailers. In the end of service production and delivery,“how well customers think we deliver that value” will conclude the valuedelivery process. This is a cyclical on-going process. When retailers con-sistently select the correct prioritizations of the things customers value overtime (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002), they would not only achieve acompetitive advantage, but also are likely to sustain it (Woodruff, 1997;Anitsal and Fairhurst, 2002).

Ismet Anitsal and Daniel J. Flint 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

The purpose of this paper is to understand what customers value in TBSSoptions with an emphasis on self-checkout systems at retail stores and gro-cery stores, and how customer perceptions could be different from those ofretailers. We explored customers’ viewpoints on self-checkouts as they re-late to customer value. Then, in the light of qualitative findings and the extantliterature, we extended the customer value model developed by Haar, Kemp,and Omta (2001), which is based on the SERVQUAL (Service Quality)model developed by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990).

METHODOLOGY

We utilized a grounded theory orientation (Strauss, 1987; Strauss andCorbin, 1998) to understand customers’ interactions with technology in aretail setting and their resultant perceptions. These perceptions includecustomers’ desires, expectations, evaluations of and feelings towardTBSS generally and specifically. Such a set of perceptions provides deepinsight to customers’ value associations. Our goal was to discover mean-ings of TBSS related to customer value, and potential value gaps with re-gard to self-checkout systems at retail and grocery stores. Qualitativeresearch is a viable method in providing realism, richness of verbal de-scriptions and a more precise picture of phenomenon (Miles, 1979). Asgrounded theory suggests, research design was flexible to be able to re-spond a variety of situations for emergent findings from data. The studyincluded three-stage data collection episodes for each informant: an ini-tial depth interview, an observation of an in-store shopping experience,and a post-shopping depth interview.

The unit of analysis was the individual shopper. Our purposive (theo-retical) sample included nine participants, who had noticed TBSS options(e.g., self-checkout), used them and were willing to share their actualshopping experiences with us. Theoretical developments led us to con-template new participants. The sample of the study included participantsfrom diverse backgrounds in terms of age (21-69), gender (male-female),race (white-African American), education (highschool-PhD), occupation(e.g., teacher, chemist, housewife, student, horse trainer), and marital sta-tus (married, not married) as well as their proficiency in the use of TBSSoptions. However, our overall goal was to look for variance of ideas(meanings, incidents, events, or happenings) rather than variance of peo-ple (e.g., gender differences) (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

We conducted 23 interviews in all, which includes two defecting infor-mants out of nine in the second stage of the study. Three sets of interview


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

protocols were prepared to guide interviews. Colleagues reviewed eachinterview guide before it was utilized in the field. Questions also becamemore focused as we went through the three-stage research process, whichlasted approximately two hours in total for each participant. In-store ob-servations followed one week after the initial interviews and the post-shopping interview was performed immediately after the in-store obser-vation. Observations were done in the most preferred store for each par-ticipant. One of the authors visited each preferred store to check existingTBSS options sometime before the observation stage. All interviewswere audio-recorded with the consent of the informants. Then, a profes-sional transcriber transcribed interviews and observation notes verbatim.

In grounded theory methodology, data coding provides an infrastructurefor systematic comparisons. The coding process involves three consecutivetypes of coding activity: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Open coding began as soon as each verbatimtranscript became ready. Over 300 total pages of interview transcripts wereanalyzed. Data analyses were facilitated by utilizing ATLAS.ti (visualqualitative data analysis, management and theory building) software (Muhr,2003). In the first wave of data collection from seven informants based on19 interviews, 170 categories of meaning were coded in the open codingphase. Later, the categories of meaning were collapsed into 35 themeswithin 8 major categories. In axial coding, the ultimate goal was to relatecategories to subcategories as well as major categories to each other. At thisstage, some additional data were collected by going back to the field. In thesecond wave of data collection, four more transcripts from two informantswere added into analyses. In selective coding, the selected categories wereintegrated into a theoretical framework, also drawing from the extant litera-ture. This level of coding also helped crystallize the second wave of datacollection and further axial coding.

The rigor and trustworthiness of the study and findings can be as-sessed by certain criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependabil-ity and confirmability (Hirschman 1986; Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial,2002). We addressed the trustworthiness issue by becoming immersedin the field collecting data for more than six months, using purposivesampling driven by emergent theoretical concepts, having several re-searchers for interview interpretations, asking participants to reflect ona variety of their actual experiences beyond the one we observed, pro-fessionally conducting non-threatening and confidential interviews,and assessing the fit of our emergent model with some participants.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

RESULTS

What customers really want is “service” (Sellers, 1990). In accomplish-ing this uneasy task, retailers face a challenge due to increasing labor short-ages and existing high turnover among retail employees. One solution thatmay relieve retailers is to let shoppers produce and deliver service them-selves in TBSS environments. “People can now serve themselves at theirconvenience at a negligible cost, but they have to accept little or no humancontact in return” (Brady, 2000). However, it is important that we under-stand what customers really desire in a TBSS option in general and in aself-checkout situation in particular. Consistent with the extant literature(Dabholkar, 1996; Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001; Dabholkar and Bagozzi,2002; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee, 2003), our findings indicate that cus-tomers like easy-to-use service options that provide speedy service deliv-ery based on self-control over the process with relatively little humaninteraction. The following quotes support these thoughts.

Alice: It is really convenient.

Lillian: It’s a lot faster. It’s getting the way that’s just about theonly way to do things.

Oliver: I definitely prefer self-checkout, because it’s pretty quick.

Mark: It’s faster and easier. It makes your life easy. You’re doingyour job yourself. You are dealing with less people by going throughthis. In sense of doing things myself, and everything in order I like.

Hector: You don’t have to deal with anybody and you just do it.

Taylor: You don’t have to worry about somebody else making amistake, or waiting in line for somebody who has a problem. Youjust go and do what you gotta do.

Joy: If you’re in self-scan, I mean, you’re moving. It’s just contin-uous moving.

Retailers try to tap into these value desires of customers. However,sometimes, they may have difficulty in collecting sufficient and reliable in-formation, leading to an information gap between what the retailer intendsand what customers desire. Customers prefer choice, for example, between


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

regular- and self-checkouts. They still need help in case they cannot oper-ate the technology on their own. This may be important to encourage oldercustomers to start using self-checkouts and motivate younger customers tokeep on using it. While a retailer’s intention to put a contact employee intothe system appears to be good in terms of supporting customers with self-checkout processes, potential miscommunication with and lack of controlover employees may create a design gap, leading to a mismatch betweenintended and designed values. In bridging the gap, fellow customers maystart helping hesitant customers train themselves in the use of self-check-out. This may prolong the adoption period and cause a lack of training onthe customers’ part. Eventually, lack of employee participation in accom-modating customer needs may decrease the value received by the cus-tomer, creating another mismatch between designed and received valuesthat leads to an implementation gap as a mean of delivering service. Thefollowing quotes summarize underlying themes of this discussion.

Julius: I usually go shopping late. When I go, the self-checkout isclosed, so I have to go through a line. A lot of people like shoppinglate at night, so that’s just kind of bad.

Joy: [In spite of having no line at the regular check-in system atairports, when I am forced to use self-check-in], I’d be angry. Iwouldn’t really be happy about that. They obviously don’t havevery good customer service.

Lillian: You can’t question a computer outside of what it knows,you know.

Hector: If you run an item through and have put it in the bag, it’llsay please bag your item, and you’re like well, I did. You can’tconverse with it.

Joy: Nothing is ever going to work 100 percent of the time. I’d stillexpect someone to be there to ask questions or to help me if I endup not being able to do it on my own.

Joy: I think a lot of people are intimidated to use the self-checkout.It seems like older people over 40 are a lot more hesitant. I will seethem waiting in a line of five people to have someone do it, whenthe self-checkouts are empty.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Beth: They think you should know, but I don’t have so much expe-rience in that. They don’t give me a second or third chance tolearn. I saw their eyes in every experience of mine. I don’t feelcomfortable and I do not want to be seen as stupid.

Hector: It was just a little intimidating at first. I was a little scaredabout it to start with. I tried to stand back and watched somebodyelse go through the self-checkout at first. We all just kind of wentthrough it in one big group [of friends] and done it.

Joy: I just didn’t know if I would know how to do it. I waited until I waswith someone else before using it. It was good, because they helped me.

Julius: When they go with me, they were likely to go to theself-checkout. When I’ve grabbed something at the store and usedself-checkout, they’ve liked it a lot.

Customers may not have a chance to access a service that is desired,just because it is unavailable on any given occasion in the marketplace.Then, they likely decrease their expectations for a particular service,and choose a service that best matches their compromised expectations,as long as they know what is reasonably adequate on what to expect. Forexample, a customer’s perception of “express checkout” might be dif-ferent from what is thought by a retailer. Even when customers cor-rectly recognize the purpose of a designed service, they still can havefurther expectations of it. They still expect to go ahead and finish check-out fast, regardless of its type. Some prefer self-checkout as a compro-mise, because of long lines in the regular checkout. All but one of ourstudy participant still expect to have sufficient counter space for bag-ging, regardless of its design objective, limiting self-checkout usemostly up to 15 items that account for almost two-thirds of all transac-tions in supermarkets (1998). The following quotes support these per-ception gaps between expected and designed values.

Hector: I would probably think everybody for the first time or twois a little backed up from the self-checkout. You just don’t knowwhat to expect.

Julius: The express checkout is where you don’t have a cashier, butyou want to check out your stuff yourself. It’s usually a shorter line


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

with the self-checkout, but longer when you have to go through thecashiers. If the lines are equal, I prefer whichever one I’m the closest.

Joy: I usually only use self-checkouts when there is not a line, oth-erwise it usually goes really slow, because there are people whodon’t know how to use them correctly. It’s a much better idea if youhave more than ten items to just go to the regular checkout. Mostof the self-checkouts don’t have a counter space for you to movethe bags and it’s usually more trouble than it’s worth.

Mark: There are two trays here, in Bi-Lo. If you have so manyitems, you can’t put all them on the tray, so that’s a problem.

Oliver: Self-checkout is quick, because there is no line. People arenot familiar with those things and go to traditional ways. U-Scanhas some limitations. If you have fifteen items or less you can useit. But if you have more than fifteen items, you cannot use it.

Hector: If the lines are long at the regular checkout, then I wouldtend to probably just try to go on, do it myself, be done and get out.

Alice: If you’re just picking up two or three items, instead of waitingin line, go through the self-checkout line, scan your items, you’reout of there.

Lillian: If I only have a few items, probably no more than about 10or 12 items, then I’ll go ahead and go through the self-checkout.Because it has usually a shorter line than the regular checkout has.When I have a whole buggy full, cashiers can do it faster withfewer mistakes.

Customers may not be able to perceive the designed value, which issometimes good for retailers, for example, when security monitors atself-checkout, which provide modern looking service encounter, butalso help retailers keep their payroll costs down, are not perceived to bebothering customers in terms of their shopping privacy. On the con-trary, a contact employee can cause an implementation gap (Table 1) bynot watching customer tasks as closely as s/he should, potentially lead-ing to a satisfaction gap for retailers by potentially causing an increasein shrinkage rate toward a decrease in profitability, or an increase in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

prices toward a decrease in received value as perceived by customers.These themes are reflected in the following quotes.

Lillian: No one is watching you. No one notices your items andwhat you are buying.

Julius: You can scan them yourself. They have the person who isoverseeing all the self-scans. They might not be watching as closelyas they should. Somebody might not scan something, might just putit in the bag and be able to just walk out the door with it.


TABLE 1. Technology-Based Self-Service Gaps

SERVICE GAPS A-B A B REASON FOR GAP

MICRO LEVEL SERVICE GAPS

Information Gap DesiredValue

IntendedValue

Retailer has insufficient and unreliableinformation about customer desires.

Design Gap IntendedValue

DesignedValue

Retailer has technical restraints, lack ofcontrol and/or miscommunication betweenmarketing and other units responsible formanufacturing the desired SST.

Compromise Gap DesiredValue

ExpectedValue

Customer has no choice to access thedesired service, which is unavailable in themarketplace. Then, she chooses a servicethat best matches her expectation.

Perception Gap ExpectedValue

DesignedValue

On the value provided by a particular service,customer has a different perception, reflecting amismatch between customer and retailer views.

EmployeeParticipationImplementationGap

Means

ReceivedValue

DesignedValue

Contact employee acts like a bridge betweenthe designed SST and the actual serviceexperience. Lack of employee participationreflects a mismatch between designed andreceived values.

CustomerParticipationImplementationGap

Means ExpectedValue

Level and quality of customer participation caninfluence the extent of received value. Lack ofcustomer participation reflects a mismatchbetween expected and received values.

MACRO LEVEL SERVICE GAPS

Capability Gaps ForRetailer

DesiredValue

DesignedValue

Retailer has a capability gap in matching theinformation on customer desires assessed andthe expected value perceived by customer.

ExpectedValue

IntendedValue

Customer has a capability gap in providingrealistic information on her desires andoffering continuous feedback on herassessed perceptions.

SatisfactionGaps

ForRetailer

End

ReceivedValue

DesignedValue

Retailer is satisfied/dissatisfied with theservice based on its organizational criteria indelivering superior customer value andoverall service performance.

ForCustomer

EndExpected

ValueCustomer is satisfied/dissatisfied with theservice based on her evaluation of theconsumption experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Customers’ expectations for a checkout service are similar across dif-ferent retailers, but what they receive might be different for each retailerdue to reasons such as SST, contact employee and situational factors, in-fluencing the level and quality of their participation as a customer in self-checkout process. The following quotes support these findings.

Lillian: They’re in a more logical place at Target and they’re eas-ier to find.

Joy: The checkout procedure in Bi-Lo is much better laid out thanat Food City. It tells you which way to slide your card and makes ita lot simpler. That was pretty simple. At Food City the machineonly yells at us. Thanks. It went really smoothly. The machine did-n’t mess up at all while we were self-checking out. It was painlessand, so we’re glad about that.

Joy: We didn’t buy produce today so that probably would’vemixed things up a little bit. You have to go through and click theproduce button, click what type of produce and then find exactlywhich variety you have, like if you got a Granny Smith apple or aRed Delicious apple. At Food City, it brings up a picture of fivedifferent red apples. I don’t remember which red apple I got.That’s a lot more time consuming than just swiping it and putting itin the bag. It is more involved.

Oliver: If you don’t have any product number on the items, youneed to put your items on the scale and call for help. So, I am de-pendent on other people in the store.

Alice: If I just go in . . . and pick up milk and bread maybe threeitems that’s not produce then I will go through the self-checkoutlane. It’s really convenient if you’re just picking up a few items. If Ihave a buggy full of stuff I go through the other lane.

Micro level service gaps were discussed so far. Rather than focusingthe details of particular service gaps at micro level, another approachwould be to see service gaps at macro level in terms of retailer’s capabil-ity of producing them and satisfaction obtained by each party. Once abroad evaluation is done, the detailed interrelations can be studied fur-ther. The retailer is supposed to provide a designed value not far belowdesired value, thus can easily match customer’s expected value. Custom-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ers may also have a capability gap in providing realistic information oftheir service desires and offering continuous feedback of her/his assessedperceptions, meaning expected value might even be greater than intendedvalue. For example, a retailer can try hard to provide a real-life experienceto customers through a lady’s voice for directions on service tasks, butcustomers may perceive that voice as “yelling” or even “humiliating” be-cause it lacks interactivity or it’s high in volume, leading to a capabilitygap based on a mismatch between expected value and intended value.Designed value can force customers to go a certain way and have an ex-perience that is far below the desired value. When a customer cannotcompromise toward an expected value, another form of capability gapoccurs. A solution may come from flexibility for fine-tuning, provided toregular cashiers, but not to participating customers.

Joy: After you scan it, you have to put it in the bag or it yells at you.It says that you need to put your item in the bagging area, but yourun out of room. There’s nowhere to move. If you have a lot of gro-ceries, it’s hard because you don’t have anywhere to put the bagsthat you’ve already filled.

Lillian: When you go through the self-checkout at Bi-Lo and useyour food stamp card, the woman’s voice on the technology thingsays, “Please press the food stamp button” or “Please scan yourfood stamp card now.” It’s kind of a humiliating experience.

Lillian: You have to wait through the menu of a 1-800 number. Youhave to figure out which department you want to talk to. It kind ofbecomes a headache, especially for my health insurance. There isno other way to do it. I guess they’re hoping you’d just hang up.

Julius: Cashiers sometimes might scan it twice, have to go backand void it. When you do it yourself, you can scan it once andmake sure you put it in the bag. You can’t scan twice without plac-ing them in the bag.

Our interpretations, based on qualitative data, extant literature anddiscovery-oriented brainstorming combined with personal experienceand observations at self-checkouts, helped us to develop an extendedversion of the customer value model (Figure 1), initially suggested byHaar, Kemp, and Omta (2001). This model shows potential service gapsboth at micro and macro levels based on interactions between retailers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Ret

aile

rM

arke

tpla

ceC

usto

mer

Inte

nd

edV

alu

e

Des

ign

edV

alu

e

Rec

eive

dV

alu

e

Des

ired

Val

ue

Exp

ecte

dV

alu

e

Info

rmat

ion

Gap

Des

ign

Gap

Em

ploy

eeP

artic

ipat

ion

Impl

emen

tatio

nG

ap

Cap

abili

tyG

ap

Per

cept

ion

Gap

Sa

tisf

act

ion

Ga

p

Com

prom

ise

Gap

Cus

tom

erP

artic

ipat

ion

Impl

emen

tatio

nG

ap

P r o j e c t

P r o p o s eD e l i v e r y

I m a g i n e

A c c e p tC o n s u m e

FIG

UR

E1.

The

Cus

tom

erV

alue

Mod

elE

xten

ded

from

Haa

r,K

emo

and

Om

ta(2

001)

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

and customers in the marketplace. It seems that proper handling of ca-pability gaps ideally minimizes satisfaction gaps, providing satisfactionfor both retailers and customers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide an illustration that might be usefulfor retail managers in understanding the potential service gaps in TBSSenvironments. Based on this understanding, retailers might better de-velop new services and also modify their existing TBSS options. How-ever, the validation and generalization of the framework presented inthis qualitative study require further empirical investigation based on aquantitative methodology. In addition, confirmatory qualitative workwith a series of in-depth interviews might add to our insights. Once thecustomer value model is validated by future studies, it will also be help-ful to test the model across different service sectors and cultural set-tings. This would clarify the big picture with much needed details fororganizations diversifying into unsaturated international markets.

REFERENCES

(1998). “Self-Checkout Systems Add Online Efficiency,” Discount Store News, Vol.27, No, 11, pp. 70-71.

Anitsal, Ismet and Ann Fairhurst (2002). “Customer Participation in Technology-BasedSelf-Service: Issues for Customer Value Creation in Retailing,” From Art To Tech-nology: Opportunities In Marketing Research and Education, Jerry W. Wilson, ed.,Vol. XVIII, Statesboro, Georgia: Atlantic Marketing Association, pp. 200-206.

Anitsal, Ismet, Mark A. Moon, and M. Meral Anitsal (2002a). “Technology-BasedSelf-Service: Issues For Retail Management and Research,” Developments in Mar-keting Science, Harlan E. Spotts, ed., Vol. XXV, Coral Gables, Florida: Academy ofMarketing Science, pp. 25-36.

Anitsal, Ismet, Mark A. Moon, and M. Meral Anitsal (2002b). “Technology-BasedSelf-Service: Toward A New Retail Format,” Marketing Advances In Pedagogy,Process, and Philosophy, Beverly T. Enable, ed., Greenville, North Carolina: Soci-ety for Marketing Advances, pp. 146-151.

Anitsal, Ismet and Ann Fairhurst (2003). “The Customer-Value Hierarchy: Under-standing Customer Value in Timeshare Holiday Resorts,” Expanding MarketingHorizons Into the 21st Century, Brenda Ponsford, ed., Vol. 12, Association of Mar-keting Theory and Practice, pp. 1-7.

Berry, Leonard L., Kathleen Seiders, and Dhruv Grewal (2002). “Understanding Ser-vice Convenience,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 1-17.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Bobbitt, L. Michelle and Pratibha A. Dabholkar (2001). “Integrating Attitudinal Theo-ries to Understand and Predict Use of Technology-Based Self-Service: The Internetas an Illustration,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12,No. 5, pp. 423-450.

Brady, Diane (2000). “Why Service Stinks: Companies Know Just How Good ACustomer You Are–And Unless You’re A High Roller, They Would Rather LoseYou Than To Take The Time To Fix Your Problem,” Business Week, October 23,pp. 118-128.

Burke, Raymond R. (2002). “Technology and the Customer Interface: What Consum-ers Want in the Physical and Virtual Store,” Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 411-432.

Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1990). “How To Improve Perceived Service Quality By In-creasing Customer Participation,” Developments In Marketing Science, B. J.Dunlap, ed., Vol. XIII, New Orleans, Louisiana: Academy of Marketing Science,pp. 483- 487.

Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1994). “Technology-Based Self-Service Delivery: A Classifi-cation Scheme For Developing Marketing Strategies,” Advances in Services Mar-keting and Management, Vol. 3, pp. 241-271.

Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1996). “Consumer Evaluations of New Technology-BasedSelf-Service Options: An Investigation of Alternative Models of Service Quality,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 29-51.

Dabholkar, Pratibha A. and Richard P. Bagozzi (2002). “An Attitudinal Model ofTechnology-Based Self-Service: Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Sit-uational Factors,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 3,pp. 184-201.

Dabholkar, Pratibha A., L. Michelle Bobbitt, and Eun-Ju Lee (2003). “UnderstandingConsumer Motivation and Behavior Related to Self-Scanning in Retailing: Implica-tions for Strategy and Research on Technology-Based Self-Service,” InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 59-95.

Flint, Daniel J., Robert B. Woodruff, and Sarah Fisher Gardial (2002). “Exploring thePhenomenon of Customers’ Desired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Con-text,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 102-117.

Gutman, Jonathan (1982). “A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categori-zation Process,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 60-72.

Haar, Jeanke W. van der, Ron G. M. Kemp, and Onno (S. W. F.) Omta (2001). “Cre-ating Value That Cannot Be Copied,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30,pp. 627-636.

Hennessy, Terry (1998), “Taking Control,” Progressive Grocer, pp. 83-86.Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986). “Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philoso-

phy, Method and Criteria,” Journal of Marketing Research, XXIII (August 1986),pp. 237-249.

Lee, Jungki and Arthur Allaway (2002). “Effects of Personal Control on Adoption ofSelf-Service Technology Innovations,” Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 6,pp. 553-572.

Meuter, Matthew L. and Mary Jo Bitner (1998). “Self-Service Technologies: ExtendingService Frameworks and Identifying Issues For Research,” Marketing Theory and Ap-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

plications, Dhruv Grewal and Connie Pechmann, ed., Chicago, Illinois: American Mar-keting Association, pp. 12-19.

Miles, M. B. (1979). “Qualitative Data as an Attractive Nuisance: The Problem ofAnalysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 (December), pp. 590-601.

Muhr, Thomas (2003). “ATLAS.ti The Knowledge Workbench: Visual QualitativeData Analysis, Management and Model Building.” WIN 4.2 ed. Germany: Scien-tific Software Development.

Ravald, Annika and Christian Grönroos (1996). “The Value Concept and RelationshipMarketing,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 19-30.

RIS/Gartner (2003). “Where Retailers Are Advancing In: POS Systems,” in 13th An-nual Retail Technology Study: A Supplement to RIS News. Randolph, New Jersey:Edgell Communications.

Schatz, Elizabeth (2003). “Scan-It-Yourself Checkout Lines,” The Wall Street Jour-nal, March 4, D2.

Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie Lazar Kanuk (2000). Consumer Behavior (Seventhed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Sellers, Patricia (1990), “What Customers Really Want,” Fortune, Vol. 58, pp. 58-68.Sheth, Jagdish N. and Banwari Mittal (2004). Customer Behavior: A Managerial Per-

spective. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques

and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks,California: Sage Publications.

Strauss, Anselm L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Woodruff, Robert B. and Sarah F. Gardial (1996). Know Your Customer: New Ap-proaches to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction. Malden, Massachu-setts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Woodruff, Robert B. (1997). “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Ad-vantage,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 139-153.

Zeithaml, Valarie A., A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1990). Delivering Qual-ity Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York, NewYork: The Free Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

5:15

10

Oct

ober

201

4

exploring customers' perceptions in creating and delivering value

Documents