Kenneth R Deans [HREF1], Senior Lecturer, Department of Marketing [HREF2], University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, 9001. kdeans@business.otago.ac.nz
Sandy von Allmen, Science Library, University of Tasmania [HREF3], Private Bag 67, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001. Sandy.vonAllmen@utas.edu.au
There has been a lot of healthy and much needed debate about the pros and cons of web pages vs portals in tertiary institutions as well as industrial organisations. In particular, papers have reported on organisational issues in dealing with adoption, implementation and maintenance. This paper considers an equally important and often forgotten issue and suggests that it is time to adopt a more customer / client focus. Without ignoring the technology, which has tended to lead such initiatives, a stronger service orientation considers user satisfaction and the usefulness of the service offered. A model of service delivery is used to explain the shortcomings of many service providers and the paper ends with some pointers to improve the experience and outcomes generated.
Since its arrival, the Internet and in particular the World Wide Web has been characterised by two features: rapid adoption and equally rapid technological development. The exponential rate of diffusion and adoption, in developed economies, has been quoted and forecast more often than we care to remember. Equally the many technological leaps and advances are beyond the scope of this paper. That said we have been interested in the diffusion and adoption of portals in Australian and New Zealand tertiary institutions over the last few years. It is generally accepted that there are arguments for and against the adoption of portal technology. Stunden (2002) argues that despite the risk and pain it is absolutely worth it. The AusWeb conferences have provided an arena for lively discussion, with papers being presented on varied aspects of portals, e.g. von Allmen, Deans and Bartosiewicz (2001), Deans and von Allmen (2002), Bailey (2002) and Sawyer and Bailey (2001).
There is a growing body of literature outlining how to go about building portals for tertiary institutions, such as those by Pickett and Hamre (2002) and Bailey and Treloar (2001). Equally there has been much written about the move of many commercial organisations from web pages to portal provision. A site such as PortalsCommunity [HREF4] is a good starting point.
Whilst the discussions and developments have been taking place in tandem and organisations try to rationalise their approaches and the attendant "go: don't go" decisions, it occurred to us that there was an opportunity to return to that treasured place gaining favour and popularity on a daily basis - basics. Consequently we have looked at the processes of delivery and of setting standards and procedures. Taking a more market-oriented approach to our basics, we have superimposed a tried and tested services model over the portal / web page presence and make some interesting observations.
In essence we have viewed the provision and dissemination of information from a service perspective rather than a provider, user or technology perspective. What has emerged is a number of areas that could be improved were a more service-oriented culture in place. These areas are in keeping with primary data gathered at AusWeb02.
Previous research (Deans and von Allmen, 2002) placed institutions somewhere along a technology adoption spectrum and provided summary statistics to give interested parties an indication of where their own experience / institution lies relative to their counterparts in competing and non-competing institutions. The adoption of portal technology curve that emerged is in line with the diffusion of innovation model (Rogers, 1983) where five adoption categories were reported. Rogers' 5 categories with the relative percentage of the total population shown in brackets are: innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%). Innovators are the first to adopt and the time difference until all potential adopters, i.e. through to laggards, have embraced the technology can be significant. Not surprisingly the characteristics of each group varies enormously and in the case of tertiary institutions are not governed by simple variables such as dollar funding. For instance the innovators are more adventurous, risk taking entrepreneurial minded individuals / departments whilst laggards are risk averse traditionalists who may only adopt once the technology has been superseded by the next solution.
Building on our two previous papers, at AusWeb02 we engaged delegates in a short exercise to investigate the opportunities, limitations, challenges and solutions to web based information provision using portal technology. The majority of those respondents were in the 'innovator', 'early adopter' and 'early majority' categories (total 50%) and as such had a valuable input to the exercise. The key comments from that exercise are summarised in Table 1 with the more customer-oriented comments in bold. We have deliberately omitted the obvious cost, training and personnel issues in our reporting and tried to present a broader perspective.
It is clear from scanning the four categories below that there is much interest in customer driven initiatives but we feel there are missed opportunities. Recurring themes from the past AusWeb papers referenced above and the comments from delegates are "user satisfaction", "customer focus", "efficiencies of delivery", "IT has provided opportunities which are focussed on specific data niches, rather than services which are oriented to the user needs" and "one-stop service shop". Englert (2003) concurs with these views and noted "improved service delivery, not cost savings, is the primary driver behind portal development."
|
1. Opportunities |
2. Limitations |
|
|
|
3. Challenges |
4. Solutions |
|
|
|
Given our commercially oriented focus on service, customer orientation and satisfaction it is timely to detail some of the key characteristics and classifications that are used to differentiate services from physical goods.
Quite distinct from their physical counterparts, service products have four unique characteristics that we as providers should be aware of and try to leverage:
Thus if a service is not consumed at a particular point in time, the opportunity is lost for good. It could be argued that a portal, like a book, is a way of "storing" a service for consumption at any time in the future. That said, if the client or user does not access the content at the appropriate point in time, the opportunity for them is lost. Also, content changes over time.
By adopting a more user-focussed approach in portal design, providers can help overcome these issues.
In traditional product based management there are four key ingredients in the 'mix' that managers and strategists alike can manipulate to better tailor their product offering to their intended target market. The four basic variables are price, place, promotion and product. Three additional factors that service providers consider when manipulating the service mix should be noted:
In summary, and from a web page / portal information service perspective, there are a number of pointers that providers can consider in light of their own situation. The discussion to date also leads us to consider the role of service and the potential gaps that exist. Too often a student, staff or user survey is conducted in the belief that this will generate feedback on user satisfaction and user needs. Whilst such surveys have a role to play, there is more to understanding satisfaction and needs than perhaps first appears. It is our contention that 'Gaps Model' developed by Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) has a useful role to play if applied to portal services.
The model shown in Figure 1 has some noteworthy features. Firstly it clearly separates the service provider from the recipient / customer / user. Secondly it identifies five clear gaps between ideal service and what is, in many cases, reality. Lastly it provides a useful and practical framework for considering any service offering. Although not prescriptive in nature due to the wide differences in service offerings and the equally broad variation across time and providers as described above, it does offer a useful generic tool of analysis. Like all management tools, the usefulness is dictated by the skills and understanding of those applying the model.
This is the focus of the model and in many respects the gap most providers should address first. It represents the difference between 'expected service' and 'perceived service'. There is a before and after scenario here in that expectations reflect the reference points customers / clients / users have before the service experience and perceptions reflect the service as it was delivered and received. Closing this gap could lead to better satisfaction and therefore a stronger long term relationship. Expectations are often difficult to quantify but exist on a scale from 'minimum tolerable expectations' at the bottom to 'ideal expectations or desires' at the top. The area between a customer's 'desired service' and 'adequate service' has been referred to as their 'zone of tolerance'. Understanding this zone is key as clients / users who are outside it are the ones who have a problem or an issue with standards being offered. Whilst it is not possible to have all clients / users within the zone of tolerance, it is important to know who is. Just as it is important to appreciate different clients / users have different zones, it is equally important to understand that different service dimensions have different zones. Finally, all zones may change over time. To close this gap, providers need to consider closing the following four gaps.
Gap 1 is interesting in that it highlights a problem faced by most service organisations but one that is not always addressed. It is that the service provider does not accurately know, understand or appreciate what their customer expects. All service employees should be charged with closing the resultant gap by changing or influencing service policies and procedures. The gap can exist because there is insufficient or no dialogue between providers and users. It can also exist because the organisation is unwilling to investigate expectations or address the issues that do emerge. Failure to understand expectations can lead to misuse of resources, e.g. investing in the physical environment or 'Servicescape' when it is not a customer priority.
There are a number of tools and techniques available that can be used to close this gap. Among the more traditional are surveys, complaint systems and customer panels. Providers might also wish to consider formal brainstorming sessions or gap analysis. Recent research undertaken by one of the authors' team (Gray et al, 2001) into service sector competitiveness revealed that top performing firms benchmarked themselves against successful companies in a completely different industry.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that not all clients / users are the same and therefore have different requirements, expectations and needs. Better understanding these various segments can lead to a more efficient use of resources and greater satisfaction. Zazelenchuk and Boling (2003) report on a usability evaluation survey that was conducted in 2001 on the Indiana University's OneStart portal. Users were asked to rate their satisfaction with the system and also to explain their rationale for rating it the way they did. The most frequently mentioned was 'perceived utility or usefulness'. Portal technology can be leveraged to offer mass customisation.
Gap two is the difference between a service providers' perception of clients / users expectations and the subsequent development of customer-driven designs and standards. It is not enough to simply understand clients / users perceptions, that knowledge must translate itself to meaningful service offerings at an appropriate level or to an appropriate standard. The gap may exist because the personnel responsible for determining and setting standards are of the opinion that clients / users expectations are unrealistic or unreasonable. Additionally they believe that the heterogeneity of services means that setting standards is fraught with difficulty and therefore of less importance. Service excellence remains a challenge for most organisations and the quality of service delivered is a function of the standards set by management.
This is the gap between the service designs and standards and actual service delivery. In other words having guidelines, manuals and well-communicated standards is not enough to guarantee excellent service. Resources in the form of people, systems and appropriate technology also need to be in place and adequately monitored. Contact personnel must be properly trained, motivated, measured and compensated according to service delivery standards. Thus, successful implementation of service standards that adequately reflect clients / users expectations is meaningless if the quality of delivery falls short. Ensuring that adequate resources are available is the only way the gap can be narrowed. Add the uncontrollable factor of customer heterogeneity and the problem intensifies. Customers are guilty of not performing their role properly in the service exchange, e.g. not accurately specifying their requirements. They can also impact negatively on the service experience of others. Lastly there is a need to better control and synchronise supply and demand as peak demand periods can unfairly lead to customer dissatisfaction.
There are a number of HR strategies for closing gap three and these are shown in Figure 2. These strategies are beyond the scope of this paper but will be expanded upon during the conference presentation.
Source: Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003
The final gap exists when there is a difference between actual service delivery and the external communications and promises made by the provider. These can be in the form of leaflets, web pages, presentations and any other promotional media. Elevated claims or promises become the standard for setting expectations and the standard against which they will be judged. Failure to deliver can result from inaccurate marketing communications, lack of or poor coordination between marketing and delivery personnel and over promising. The answer is to be in control, realistic and truthful! Mismanagement can lead to a widening of the customer gap.
Our key proposition is that the application of service concepts, strategies and procedures should, first and foremost, have a strong customer focus and seek to close the various gaps. Technology is important but need not be the driver. In the particular case of web-based information dissemination, portal or web pages, there are valuable lessons to be learnt from services research and theory. We have compiled a list of off line and online measures that may help information service operators (managers, contact personnel, system designers) improve their levels of service across a range of areas and ultimately improve customer / client satisfaction.
Finally, it is our view that whilst technology is important and has a role to play, we should perhaps think more holistically and beyond to the intersection where people, processes and technology meet. That way we are in a better position to leverage the technology rather than having it as the primary driver. Consider the comments made by Olsen (2002), who noted:
"While officials who are busy creating new portal services constantly marvel at the technology, they often observe a very different response from students. "We thought we'd get a big reaction from the students, but it was really ho-hum," says Mr. Lightfoot, at the university in Seattle. He says the current generation of students expects to use such technology."
In other words, the point of differentiation is, or rather can be, service delivery. You will always be remembered for what you did or what you provided and rarely for how you did it.
von Allmen, S., Deans, K. R. and Bartosiewicz, I (2001), "Portals - Are We Going In Or Out?", Proceedings of AusWeb01, pp 28-47. Available online [HREF5]
Bailey, N. and Treloar, A. (2001), "What's under the threshold? Portals and Portal Infrastructures", Proceedings of AusWeb01, pp 49-62. Available online [HREF6]
Bailey, N. (2002), "Your Portal: Homogenised, Pasturised and Flavoured to Taste!", Proceedings of AusWeb02, pp 632-642. Available online [HREF7]
Deans, K. R. and von Allmen, S. (2002), "Poo Poo Portals at Your Peril", Proceedings of AusWeb02, pp 117-135. Available online [HREF8]
Englert, B.G. (2003), "Portal Trends in Higher Education", Presented at the third annual EDUCAUSE Southwest Regional Conference (formerly EduTex), February 19-21, 2003
Gray, B.J., et al. (2001), Best Practices in Marketing and Managing Service Businesses, Marketing Performance Centre, University of Otago
Olsen, F. (2002), "The Power of Portals", The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 9, 2002. Available online [HREF9]
Pickett, R. A. and Hamre, W. B. (2002), "Building Portals for Higher Education", New Directions for Institutional Research, (113), pp 37-55
Rogers, E. M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd Edition, The Free Press, New York
Sawyer, R. and Bailey, N. (2001), "Personalisation Issues in the Enterprise Learning Portal", Proceedings of AusWeb01, pp 284-298. Available online [HREF10]
Stunden, A. (2002), "Portals: the Lady or the Tiger?", Educause Review, 37(3), pp 58-59. Available online [HREF11]
Zazelenchuk, T. W. and Boling, E. (2003), "Considering User Satisfaction in Designing Web-Based Portals", Educause Quarterly, 26(1), pp 35-40. Available online [HREF12]
Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services Marketing, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill.
Kenneth R Deans and Sandy von Allmen, © 2003. The authors assign to Southern Cross University and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form with the conference papers and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web.