Comparing US and European perspectives on B2B repair service quality for mission‐critical equipment

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the cross‐regional equivalence of repair service quality for mission‐critical equipment.

Design/methodology/approach

Using the five dimensions of SERVPERF as a framework, clinical laboratory directors across Europe and the USA were surveyed about repair service for mission‐critical equipment. Assessment of construct equivalence across the two regions was then performed using item bias analysis. Following this, assessment of model equivalence across the two regions was conducted using both the Chow test of model equivalence and regression in structural equation modeling (SEM).

Findings

Results suggest that service quality in this B2B domain is perceived to be remarkably the same in both the USA and Europe.

Research limitations/implications

Future research could focus on repair services for other types of mission‐critical equipment, and another region of the world, such as Asia. Both of these steps would boost the generalizability of the study's findings.

Practical implications

The practical implications of the study's results suggest not only the applicability of the SERVPERF framework across these two regions, but also standardization possibilities in repair service for mission‐critical equipment because of the homogeneity evident in these markets regarding service quality.

Originality/value

This study should be valuable reading for those interested in issues related to service quality, as well as international services. The paper provides new insight into the relative importance of service quality dimensions, as the “responsiveness” dimension was found to be more than twice as important as any other dimension – even the “reliability” dimension.

Citation

Peterson, M., Gregory, G. and Munch, J.M. (2005), "Comparing US and European perspectives on B2B repair service quality for mission‐critical equipment", International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510602240