Introduction
Making sure that all customers enjoy a quality service is an important preoccupation of telecommunication firms. Arokiasamy and Abdullah (2013: 3) say that quality and prices are important drivers of customer loyalty in the telecommunication sector. Based on this conception, different researchers have used various models and frameworks to explain customer satisfaction and service quality models (Arokiasamy and Abdullah, 2013: 3).
Furthermore, since many telecommunication firms do not disclose information about the quality of their services, it is difficult for customers to get enough information about the same (Upal, 2008: 18). Generally, dominant telecommunication firms have little impetus to improve the quality of their services. However, smaller companies are highly concerned about the quality of their services. Nonetheless, this variation does not mean that different companies have varied levels of importance for service quality. Indeed, as Arokiasamy and Abdullah (2013: 3) argue, all companies need to undertake a rigorous quality management exercise.
Quality management is an important component of organisational processes. It is a management tool for making sure that all companies have consistent products and services. Upal (2008: 18) says the discipline has only three main components – process orientation, employee involvement, and continuous improvement. There are universal ISO standards for quality improvements. However, they do not meet the specific industry requirements of every economic sector.
Therefore, different economic sectors have different subsets of quality management standards that apply to their economic sectors. Based on this background, this paper focuses on quality management in the telecommunication sector. It investigates voice quality as a significant quality issue in the sector. Based on this analytical focus, details of this paper show how to monitor the quality issue and investigate the current patterns in quality management in the sector.
Literature
Quality Issue
Although price is an important factor in most economic sectors, other factors also outline the performance of telecommunication firms. Being a service-oriented industry, quality ranks among the most important factors to consider in the sector. Furthermore, unlike prices, which telecommunication firms publicise, telecommunication companies often do not publicise their quality standards (Arokiasamy and Abdullah, 2013: 4). Different companies have introduced different minimum standards of service quality for their companies. In Europe, Latvia and Italy champion the adoption of such metrics for benchmarking service quality in the European telecommunication sector (ATK, 2010: 1). In Asia, India leads other companies in the same regard.
Evidence shows that benchmarking service quality in this regard has helped to improve voice quality through next generation networks (ATK, 2010: 2). In the countries described above, the government requires network service providers to verify their service quality. There are no exceptions made to such companies because of their service quality. In some countries, operators are limited in this regard because their governments require them to declare the income levels of their customers (among other demographic characteristics) (ATK, 2010: 2).
Accepted levels of Tolerance
To understand accepted levels of tolerance, it is important to comprehend the disconfirmation theory, which defines people’s interaction with service quality and satisfaction (Johnston, 1995: 1). This theory postulates that customer satisfaction is subject to the extent of “disconfirmation” experienced when they consume different services. This disinformation is often a product of a customer’s initial experience before consuming a service (Johnston, 1995: 1). This customer experience concept shares a close relationship with the service quality model. Proponents of this model developed it by evaluating the quality of services experienced by customers before and after they consumed the services.
If there is a match between the initial perception of the services and the quality of service experienced after consumption, the service quality model assumes that the customers are satisfied with the services offered (Johnston, 1995: 1). In the same regard, if the quality of services offered exceeds customer expectations, then the level of customer satisfaction is high (Arokiasamy and Abdullah, 2013: 3). Similarly, if the level of customer service is below the perceived level of service, proponents of the service quality model say the service quality is low (Arokiasamy and Abdullah, 2013: 3).
Accepted levels of tolerance often emerge from a mix between quality management literatures and literature excerpts about consumer behaviour (Johnston, 1995: 1). To understand the zone of tolerance for assessing voice quality, it is pertinent to revisit the service quality model/disconfirmation model. It has only three outcome states on a variable scale – dissatisfaction (negative disconfirmation), delight (positive disconfirmation), and satisfaction (confirmation) (Johnston, 1995: 2).
This last stage (confirmation) often captures the attention of researchers as the zone of tolerance. Understanding the pre-performance expectations of service quality is also another metric for defining the zone of tolerance. The pre-performance expectation ranges from “minimum tolerable” to “ideal.” Johnston (1995: 2) highlights the importance of conceiving customer expectations as zones and not as specific points along a continuum of choices. He approves this perception by saying the zone of tolerance shifts between a customer’s desired service level and the available service level offered by the companies (Johnston, 1995: 2).
Understanding the accepted levels of variation that would influence customer satisfaction highlights the importance of comprehending the zone of tolerance. In this regard, customers only accept variations within an accepted range of voice quality, beyond which there would be a marginal increase in perception (if it exceeds the zone of tolerance), or a significant effect on perception if it fails to meet the zone of tolerance (Arokiasamy and Abdullah, 2013: 4). Johnston (1995: 3) says many propositions merge zones of tolerance across different service levels. In other words, the zone of tolerance could help to understand the relationship between expectations, performance and outcome as highlighted below
Based on the diagram above, it is important to understand that different groups of customers often have an accepted and unaccepted level of service. These perceptions may be conscious, or subconscious, but customer experiences and organisational images are the main factors that influence customer views on the same (Johnston, 1995: 3). The constituent components of these elements may depend on a few notions consisting of a clear set of requirements. An inexplicit, or unstated, set of beliefs may also shape such positions. Indeed, although a customer may have not consumed a service before, they are likely to have a fuzzy idea of the kinds of accepted or unaccepted levels of service (Johnston, 1995: 3).
How to Monitor the Voice Quality
There is no universal standard for measuring service quality in the telecommunications sector. Different countries use different metrics of doing so. However, the most common metrics for doing so include fixed-line telephony and universal service. ATK (2010: 2) says the fixed line telephony is a crucial method of evaluating and improving a company’s voice quality. Companies have used it in different national and international communication systems (ATK, 2010: 2). The universal service shares a close relationship with the fixed telephony technique because it uses the metric to establish a minimum set of basic standards for providing services to its citizens.
However, the universal service technique is subject to different regulatory safeguards to make sure telecommunication companies meet their quality obligations to their clients. For example, ATK (2010: 2) did a study in Europe to investigate how European telecommunication firms adopted the metric and found that most European regulatory authorities require their firms to report and publish their service quality. The companies have the option of publishing this information on their company websites, or on their sales report. Failure to do so could have financial consequences for the company (fines). In an unrelated analysis of quality measurement tools, ATK (2010: 2) says there are three dominant ways of measuring voice quality in the telecommunication sector. The first method is the Key Quality Indicators (KQI) method.
Key Quality Indicators (KQI)
This tool evaluates service quality across different periods and across different carriers in the telecommunication sector (CICRA, 2013: 14). Many telecommunication companies adopt this method by introducing different service indicators for varying measures of service quality. However, the regulations and measurement guidelines often define their enthusiasm to do so (CICRA, 2013: 14). These varying sets of adoption often appeal to different service quality components.
ATK (2010: 2) says that they relate to different technological issues in the telecommunications industry. Different companies have different service indicators. The most common indicators are service ratios and call dropping rates (CICRA, 2013: 14). Some selected companies prefer to use response time for operator services and bill correctness as the main service quality indicators (CICRA, 2013: 14). Comprehensively, different companies have different indicators for measuring their voice qualities.
The KQI method is prone to measurement bias. However, to minimise this bias, researchers only use the data that relate to a specified period. In this regard, CICRA (2013: 14) cautions that using a one-time sample could significantly affect the reliability of such a tool in quality measurement. Since telecommunication firms operate within different regulatory frameworks, the KQI method helps to distribute regulation costs (evenly) across the different market segments.
This process is in line with the responsibility of companies and regulators to gather and process their data. Different regional bodies use the KQI method to measure different service indicators. For example, a study by ATK (2010: 3) revealed that the European Communication Standardisation Institute often adopted the method to test different service indicators. The European Union has also endorsed it in different forums.
Live Testing
Live Testing is another technique used by different service providers in the telecommunications sector to measure voice quality. Many companies use it because of its relatively low cost of adoption (CICRA, 2013: 14). However, companies can only use it for representative samples, or evaluations of service quality. ATK (2010: 3) says only a few countries have adopted it. For example, Indian, Latvian and UK telecommunication companies have used it to evaluate the quality of their voice services. Different companies use this live testing method differently.
However, most of them use a vehicle fitted with antennas, and other equipments for gathering quality of service (QoS) data and listening to the voice quality, at different strategic points across their spheres of coverage. To get accurate results, the vehicle should follow a specified route (CICRA, 2013: 14). The most relevant should emerge from testing results done across populated cities and big cosmopolitan areas. These regions provide a representative sample of the voice quality for a specified company.
Customer Surveys
Customer surveys involve seeking the views of customers about the quality of services offered by a telecommunication firm. Unlike other quality measurement methods described in this paper, this technique is interactive (between the customers and the service providers). CICRA (2013: 14) argues that this method is most effective in pinpointing the weakest elements of service provision because they have a human element. Similarly, unlike the other quality measurement indices, this method allows companies to get feedback based on how the company’s services compare with other tech firms in the industry. This component allows companies to find out whether a service weakness is a relevant indicator of voice quality (or any other type of service offered by a company).
When it is difficult to ascertain such facts, this technique allows companies to undertake proper verification (CICRA, 2013: 14). Some countries often participate in such verifications. For example, the Indian Telecom Regulatory Agency undertook this process by evaluating the voice quality of more than 23 regions across the country (ATK, 2010: 4). Germany also used this service measurement tool to manage the quality of voice services offered by German telecommunication firms (ATK, 2010: 4). In principle, KQI, live testing, and customer surveys could easily help to measure service quality among different telecommunication companies. However, the following section of this report shows why the KQI method is of particular interest to this paper.
Benefits of Chosen Method and why not other Methods
This paper chooses the KQI method as the best technique for measuring voice quality because of its competency in directing companies to focus their energies on the most important aspects of their operations. This addition is important for most modern businesses because it is diverse. Therefore, people may be unfocused because of the expansive nature of their businesses. However, the KQI method helps to bring more focus to the performance measurement process by redirecting companies to focus on the key quality indicators (ATK, 2010: 4). Different companies appreciate the contributions of key quality indicators in promoting continuous improvements in the organisation.
Such is the case in my organisation because the technique has helped our Information Technology (IT) Department to break down the key objectives into four key components – company, centre, team, and employees. KQI has also helped to improve our department’s productivity. Similarly, it has helped the department to adjust its objectives and promote the same cause. In this regard, to measure voice quality, we have consistently reported on the performance of the key quality indicators. When deviations occur, we take urgent corrective actions to promote a seamless understanding of performance goals.
This paper chooses the KQI method as opposed to customer surveys and testing because the alternatives have significant limitations that could affect the outcome of voice quality management. For example, live testing could provide inaccurate results of voice quality because it works by comparing voice quality variations between original and transmitted voice quality (ATK, 2010: 4).
Although such communications occur through a secure channel, they are subject to range difficulties, which may provide inaccurate results. Therefore, the setting of the live testing affects the process outcome. However, ATK (2010: 3) says, to overcome this challenge, telecommunication service providers should record signal quality on both ends of the communication channel. Lastly, this paper did not choose the customer survey technique because the respondents may not be truthful, or provide accurate data regarding the questions asked.
Similarly, because of human flaws, some respondents may feel uncomfortable giving negative feedback about the quality of services offered by the company. This way, the company may have a distorted view of the quality of services they offer. Based on the nature of responses provided by the customers, some of the survey questions may be closed-ended (ATK, 2010: 4). However, such types of questions often have a low validity, thereby affecting the quality of responses provided by the respondents. Comprehensively, the survey technique is inappropriate for this study because it is prone to human flaws in data collection and analysis processes.
Conclusion
Current Pattern in Quality and its Causes
The telecommunications sector is naturally a service-oriented industry. The service sector is growing at a tremendous pace and more companies are competing to increase their market shares through improved service provision. Furthermore, the service industry has become an important component of business operations, such that most businesses do not only need it to compete favourably, but also to survive. Based on the same principle, some companies have taken an extra effort to document their service levels by making sure they have an effective service improvement framework.
The increased importance of customers in service-oriented businesses has also highlighted the need for businesses to pay attention to service management. Indeed, as Johnston (1995: 2) observes, quality management is pertinent to the success of service-oriented businesses because it acts as a warning of the possible problems that could cause customers to leave an organisation. Coupled with the increased competition that service-oriented businesses are experiencing in today’s fast-paced world, it is correct to say that customer demands and competition are the main causes of changing patterns in quality management.
Since most service advancements in the telecommunications sector depend on technological advancement, current patterns on service quality follow the continuum of technological growth. Indeed, with the adoption of modern communication technologies, different telecommunication companies are having an easier time improving the quality of their services, compared to the past. For example, voice quality has improved because many companies have adopted better technologies, which reduce distortion. To improve further the efficacy of their services, mobile telecommunication firms prefer to use call centres to get customer feedback about voice quality and other service issues (Upal, 2008: 18). They use the information they receive from this platform to improve different components of their service programs. Furthermore, from the same platform, they can identify, which areas are most affected by poor voice quality.
Future Direction
This paper shows that many telecommunication companies today use different models and frameworks for measuring service quality. Most of these tools are universal and different companies from around the world have used them for the same purpose. In the future, companies will start paying attention to developing localised solutions for quality management. Particularly, companies could have a strong focus on developing software solutions by using effective tools for quality management, which include company processes and market dynamics. Such processes have a high capability because as telecommunication companies continue to grow, more companies would invest more on research and development and develop localised solutions for managing their service quality requirements.
Works Cited
Arokiasamy, A., & Abdullah, A. (2013) “Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction In The Cellular Telecommunication Service Provider in Malaysia”, Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp 1-9.
ATK. (2010) “Telecommunication: Measuring Quality of Service”, Atkearny. Web.
CICRA. (2013) “Measures of Quality of Telecommunications Services in the Channel Islands”, Cicra. Web.
Johnston, R. (1995) “The Zone of Tolerance: Exploring the Relationship between Service Transactions and Satisfaction with the Overall Service”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 46-61.
Upal, M. (2008) “Telecommunication Service Gap: Call Center Service Quality Perception and Satisfaction”, Ibima. Web.