TY  - JOUR
AB  - Seeks to provide answers to the questions: How can institutional
purchasers of services be sure that the quality of a service will be
acceptable over the period of the contract? Can they predict the future
quality of a service? How should they monitor service quality? Reviews
audit methods and awards and assesses their uses and limitations for
purchasers and providers of services. Observes that many audit
frameworks for services are adapted from product quality experience and
not from systematic research into factors critical to service quality.
Contrasts these frameworks with research into what practising service
managers found to be important for service quality. Proposes that, in
most cases, purchasers should adapt auditing frameworks for their
particular purposes drawing on such research and their own and
providers′ experience. Concludes that the validity of existing audit
frameworks as predictors of service quality is questionable, especially
for wide‐scope, long‐term service contracts with a high professional
component. Points out that there are advantages to the provider and
purchaser agreeing and developing an audit framework in partnership and
that, if purchasers and providers select a framework with caution, they
may reduce the risks inherent in contracting for services and develop
more refined monitoring methods.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
SN  - 0956-4233
DO  - 10.1108/EUM0000000002812
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002812
AU  - Arne Ovretveit John
PY  - 1993
Y1  - 1993/01/01
TI  - Auditing and Awards for Service Quality
T2  - International Journal of Service Industry Management
PB  - MCB UP Ltd
SP  - 74
EP  - 84
Y2  - 2024/04/25
ER  -