Regulatory measurement and evaluation of telephone service quality

Regulators of utilities that operate as local monopolies would like to set prices or allow rates of return based upon the quality of a utility's service. However, quality is highly multidimensional. Traditionally, regulators have collected measures of quality on many separate dimensions, and compared performance on these dimensions to explicit pass-fail standards. They have lacked a method of combining complex patterns of substandard and superstandard performance on these many dimensions to arrive at an overall evaluation of the quality of service. To redress this problem, we first describe the information processing problems regulators encounter when they attempt to integrate this complex array of information intuitively, and the problems that arise when the link between service quality (as reflected in patterns of passed and failed standards) and regulatory incentives is not made explicit to utility management. We develop a bootstrapped method for formalizing each expert regulator's evaluation policy using hierarchical conjoint analysis, and apply this method to the evaluation of local telephone companies by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). We show that experts within the FPSC, the regulated utilities, and a large telephone customer exhibit very high agreement about how the various dimensions of quality should be differentially weighted. We derive a consensus measure of overall quality, Q\^, and identify a score associated with meeting all standards exactly, Q\^*. Utilities can then be rewarded based upon whether or not they exceed Q\^*, rather than on the basis of how many standards are met. Compared with a pattern in which each standard is met exactly, there exist patterns of mixed substandard and superstandard performance on the individual dimensions of quality that are less costly to produce and higher in overall quality. We compare utility incentives when rewards are based upon Q\^ to those under the current pass-fail regime.

[1]  R. Olshavsky,et al.  Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice , 1979 .

[2]  A. Spence.  Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation , 1975 .

[3]  Abbie Griffin,et al.  The Voice of the Customer , 1993 .

[4]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[5]  H. J. Einhorn.  Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information , 1971 .

[6]  J. Hauser,et al.  The House of Quality , 1988 .

[7]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

[8]  Ruth N. Bolton,et al.  A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes , 1991 .

[9]  J. Jacoby,et al.  Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load , 1974 .

[10]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers , 1987 .

[11]  Sanford V. Berg,et al.  Natural monopoly regulation: Principles and practice , 1989 .

[12]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. , 1988 .

[13]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[14]  John O. Summers,et al.  A Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Evaluation Process Models , 1975 .

[15]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Hierarchical Information Integration: a New Method For the Design and Analysis of Complex Multlattribute Judgment Problems , 1984 .

[16]  W. Edwards.  How to Use Multi-Attribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision Making , 1976 .

[17]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research , 1985 .

[18]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[19]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[20]  The Regulation of Product Quality in the Public Utilities and the Citizen's Charter , 1992 .

[21]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[22]  E. H. Bowman.  Consistency and Optimality in Managerial Decision Making , 1963 .

[23]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[24]  P. Suppes,et al.  Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology , 1976 .

[25]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Setting Standards: A Systematic Approach to Managing Public Health and Safety Risks , 1984 .

[27]  John G. Lynch.  Why additive utility models fail as descriptions of choice behavior , 1979 .

[28]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[29]  David L. Ronis,et al.  Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method. , 1987 .

[30]  Jean C. Bedard,et al.  The Effects of Task Size and Similarity on the Decision Behavior of Bank Loan Officers , 1985 .

[31]  S. Oskamp.  OVERCONFIDENCE IN CASE-STUDY JUDGMENTS. , 1965, Journal of consulting psychology.

[32]  L. R. Goldberg.  Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments. , 1968, The American psychologist.

[33]  Richard M. Johnson.  Trade-Off Analysis of Consumer Values , 1974 .

[34]  Ruth N. Bolton,et al.  A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value , 1991 .

[35]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[36]  V. Zeithaml.  Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence: , 1988 .

[37]  M. Holbrook.  Integrating Compositional and Decompositional Analyses to Represent the Intervening Role of Perceptions in Evaluative Judgments , 1981 .

[38]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT: MEASURING LABILE VALUES , 1988 .

[39]  J. Wesley Hutchinson,et al.  On the Locus of Range Effects in Judgment and Choice , 1983 .

[40]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[41]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object , 1989 .

[42]  Kalyan Raman,et al.  Analysis of a sales force incentive plan for accurate sales forecasting and performance , 1990 .

[43]  R. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions , 1990 .

[44]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Capturing and Creating Public Opinion in Survey Research , 1993 .

[45]  John G. Lynch.  Uniqueness Issues in the Decompositional Modeling of Multiattribute Overall Evaluations: An Information Integration Perspective , 1985 .

[46]  S. Neslin.  Designing new outpatient health services: linking service features to subjective consumer perceptions. , 1983, Journal of health care marketing.

[47]  Valarie A. Zeithaml,et al.  An empirical examination of relationships in an extended service quality model , 1990 .

[48]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Methods of information integration theory , 1982 .

[49]  Robert J. Meyer,et al.  The Learning of Multiattribute Judgment Policies , 1987 .

[50]  L. Rappoport,et al.  Policy-capturing in the field: The nuclear safeguards problem☆ , 1973 .

[51]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality , 1988 .

[52]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .