An empirical comparison of service matrices

This research is the first study to evaluate and compare alternative service positioning matrices using rigorous statistical analysis and a common data set based on a variety of service processes. The matrices are evaluated based on five guidelines: clarity of construct definitions, conceptual independence of the two axes of each matrix, clarity in specifying the direction of causation from one axis to the other, axis unidimensionality, and correlation between the two axes of each matrix. These five guidelines provide a more rigorous approach to evaluating current and future positioning matrices, and contribute to the literature by defining more specifically than past research what constitutes a good positioning matrix. The difference between a classification scheme and a positioning matrix are also explained. The results indicate that while there is a statistically significant level of association (correlation) between the axes (Guideline 5) of each of the service matrices studied, meeting the requirements of the other four guidelines is a challenge for some service matrices.