Technovation, 18(3) (1998) 163–178

Pergamon  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0166-4972(97)00121-1 0166-4972/98 $19.00 + 0.00

Capacity management in service

organisations
Hans Corsten and Stephan Stuhlmann
¨ ¨
Universitat Kaiserslautern, Lehrstuhl fur Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere
Produktionswirtschaft, Gottlieb-Daimler-Strasse, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany

Abstract
This paper intends to analyse capacity management in service organisations
in equal consideration of the providers’ and the consumers’ requirements,
which has been neglected in the literature to date. In order to avoid one-
sided managerial recommendations, the GAP model of service quality is
applied to develop a conceptual frame for an integrative application of
measures of capacity management.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved

1. BASICS interpreted as the performance of an economical or

In service companies, capacity management is cur-
rently regarded as one of the most difficult and most
essential management tasks (Shemwell and Cronin,
1994, p. 15). However, in the context of industrial
production planning and control, the importance of
capacity and its utilisation decrease in favour of a
reduction of throughput time, while still maintaining
a high degree of schedule effectiveness (Kern, 1990,
p. 228). A reason for this difference in meaning is
that a reduction of throughput time, as characteristic
of the industrial sector, is not directly applicable to
the service sector. This is because services can be
interpreted as ‘offers to spend time’ (Franz, 1969, p.
11; Stauss, 1991, p. 81ff.). Hence service quality
depends on, among other things, the duration of ser-
vice production. Therefore, from the consumer’s point
of view, its reduction creates a decrease in quality. In
the case of ‘offers to spare time’, minimising through-
put time may be considered a dominant objective.
Generally, capacity and throughput time should not
be studied separately, but with regard to their interde-
pendencies. Even if priority is given to throughput
time, capacity must not be disregarded.
According to Kern (1962, p. 27), capacity can be
technical unit — regardless of type, size and struc-
ture — within a period of time. This generally
accepted definition is also valid in connection with
services (Corsten and Stuhlmann, 1996, p. 1ff.).
Capacity as operative capability is comprised of a
quantitative and a qualitative dimension (Gutenberg,
1955, p. 56ff.). The quantitative capacity of a poten-
tial factor of production refers to the maximum quan-
titative operative capability within a period of time
(Kern, 1962, p. 135). The degree of capacity utili-
sation is defined as the ratio of required to available
capacity. The maximum output within a period of
time (unit/time, gal/time) may serve as a measure for
the quantitative operative capability. A heterogeneous
range of services prevents a direct measurement of
capacity, but rather requires an indirect one by exam-
ining the input parameters. This procedure is only
applicable if input and output parameters are related
in a proportional way (Layer, 1979, col. 878). Tem-
poral capacity, defined as maximum time available for
¨
capacity (‘time fund’) (Zapfel, 1989a, p. 130), is used
as an auxiliary parameter especially in services,
because they can be interpreted as offers to spend
time. The objective is to determine the quantitative
capacity through use of a time frame that can be

Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 163

H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
adapted to alternative production processes (Steffen,
1980, p. 174). This implies that demand has to be
determined in time units. The disadvantage in services
with customer participation is that time to produce the
service can vary. This means, that owing to variations
both in the employees’ ability and willingness to per-
form and in the external factor, personnel capacity
cannot be determined as precisely as in the case of
aggregates (Frank, 1970, p. 621).
Compared with that, qualitative capacity aims at
the type and quality of operative capability. Kern
(1992, p. 22ff.) differentiates between
쐌 precisional (e.g. precision, error tolerance),
쐌 dimensional (e.g. load-carrying capacity, object
dimensions) and
쐌 variational (e.g. versatility, adjustability) capacity.
The qualitative capacity of production equipment and
facilities includes the ability of an aggregate to
execute different processes, whereas in the context of
human resources, it refers to personal aptitude and
qualification. In this context, capacity should not be
considered as individually determined, but rather with
regard to a capable employee through whom all
requirements of a particular work place can be met
(Steffen, 1980, p. 176).
It is essential to rate operative capability in a quan-
titative and in a qualitative way; i.e. the two aspects
obtain the same importance because from the con-
sumers’ point of view they represent selection criteria
of great influence (Corsten, 1992, p. 231). Further
interdependencies between the qualitative and quanti-
tative dimension of capacity stem particularly from
the consumers’ assessment of service quality. The
operative capability, particularly in services with a
large share of ‘experience qualities’ (Zeithaml, 1981,
p. 186), is often used to assess service quality. This
judgement is called ‘derivative quality assessment’
(Corsten, 1985, p. 319).
Flexibility refers both to the qualitative as well as
to the quantitative dimensions of capacity. The degree
of flexibility arises from the requirement of adapta-
bility, i.e. the requirement of flexibility is not to be
considered as an absolute variable, but has to be
related to the relevant system environment. The
requirement of flexibility is determined by:
쐌 the fluctuations of the capacity utilisation rate and
their predictability and
쐌 the consumers’ needs and requirements.
Capacity as a general potential can be regarded as
164 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
an operative capability, but must be differentiated
from the readiness to operate (Riebel, 1954, p. 14);
i.e. capacity becomes a precondition for the readiness
to operate. The consumer considers a readiness to
operate insufficient when the desired service level is
not provided with the desired quality and at the right
time (Corsten, 1985, p. 138, p. 257ff.). Thus, the con-
sumer’s subjective perception of capacity attains an
exceptional importance.
In the context of capacity problems in service
organisations, the differentiation between prior and
final combination must be considered (Altenburger,
1980, p. 105ff.; Corsten, 1985, p. 161ff.). The prior
combination, characterised by a combination of
internal production factors, can be planned and
realised autonomously by the provider. The inte-
gration of the external factor takes place only in the
course of the final combination. This means that a
portion of the production process and the sale occur
to some extent simultaneously. By means of the inte-
gration of the external factor into service production,
capacity is directly assessed by the consumer and the
assessment becomes a factor in the performance of
capacity management. In an effort to avoid one-sid-
edness in the creation of capacity, both the con-
sumer’s and provider’s points of view must be taken
into consideration because both perspectives are
essential and interdependent (Corsten and Stuhlmann,
1996, p. 11ff.).
2. PROBLEMS OF CAPACITY MANAGEMENT
In literature concerning production management,
capacity management belongs thematically to the
organisation of industrial capacity. In this context,
Schnittka (1996, p. 34) stresses that the organisation
of industrial capacity intends to achieve an optimal
utilisation of the given potential, but he neglects the
relevant literature on production management (Kern,
¨
1992; Zapfel, 1989b). On the basis of market develop-
ment and the resulting production requirements, the
function of capacity management should instead be
viewed as the provision of aggregates and human
resources. A further distinction within capacity man-
agement can be made between the strategical, tactical
and operative levels of capacity management
(Corsten, 1992, p. 233ff.). Since capacity decisions
are a basis for a company, they achieve a strategic
dimension. Within the scope of capacity strategy, the
quantitative and qualitative operative capability of the
production system have to be fixed in a way that
allows the company to keep, or even to improve, its
competitive position. Strategic production program-
ming assumes the function of a determinant of the

production fields into which a company would like to
move (Kern, 1992, p. 125ff.). The definition of mar-
kets on which the company will principally appear as
a provider is closely related to the determination of
product fields. Because of this close connection the
planning of product fields integrates demand into an
essential aspect of the strategic dimension. Strategic
capacity decisions based on predictions of prospective
¨
demand (Zapfel, 1995, p. 78)1 as well as on an analy-
sis of the options allow the company to make
decisions with regard to its capacity.
The tactical capacity design focuses on decisions
concerning equipment, i.e. the specification of the
strategic scope with regard to kind, size, structure, as
well as combination of production units. The tactical
capacity design assumes the function of staffing and
tooling. Decisions concerning tactical capacity design
have to take the consumer’s requirements into con-
sideration. This involves close coordination with the
creation of the production programme, which defines
the product fields with regard to breadth and depth.
The actual operative capability forms the starting
point of the operative capacity design, which assumes
the function of capacity utilisation planning (Reese,
1996, col. 862). In the framework of a specific situ-
ation, capacity utilisation planning aims for optimal
capacity utilisation through the harmonisation of
actual supply and demand.
Even if strategic, tactical and operative capacity
design cover different periods of time, these different
levels are interdependent and, therefore, should not
be analysed separately, but rather by making use of
their hierarchical structure (Steven, 1996, col. 875).
In the service sector, readiness to operate has to be
maintained independently of fluctuations in demand.
The dispositive factor assumes the function of design-
ing capacity as general operative capability and of for-
ming a readiness to work as situationally available
operative capability. Fluctuations of capacity utilis-
ation may be due to exogenous or endogenous causes.
Primarily, the external factor represents an exogen-
ous cause. Because of the integration of the external
factor, the production of services functionally depends
on the quantitative employment of the external factor.
Thus, the external factor determines to what extent
idle capacity costs become used capacity costs. The
assumption that capacity has to be adjusted to peak
demand can be ascribed to the fluctuations of demand
1
A strategic sales forecast refers in this connection to aggregated
demand figures (e.g. product groups).
Capacity management in service organisations
for services which are induced by the external factor.
In the case of such a synchronisation of capacity and
demand the provided production capacity enables the
service company to start producing without delay,
even in the case of peak demand. On the other hand,
complete independence from fluctuations in demand
requires an ability to store the output. In general prac-
tice service companies tend to operate with neither
synchronisation nor independence, but instead use
interim solutions to coordinate supply and demand.
Several measures of adaptability are used to
accomplish this coordination (Ritter, 1988, p. 33ff.).
Fluctuations of the production level, induced by fluc-
tuations in demand, can be a long-term development,
periodic fluctuations (owing to seasonal or economic
trends), or fluctuations caused by chance. If provided
capacity remains unused, then idle capacity, also
known as spare capacity, occurs (Kern, 1962, p. 81).
Endogenous causes of fluctuations in utilisation of
production capacity do not result from the external
factor, but from a firm’s internal problems. For
example, if a transportation company’s vehicle breaks
down while transporting persons, this breakdown can
be compensated for with the remaining vehicles
(Schnittka, 1996, p. 16ff.). If the ratio ‘transport vol-
ume per day’ is chosen as the measure of capacity,
then the consequences for consumers and employees
are not evident due to compensatory effects. The indi-
vidual registration of capacity can be made by rec-
ording the capacity of individual combinations of
potential production factors directly related to the
external factors. Apart from the lack of compensatory
effects, this method allows the consumer’s perception
to be taken into consideration.
A further endogenous cause is derived from the fact
that available operative capability is not used com-
pletely and, consequently, idle capacities exist. These
unused capacities result from fluctuations in:
쐌 structure,
쐌 period (arising from seasonal or economic trends)
or
쐌 intensity.
Reserve capacity due to seasonal or economic trends
serves to absorb periodic fluctuations. Reserve
capacity due to intensity, which can only be used on a
short-term basis, can rarely be determined in advance.
Therefore, this form of reserve capacity cannot be
included in capacity design and thus does not deter-
mine a company’s capacity even when it may com-
pensate for accidental fluctuations.
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 165
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
3. CONCEPTUAL FRAME OF CAPACITY MANAGEMENT
The starting point of capacity design is the market
(Collier, 1987, p. 34ff.). The main task of capacity
management is not only to focus on the perception
and assessment of capacity in the context of capacity
design, but also to actively influence the consumer’s
assessment of capacity. Therefore, it is necessary to
study the expectations of potential consumers, whose
capacity assessment may also be influenced by the
provider. From the provider’s point of view the final
goal is always company success gauged by customer
satisfaction and the resulting loyalty, which represent
instrumental variables for the provider. The two
points which may serve as reference figures for the
consumers’ judgement of capacity are
쐌 the provider’s capacity as a whole and
쐌 single combinations of potential factors of pro-
duction.
In this context it must be assumed that consumers
compare offered capacity with expected capacity at
each single point of contact. Furthermore, capacity
assessment does not result from the summation of all
single experiences, but rather in the sense of ‘critical
events’, only those contacts which are significant for
the consumer become relevant for judgement.
In the context of capacity assessment it is also use-
ful to distinguish between prior and final combi-
nations, even if the prior combination is slightly more
difficult to be assessed by the consumer. In the case
where a consumer is not using the service of a parti-
cular provider for the first time, it must be assumed
that in addition to the current operative capability,
both the general operative capability and the pre-
viously experienced capability are also relevant for
the consumer’s capacity assessment. Only in the case
of extremely urgent need does the current operative
capability serve as the consumer’s exclusive object
of reference.
For these reasons, the degree to which certain con-
sumers feel that the perceived operative capability is
insufficient represents an essential basis for capacity
management (Schnittka, 1996, p. 51). In order to gain
insight into the possible causes for the perception of
capacity as insufficient, Schnittka (1996, p. 54ff.)
makes use of the GAP model created by Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry (Parasuraman et al., 1985, p. 44)
and known from quality management. In this model
he defines only four gaps without any explanation for
this methodology. Four gaps will also be used in the
following analysis since the interdependencies
between service production and external communi-
166 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
cations, originally known as GAP 4, do not prove to
be a gap after closer examination. External communi-
cations may help to portray the provider’s operative
capability and, in this way, influence the consumer’s
expectations. The provider’s inability to meet the por-
trayed operative capability means that his perform-
ance falls short of his promises. In this way, the con-
sumer may notice a discrepancy between expected
and perceived operative capability, which finds
expression in a gap. External communications aimed
at consumers on the operative level of service pro-
duction rather demonstrate the possibility of exerting
influence, but do not belong to this GAP analysis. The
expected operative capability is influenced by the
consumer’s personal needs and past experiences,
word-of-mouth communications with other con-
sumers, and by the operative capability the provider
promised. The structure of the GAP model referring
to capacity management is illustrated in Fig. 1
(Corsten and Stuhlmann, 1996, p. 13).
As often depicted in literature, the starting point of
the development of an operative capability structure
is formed by the expected demand (market-oriented
capacity design) and the resulting consumer’s expec-
tations with regard to operative capability (Schnittka,
1996, p. 55). On this basis, a qualitative and quantita-
tive requirement profile can be defined, while the con-
sumers’ requirements may relate to the operative
capability as well as to the entire service. It can be
useful to segment expectations according to groups of
consumers in an effort to comply more specifically
with demand. Consequently, GAP 1 arises when man-
agement does not adequately recognise or assess the
demander’s expectations of the kind of service, deliv-
ery time, and equipment.
The transformation of these perceptions, i.e. the
assumed consumers’ expectations of the quality and
quantity of capacity, takes place in the course of
dimensioning capacity. Considering the criterion
‘strength and duration of capacity management’, the
following statement concerning GAP 2 is accurate:
By dimensioning capacity on the tactical level of
capacity design, the actual operative capability of a
production system should be determined on the basis
of anticipated needs. This means that the consumers’
requirements are to be specified with regard to service
production. Hence, GAP 2 arises from circumstances
and developments external to the firm and from
capacity decisions made on the strategic level. Conse-
quently, the intended translation of consumers’ expec-
tations cannot be completely guaranteed. In this situ-
ation, the integration of the external factor with
regard to duration, time, intensity and points of con-
tact, may lead to uncertainty. In this phase, a blueprint

Fig. 1. GAP model of capacity management.
can assist in the detection and prevention of signifi-
cant disturbances. Should the necessity arise, the con-
sumer should also be enabled to perform the process
within certain limits, because the resource use per ser-
vice also depends on the variety of demand
(Armistead and Clark, 1994, p. 7).
In the context of service production the integration
of the external factor takes place. That is, concrete
points of contact between provider and consumer
occur. At these points the consumer perceives
capacity concretely. This perception does not have to
be restricted to service production, but may be
extended to capacity dimensioning. In consideration
of the time frame of capacity management, a distinc-
tion must occur at GAP 3, because the consumer may
attain insight in two forms:
쐌 on the tactical level of capacity design, i.e. he may
perceive if and to what extent capacity dimen-
sioning is sufficient with regard to quality and
quantity, and
Capacity management in service organisations
쐌 on the operative level of capacity design, i.e. he
may perceive to what extent the provider coordi-
nates provided and demanded capacity in the
course of service production within an actual situ-
ation, i.e. the integration of the external factor
(Corsten, 1992, p. 236, p. 252).
Schnittka’s description of the GAP model of
capacity management has to be extended, because the
only part of GAP 3 presented is that caused by the
discrepancy between a customer’s perception of oper-
ative capability and capacity dimensioning. Of equal
importance for this model are capacity problems
occurring on the operative level and then perceived
by the consumer in the course of service production.
Such problems occur if the consumer recognises the
provider’s readiness to operate within an actual demand
situation as insufficient, because the provider does not
utilise his available capability completely.
Finally, GAP 4 results from the subjective assess-
ment of the provider’s operative capability by the
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 167
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
consumer. The discrepancy between expected and
perceived operative capability is either caused by
GAPs 1 to 3, or by the consumer’s inability to assess
the suitability of capacity for service production
(Schnittka, 1996, p. 63). If such a negative gap exists,
or in the case where the consumer’s expectations are
exceeded and a positive gap occurs, a distinction
between the two cases must be made. Either this devi-
ation is tolerated by the consumer or it is viewed as
unacceptable. This range of acceptance depends on
the intensity of integration. In the case of a high inten-
sity of integration the zone of tolerance tends to be
smaller than in the case of a low intensity of inte-
gration (Johnston, 1995, p. 46).
Hence, the GAP model is suitable for a possible
identification and structuring of operative capability
deficits, as well as for potential ideas for a concrete
design. In this way the model represents a conceptual
framework for capacity management (Corsten and
Stuhlmann, 1996, p. 11ff.).
4. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Managerial implications aim at smoothing out dis-
crepancies between capacity demand, resulting from
orders, and the provider’s capacity supply. Potential
formative measures relate to the provider as well as to
the consumer, so a distinction must be made between
measures on the
쐌 supply side and
쐌 demand side (Corsten, 1985, p. 145ff.).
Although this procedure has proved useful, it is not
discussed further. Instead the GAP model of capacity
management will be used as a basis for more
detailed findings.
4.1 Anticipation of consumers’ expectations (GAP 1)
Capacity management based upon the suggested
GAP model always includes the requirement of an
extensive informational base in every phase described
in order to identify potential discrepancies. The gath-
ering of information concerning the consumer’s per-
ception of operative capability proves to be essential
at the start of capacity management. This results
since, from management’s point of view, the percep-
tion of consumer’s expectations represents the starting
point of the GAP model and consequently the basis
of all subsequent phases. This implies that capacity
management should not simply be reactive but also
proactive. When this occurs, capacity management is
able not only to react to future developments and but
168 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
also to recognise both future developments of
capacity demand and the resulting consequences for
capacity supply. Thus, management can also influence
consumers’ expectations at the same time.
Flexibility needs to refer to both the qualitative as
well as to the quantitative dimension of capacity.
Flexibility has to guarantee serviceability by means
of adjustment and/or modification (reactive com-
ponent), as well as the ability to act with regard to
risk and opportunity. As the requirement of flexibility
is determined by the degree and predictability of fluc-
tuations in utilisation, the institutionalisation of an
early detection system for informative linkage to the
company’s environment is unavoidable (Corsten,
1992, p. 231). To what extent such an early detection
system is able to identify fluctuations in demand is
uncertain, because peaks may vary with regard to
company, branch and product, and with regard to
year, month, week, day, hour or even minute.
Since GAP 1 results from the discrepancy between
the operative capability expected by the consumer and
the perception of these expectations by the manage-
ment, the question arises, what basic possibilities exist
for the provider to identify and to service the con-
sumers’ expectations.
The provider of a service is faced with a wealth
of information consisting of (partial) events, (partial)
results, constraints, environment, participants, etc.
Out of this perceived, unstructured bundle of infor-
mation he chooses — with regard to his experience —
those which he considers to be relevant to the service
being provided. On this basis, the provider develops
his expectations of the service, while also considering
the integrative and interactive behaviour of the con-
sumer. These characteristics are formed into a struc-
ture or a scheme which describes the service. As this
scheme of a service represents a description of a pro-
cess, it is called a ‘script’ (Smith and Houston, 1983,
p. 60), meaning simply a blueprint (cf. Section 4.3).
This proceeding may not take place without regard
for the consumers’ position. The potential consumer
also amasses a wealth of information concerning the
service which stems from communication with other
consumers, the external communication of various
providers, and his individual needs and experiences
(cf. Fig. 1). Experiences based on perceptions lead to
expectations representing a concept for future ser-
vices. Hence, expectations represent a future-oriented
result of a learning process. If these expectations are
confirmed by new perceptions, then they are strength-
ened and represent an a priori standard founded on
past experiences of the individual. Based upon these

expectations, the consumer develops a cognitive
sequence of actions by splitting his goal into sub-
goals and actions necessary to achieve the desired end
result. Therefore, for each action the constraints, other
participants, their roles and the necessary partial
results are all important. They define the standard
mentioned above so that it represents the consumers’
expectations. These standards first concern each sin-
gle action, but may be summarised in a comprehen-
sive view, so that a ‘bundle of expectations’ arises
which describes the consumer’s ‘script’ (Hubbert et
al., 1995, p. 7ff.). These relationships are shown in
Fig. 2.
The provider is faced with the problem of consider-
ing these standards for each individual consumer
when developing his own ‘scripts’. Only when the
Fig. 2. ‘Provider-script’ and ‘consumer-script’.
Capacity management in service organisations
‘provider-script’ is similar enough to the ‘consumer-
script’ can the service be successful. This refers to
the comparison of the scripts developed on both sides
of a service2 and leads to the following differen-
tiation:
쐌 If the provider-script is similar to the consumer-
script, a so-called ‘common script’ is produced, and
the success of the service is guaranteed.
쐌 In the case of a divergence between provider-script
2
The discussion of scripts often contrasts the cognitively standardised
events with the actual events. This one-sided, provider-oriented dis-
cussion neglects the fact that both the provider and the consumer pos-
sess scripts. Thus, the consumer may compare his personal script with
the actual one, which coincides with the provider’s script. The provider
perceives the consumer script as the actual one and compares it with
his own.
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 169
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
and consumer-script, a question arises as to the
feasibility of adjustment. This means that provider
and/or consumer have to be both able and willing
to correct their scripts in order to achieve a simi-
larity through adjustment to situational context.
Thus, a situational script arises. If the adjustment
fails, the gap between ‘provider-script’ and ‘con-
sumer-script’ endangers the success of the service
(Hubbert et al., 1995, p. 8).
Reasons for the deviation of a standardised script
from an actual ‘script’ are the following (Smith and
Houston, 1983, p. 60):
쐌 The absence of a predetermined condition of a cer-
tain action may lead to the subsequent actions lack-
ing their preconditions and, consequently, the
sequence is disturbed.
쐌 An action is performed, but an error impairs the
result.
쐌 Non-central attributes assume a leading role and
cause a deviation.
From the consumer’s and the provider’s points of
view the beginning of the service production, i.e. the
beginning of the consumer-script and the provider-
script, may refer to different trigger events. This may
lead to the situation where from the provider’s point
of view the service production has not yet started, but
the consumer views the process as already in a ser-
vice-induced waiting stage.
For these reasons, scripts prove to be a methodical
base to comprehend the process of service production
from both the provider’s and the consumer’s points
of view. Scripts open up the possibility to link both
perspectives and, in so far, prepare an integrative
application of demand- and supply-side measures.
The comparison between consumer-script and pro-
vider-script is accompanied by the following impli-
cations: It is necessary for the provider to develop his
script so that it includes the consumers’ expectations
defined in their scripts. The provider can offer several
‘common’ scripts by extracting homogeneous seg-
ments from the heterogeneous pool of consumers. By
working with common scripts, the provider obtains
the possibility to offer standardised services within
certain limits. Finally, the use of common scripts sim-
plifies the perception of the consumers’ expectations
and thus influences GAP 1. Moreover, it also simpli-
fies capacity dimensioning and service production
through the use of standardisation. However, this pro-
cedure has proved to be conflicting since this
bundling implies a loss of information. This loss con-
tradicts the basic principle of scripts, which is to
170 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
guarantee a differentiated insight into consumer
expectations.
The assignment of consumers to the provider’s
scripts can be done by either the consumer himself or
by the provider. This procedure is similar to the basic
ideas of demand management from Northcraft and
Chase, who differentiate between ‘segmenting’, ‘mat-
ching’ and ‘channelling’ (cf. Section 4.3). Further-
more, it is recommended that the provider make situ-
ational scripts available by guaranteeing the creation
of an adequate potential of flexibility. Finally, situ-
ational scripts try to reduce the uncertainty induced
by the external factor.
In the case of a provider’s inadequate perception
of consumers’ expectations, attention must be paid to
the fact that this discrepancy leads from capacity
dimensioning and service production to the point
where the consumer compares expected and perceived
operative capability. This fact demonstrates the
influence of GAP 1 on GAP 4. With regard to pos-
sible discrepancies the sources of deviation have to
be taken into consideration. This becomes particularly
problematical because these deviations do not arise
before service production.
Independent of the question, if and to what extent
the representation of consumers’ expectations by
scripts is successful, it is useful to differentiate
between goals, sub-goals and actions. This differen-
tiation represents a first, inevitable step towards dis-
covering the causes for fluctuations in demand, and
to smoothing them out, independent of the basic strat-
egy of capacity management used (Lovelock, 1988,
p. 165). The extent to which a breakdown of demand
is possible depends on the informational basis of the
company. Nevertheless, the analysis has to be started
by a differentiated structuring to identify the different
expectations in order to enable segment-specific
capacity decisions to be made. Particulary the early
provision of detailed information, before the start of
the service, represents an inevitable precondition for
the timely design of readiness to operate. This enables
the service company to react to individual consumer’s
needs during the service production. Furthermore,
consumers’ expectations can be influenced actively by
such means as communication.
4.2 Transformation of customers’ expectations by capacity
dimensioning (GAP 2)
The above-mentioned elements of uncertainty of
services substantially influence capacity dimen-

sioning3. The consideration of the process as a coher-
ent whole does not at all meet the heterogeneity of
service production. The analysis of single critical
phases of services represents an essential precondition
for an adequate capacity dimensioning. Furthermore,
fixation of the operative capability of a production
system has to be proceeded by the registration and
the modelling of the service process, which should
take into consideration the uncertainty caused by the
external factor. Hence, time, duration, intensity and
points of contact (with regard to the occurrence of the
external factor) must be considered to the same extent
as the resulting potential influences of the consumers.
That does not mean a complete planning of the pro-
cess, but rather aims at providing alternative pro-
cesses (Schnittka, 1996, p. 57). In addition, the inte-
gration of the consumer into the service has to be
generated as an option.
Starting from a process-oriented analysis of the
entire service, the so-called ‘blueprinting’ allows for
identification and visualisation of elements and sub-
processes (Shostack, 1981, p. 226). This structure is
further specialised by divisions with regard to func-
tional contribution to the entire service and with
regard to duration and capacity utilisation. The inte-
gration of a so-called ‘line of visibility’ into the ser-
vice production process represented by the ‘blue-
print’, allows for a differentiation between
쐌 front-office factors, perceptible by the consumer,
and
쐌 back-office factors, not perceptible by the con-
sumer.
Thus, an identification of potential contacts between
provider and consumer, i.e. the sequence of inte-
gration of the external factor, is possible (Corsten,
1996, p. 17). A differentiation between the ‘line of
visibility’ from the provider’s and from the the con-
sumer’s points of view and the integration into the
production process of a ‘line of interaction’ at the
interchange points of internal and external factors of
¨
contact (Meyer and Blumelhuber, 1994, p. 12), illus-
trate that there is no direct contact between consumer
and back-office factors, but rather only internal con-
tact factors which always act as a link. The differen-
tiation between
쐌 activities performed by the customer,
쐌 activities performed by the interaction between
customer and provider and
3
As basic strategy alternatives of capacity management the ‘chase
demand’ strategy and the ‘capacity level’ strategy must be mentioned
(Sasser, 1976, p. 136ff.; also Corsten, 1992, p. 233).
Capacity management in service organisations
쐌 activities performed by the provider
illustrates the differing degrees of independence
within service activities. The provider’s independence
concerning back-office factors is similar to the indus-
trial sector, whereas the flexibility concerning front-
office factors is restricted by the integration of the
external factor (Collier, 1987, p. 41). Referring to a
model of service quality created by Flynn (1986),
Jones (1988, p. 106ff.) suggests a differentiation
between ‘intermediate output’ and ‘output’, which
divides the process into activities which prepare for
the sale and activities that realise the sale. This means
that activities necessary for the production of the
‘intermediate output’ are invisible, whereas the sub-
sequent activities are visible for the customer. In order
to guarantee the maximum independence of the pro-
vider, the influence of the external factor has to be
reduced.
On the one hand, capacity dimensioning aims at
determining the company’s size by increasing, reduc-
ing or restructuring capacity. On the other hand, it
aims at developing a flexibility potential by means of
versatile factor potentials and measures affecting
work-flow organisation. This flexibility potential
enables the company to react to the uncertainty
induced by the variations in the external factor.
Hence, capacity dimensioning has to guarantee the
organisation of an adequate operative capability,
which corresponds to the structure, course and size
of demand.
The perceived customer expectations determine
demand for capacity in regard to quality and quantity.
The supply of capacity, which includes production
equipment and facilities, human resources and their
combination as the basic determinants of the capacity
of a production unit, assumes the function of develop-
ing an adequate readiness to operate. In this context,
fluctuations of capacity supply, caused either by fail-
ure of production equipment and facilities or by
absenteeism and performance fluctuations of the staff,
may create complications. Staff-induced compli-
cations are particularly influential in services with a
strong personal presence where the outcome of the
final product is less certain. Hence, working time of
human resources becomes the primary determinant of
capacity, because it limits the operation time of the
production equipment (Frank, 1970, p. 622). Beyond
the above-mentioned failures concerning the supply
of capacity, this personnel-created problem becomes
more intense because the capacity of the staff depends
on their ability and willingness to perform. Therefore,
it cannot be predetermined as precisely as the capacity
of the production equipment. The conception of the
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 171
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
readiness to operate requires detailed human resource
planning, which becomes necessary for the follow-
ing reasons:
쐌 the heterogeneity of the tasks of service production,
which mostly contain dispositive and creative
elements;
쐌 the possibility to complete a task in different
ways; and
쐌 the inaccurate description and low degree of deter-
mination of the different tasks and of the entire ser-
vice.
Of the tasks to be completed, we have to differen-
tiate between
쐌 operation-related tasks and
쐌 non-operation-related tasks.
The latter may be useful to compensate for peaks in
demand by taking over operation-related tasks
(Becker, 1995, p. 255ff.). This procedure is restricted
by qualitative and quantitative limits. This can be
illustrated by the fact that services with extensive cus-
tomer contact require conscientious and extensive
search, selection and training in order to meet the spe-
cific qualifications of the staff deployed in the face-
to-face tasks of service production.
4.3 Integration of the external factor (GAP 3)
GAP 3 deals with discrepancies occurring during
the service production on either the operative level or
the tactical level, and resulting from the perception
of capacity by the consumer. The integration of the
consumer’s perspective is of extreme importance for
the entrepreneurial capacity policy, because not only
influences internal to the firm are examined. The inte-
gration of the external factor restricts the provider’s
influences by withdrawing parts of service production
from the provider’s domain, while generating, in the
same process, new opportunities to create the service.
For example, a kind of outsourcing of (partial) activi-
ties from the provider to the consumer might take
place. In consideration of these interdependencies, an
interesting differentiation for capacity management is
made between
쐌 the customer’s insight into the service production
process, and
쐌 the customer’s influence on the service pro-
duction process.
The customer’s insight represents a passive
element, which is initially restricted to the mere per-
ception of capacity. As already acknowledged, a dif-
172 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
ferentiation has to be made between the perception of
service production and the capacity dimensioning. In
this context, the perception of capacity dimensioning
does not refer to the process of creation happening in
the back office, but rather refers to the result demon-
strated in the front office through the provision of sev-
eral alternatives or through capacity harmonisation. In
contrast to the customer’s insight, the customer’s
influence is an active element. This influence can
either be short-term, where it exerts a direct influence
in the front office during service production, or it can
be a long-term indirect influence caused by the pro-
vider’s variation in capacity dimensioning.
Within the scope of capacity dimensioning the
possibility to institutionalise the customer as a part of
the service production process becomes particularly
significant. Besides his role as consumer, the cus-
tomer becomes a ‘co-producer’ of the service, also
¨
called a ‘prosumer’, as discussed by Meyer and Blu-
melhuber (1994, p. 9, p. 36). On the one hand, this
may increase capacity utilisation, but on the other
hand, it may reduce the provider’s control over the
service production process, something which is already
restricted by the occurrence of the external factor. In
the ideal case, the provider should decide at the time
of the service creation which tasks are to be fulfilled
by the consumer, as well as which options to offer
the consumer. In services regularly subject to peak
demand, the integration of the customer should be
extensive in order to facilitate the provider’s reaction
to fluctuations of demand (Heskett et al., 1991, p.
189). Nevertheless, the development of a self-service
may also induce several risks, which could impair the
quality of service perceived by the customer. Such
risks in this context are, for example, mistakes made
by consumers during the process and the ensuing cor-
rections, inadequate expectations of consumers with
regard to the task they must complete, and reser-
vations about performing the service (partially) them-
selves (Collier, 1987, p. 43).
On the whole, the integration of the customer into
a service production proves to be conflicting, because
쐌 on the one hand, the uncertainty concerning service
production increases since the extent to which the
customer possesses the ability and willingness to
meet the provider’s expectations is unknown, and
쐌 on the other hand, this uncertainty is reduced to
a certain extent, because the consumer is able to
influence the service through his involvement and,
thus, is (partially) responsible for its result.
As the external factor represents a ‘conditio sine
qua non’ for the service, it is obvious that the provider

must attempt to influence the behaviour of this factor.
This influence has to be comprised of the concrete
behaviour in the final combination and its occurrence
with regard to time, because this is significantly
important for the occurrence of demand and, conse-
quently, for capacity demand. This fact has been dis-
cussed recently as a problem of provision sui generis
(Kleinaltenkamp, 1993, p. 101ff.). The conclusion,
that capacity design for service companies represents
a problem of provision (Schnittka, 1996, p. 22), does
not at all meet the complexity of capacity problems.
This is because, from this point of view, strategical
and tactical aspects of capacity management are not
considered sufficiently and many measures of adjust-
ment on the operative level are neglected.
Within the scope of service production, measures
concerning time (with or without changes in time),
intensity, work organisation (e.g. changes of job con-
tent, and order manipulation) and different levels of
readiness to operate can be executed. Besides these
supply-side measures, demand-side measures can also
be applied. In this context, a differentiation concern-
ing pricing policy, actions altering product policy (e.g.
product differentiation, provision of additional services),
appointments or reservations, and segmentations may
be useful (cf. the procedure of yield management
(Kimes, 1989; Daudel and Vialle, 1992)). In addition
to the above-mentioned expansive measures, demand
may also be stabilised by contractive measures
(Corsten, 1992, p. 242ff.), such as abandonment of
certain areas or channels of distribution and concen-
tration on a specific order size or on consumer seg-
ments. Measures concerning communication policy
are of great importance with regard to the GAP
model. By means of communication appropriate for
the customer, the formation of expectations can be
influenced before the service takes place and, further-
more, the service itself can be influenced and cor-
rected while it takes place. This can also eliminate the
discrepancy resulting from an unprecise perception of
provided capacity.
Northcraft and Chase (1985, p. 68ff.) propose a
form of demand management based upon a compre-
hensive view of the process, but limited in its field
of application to the actual service production. The
provided services are a basis for defining and forming
segments of consumers based upon identified cus-
tomer groups and their expectations (‘segmenting’).
At the same time the provided services are also paired
with the available alternatives to deliver the service
(‘matching’)4. This allows for the next step to include
4
This ‘matching’ attempts to assign the numerous service tasks to suit-
able capabilities in compliance with the different levels of qualifi-
cation, in order to prevent highly qualified alternatives from taking
Capacity management in service organisations
an assignment of certain segments of customers to a
corresponding alternative of production (‘channelling’).
In this way, the customer is directed, at the start of
the service delivery, to the best alternative corre-
sponding to his expectations. The direction of the cus-
tomer may become inapplicable if the customer
decides himself which alternative appears to be
appropriate. This so-called ‘self-channelling’ could,
for example, lead to the customer’s assumption of
tasks of service delivery in the context of ‘self-ser-
vice’.
At the beginning of the service production process
the customer may perceive a significant obstruction
of capacity harmonisation on the operative level, if
his contact with the service provider begins with a
queue. This poor start may influence the customer in
a negative way with regard to the entire service. This
attitude proves as difficult to adjust (Heskett et al.,
1991, p. 180ff.) and increases the probability that the
customer may assess the service as unsatisfactory.
This problem becomes more intense because experi-
ences, which normally would have been assessed as
neutral with regard to the service, now confirm the
customer’s negative attitude and increase his discon-
tent with the service (cf. Section 4.4). To counteract
these consequences early and in an extensive way
proves to be both necessary and difficult, emphasising
the significance of queues for the entire service
(Maister, 1988, p. 176ff.). While analysing the
‘behaviour’ of queues and recommended courses of
action, we have to differentiate between
쐌 the objective reality, which relates to the pure wait-
ing time, and
쐌 the experience of waiting, which reflects the cus-
tomer’s subjective feelings with regard to waiting
time.
This distinction is necessary to separate the direct
influence of queues on GAP 3 from their indirect
influence on GAP 4.
In order to influence the customer’s experience
directly in a positive way, the early phases of service
production must be properly handled. In most cases,
it is the situation of waiting which must be analysed,
because it determines the perception of the subsequent
phases and of the service as a whole. Thus, the fol-
lowing ‘principles of waiting’ must be regarded as a
general starting point to be applied to specific situ-
over tasks to be performed by a lower qualified alternative. At best,
highly qualified alternatives can serve as a buffer for lower qualified
alternatives, assuming that the tasks are completely familiar to them
(Northcraft and Chase, 1985, p. 69).
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 173
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
ations in order to influence the perceptions directly
(Maister, 1988, p. 178ff.):
쐌 Occupied waiting time is felt to be shorter than
passive waiting time. This idea allows the waiting
time felt by the customer to be reduced by either
an offered activity related or unrelated to the ser-
vice, or by a regular progress perceptible for each
waiting person.
쐌 The customer should be given the impression that
the service delivery has already begun during the
wait. This prevents the customers’ fears (rationally
or irrationally) of having chosen the wrong queue
and counteracts early potential impatience.
쐌 The announcement of the waiting time will posi-
tively influence the customer’s feelings about the
act of waiting, because the awareness of an inevi-
table long wait is more pleasant than the experience
of a short period of ignorance.
쐌 Since a lack of explanation in a situation of waiting
proves to be the main reason for the customers’
feelings of uncertainty and helplessness, the service
provider should always reveal the reasons, even if
they are not excusable.
쐌 The more significant the service is for the single
customer, the more tolerant (cf. Section 4.4) he
may be with regard to his personal waiting time.
Since here, too, the customer’s perception is deci-
sive, the provider should be able to offer the cus-
tomer various processes to carry out the service.
쐌 Waiting is often felt to be more pleasant in a group,
because it is perceived as an inevitable part of ser-
vice production and, moreover, meets the cus-
tomers’ need for affiliation.
쐌 The provider should make it his responsibility to
ensure that the customers find the waiting time fair.
This is because a waiting customer’s fear of being
treated unfairly can dominate the influence of the
actual waiting time on the customer’s attitude as a
whole (Larson, 1987, p. 896). Formalising the
queuing system — for example, by a system of
numbers or by the first-in, first-out method — may
be preferred by the customers, because they are
able to estimate their own waiting time and this
wait is felt as fair (Shemwell and Cronin, 1994, p.
17). Exceptions to this equal treatment, such as in
the case of an emergency, can be communicated
more easily.
The ‘occupation’ of waiting time proves to be
especially important and comparatively unproblem-
atic for the influence on the customers’ perception of
waiting time. Even if the fairness of waiting in a
queue is guaranteed, the mere process of waiting and
the required time may create an extremely negative
conditioning of the customer with regard to the entire
174 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
service (Larson, 1987, p. 897). For this reason, the
provider should endeavour in every case to fill the
customers’ waiting time to prevent a realisation of the
emptiness of this time. In addition to measures which
shorten the objective waiting time, measures which
attempt to shorten the subjective waiting time of the
single customer should be taken into account (Tom
and Lucey, 1995, p. 21ff.). The customer’s personal
feeling of time is subject to numerous determinants.
For example, the expected waiting time, which is
related to the actually perceived, that means subjec-
tively felt, waiting time becomes a cause of satisfac-
tion or dissatisfaction. For this reason, the arrange-
ment of the ‘waiting environment’ becomes an
essential determinant of the customer’s attitude
towards waiting. Furthermore, this arrangement
includes an active element on the part of the provider,
when he assumes the marketing perspective and
regards the waiting people as potential customers of
further services to be offered. Thus, the provider does
not only influence the customer’s individual experi-
ence of waiting in a positive way and with regard to
the actual service production, but also promotes sales
of further services.
The essential determinants of the consumers’ atti-
tudes towards waiting time can be summarised by the
following (Larson, 1987, p. 895, p. 901):
쐌 social fairness,
쐌 waiting environment and
쐌 information about waiting time5 and possible delay.
4.4 Assessment of operative capability (GAP 4)
GAP 4 proves to be the component of the GAP
model relevant to behavioural patterns and, for this
reason, is the crucial gap. As mentioned above, GAP
4 arises either from the demander’s inabililty to cor-
rectly judge the suitability of capacity for the service,
or it results from GAPs 1 to 3. This follows directly
from the interdependencies of the GAP model shown
in Fig. 1: The company transforms the customers’
requirements into capacity dimensioning via their
expectations and their perceptions. Capacity dimen-
sioning is perceived by the customer with regard to
its final result as well as the actual service production
5
A long waiting time may cause a reduction of demand, because the
customer may feel that this waiting time is an ‘extra charge’ to the
service and consequently accommodates his purchase behaviour. Ittig
(1994, p. 541) points out that this analysis refers to the relationship
between time and consumer behaviour. In this context, he mentions
Becker (1965, p. 494), who emphasises that attention has to be paid
to transaction time. Consequently, waiting time must also be con-
sidered (also Ittig, 1994, p. 542ff.; Umesh et al., 1989, p. 715ff.).

and, hence, is related to the customer’s expectation.
Discrepancies may occur at each single point of inter-
change. These discrepancies have to be treated in dif-
ferent ways, but they are always directly or indirectly
related to the subjective assessment of the customer.
Finally, this means that the measures taken with
regard to the GAPs 1 to 3 also influence GAP 4
(concerning this leverage compare Hentschel, 1992,
p. 10).
The expected operative capability is always influ-
enced by personal needs and experiences as well as
by communication with other consumers through a
mutual (Meyer, 1983, p. 89ff.) exchange of infor-
mation, usually by word of mouth (cf. Fig. 1). Experi-
ences of the past may particularly determine the
expectations of a provider’s operative capability. This
is especially valid for services with extensive cus-
tomer involvement. In this way, the expectations of
the provider’s operative capability manifest them-
selves as a heterogeneous bundle, which is contrasted
to the similarly bundled perceived operative capa-
bility. As a result, the customer’s perception of the
operative capability relates to:
쐌 the product of the service production process, i.e.
the outcome for the customer;
쐌 the potential to carry out the production process,
i.e. aggregates and human resources; and
쐌 the process of the entire service production, i.e. the
performance of the provider.
This becomes especially problematic if the cus-
tomer does not proceed with the complete bundle of
information perceived, but instead uses selective per-
ceptions to judge the service. That is, the customer
subjectively selects relevant determinants of the per-
ceived operative capability. In this way, the previous
significance of queues for the assessment of a service
becomes evident. If the first contact between a con-
sumer and a provider occurs waiting in a queue, this
may become a first, so-called ‘moment of truth’
(Albrecht, 1988, p. 26), which can influence the cus-
tomer’s opinion of the entire service. Thereby, a con-
sumer may qualify a time as waiting time in his sub-
jective perception, even if the production of the
service has not yet begun from the provider’s point
of view. Furthermore, the case can occur where the
provider is not aware that the service production has
already begun from the customer’s point of view. In
these cases, the first moments of truth will be per-
ceived differently by the provider and the customer.
An interruption of the service can have an
important influence on the perception of operative
capability and can potentially lead to a so-called ‘con-
Capacity management in service organisations
sumerist gap’ (Laws, 1986, p. 131ff.). This gap
should be regarded as a part of GAP 4, because the
customers’ expectations may be strongly affected.
Generally speaking, satisfaction of costumers
results from the expectations of a certain service qual-
ity which are met, whereas dissatisfaction of cus-
tomers has to be considered as the consequence of
unfulfilled expectations (Cina, 1989, p. 5; Maister,
1988, p. 177). Hence, the question arises, under which
preconditions these consequences occur. The identi-
fication of zones of tolerance (Johnston, 1995, p.
46ff.) of consumers could represent a starting point
for capacity management in service companies and
could demonstrate possible methods to influence or
to correct identified GAPs. The application of these
zones of tolerance may refer to the expectations, the
realisation, or the result of the service. The expec-
tations of consumers are subject to division into zones
before the service production, and define an accept-
able range, which is called the zone of tolerance. This
zone of tolerance means that within this range con-
sumers will at most notice fluctuations, but will not
change their behaviour. Furthermore, the zone of tol-
erance may be interpreted as a kind of standard for
the provider (Kaufmann (1977, p. 170ff.) speaks of
‘performance standard’). During service production,
the performance becomes the focus of interest and the
zone of tolerance is defined by a performance, classi-
fied by the consumer as adequate. After the perform-
ance, the achieved state is judged. Above and below
the zones of tolerance, marginal ranges can be iden-
tified, which describe an undercutting or an excess of
the standard enclosed in the zone of tolerance. Within
the scope of the assessment of the provider’s opera-
tive capability, the following statements concerning
the consumers’ zones of tolerance can be formulated
(Johnston, 1995, p. 49ff.):
쐌 A high involvement of the consumer diminishes
the zone of tolerance, whereas a low involvement
enlarges the zone of tolerance.
쐌 More than adequate activities during the perform-
ance may be useful to entail positive results,
whereas less than adequate activities should be
eliminated, because they may lead to negative
results.
쐌 A provider’s weaknesses, noted by the consumer
early in the service process, may be compensated
for by more than adequate activities, although sev-
eral positive events may be necessary to compen-
sate for one weakness. This is due to the customers’
tendency to perceive negative events rather than
positive ones. Moreover, negative experiences are
more likely to influence the customers’ behaviour
(Hentschel, 1992, p. 189).
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 175
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann
쐌 Both more and less than adequate activities at the
beginning of the service process may exert an
influence on the width of the zone of tolerance. If
an initial satisfying activity lowers the upper
threshold of tolerance, then the probability
increases that activities previously assessed as
adequate will now be regarded as more than
adequate. In contrast, initial dissatisfying activities
(e.g. queues) should be avoided because they can
raise the lower threshold of tolerance, which causes
activities, formerly assessed as adequate, to be con-
sidered as inadequate, hence creating dissatis-
faction.
Therefore, the thresholds of the zone of tolerance
prove as dynamic and can shift in the course of the
service production process. For this reason, the pro-
vider is able, by means of positive experiences, to
influence the judgement of the service not only with
regard to the subsequent elements of the service pro-
cess but, more importantly, with regard to the assess-
ment of the entire service (Johnston, 1995, p. 57).
This proves to be particularly significant, because the
overall impression may serve as criterion for further
demand.
5. CLOSING REMARKS
Starting with some definitions concerning capacity
and a brief outline of the principal problematic nature
of capacity design in service companies, this paper
deals with the design of a conceptual frame for
capacity management in the service sector. The GAP
model by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, known
from quality management, represents the starting
point for this analysis. This theoretical concept
offers — with some modifications — a useful frame-
work for capacity management in service companies.
Through modification of the original concept, charac-
terised by the existence of five gaps, only four gaps
are identified. These gaps represent the starting point
for concrete measures:
쐌 GAP 1 results from the service company’s prob-
lems with anticipating the customers’ expectations.
쐌 GAP 2 approaches the problematic nature of trans-
ferring anticipated customers’ expectations to
capacity dimensioning.
쐌 GAP 3 deals with discrepancies between the per-
ceived operative capability and capacity dimen-
sioning and also addresses the disparities between
these perceptions and service production.
쐌 GAP 4 can be either ascribed to GAPs 1 to 3, or
arises from the customer’s inability to assess the
suitability of the provider’s operative capability.
176 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3
This analysis demonstrates that the developed GAP
model represents a useful heuristic for capacity man-
agement, because it opens up the possibility to pursue
not only a provider-oriented view, but moreover a
consumer-oriented view. In particular, this equality of
the provider- and the consumer-oriented views proves
to be a decisive improvement for capacity manage-
ment, because it offers the framework for an integra-
tive application of measures.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, K. (1988) At America’s Service. How Cor-
porations can Revolutionize the Way they Treat
their Customers. Dow Jones–Irwin, Homewood.
¨
Altenburger, O.A. (1980) Ansatze zu einer Pro-
duktions- und Kostentheorie der Dienstleistung.
Duncker und Humblot, Berlin.
Armistead, C. G. and Clark, G. (1994) The ‘coping’
capacity management strategy in services and the
influence on quality performance. International
Journal of Service Industry Management 5, 5–22.
Becker, G. A. (1965) A theory of the allocation of
time. The Economic Journal 75, 493–517.
¨
Becker, R. (1995) Kapazitatsplanung und -steuerung
in Verwaltungsbetrieben. VOP: Verwaltungs-
¨
fuhrung, Organisation, Personal 254–257.
Cina, C. (1989) Creating an effective customer satis-
faction program. Journal of Services Marketing 3,
5–14.
Collier, D.A. (1987) Service Management. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Corsten, H. (1985) Die Produktion von Dienstlei-
stungen. Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
¨
Corsten, H. (1992) Kapazitatsplanung in Dienstlei-
¨
stungsunternehmungen. In Kapazitatsmessung,
¨ ¨
Kapazitatsgestaltung, Kapazitatsoptimierung —
eine betriebswirtschaftliche Kernfrage, ed. H.
¨
Corsten et al, pp. 229–254. Schaffer-Poeschel,
Stuttgart.
Corsten, H. (1996) Rationalisierungsmanagement in
Dienstleistungsunternehmungen. Schriften zum
¨
Produktionsmanagement Nr. 6 der Universitat
Kaiserslautern.
Corsten, H. and Stuhlmann, S. (1996) Konzeptioneller
¨ ¨
Rahmen und Ansatzpunkte fur ein Kapazitatsma-
nagement in Dienstleistungsunternehmungen.
Schriften zum Produktionsmanagement Nr. 8 der
¨
Universitat Kaiserslautern.
Daudel, S. and Vialle, G. (1992) Yield-Management/
¨
Ertrage optimieren durch nachfrageorientierte
Angebotssteuerung. Campus, Frankfurt
a.M./New York.
Flynn, N. (1986) Performance measurement in public
sector services. Policy and Politics 14, 389–404.
¨ ¨
Frank, G. (1970) Kapazitat und Kapazitatsmessung im

¨ ¨
Einzelhandel. Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft
40, 621–632.
¨
Franz, J. (1969) Die Labilitat der Nachfrage bei
¨
investitionsintensiven, kundenprasenzbedingten
¨
Dienstleistungsbetrieben und die Moglichkeit
einer betriebspolitischen Anpassung. Disser-
¨
tation, Munchen.
Gutenberg, E. (1955) Grundlagen der Betriebswirt-
schaftslehre, Bd. 1: Die Produktion, 2nd ed.
Springer, Berlin.
¨
Hentschel, B. (1992) Dienstleistungsqualitat aus Kun-
¨
densicht. Deutscher Universitats-Verlag, Wies-
baden.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. Jr. and Hart, C.W.L. (1991)
Bahnbrechender Service. Campus, Frankfurt a.M.
Hubbert, A. R., Sehorn, A. G. and Brown, S. W.
(1995) Service expectations: the consumer versus
the provider. International Journal of Service
Industry Management 6, 6–21.
Ittig, P. (1994) Planning service capacity when
demand is sensitive to delay. Decision Sciences
25, 541–559.
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 6, 46–
61.
Jones, P. (1988) Quality, capacity and productivity in
service industries. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management 7, 104–112.
¨ ¨
Kaufmann, E.J. (1977) Marketing fur Produktiv-
¨
dienstleistungen. Deutsch, Zurich.
Kern, W. (1962) Die Messung industrieller Fertigungs-
¨
kapazitaten und ihrer Ausnutzung. Westdeutscher
¨
Verlag, Koln.
Kern, W. (1990) Aufgaben und Dimensionen von
¨
Kapazitatsrechnungen. In Finanz- und Rechnung-
¨ ¨
swesen als Fuhrungsinstrumente, ed. A. Ahlert,
¨
K.-P. Franz and H. Goppl, pp. 221–235. Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
Kern, W. (1992) Industrielle Produktionswirtschaft,
5th ed. Poeschel, Stuttgart.
Kimes, S. E. (1989) Yield management. A tool for
capacity-constrained service firms. Journal of
Operations Management 8, 348–363.
¨
Kleinaltenkamp, M. (1993) Investitionsgutermarke-
ting als Beschaffung externer Faktoren. In
Dienstleistungsmarketing, ed. E. Thelen and G.
Mairamhof, pp. 101–126. Lang, Frankfurt a.M.
Larson, R. C. (1987) Perspectives on queues: social
justice and the psychology of queueing. Oper-
ations Research 35, 895–905.
Laws, E. (1986) Identifying and managing the con-
sumerist gap. The Service Industries Journal 6,
131–143.
¨
Layer, M. (1979) Kapazitat: Begriff, Arten und Mes-
Capacity management in service organisations
sung. In Handworterbuch der Produktionswirt-
schaft, 1st ed., ed. W. Kern, col. 871–882. Poe-
schel, Stuttgart.
Lovelock, C.H. (1988) Strategies for managing
capacity-constrained service organizations. In
Managing Services, ed. C.H. Lovelock, pp.
163–175. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Maister, D.H. (1988) The psychology of waiting lines.
In Managing Services, ed. C.H. Lovelock, pp.
176–183. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Meyer, A. (1983) Dienstleistungs-Marketing. FGM-
Verlag, Augsburg.
¨
Meyer, A. and Blumelhuber, C. (1994) Interdepen-
denzen zwischen Absatz und Produktion in
Dienstleistungsunternehmen und ihre Auswir-
kungen auf konzeptionelle Fragen des Absatzmar-
keting. In Dienstleistungsproduktion, ed. H. Cor-
sten and W. Hilke, pp. 5–41. Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Northcraft, G. B. and Chase, R. B. (1985) Managing
service demand at the point of delivery. Academy
of Management Review 10, 66–75.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L.
(1985) A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research. Journal of
Marketing 49, 41–50.
¨
Reese, J. (1996) Kapazitatsbelegungsplanung. In
¨
Handworterbuch der Produktionswirtschaft, 2nd
¨
ed., ed. W. Kern, H.-H. Schroder and J. Weber,
¨
col. 862–873. Schaffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.
¨
Riebel, P. (1954) Die Elastizitat des Betriebes.
Westdeutscher Verlag, Koln.
Ritter, A. (1988) Optimierung der Produktionskapazi-
¨
tat bei zyklischer Nachfrage. Erich Schmidt,
Berlin.
Sasser, W. E. (1976) Match supply and demand in
service industries. Harvard Business Review 54,
133–140.
Schnittka, M. (1996) Dienstleistungskapazita
¨ t als
Gegenstand des Marketing. Uberlegungen auf
¨
der Basis eines subjektiven Kapazitatsbegriffs.
¨
Arbeitsbericht Nr. 62 des Instituts fur Unter-
¨ ¨
nehmungsfuhrung der Ruhr-Universitat Bochum.
Shemwell, D. J. and Cronin, J. J. (1994) Service mar-
keting strategies for coping with demand/supply
imbalances. Journal of Services Marketing 8,
14–23.
Shostack, G.L. (1981) How to design a service. In
Marketing of Services, ed. J.H. Donnelly and
W.R. George, pp. 221–229. American Marketing
Association Press, Chicago.
Smith, R.A. and Houston, M.J. (1983) Script-based
evaluations of satisfaction with services. In
Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, ed.
L.L. Berry, G.L. Shostack and G.D. Upah, pp. 59–
62. American Marketing Association Press,
Chicago.
Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3 177
H. Corsten and S. Stuhlmann

Stauss, B. (1991) Dienstleister und die vierte Dimen- Hans Corsten is Head of the Department
of Business Administration and Production
sion. Harvard Manager 13, 81–89. Management at the University of Kaiserslau-
¨
Steffen, R. (1980) Die Bestimmung von Kapazitaten tern. He studied business administration in
und ihrer Nutzung in der industriellen Fertigung. Aachen and Cologne. After his studies, he
¨ was research assistant at the University of
Zeitschrift fur betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung Brunswick, where he completed his doctoral
32, 173–190. thesis (1981) and his habilitation (1986).
¨ From 1986 to 1987 he was project manager
Steven, M. (1996) Kapazitatsgestaltung und -optimie- of an international research project for tech-
¨
rung. In Handworterbuch der Produktionswirt- nology transfer at the Commission of the
¨
schaft, 2nd ed., ed. W. Kern, H.-H. Schroder and European Communities in Luxembourg and
¨ Brussels. In 1987 he was appointed to the professorship of Production
J. Weber, col. 874–883. Schaffer-Poeschel, Management at the University of Kaiserslautern. In 1989 he was
Stuttgart. appointed to the chair of Business Administration and Production
¨
Tom, G. and Lucey, S. (1995) Waiting time delays Management at the University of Eichstatt, Faculty of Economics, in
Ingolstadt. In 1992 he was offered a chair of business administration
and customer satisfaction in supermarkets. Jour- and production management at the Universities of Marburg and Kai-
nal of Services Marketing 9, 20–29. serslautern, and in 1995 he was offered a chair of production manage-
Umesh, U. N., Pettit, K. L. and Bozman, C. S. (1989) ment at the Universities of Kaiserslautern and Klagenfurt. In 1995 he
was appointed to his present post. His list of publications includes 12
Shopping model of the time-sensitive consumer. monographs, 18 editorships and more than 130 articles.
Decision Sciences 20, 715–729.
¨
Zapfel, G. (1989a) Taktisches Produktions-Manage- Stephan Stuhlmann studied business administration at the University
ment. de Gruyter, Berlin. of Cologne. Since 1995 he has been a research assistant at the Depart-
¨ ment of Business Administration and Production Management at the
Zapfel, G. (1989b) Strategisches Produktions-Ma- University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.
nagement. de Gruyter, Berlin.
¨
Zapfel, G. (1995) Robuste Produktionsplanung zur
¨
Bewaltigung von Absatzungewißheiten. Zeit-
¨
schrift fur Betriebswirtschaft 65, 77–95.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1981) How consumer evalutation pro-
cesses differ between goods and services. In Mar-
keting of Services, ed. J.H. Donnelly and W.R.
George, pp. 186–190. American Marketing
Association Press, Chicago.

178 Technovation Vol. 18 No. 3