Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Krisana Kitcharoen*
* The author obtained a BBA in Marketing from Assumption University in 1996 and an MBA from the
same university in 1999. He has been studying DBA program offered by the University of South Australia
since 2002. Currently he is working as a Director in the Office of the Rector, Assumption University of
Thailand. He is also a lecturer in Marketing Department, ABAC School of Management.
** This article was first published in the Journal of Mangement and is now published with permis-
sion of the Editor of the Journal of Management. The new focus of the article is expressed in the abstract
and in the changes made by the author.
20
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
evaluation of the offering in terms of those ordered and classified into high or low
attributes. A particular application of the categories; then by pairing these two sets of
technique starts with an identification of the rankings, each attribute is placed into one of
attributes that are relevant to the choice the four quadrants of the importance
situation investigated. The list of attributes can performance grid (Crompton and Duray,
be developed after canvassing the relevant 1985). Mean performance and importance
literature, conducting focus group interviews, scores are used as coordinates for plotting
and using managerial judgment. Otherwise, a individual attributes on a two-dimensional
set of attributes pertaining to a particular matrix as shown in Figure 1. This matrix is
service (or goods) are evaluated on the basis used to prescribe prioritization of attributes
of how important each is to the customer, and for improvement (Slack, 1991) and can
how the service or goods is perceived to be provide guidance for strategy formulation
performing relative to each attribute. This (Burns, 1986).
evaluation is typically accomplished by
surveying a sample of customers. After The Importance-Performance Analysis
determining those attributes that are worthy (IPA) has been applied in a number of settings
of subsequent examination, consumers are with relatively little modification in form. For
asked two questions. One relates to the example; Chon, Weaver, and Kim (1988)
salience of the attributes and the other to the applied IPA for the Visitors Bureau of
company’s own performance in terms of Norfolk, Virginia and Nitse and Bush (1993)
delivery of these attributes. used IPA to compare preconceptions of
dental practices.
By using a central tendency e.g. mean,
median or a rank-order measure, the attribute The traditional importance-performance
importance and performance scores are analysis, however, has two inherent
Extremely Important
A. Concentrate Here B. Keep Up The Good Work
Fair Excellent
Performance Performance
Slightly Important
22
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
The measurements of the Importance – There are many reasons for focusing the
Performance Analysis (IPA) and the service quality in a university on the
SERVQUAL model are quite similar. The IPA administrative units (Anderson 1995): The
technique identifies strengths and weaknesses first exposure of the student to the university
by comparing of two criteria that consumers is through the admission and registrar’s
use in making a choice. One criterion is the services. Providing high quality service to
relative importance of attributes. The other is students contributes to the positive assessment
consumers’ evaluation of the offering in terms of the university. Comparing with the academic
of those attributes while the SERVQUAL units, the administrative departments of the
technique identifies the customer satisfaction university, such as the registration office,
of service attributes by comparing of two financial office or library, are more likely to
criteria that are customer’s expectation and be a replication of the bureaucratic units of
customer ’s perception in the five governmental or public institutions (Salem,
dimensions.There numerous studies on 1969). While registration in the Western
SERVQUAL and IPA model but few study universities has rapidly adopted the banking
the integration of the models. touch-tone telephone systems, universities in
developing countries attempt to struggle with
Service Quality in Educational bureaucracies and inefficient infrastructure;
Institutions hence registration remains a traditional and
manual process (Spencer, 1991).
Earlier research on service quality in
higher education emphasized academic rather
It was found that administrative services Reliability: This variable is used to measure
such as registration processes often were the consistency, accuracy and dependability
perceived as rude and intolerant because of service. It is related to the ability of
registrar offices are overburdened by the administrative departments to provide
manual registrations process. The accurate transaction service such as mistake
cumbersome process of adding and dropping free in registration process, preparing
a course tend to strain the registrar to work information, and the like.
around the process by discouraging students
to use its services (Morris, 1986). Another aspect of reliability is the
dependability and consistency of service,
There are 26 private universities, which which can be translated into the frequency of
serve more than 207,136 students in Thailand system breakdown or performing service as
(Ministry of University Affairs, Annual Report, promised. This is an important aspect as
2002). Some private universities have been administrative departments may lose
established for more than 25 years ago and customers if the customers need to perform
now are full fledged universities with an urgent transaction when there is frequent
undergraduate, master and Ph.D programs. computer system failure. Performing service
Other institutions were formed more recently. not as promised would result in the same
Both are more student-oriented than public dissatisfaction.
institutions.
Responsiveness: This variable is used to
This study asked of these colleges: What measure the administrative departments’
is the expectation of the students? What is commitment in providing its service promptly.
their perception of the service quality? Is there For the purpose of this study, responsiveness
a gap between the expectation and for the administrative units refers to the
perception? How to provide the students with readiness or willingness of staff members of
a reliable, responsive, assured and friendly the administrative departments. In addition to
service in an enjoyable environment? the willingness of the staff members to provide
services in a timely manner it also included
Research Framework ease of contact with staff members and their
The extended conceptual framework of ability to provide services in a timely manner.
variables for this study is included in the Figure
2. Assurance: This variable is used to measure
the administrative departments’ competence,
Operationalization of Variables creditability, security and courtesy of service
provided to customers. These elements of
Tangibles In this study, tangibles include the measurement are directly related to the
appearance of the staff (Clean & Neat), and professionalism of the management team in
the suitability and cleanliness and safety of instilling confidence from the students in
buildings, places and facilities. theoffices.
24
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
26
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
Tangibles Visually appealing external appearance of the staff (clean & neat). 1
Having suitable buildings, places and facilities for effective services. 2
Cleanliness & safety of buildings, places and facilities. 3
Reliability Reliability and dependability (the degree of trust in service delivery)
of the staff members. 4
Consistency of service by staff members. 5
(The level of service delivery is maintained)
Attention to details of the service delivery by the staff members. 6
Responsiveness Willingness of the staff members to provide services
in atimely manner 7
Ease of contact (accessible at any time) of the staff members. 8
Ability of the staff members to provide services
in a timely manner (within a certain time as promised). 9
Assurance Competence (knowledge and skill) of the staff members. 10
Levels of courtesy, politeness, and respect I received. 11
Believability and honesty of the staff members. 12
Knowledge of the information that I need
from the staff members. 13
Assurance that the staff members keep the academic and
personal information in the service delivery confidential. 14
Assurance that information communicated is correct and
Up-to-date in the service delivery. 15
Staff members have knowledge and necessary service skills. 16
Empathy Staff members can communicate with me in a language
that I could understand easily. 17
Approachability (friendliness and warmth) of staff members. 18
Effort of the staff members to understand my needs. 19
Sincere interest in servicing the students by staff members. 20
Sincere interest in solving the problems of the students
by the staff members. 21
Staff members pay attention to individual needs of student. 22
Sample/Variable Percentage
Students
Gender
Male 46.7
Female 53.1
Total 100.0
Age
<20 years old 7.9
20 – 25 years old 89.9
26 – 30 years old 1.5
31 – 35 years old 0.7
Total 100.0
Program
Day Program 81.3
Evening Program 18.7
Total 100.0
28
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
were classified into ordinary staff and Using the SERVQUAL framework
directors. After receiving the returned showed that students had the highest mean of
questionnaires, the researcher processed all the indicated importance of services’
responses and applied descriptive analyses assurance ( x = 4.47, se= 0.028), followed
(e.g., percentages, t-test) and ultiple by the importance of responsiveness ( =
regression analysis. 4.45, se= 0.032), the importance of reliability
( = 4.41, se= 0.030), the importance of
Results
empathy ( = 4.40, se= 0.030), and the
This section considers 1) baseline importance of tangibles ( = 4.33, se=
characteristics of study respondents, 2) 0.029), respectively. However, when students
descriptive statistics, 3) test of difference, and were asked to evaluate the performance of
4) test of relationship between a dependent service attributes, the results showed that the
variable and independent variables. mean of tangibles was the highest ( = 3.68,
se= 0.034), followed by services’ assurance
Table 3 and 4 show the baseline ( = 3.30, se= 0.039), reliability ( = 3.05,
characteristics of respondents and Table 5 se= 0.043), responsiveness ( = 3.04, se=
shows the descriptive statistics of studied 0.044), and empathy ( = 3.00, se= 0.044),
universities’ service quality.
Sample/Variable x Percentage
respectively. When using the Importance- fell in the Quadrant B (i.e., Keep up with the
Performance Model in this study, the results good work) which showed that the service
demonstrated that the service attributes of quality was good in the university staffs’
SERVQUAL fell in the Quadrant B (i.e., Keep perception.
up with the good work). This finding showed
that the service quality was perceived by Figures 3 and 4 present the gap between
students as good. the importance and performance of service
quality in Quadrant areas. After the means of
University staff members had the highest SERVQUAL’s service attributes were plotted
mean of the indicated importance of service in the areas, the results showed that both
assurance ( = 4.47, se= 0.024), followed students and university staff members
by responsiveness ( = 4.42, se= 0.029), presented the good service quality for all
reliability ( = 4.39, se= 0.030), tangibles attributes of SERVQUAL. However, the gap
( = 4.35, se= 0.029), and empathy ( = between the importance and performance of
4.30, se= 0.026), respectively. With regard service quality might occur in the group of
to performance, the study showed that the students because the means of evaluated
mean of services’ assurance was highest ( = performance of service quality’s attributes
(e.g., Empathy, Responsiveness, Reliability)
3.85, se= 0.028), followed by services’
were close to the boundary of Quadrant A
tangibles ( = 3.77, se=0.029),
(i.e., concentrate here) and Quadrant B (i.e.,
responsiveness ( = 3.75, se= 0.034),
keep up with the good work).
empathy ( = 3.73, se= 0.031), and reliability x
( = 3.68, se= 0.034).The service attributes
Importance Std. Performance Std. Quadrant Importance Std. Performance Std. Quadrant
Attributes mean Error mean Error mean Error mean Error
Tangibles 4.33 0.029 3.68 0.034 B 4.35 0.029 3.77 0.029 B
Reliability 4.41 0.030 3.05 0.043 B 4.39 0.030 3.68 0.034 B
Respon-
siveness 4.45 0.032 3.04 0.044 B 4.42 0.029 3.75 0.034 B
Assurance 4.47 0.028 3.30 0.039 B 4.47 0.024 3.85 0.028 B
Empathy 4.40 0.030 3.00 0.044 B 4.30 0.026 3.73 0.031 B
30
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
4.48
4.46
4.44 Responsiveness
4.42
Importance
4.40
4.38
Reliability
4.36
Quadrant B
4.34
Keep up with the good
4.32
4.30 Empath
4.28
3.6 3.7
Performance
The results reported in Table 6 show that Table 7: shows the elements of findings
for students the importance mean of services’ with regard to the gap between the importance
empathy was significantly different from and performance of services’ attributes among
university staff members’ importance mean at students. The results showed that all students’
0.05. Students had a significant higher importance means of services’ attributes were
importance mean of services’ empathy than significantly different from the performance
university staff members (i.e., 4.40 versus 4.30 means at α 0.01. All students’ importance
at α 0.01). means of services’ attributes were significantly
higher than their performance means.
However, students had significant lower
performance means than university staff Moreover, there were some more
members with regard to four service significant elements of findings, which the
attributes including reliability (i.e., 3.05 versus students’ importance means of services’
3.68 at α 0.01), responsiveness (i.e., 3.04 attributes were high but their performance
versus 3.75 at α 0.01), assurance (i.e., 3.30 means of services’ attributes were very low
versus 3.85 at α 0.01), and empathy (i.e., i.e., less than 3.
3.00 versus 3.73 at α 0.01). There was only
one performance mean of services’ tangibles
that was not significantly different at α 0.05
between students and university staff
members.
α
** = 0.01
32
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
** = 0.01
α
Figure 5: Mean Data Plotting of the Importance and Performance Scores with
Horizontal and Vertical Gridlines for the Students
34
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
Table 8 shows the elements of findings from their performance means at α 0.01. All
with regard to the gap between the importance staff members’ importance means of services’
and performance of services’ attributes among attributes were significantly higher than their
university staff members. The results showed performance means. However, there were no
that all staff members’ importance means of any elements of findings, which staff members’
services’ attributes were significantly different performance means were, less than 3.00.
36
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
After examining a mean difference by t- for students and university staff members. The
test, the results showed that the mean university staff members had significantly
evaluation on the overall service quality was higher mean evaluation on the overall service
significantly different at the 0.05 alpha level quality than the students.
Figure 6: Mean Data Plotting of the Importance and Performance Scores of Service
Attributes with Horizontal and Vertical Gridlines among University Staff
Members
Table 10 shows respondents’ satisfaction service quality provided was high, followed
with the service quality of administrative by 19.1% stated that it was neither high nor
departments in the studied universities. The low, 14.0% stated that it was very high, 1.6%
results released that 42.3% of total students stated that it was low. The overall mean of
stated that their satisfaction with the overall university staff members’ satisfaction with the
service quality of university administrative overall service quality of support offices was
departments was neither high nor low, 3.92 out of 5.
followed by 26.9% stated that it was low,
21.9% stated that it was high, 6.7% stated After examining a mean difference by t-
that it was very low, however, 2.2% stated test, the results showed that the mean
that it was very high, respectively. The overall satisfaction with the overall service quality
mean of students’ satisfaction with the overall was significantly different at the 0.05 alpha
service quality of administrative departments level for students and university staff members.
was 2.86 out of 5. The university staff members had significantly
higher mean satisfaction with the overall
The majority of university staff members service quality than students.
stated that their satisfaction with the overall
Table 10: Respondents’ Satisfaction with the Overall Service Quality of Administrative
Departments in the Studied Universities
Satisfaction With Level xα
Satisfaction With Satisfaction With
Overall Service Quality Provided of Service Level of Service
Provided (Students) (Staff Members)
Very low 6.7% -
Low 26.9% 1.6%
Neither low nor high 42.3% 19.1%
High 21.9% 65.3%
Very high 2.2% 14.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Mean ( ) 2.86 3.92
In table 11, the results showed that both overall mean of staff members’ pride was
students and university staff members had high 4.21. The results of t-test showed that the
and very high pride in their universities (i.e., mean pride was significantly different at 0.05
41.7% high and 19.3% very high among for students and university staff members. The
students versus 50.8% high and 35.4% very university staff members had significantly
high among university staff members). The higher mean pride in their universities than
overall mean of students’ pride in their students.
universities was 3.70 out of 5. However, the
38
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
In tables 12 and 13, the results showed correlation between an overall service quality
that the correlation between an overall service and staff members’ satisfaction was
quality and students’ satisfaction was significantly moderate at .457.
significantly high at .771. However, the
Table 12: Correlations between an Overall Service Quality and Students’ Satisfaction
Table 13: Correlations between an Overall Service Quality and Staff Members’
Satisfaction
Table 14 shows the correlations between at .650. However, in table 14, the correlation
respondents’ satisfaction and pride in their between staff members’ satisfaction and pride
universities. The results suggested that the in their universities was significantly moderate
relation between students’ satisfaction and at .428.
pride in their universities was significantly high
Table 14: Correlations between Students’ Satisfaction and Pride in Their Universities
Table 15: Correlations between Staff Members’ Satisfaction and Pride in Their
Universities
40
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
Table 17 shows the relationship between service quality yielded a 0.235 unit decrease
independent variables (e.g., gender, age, in staff members’ satisfaction with a service
education, Importance of Service Attributes, quality
Performance of Service Attributes) and - Staff members’ satisfaction with a
dependent variable (i.e., staff members’ service quality could be explained by an
satisfaction). The results showed a significant assurance importance, which is a one-unit
relationship at α 0.05 between independent increase in the assurance importance of a
and dependent variables as follows: service quality yielded a 0.326 unit increase
- Staff members’ satisfaction with a in staff members’ satisfaction with a service
service quality could be explained by a quality
tangible importance, which is a one-unit - Staff members’ satisfaction with a
increase in the tangible importance of a service service quality could be explained by a
quality yielded a 0.0.160 unit increase in their reliability performance, which is a one-unit
satisfaction with a service quality increase in the reliability performance of a
- Staff members’ satisfaction with a service quality yield a 0.436 unit
service quality could be explained by a increaseinstaff members’ satisfaction with a
reliability importance, which is a one-unit service quality
increase in the reliability importance of a
42
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
Table 18 showed the relationship between that one-unit increase in students’ satisfaction
students’ satisfaction with a service quality with a service quality yielded 0.681-unit
and pride in their universities. The results increase in their pride in the universities.
showed the significant relationship at α 0.05
Table 18: Regression Analysis of Students’ Satisfaction with a Service Quality and
Pride in their Universities
Table 19 showed the relationship between at 0.05 that one-unit increase in staff
staff members’ satisfaction with a service members’ satisfaction with a service quality
quality and pride in their universities. The yielded 0.664-unit increase in their pride in
results showed the significant relationship the universities.
Table 19: Regression Analysis of Staff Members’ Satisfaction with a Service Quality
And Pride in their Universities
α
Factors Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std.Error Beta
Satisfaction 0.664 0.046 0.593 14.493 0.000
44
The Importance-Performance Analysis of Service Quality
Burns, A.C. (1986) “Generating Marketing business students in New Zealand and the
Strategy Priorities Based on Relative USA”, European Journal of Marketing,
Competitive Position”, Journal of 27(2), pp. 59- 70.
Consumer Marketing, 3(3), pp. Ford, J.W. Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1993)
49-56. “Service quality in higher education: a
Cheng, Y.C., Tam, W.M (1997) comparison of universities in the United
“Multi-models of quality in education”, States and New Zealand using
Quality Assurance in Education, 5 (1), SERQUAL”, unpublished manuscript,
pp. 22-32. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Chon. K.-S., Weaver P.A., and Kim C.Y., Freeman, K.D. and Dart, J. (1993)
(1988) “Marketing Your Community: “Measuring the perceived quality of
Image Analysis in Norfolk”, Cornell professional business services”, Journal
H.R.A. Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 31-37. of Professional Services Marketing,
Cooper, R.D & Schindler, S.P. (2001) 9(1), pp. 27-47.
Business Research Methods, 7th Edition, Hussey J. and Hussey R. (1997) “Business
McGraw-Hill, Singapore Research: A Practical guide for
Davis D. (1996) Business Research for undergraduate and postgraduate
Decision Making, 4th Edition, Duxbury students”, Palcrave, New York Louis E.
Press, California Keyt, J. C., Yavas, U. and Riecken, G. (1994)
Davis, D. & Cosenza, R.M. (1994) Business “Importance - Performance Analysis”,
Research for Decision Making, International Journal of Retail &
Wadsworth, Belmont, California Distribution Management, 22(5), pp.
Dolinsky, A. L. and Caputo R.K. (1991) 35-40.
“Adding a Competitive Dimension to Kitcharoen K. (2004), “Literature Review of
Importance- Performance Analysis: An Service Quality in Educational
Application to Traditional Health Care Institutions”, ABAC Journal, May –
System”, Health Marketing Quarterly, August, 24(2), pp. 14-25
8(3/4), pp. 61-79. Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970)
Durvasula S., Lysonski S., and Mehta S C., “Determining sample size for research
(1999) “Testing the SERVQUAL scale activities”, Educational and
in the business-to-business sector: The Psychological Measurement, 30, pp.
case of ocean freight shipping service”, 607-610
Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), Kwon, W. and Lee, T.J., (1994) ‘Measuring
pp. 132-150. service quality in Singapore retail
Engle, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and
P.W. (1990) Consumer Behavior, Berry, L. L. (1994, January)
Dryden Press, Chicago, IL ‘Reassessment of expectations as a
Ford, J. B., Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1991) comparison standard in measuring service
“Importance - performance analysis as a quality’, Journal of Marketing, 58(1),
strategic tool for service marketers: the pp. 111-124.
case of service quality perceptions of
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. Schneider Benjamin and Bowen David E.,
(1994) “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item (1995) Winning the Service Game,
scale for measuring customer Harvard Business School Press
perceptions of service quality”, Slack, N. (1991) “The Importance-
Journal of Retailing, 64(1) Performance Matrix as a Determinant of
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. Improvement Priority”, International
(1994) “Alternative scales for measuring Journal of Operations & Production
service quality: a comparative assessment Management, 14(1), pp. 59-75.
based on psychometric and diagnostic Soutar, G, McNeil, M. (1996) “Measuring
criteria”, Journal of Retailing, 70(3), pp. service quality in a tertiary institution”,
201-30 Journal of Education Administration,
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. 34(1), pp. 72-82.
(1994) “Refinement, reassessment of the Spencer, R. (1991) “After’ the registration
SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of revolution”, College and University,
Retailing, Vol. 67. 66(4), pp. 209-12.
Rogotti, S. and Pitt, L. (1992) “SERVQUAL Varey, R. (1993) “The course for higher
as a measuring instrument for service education”, Managing Service Quality,
provider gaps in business schools”, pp. 45-9.
Management Research News, 15(3), pp. Wong, S.M. and Perry, C. (1991) “Customer
9-17. service strategies in financial retailing”,
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C., (1992) “Analysing International Journal of Bank
service quality in the hospitality industry Marketing, 9(3), pp. 11-16.
using the SERVQUAL model”, Service Yorke, M. (1992) “Quality in higher
Industries Journal, 11(3), pp. 324-43. education: a conceptualisation and
Salem, E. (1969) “The Lebanese some observations on the
administration, in cultural resources in implementation of a sectoral quality
Lebanon”, Crossroads to Culture, system”, Journal for Higher
Librairie Du Liban, Beirut. Education, 16(2).
Sampson, S. E. and Showalter, M. L. (1999), Youssef F. N., (1996) “Health care quality in
“The Performance - Importance NHS hospitals”, International Journal
Response Function: Observation and of Health Care Quality Assurance,
Implications”, The Service Industries 9(1), pp.15-28.
Journal, Vol. 19(3), pp.1-25. Zikmund W. (1994) Business Research
Sekaran U. (2000) Research Methods for Methods, 4th Edition, The Dryden Press,
Business : A Skill-Building Approach, Orlando
3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Zikmund W. (2000) Business Research
York Methods, 6th Edition, The Dryden Press,
Sekaran U. (2003) Research Methods for Orlando
Business: A Skill-Building Approach,
4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York
46