PROJECT PAPER

A STUDY ON LEVEL OF SERVICE QUALITY AND

STUDENTS SATISFACTION AT MUST
UNIVERSITYS CRM COUNTER

BENEDICT BONIFACE

Supervised by:
Dr. Yeah Kim Leng
 Problem Statement
Purpose : To investigate service quality attributes with student satisfaction

Statement: Client sensitivity increases, competition expands

Issue: Poor service quality at the CRM Counter in many

universities dissatisfaction of many students

Argument: No relationship between the level of service quality at

CRM Counter and student satisfaction but related to
cultural background of the student

Problem Statement: Is there a relationship between the level

of service quality and student satisfaction
at MUST UNIVERSITYs CRM Counter?
Research Objective

To examine the significant relationship

between the level of service quality with
SERVQUAL framework and students
satisfaction at MUSTs CRM counter
 Research Question

RQ1: Are the student satisfied with service provided at

MUSTs CRM counter?

RQ2: What is the level of service quality at MUSTs CRM

counter?

RQ3: Is there any relationship between the service quality

and dimensions with student satisfaction?
Theoretical Framework
. Independent Dependent
Variables Variable

Tangibility

Reliability
Student
Responsiveness satisfaction
Assurance

Empathy
By Kotler and Clarke
By Parasuraman et. al (1987 )
(1988)
Research Hypothesis
H1: There is a significant relationship between tangibility
and student satisfaction

H2: There is a significant relationship between reliability and

student satisfaction

H3: There is a significant relationship between

responsiveness and student satisfaction

H4: There is a significant relationship between assurance

and student satisfaction

H5: There is a significant relationship between empathy and

student satisfaction
Literature Review : Definitions
Opinions of various researchers on:

a. Service Quality

b. Student Satisfaction

c. Relationship between service quality

and student satisfaction
Literature Review: Models

SERVQUAL Model by Parasuraman et al.

(1988): 5 Dimensions

Gronroos (1993): 3 dimensions

Literature Review
Literature Review
Literature Review
 Methodology
.
Primary data.
Questionnaire (Section A,B,C)
Short responses (Section D)

Secondary data

Reading journals and articles

Method non probability: judgmental sampling method
RESULTS & FINDINGS
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 44 55
Female 36 45
Total 80 100
RESULTS & FINDINGS
Nationality Frequency Percent
Malaysia 29 36.3
Others 51 63.8
Total 80 100
RESULTS & FINDINGS
The frequency of Visit Frequency Percent
1-5 times 16 20
6-10 times 41 51.3
More than 10 times 23 28.8
Total 80 100
RESULTS & FINDINGS
Course Frequency Percent
Diploma 29 36.3
Degree 35 43.8
Postgraduate 16 20
Total 80 100
RESULTS & FINDINGS
Number of years at MUST University Frequency Percent
1st Year 10 12.5
2nd Year 28 35
3rd Year 22 27.5
4th Year 20 25
Total 80 100
Mean Score Analyses: Tangibility
N Mean
The counter is appealing to the students 80 3.60

The students are well addressed/ 80 3.77

approached

The staff at the counter provide adequate 80 3.67

information regarding the courses

The staff at counter are well informed 80 3.85

about the University

The counter provides comprehensive 80 3.70

pamphlets and brochures
Mean Score Analyses: Reliability
N Mean

The staff are efficient in providing services 80 3.53

The staff respects the rule of confidentiality 80 3.75

The staff show positive work attitude towards 80 3.63

students

They dispatched the documents on time 80 3.70

The documents are safe to be left at the counter 80 3.65

 Mean Score Analyses:
Responsiveness
N Mean

The staff are quick at guiding students 80 3.58

There is a staff at the counter at all times 80 3.60

Customers' inquiries are dealt with efficiently 80 3.68

The calls are attended immediately 80 3.60

There are enough staff to manage students at a 80 3.45

time
Mean Score Analyses: Assurance
N Mean

The staffs are well mannered 80 3.70

The staff are respectful 80 3.65

The staff have adequate communication skills 80 3.63

The staff are decently dressed 80 3.90

The staff show confidence in the work they do 80 3.63

Mean Score Analyses: Empathy
N Mean

The staff feel with student's needs 80 3.40

The staff provide services with their heart 80 3.70

The staff show sincere interest in solving 80 3.63

students' problems

The students are treated equally by the 80 3.28

staff

The staff are friendly and easily 80 3.65

approachable
Hypothesis Test :H1
H1: There is a significant relationship between tangibility and student satisfaction

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .604 .364 .356 .56047
a. Predictors: (Constant), Tan_Mean
b. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean

Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.793 .305 5.878 .000
Tan_Mean .537 .080 .604 6.688 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean
Hypothesis Test :H2
H2: There is a significant relationship between reliability and student satisfaction

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .472a .223 .213 .61984
a. Predictors: (Constant), Rel_Mean
b. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.214 .341 6.501 .000
Rel_Mean .432 .091 .472 4.727 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean
 Hypothesis Test :H3
H3: There is a significant relationship between responsiveness and students satisfaction

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .628a .395 .387 .54702
a. Predictors: (Constant), Resp_Mean
b. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean

Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.425 .337 4.223 .000
Resp_Mean .661 .093 .628 7.130 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean
Hypothesis Test :H4
H4: There is a significant relationship between assurance and student satisfaction

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .662a .439 .432 .52669
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ass_Mean
b. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.670 .278 6.011 .000
Ass_Mean .573 .073 .662 7.809 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean
 Hypothesis Test :H5
H5: There is a significant relationship between empathy and student satisfaction

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .494a .244 .234 .61122
a. Predictors: (Constant), Emp_Mean
b. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.425 .280 8.651 .000
Emp_Mean .387 .077 .494 5.019 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Var_Mean
Conclusion (RQ 1)
Are the students satisfied with the service
provided at MUSTs CRM Counter?

Based on the mean scores analysis on

dependent variables (student satisfaction), it
could be concluded that most of the
respondents are slightly satisfied with the
service provided at MUSTs CRM Counter
Conclusion (RQ2)
What is the level of service quality at MUSTs
CRM Counter?

Based on the mean scores analysis, it was

found that a majority of the respondents
slightly agreed on the statements about the
variables at the MUST s CRM Counter
most respondents Slightly agreed on the
service quality expect that the CRM Counter
provides a heart-service (Empathy)
Conclusion RQ 3
Is there any relationships between
the service quality dimensions with
student satisfaction?

The hypothesis tests proved that

there is a significant relationship
between service quality dimensions
and student satisfaction
Recommendation
Staff needs training on reliability and
responsiveness

Enhance communicative skills

Increase the number of staff at

MUSTs CRM Counter
THE END