Combining SERVQUAL and QFD To Evaluate and Improve Airline Servic

University of Rhode Island
DigitalCommons@URI
College of Business Faculty Publications College of Business
2019
Combining SERVQUAL and QFD to Evaluate and Improve Airline

Service Quality
Jeffrey E. Jarrett
University of Rhode Island, jejarrett133@outlook.com
Xia Pan
Yi Yang
Youyou Huang
Linguan Huang
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs
Citation/Publisher Attribution
Jeffrey E. Jarrett, et al. 2019. "Combining SERVQUAL and QFD to Evaluate and Improve Airline Service
Quality." International Journal of Business Management 14, no. 5: 154-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/
ijbm.v14n5p154
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n5p154
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Business at DigitalCommons@URI. It has
been accepted for inclusion in College of Business Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons-group@uri.edu.
Combining SERVQUAL and QFD to Evaluate and Improve Airline Service Quality
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Authors
Jeffrey E. Jarrett, Xia Pan, Yi Yang, Youyou Huang, Linguan Huang, and Fenglin Li
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
This article is available at DigitalCommons@URI: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/90

International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 14, No. 5; 2019
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Combining SERVQUAL and QFD to Evaluate and Improve Airline

Service Quality
Jeffrey E. Jarrett1, Xia Pan2, Yi Yang3, Youyou Huang3, Lingyan Huang3 & Fenglin Li3
1
University of Rhode Island, USA
2
Clark University, USA
3
Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China
Correspondence: Xia Pan, Clark University, USA. E-mail: panpapers@yahoo.com
Received: December 17, 2018 Accepted: February 13, 2019 Online Published: April 18, 2019
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v14n5p154 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n5p154
Abstract
Purpose: This paper shows how to evaluate and analyze the service quality for airline business and provide
feasible suggestions to improve the service. The purpose is to illustrate how the two quality improvement
methods, SERVQUAL and QFD, can be combined and used to improve the service quality for service companies
such as airlines.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The data were obtained by the way of interviewing the customers who have
experienced the service offered by Air Macau, with tool of SERVQUAL. Comparing the perceived scores of Air
Macau to the customers’ expected value as well as to its competitors, we finally believe that the shortest board of
service quality is the “responsiveness” among its five dimensions. Quality function deployment is then used to
translate customers’ actual requirements into practical service measures to further improvement.
Findings: It is more effective if SERVQUAL is combined with QFD in evaluating firm's quality and quality
improvement.
Research Limitations: Effectiveness should be tested over time with bottom line evidences.
Practical Implications: Practitioners should use more than one effective methods in quality improvement
whenever possible.
Social Implications: People are more aware of SERVQUAL and QFD.
Keywords: service quality, SERVQUAL, quality function deployment, quality improvement, quality
management, combined methods
1. Introduction
Tourism industry played an important and dominant role in Macau's economic development. Visitors'
experiencing the service industry is the overall impression of the entire Macau fundament. And aviation industry
has a direct impact on the quality of service upon international visitors’ first impression to Macau. As the local's
largest airline company and as the first line to face tens of thousands of international tourists, quality of service
of Air Macau represent the overall Macau aviation industry service quality.
To study and probe Air Macau service real problems and bottleneck, this paper utilizes data to make statistics
analysis via the use of SERVQUAL and QFD house of quality as well as data derived from questionnaire survey.
Thus we can make an assessment of Air Macau, to find out the gap between results customers perceived and
ideal value in their minds. Meanwhile we make comparisons with China Southern Airlines, domestic airline
company to figure out weaknesses of Macau Airline.
Compare to famous international airlines, quality of service has become one of the obstacles that slow the
upgrade of competitiveness. Complaints from the network analysis illustrate that service quality is the problem
customers concentrated, mainly related to poor service attitude, flight delays and so on. But how to measure the
level of service? Where are the specific problems? How is the feeling of customer perceived? What are
customers’ expectations? Which problems are the bottlenecks?...... To draw the appropriate answer, we need to
use standard evaluation tools SERVQUAL quality questionnaires and QFD layer. Followed we will select data
154
ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 14, No. 5; 2019
via standard SERVQUAL questionnaire survey of customer perceptions and expectations, then take advantage of
QFD for quality statistical analysis to come to our survey results and conclusions. Our approach, integrating
different available methods in the application is consistent to the concept that quality management should be
viewed in way of cybernetics, proposed by Pan (2006).
2. SERVQUAL
2.1 Introduction to SERVQUAL Model
In 1988, American sales training experts Parasuraman, Zeithamal and Berry proposed the famous service quality
assessment method—— SERVQUAL model (short for service quality), which obtained many marketing
scientists’ approvals and was considered to be a typical method that was suitable in evaluating each kind of
service quality.
In SERVQUAL model, customers’ perceptions decide the customers’ appraisals, and customers’ perceptions of
service quality depend on the difference between customer’s perception of what customers expect and what they
actually receive. (Therefore this model also is called “expectation-perception” model). The perception of service
quality is a comprehensive judgment or view about whether the service has high quality. Service perception is
the feeling what customers actually experience. Customer’s perception is decided by organization’ each activity
including superintendent’s management, staff’s service and so on. Customer’s expectation is that customer’s
demand and desire, for instance they think the service provider should provide some kinds of service for them,
but not will provide. It is based on organization’s market communication, organization’s image, other customer’s
oral propaganda, and customers’ needs/wants and so on. Customer’s expectation is precondition in development
high-quality. The key to provide high-quality service is to surpass the user’s expectation.
SERVQUAL model: SERVQUAL score = actual feeling score – expectation score.
2.2 Using SERVQUAL Model for Evaluating Service Quality of Air Macau
SERVQUAL is an empirically derived method that may be used by a service organization to improve service
quality. The resulting gap analysis may be used as a driver for service quality improvement. SERVQUAL is an
assessment model that assesses service quality from the standpoint of customers, depends on whether meet
customers’ needs, and draws attention on service ideas that keeping the centered on customers in the process.
SERVQUAL can bring valuable diagnostic message to enterprises, be easy to use, and its cost is low. The
SERVQUAL model has demonstrated the enormous superiority in evaluating service quality.
This method will compare with some outstanding company which is professional in some service and industry.
Finally, to analysis the gap between performances the enterprise really showed and what customers expected,
which will help enterprises improve their service quality. We will use SERVQUAL model to appraise AIR
Macau’s service quality, collect the grades of what customers expect of a service and what they actually receive
in Air Macau using standardized questionnaire, find the disparity between what customers expect and what the
Air Macau actually delivery. At the same time, we take the well- known Chinese airline —— China Southern
Airline as comparison object, contrast the disparity between Air Macau and China Southern Airline, and finally
seek for the insufficiency.
2.3 Questionnaire Survey
2.3.1 Questionnaire Design
There are 5 factors: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy, also called five key
dimensions.
TANGIBLES - the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and information material.
RELIABILITY - the ability to perform the service accurately and dependably. RESPONSIVENESS - the
willingness to help customers and provide a prompt service. ASSURANCE - a combination of the following:
Competence - having the requisite skills and knowledge; Courtesy - politeness, respect, consideration and
friendliness of contact staff; Credibility - trustworthiness, believability and honesty of staff. Security - freedom
from danger, risk or doubt.
EMPATHY - a combination of the following: Access (physical and social) - approachability and ease of contact;
Communication - keeping customers informed in a language they understand and really listening to them;
Understanding the customer - making the effort to get to know customers and their specific needs
The SERVQUAL survey has two parts; (1) customer expectations and (2) customer perceptions. In the
questionnaire, the customers’ expectation is defined as “what the service should do”. Grading takes 7 values, “7”
155
means strongly agree, while “1” means strongly disagree, the others are “very agree” “agree” “general”
“disagree” “very disagree”, the values decrease progressively in turn. First, we should measure the customers’
expectations, which are made up of past experience, advertisement, promotion, enterprise image and
word-of-mouth and so on; then to measure customers’ perceptions, what they actually receive in Air Macau and
China Southern Airline.
2.3.2 Questionnaire Collection
We carried out 90 sampling investigations (Air Macau 30 copies, China Southern Airline 30 copies, Air Macau&
China Southern Airline 30 copies), take back 90 copies. Effective questionnaire rate is 100%
Table 1. Statistical result of our questionnaire collection

1.Gender M 41 F 49
2.How many times 1-2times:38 3-5times:20 Above 5 tiems:32
3.Education bachelor:82 master:6 high school: 2
4.Reasons Business Trip:8 Visiting Relatives:17 Travelling:43 Others:26 (school, inexpensive)
2.3.3 Test for the Equality of Three or More Population Means

Because we choose different target participants to fulfill the questionnaire, we need an ANOVA to test whether
the expectation values of different region people are significantly different. According to the 22 different
questions listed on SERVQUAL, we need to do ANOVA test for each question to test whether the average is
significantly different under different sample.
We first construct a hypothesis test as follows:
H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 (Null)
Ha: Not all population means are equal (Alternative)
ANOVA table for Question1:

Source Sum of Squares degree of freedom Mean Square F value (MSTR/MSE)
Regression 2.16 2 1.08 1.07
Error 87.40 87 1.00
Total 89.56 89
Here we know that the numerator degree of freedom(δ1) is equal to 3-1=2 and the denominator degree of
freedom(δ2) is equal to 90-3=87, and let’s suppose α=0.05. Checking the F distribution table, we fail to find the
exact value when δ1=2 and
δ2=87, but we find two adjacent value to estimate it. We find that whenδ1=2, and δ2=60, the critical value=3.15,
and whenδ1=2, and δ2=120, critical value=3.07, so we can conclude that the critical value under the
conditionδ1=2, and δ2=87, should between 3.15 and 3.07. Because the F value=1.07<F0.05(2,87), we conclude
that the expectation value from different regions are not significantly different.
Using the same method, we produce the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the remaining 21 questions, and the
results are shown below:

Regression 0.47 2 0.23 0.17
Error 117.63 87 1.35
Total 118.1 89
156

Regression 0.47 2 0.23 0.33
Error 61.93 87 0.71
Total 62.4 89

Regression 2.49 2 1.24 1.67
Error 64.67 87 0.74
Total 67.16 89

Regression 0.96 2 0.48 0.68
Error 61.53 87 0.71
Total 62.49 89

Regression 2.16 2 1.08 1.73
Error 54.33 87 0.62
Total 56.49 89

Regression 0.87 2 0.43 0.45
Error 83.63 87 0.96
Total 84.5 89

Regression 1.36 2 0.68 0.57
Error 104.3 87 1.2
Total 105.66 89

Regression 0.87 2 0.43 0.48
Error 78.73 87 0.9
Total 79.6 89

Regression 1.27 2 0.63 0.59
Error 93.63 87 1.08
Total 94.9 89
157

Regression 0.87 2 0.43 0.55
Error 68.73 87 0.79
Total 69.6 89

Regression 1.76 2 0.88 0.85
Error 89.90 87 1.03
Total 91.66 89

Regression 3.82 2 1.91 2.02
Error 83.23 87 0.95
Total 87.05 89

Regression 0.69 2 0.34 0.34
Error 88.43 87 1.02
Total 89.12 89

Regression 1.42 2 0.71 0.74
Error 83.20 87 0.96
Total 84.62 89

Regression 2.22 2 1.11 2.01
Error 48.10 87 0.55
Total 50.32 89

Regression 1.87 2 0.93 0.94
Error 86.23 87 0.99
Total 88.1 89

Regression 0.42 2 0.21 0.18
Error 102.7 87 1.18
Total 103.12 89
158
ijbm.ccsennet.org Intternational Jourrnal of Businesss and Managem
ment Vol. 14, No.
N 5; 2019
ANOVA table for Quesstion19:

S
Source Sum of Squaress degreee of freedom Mean Square F val
alue (MSTR/MSE
E)
R
Regression 1.09 2 0.54 0.45
E
Error 106.20 87 1.22
T
Total 107.29 89

S
alue (MSTR/MSE
E)
R
Regression 1.76 2 0.88 0.54
E
Error 140.47 87 1.61
T
Total 142.23 89

S
alue (MSTR/MSE
E)
R
Regression 1.27 2 0.63 0.39
E
Error 141.23 87 1.62
T
Total 142.5 89

S
alue (MSTR/MSE
E)
R
Regression 0.27 2 0.13 0.08
E
Error 143.33 87 1.65
T
Total 143.6 89
To summ marize, we findd that the maxximum of the F values for 22 2 questions is i 2, but the ccritical value is
i between
3.07 and 3.15, which means
m that F values
v are abssolutely less th
han the criticaal value. So oour conclusion n of the 22
questionss is that the expectation values
v of the questionnairees from 3 diffferent regionns are not sig gnificantly
different, therefore, thee meaningful goal
g is to gathher all the dataa together regaardless of its ssource region..
2.3.4 Anaalysis of Quesstionnaire Resu
ults
2.3.4.1 Frramework of the
t Study
At first, tto find the diff
fference betweeen customers ’ expectationss of service an
nd the service that customerrs actually
receive inn Air Macau. At the same time, to calcuulate the diffeerence custom mers’ expectatiion and what customers
actually rreceive in Chiina Southern Airline. Seconnd, we compaared the Air Macau’s
M resullts with Chinaa Southern
Airline’s results. Finallly, seek for thee disparity andd make the im
mprovement.
2. Researrch Approach
h
Researchh variable:
mers’ perception (P). Custom
1. Custom mers’ percepti
tion is that thee degree that customers actuually receive the
t service
which Airrlines deliveryy.
2. Custom
mers’ expectattion (E). Custo
omers’ expecttation is the “satisfied serviice” which cuustomers think
k that ideal
159
Airlines should delivery.

3. Difference (P-E). It is the difference between what customers expect of a service and what they actually
receive. According to the positive or negative and size of P-E value, we may judge the Airlines’ service quality.
When P-E is positive, it means the service what customers actually receive is better than that the customers
expect. This Airline’s service quality tends to perfect; when P-E is negative, it means the service what the Airline
deliveries doesn’t meet the customers’ needs. This Airline should improve their service quality. When P-E is
around zero, it means that this company has provided the service which just meets the customers’ needs. We will
seek for specific reasons that why company’s service quality cannot meet customers’ needs, according to assess
22 differences in expectations and perceptions by using the differencing technique. Finally, we should improve
and enhance the service quality.
We have calculated 22 means of customers’ expectation on the basis of the 90 questionnaires, average
expectation of 60 questionnaires of Air Macau and 60 questionnaires of China Southern Airline, and
SERVQUAL 5 dimensions. As follows:
Table 2. SERVQUAL Analysis of 90 questionnaires

Item Air Macau China Southern Air Average Air Macau Difference China southern
number Ave. Perception Ave. Perception Expectation Difference
1 5.20 5.17 6.22 -1.02 -1.05
2 4.72 4.97 5.77 -1.05 -0.80
3 5.60 5.50 6.49 -0.89 -0.99
4 5.00 5.10 6.38 -1.38 -1.28
5 4.90 5.20 6.49 -1.59 -1.29
6 4.80 5.27 6.49 -1.69 -1.22
7 4.69 5.08 6.17 -1.48 -1.09
8 4.69 5.07 6.32 -1.63 -1.25
9 4.80 5.07 6.27 -1.47 -1.20
10 4.90 5.14 6.30 -1.40 -1.16
11 4.90 5.22 6.40 -1.50 -1.18
12 5.20 5.15 6.32 -1.12 -1.17
13 4.97 4.88 6.28 -1.31 -1.40
14 4.95 5.22 6.15 -1.20 -0.93
15 4.95 5.17 6.24 -1.29 -1.07
16 5.42 5.40 6.54 -1.12 -1.14
17 5.05 5.12 6.10 -1.05 -0.98
18 4.87 4.95 6.14 -1.27 -1.19
19 4.50 4.72 5.93 -1.43 -1.21
20 4.34 4.75 5.56 -1.22 -0.81
21 4.37 4.62 5.83 -1.46 -1.21
22 4.15 4.80 5.73 -1.58 -0.93
The averages for each of the dimensions of service quality were computed by averaging the items pertaining to
the dimension. Finally, differences for the dimension were computed as follows:
Table 3. Summary of service quality for the five dimensions

Air Macau Perception China Southern Air Perception Expectation Air Macau China Southern Air
Tangible Difference= 5.13 5.18 6.21 -1.08 -1.03
Reliability Difference= 4.77 5.14 6.35 -1.58 -1.21
Responsiveness Difference= 4.99 5.10 6.33 -1.34 -1.23
Assurance Difference= 5.09 5.23 6.26 -1.17 -1.03
Empathy Difference= 4.45 4.77 5.84 -1.39 -1.07
160
ment Vol. 14, No.
N 5; 2019
2.1 Analyysis the servicee quality of Aiir Macau

The diffeerences show that
t the negative mismatchhes exist in fiv
ve dimensions. In other worrds，the serviice quality
Macau deliverred didn’t meet customers’ expectation. The dimensio
that Air M on of reliabilitty has greatesst negative
mismatchh, with empatthy as a closee second. 22 items of P-E are all negattive. We shouuld improve th he service
quality of Air Macau. Among thesse, the score oof difference in Air Macau u “when a cuustomer has a problem,
excellent Airlines com how a sincere interest in solving it” is low
mpanies will sh west. The scoore of “excelleent Airline
companiees will have modern-lookin
m g equipment”” is largest.
Thereforee, the processs improvemen
nt efforts shouuld focus on improving
i reliability, the trraining prograam should
also focus on teaching employees to be empathetiic.
Table 2 shows, inn five dim mensions, Reeliability diffference >Em
mpathy diffe
ference>Respo
onsiveness
differencee>Assurance difference>Taangible differeence.
Fiigure 2. Two-d
dimensional s ervices plane for Air Macau
u service quallity
Note. 1. Tanngible, 2. Reliability, 3. Responsiv
veness, 4. Assurannce, 5. Empathy
Using thee information form Table 2, it is fairly siimple to devellop a two-dim mensional servvices plane. Th he vertical
axis refleects the expecttations score axis
a the horizoontal axis relaates to the perrceptions scoree. We can learrn that the
areas of five dimensions where ex xpectations ar
are high and perceptions are a all relativvely low. Thee score of
reliabilityy difference iss the lowest, so
o the Air Maccau should impprove this areaa at first.
2.2 In com
mparison withh China South
hern Airline
From the information of o table 2-3, we
w can learn ththat the scoress of differencees in 5 dimenssions of Chinaa Southern
Airline arre all larger than
t that of Air
A Macau. Inn others wordss, the service quality that C China Southeern Airline
deliveriess is better thaan the servicee quality thatt customers actually
a receiv
ve from Air M Macau. Among the 22
questionss, “1. Excellennt airline commpanies will hhave modern-- looking equ uipment” “3. E Employees att excellent
airline coompanies will be neat-appearing” “12. E Employees in excellent
e airline companiess will always be willing
to help cuustomers” “166. Employees in excellent aiirline compan nies will be consistently couurteous with customers”,
the averagge perceptionns of Air Macaau are larger thhan that of Ch
hina Southern Airline. The sservice quality y what Air
Macau deeliveries in theese 4 items receives custommers’ praise. The
T other 18 sccores of Air M Macau are all lower
l than
that of Chhina Southernn Airline. So we
w could prom mote and imprrove the servicce quality of A Air Macau, ussing China
Southern Airline as staandard referen nce.
3. The QFD Analysis
3.1 QFD Model
3.1.1 Oveerview
As discusssed above, thhe definition of
o quality has cchanged radiccally, which iss, from “meet the standard of
o design”
to “satisfy
fy the customeer needs”. It’s actually a revvolution for bo
oth manufactu
ure and servicee industry.
Against ssuch a backdroop, QFD (Quaality Functionn Deployment)) was first dev veloped in Jappan in the latee 1960s by
Professorr Yoji Akan and
a Professorr Shigeru Mizzuno as a quaality system. Basically, QFFD developed d from the
method oof fishbone. Inn 1972, with th
he applicationn of QFD to th
he design of an
n oil tanker att the Kobe Sh
hipyards of
Mitsubishhi Heavy Induustry, the fish
hbone diagram ms grew unwieeldy. Since thhe effects sharred multiple causes,
c the
fishbone could be chaanged into a spreadsheet oor matrix form mat. The row ws were desirred effects off customer
161
satisfaction, and the columns were the controlling and measurable causes.
In 1978, the two professors integrated the QFD model in the book “Quality Function Deployment”. Then QFD
was introduced into America and adopted in the system of aircraft communication industry which achieved a
great success. Following that, the U.S. Department of Defense issued DODD5000.51, the document of “Total
Quality Management”, in which the QFD was stated as the method of making military products. At the same
time, QFD was absorbed by a lot of other industries in America such as Auto Industry and American Supplier
Institute (ASI). It was used as one of the technical methods to decrease the fluctuation of quality and increase the
reliability of products.
3.1.2 Definition
As described by Dr. Yoji Akan, QFD is a “method to transform user demands into design quality, to deploy the
functions forming quality, and to deploy methods for achieving the design quality into subsystems and
component parts, and ultimately to specific elements of the manufacturing process”.
In short, QFD is a structured approach to defining customer needs or requirements (Voice of the Customer) and
translating them into specific plans (Technical Requirement) to produce high quality products to meet those
needs.
In detail, the "voice of the customer" is the term to describe these stated and unstated customer needs or
requirements. We can capture those needs in a variety of ways, such as direct discussion or interviews, surveys,
customer specifications, etc. This understanding of the customer needs is then summarized in a product planning
matrix or "House of Quality". These matrices are used to translate higher level "what's" or needs into lower level
"how's" - product requirements or technical characteristics to satisfy these needs. In addition, we always need the
integration of each department, say, engineering, manufacturing, finance, and others, to ensure the process of
improvement is efficient and effective. Only through a great cooperation in-house, we can get high quality
products or services that satisfy the customers’ needs indeed.
3.1.3 Assumptions
There are two basic assumptions for QFD: one is the market survey results are accurate. The other one states that
customer needs can be documented and captured and they remain stable during the whole process.
The foundation of QFD method that we will use in the discussion of improving the service level of Air Macau
are the conclusion of SERVQUAL questionnaire and the ANOVA analysis we have probed in section 2. The 5
dimensions of SERVQUAL define and measure the actual need of customers. Indeed, the quantized needs are
very useful for our further discussion of QFD.
3.1.4 House of Quality
The House of Quality is a sort of conceptual map, which provides means to the inter-functional planning and
coordination of product improvement and product development. In a way this method brings the customer needs
in the focus to design or to redesign the product and service. The customer actual needs which we got from the
search form the base of the house. Corresponding engineering characteristics are specified which should be in
clear measurable term. The interdependencies are mapped which are in the form of the roof of the house.
Accordingly, technical difficulties in achieving the desired changes are calculated. Then the final targets are set
in clear measurable terms. In essence with the help of customer needs, the product’s design and redesign are
realizable.
The House of Quality contains six major components: (1) Customer requirements: A structured list of
requirements derived from customer statement. (2) Technical requirement: A structured set of relevant and
measurable product characteristics. (3) Planning matrix: Illustrates customer perceptions observed in the market
surveys. The matrix includes relative importance of customer requirements, company and competitor’s
performance in satisfying these requirements. (4) Interrelationship matrix: Illustrates the QFD team’s perceptions
of interrelationships between technical and customer requirements. (5) Technical correlation (Roof) matrix: Used
to identify where technical requirements support or impede each other in the product design. By doing this, QFD
teams can highlight innovation opportunities. (6) Technical priorities, benchmarks and targets: It’s a matrix to
record the priorities assigned to technical requirements, the measures of technical performance achieved by
company and competitor, and the degree of difficulty involved in developing each requirement.
Figure 3 shows how the House of Quality structured. Now we will use such a model to discuss the detail steps
for developing the service level of Air Macau.
162
ment Vol. 14, No.
N 5; 2019
Figure 3. Strructure of Hou

use of Quality
3.2 Servicce improvemeent of Air Maccau by using Q

QFD
3.2.1 Cappture Voice off the Customerr
Identifyinng the charactter and the conntent of servicce is a good sttarting of captturing the Voiice of the Customer. It’s
importantt to remember that there iss no one monoolithic voice of o the custom mer. Customer voices are diiverse. All
we need is the identified basic custo omer needs. FFrequently, cu ustomers will tryt to expresss their needs inn terms of
“how” thhe need can be satisfied an nd not in termms of “what” the t need is. TheT conditionn limits, or say y, make it
difficult tto set the list of
o customer needs.
n So afterr capturing thee responds froom the custom mers, breakingg down the
general nneeds into morre specific andd defined requuirements is esssential.
As analyzed in Sectioon 2, we captu ured the custoomer needs by b using SERV VQUAL quesstionnaire. Th hose needs
were welll defined andd quantized du uring the desiggn phase of questionnaire. Accordingly, the customerr needs we
stated are adaptive. According
A to the standarddized question nnaire, the customer needds are defineed as five
dimensions: tangibles, reliability, reesponsiveness,, assurance an nd empathy. Base
B on the SEERVQUAL conclusion,
“reliabilitty” was the onne we should putp most attenntion to. Basiccally, it’s undeer our preconcception that “rreliability”
turned intto the result: for
f the quality y of air servicce, the meanin
ng of reliabilitty which incluude safe and punctual
p is
the basicc need of cusstomers and the t reason forr choosing su uch a transpo ortation methood. Hence, we w include
reliabilityy in the processs evaluation.
The SERV VQUAL identtifies reliabilitty as follows: (1) When exccellent air com
mpany promisees to do someething by a
certain tim
me, they willl do so. (2) When
W a passennger has a pro
oblem; excelleent air compaany will show
w a sincere
interest inn solving it. (3) Excellentt airline comppany will get things right the first timee. (4) Excelleent Airline
Companyy will provide their servicess at the time thhey promise tot do so. (5) Excellent
E Airliine Company will insist
on error-ffree records.
Accordinng to the outpuut, for expecttation, the firsst and second one issues go ot the highestt score. That means
m the
fulfilling of the promisses and the so
olicitude showwn are the mo ost important factors
f to the passengers. Air
A Macau
states proomise of “To achieve the highest
h standaards of safety and reliability” and “To ddeliver qualityy customer
services”. After considdering the reaality to Air MMacau, we useed a brainstorrming methodd to get the seegment of
customerr requirementss. Table 3 showws all the 14 eelements:
Table 3. A
All the 14 elem
ments
Cu
ustomer requirem
ments (What)
Hiigh standard of saafe Conven
nient to change flight
Lo
ow fault rate Rationaal flight schedule
Liittle noise Wide deestination
Stable and comforttable More fliight frequency
Deelicious food provvided High pu
unctuality
High eff
fficiency
Vaariety language seervice
of solvin
ng problems
More
M promotions Error-frree record
163
ment Vol. 14, No.
N 5; 2019
3.2.2 Buiild the “Housee of Quality”

Since thee customer reequirements have
h been iddentified, the House of Qu uality can beegin subsequeently. The
sequence of designing the air servicee improvemennt planning maatrix is as follows:
1. The V
Voice of the Customer,
C whiich we shown in table 3, waas listed in thee left hand sidee of the matrix
x.
2. Estabblish the techhnical characcteristics to rrespond to cu ustomer requ uirements andd organize in nto related
categories. In the case, we tried to find the sppecific technical characteriistics and relaative supportt technical
requiremeents for air seervice. When we
w search thee appropriate technical
t uirements, the 3 conditions have been
requ
considereed: 1) Meaninngful – must be
b subsequentlly actionable tot drive the design processs; they can’t be abstract.
2) Measuurable – must be able to deffine a garget vvalue and cleaarly determinee whether thee characteristicc has been
achieved or not. 3) Gllobal – must not imply or constrain design alternativ ves to any onne technical solution
s or
approachh.
Obviously, the techniccal requirements of servicee are very diffferent from those
t of manuufacturing. Air service,
particularrly, has some features:
f
a intangible and various in kinds.
1) Intanggible and absstract: the serrvices provideed by air traansportation are
Passengers cannot takke a look nor have a try bbefore pay. Allso, it’s hard to change orr return purch
hase if the
services ““have defects”” like a producct.
2) Unsteaady: affected by
b the weatheer, manual opeeration, mach hine condition and the struccture of plane,, the flight
would noot be as stable as we want. Although
A it’s ddefinitely safeer than any oth
her transportaation mode, th
here would
be very loow survival raate and cause a huge death ttoll once an acccident takes place.
p
3) It cannnot be stored: once the air service
s providded, it should be consumed.. For instancee, it’s a loss in
n condition
that any tticket has not been
b purchaseed.
me relevant tecchnical requireements and shhown in Table 4:
After disccussing a few times, our teaam stated som
Table 4. R
Relevant technnical requirem
ments
Technical requirem
ments (How)
Ty
ype of aircraft Sto
orage of food
Maaterials and faciliities Design of flight
Fly
ying experience oof pilot Staaff Training
Safety managementt system Network support
Airbus line
Fin
nancial support
operations monitoriing system
Strrategic alliance with
orage of lash-up
Sto
oth
her airline compan
nies
3. Deveelop relationsships between n customer rrequirements and technical requirementts. These rellationships
define thhe degree to which
w hnical charactteristics satisffy the custom
as tech mer requiremeents. We used d a set of
symbols tto mark them m and also weiights (we recoommend using g 9-3-1 weighhting factors) to indicate th
he strength
of the rellationship – strong,
s medium m and weak. As shown in n the House ofo Quality, thee relationships between
passengerr requirementts and the airrcraft techniccal requiremen nts were defined in the m middle of the House of
Quality. TTake customeer requiremen nts of “High sstandard of saafe” as an ex xample, we hoold that it hass “strong”
relationshhip with the teechnical requiirements of “T
Type of aircraaft”, “Materials and facilitiees”, “Flying experience
e
of pilot”, “Safety manaagement systeem”; “medium m” relationship p with “Airbus line operatioons monitorinng system”
and “weaak” relationshhip with “Storrage of lash-uup”. And it has h scarcely anya relationshhip with otherr technical
requiremeents.
4. Dem monstrate the correlations
c beetween techniical requiremeents in the rooof of the housee. The same asa forming
the relatioonship betweeen customer reequirements aand technical requirements,
r we used a serries of symbo ols to mark
the interrrelationship off technical req
quirements. Iff improving on ne of the techhnical requirem ment help anoother one’s
improvem ment, we definne they have positive
p correllation. On the contrary, it would
w be a neggative correlation. In the
process oof evaluating the improvem ment planningg, the engineer should take those techniccal requiremeents which
have negaative correlatiion into consideration firstlly to eliminatee or reduce baad effect. In thhe case, we ussed to
mark thee “strong possitive relationship”, to mark the “p positive relatiionship”, to mark the “negative
164
ment Vol. 14, No.
N 5; 2019
relationshhip” and t mark the “sstrong negativve relationship

to p”. According
gly, we gave thhe weights off each kind
of relationnship which are
a +9, +3, -3 and -9.
5. Perfoorm a compettitive assessm ment of the cuustomer requirements. It’s an assessmennt of how the company
product oor service com mpares with th hose of the keey competitorss. In our case,, we chose Chhina South Aiirlines and
Singaporee Airlines as the competito ors. This part illustrates thee competitive landscape inn the airline market.
m We
can find out both thee strengths an nd weakness of Air Macau in fulfillin ng the custom mer requirem ments. The
comparisons are on a five-point
f scaale with 5 beinng high. Show wn on the righht side of Figuure3-2, “Us” stands for
Air Macaau, “A” meanss China South h Airlines andd “B” stands for
f Singapore Airlines. Ther ere are some reasons for
choosing these two airrline companiees as the majoor competitors. First, all the three airlinee companies area located
in Asia. T i more or lesss similar with each other. Second, as the biggest airlinee company in Mainland
Their culture is
China, thhe operation style and the achievement
a oof China Soutth Airlines is typical. Equaally, Singaporre Airlines
has got vvery high evaluuation from passengers
p all over the world. We believe it should bee the quality benchmark
b
in the airlline market. Final,
F the quanntized judge oof opinion we got in the SER RVQUAL queestionnaire aree the basis
of assigniing marks in this
t part.
6. Priorritize customeer requiremen nts. On the farr right side of
o Figure3-2 area customer rrequirements priorities.
These priiorities include importance to customer, ttarget value, sales point, and
d absolute weeight.
ular customer requirement. IIt’s on a 10-point scale,
Importannce is a subjective assessmeent of how crittical a particu
with 10 bbeing most im
mportance. Thee customer reqquirements wh hich got relatively high scoore of importan
nce and in
low comppetitive assesssments should d be paid morre attention too. According tot the result oof the question
nnaire, we
scored evvery customer requirement. For example,, in the respecct of “Conveniient to changee flight”, the immportance
is 6, and the competitivve level for Air
A Macau is juust 2; and for “More flight frequency”, A Air Macau gott the score
of 5 in im
mportance, andd 2 in competiitive level. Suuch two custom
mer requiremeents should bee paid more atttention to.
Target vaalues are set onn a 5-point scale (where 1 iis no change, 3 is improve the
t service, annd 5 is make the
t service
better thaan the competition). The sales point is esstablished on a scale of 1 or 2, with 2 meeaning high-sales effect
and 1 beeing low effecct on sales. TheT absolute w weight is thenn found by multiplying
m the
he three factorrs. This is
expressedd in the follow
wing equation::
A
Absolute Weig
ght = Customeer Importance × Target Valu
ue × Sales Poin
int
Based onn the output off the House off Quality, the “High punctu
uality” got the highest absollute weight. The
T second
high is “S
Stable and com
mfortable” and d “Low fault rrate” won the third place.
7. Priorritize technical requirements. As show wn in Figuree3-2, technical requiremen ents are priorritized by
determiniing degree off difficulty, taarget value, aabsolute weig ght, and relative weight. T The difficulty is always
assigned by design enggineers. They determine thee degree by teechnical testing and consultting the literatture. Since
this part of assessmennt needs proffessional know wledge aboutt airplane, wee could just gget relatively objective
evaluation by browsingg some news and Internet iinformation. Note N that our goal was to gget the idea off aspect of
service im
mprovement, not ps. So the degrree of difficullty would not affect our
n to discusss the specific ffulfilling step
researchinng of findingg the prioritizeed technical rrequirement. The
T target vallue for the tecchnical requirrements is
defined thhe same way the
t target valu ues for the cusstomer requireement were asssigned.
The valuees for absolutee and relative weights are nnow establisheed. The method we integratee as follows:
Abbsolute Weighht=∑ Relation
nship betweenn Customer and
a Technical Requirementts × Importan
nce to the
Customerr
Relative Weight=∑ Relationship
R between Custoomer and Tecchnical Requiirements × C
Customer Req
quirements
Absolute Weight
The figurre 3 shown folllow is the outtput of “Housee of Quality”::
Source: SService Manaagement, Sixth
h edition, Jam
mes A. Fitzsim mons, Chapter 6 Service
mmons, Monaa J. Fitzsimm
Quality, H
House of Quallity, PP117
165
ment Vol. 14, No.
N 5; 2019
Figurre 4. The analyytical output of

o House of Quality
Q
8. Finall evaluation. The relative and

a absolute weights for technical requ uirements are evaluated to determine
what enggineering decissions need to be made to im mprove the design
d based on
o customer innput. This is performed
p
by compuuting a percenntage weight factor
fa for eachh of the absolu
ute weight and
d relative weigght factors.
As can bee seen in our case, the “Design of flight”” got the highest absolute weight
w (15%). For relative weight,
w all
of “Desiggn of flight”, “Airbus line operations
o moonitoring system” and “Maaterials and faacilities” got th
he highest
rate.
So our coonclusion here is that Air Macau
M focus on develloping the thrree technical rrequirements which are
may fo
“Design oof flight”, “Aiirbus line operrations monitooring system”” and “Materiaals and facilitiies”.
3.3 Sensittivity Analysiss of Robustnesss of QFD
Because QFD model has the robusstness charactteristic, here we want to reveal r this chharacteristic by doing a
sensitivityy analysis, and at the same time, to provee that our conclusion is corrrect.
We rate ffrom 9 to 1 too show the relationship betw ween customeer requirementts and techniqque requiremeents in our
QFD moddel. Here we change
c the im
mportance ratinng while remaain other the same, and we llook at the ou
utput again.
First, we use 7 insteadd to show stro ong associatedd, 3 to represent somewhatt associated aand 1 to standd for weak
associatedd. After usingg this new ratin
ng scale, let’s see the outpu
ut as below:
166
Rating= (7, 3, 1)
Difficulty 9 4 5 3 3 2 2 8 4 3 8 7
Target value 4 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 1 5 4 5
Absolute weight 185 197 170 117 182 78 49 251 127 95 135 101
Absolute factor 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06
Relative weight 1227 1487 1289 864 1551 354 294 1506 318 296 582 474
Relative factor 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.05
Let’s review our original output using rating (9, 3, 1):

Difficulty 9 4 5 3 3 2 2 8 4 3 8 7
Target value 4 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 1 5 4 5
Absolute weight 231 249 204 135 218 90 63 309 161 119 159 111
Absolute factor 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.05
Relative weight 1509 1899 1557 972 1875 378 378 1866 386 368 678 534
Relative factor 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04
Comparing the two outputs, we find that although we change the rating scale and the absolute values change, the
relative values remain the same. The highest three items are still “Materials and facilities”, “Airbus line
operations monitoring system” and “Design of flight”.
We change the importance rating once more, and decide to see whether the result changes as we anticipate. This
time, we change the rating scale from (9,3,1) to (9,3,0). Again let’s see the output as below:
Difficulty 9 4 5 3 3 2 2 8 4 3 8 7
Target value 4 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 1 5 4 5
Absolute weight 231 249 195 135 213 81 63 309 153 108 159 111
Absolute factor 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.06
Relative weight 1509 1899 1467 972 1860 324 378 1866 306 324 678 534
Relative factor 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.04
This time, as we earlier anticipated, the result remains the same, and the three items are still those. We can
conclude that our model is meaningful and robust, because the sensitivity analysis proves that the results remain
the same no matter how we change the rating scale.
3.4 Limitations on our QFD Model
Last but not the least; we have to mention the limitations on our QFD model. In the process of constructing our
Quality House of QFD model, one of the items named “degree of difficulty” of technique requirements, and its
rating scale ranges from 1 to 10, which means that 1 is the least difficult and 10 the most difficult. The rating
requires professional technique engineers to subjectively mark the score according to their related experiences.
Although we group-discussed for several times, checked the related websites and reference books, and discussed
with our academic advisor about our results, we are neither professionals nor related-specialty student. It is
inevitable that our final results may not be exactly correct, due to our lack of practical experiences and expertise
knowledge. Moreover, we mainly focus on the orientation of the improvement instead of further concreted
measures. Because of our lack in the related knowledge, we also do not further discuss the feasibility of our
improvement advices. So, briefly speaking these three drawbacks are the limitation on our QFD model.
4. Conclusion and Future Considerations
Tourism and gambling is the leading economic body of Macau SAR, so that the direct economic activities such
as aviation, airport operation, and catering on the airplanes, as well as the related indirect economic units such as
travel agency, hotel, restaurant, and logistics are closely linked to people from all walks of life. As a result,
whether Macau aviation can develop healthily imposes great importance on Macau economy.
167
Air Macau is the regional international airline company which is regarded Macau as its base. With the fast pace
of financial development in Macau, Air Macau faces great opportunities to develop itself, however, meanwhile
the economic crisis and the increasingly high oil price strikes the company. For the future development of Air
Macau, opportunities go along with challenges.
For aviation, a special service industry, service quality management is vital to its service management.
According to our analysis above, “tangibility” of Air Macau is satisfying to its customers; more concretely, Air
Macau can offer satisfying modern tangible facility on its planes. In other words, tangibility can be regarded as
Air Macau’s strength.
In the contrary, reliability is the shortest board of Air Macau, which means that customers think that the company
can’t provide its service as it promised. In our questionnaire, the corresponding question is “When you have
problems, Air Macau is sympathetic and reassuring” which gets the lowest score. Besides, “Air Macau provides
its service at the time it promises to do so”, “When Air Macau promises to do something by a certain time, and it
does so”, “Air Macau is dependable” and “Air Macau keeps its records accurately” also get low score. Actually,
many customers regard reliability as the most important item of the five dimensions. So, how to provide the
reliable services is the next target of service improvement for Air Macau.
According to the above results, we discover the shortcomings of Air Macau and now we provide several possible
suggestions on improvement.
Reviewed our QFD analysis result, we find that punctuality of airline is the customers’ focus, which is also the
item that enjoys the highest score of customer requirement. It is logical that any delay or cancellation of airline
would affect customers’ travelling plan and the following plans. To solve this problem, we come up with some
feasible suggestions as follows:
First of all, sufficient hardware ensuring work is needed. For example, necessary hardware checking before
taking-off and before landing, advanced equipment during flying, and advanced navigation or communication
facility.
Besides, reschedule on the fight courses and the number of fights. Unreasonable fight courses and redundant
fights cause the problem of supply accesses demand, which then cause financial loss and customers’ expectation
to decrease.
A quick-respond remedy is needed if the fight delays or is cancelled. Aviation company needs to promptly report
the latest news to customers in the waiting room, how long the fight will be delayed, and explain the reasons to
the customers. Furthermore, there is a rich literature from the fields of quality control and continuous
improvement that will enable greater success for Asian and other aliens to improve service This literature is
exemplified in the areas of industrial experimentation, health policy and technology, machine learning, AI and
similar fields with the scope of management science/operations research and quality technology. Such
applications from problems in similar fields may permit future improvements in quality of service not heretofore
practiced. (See; Pan & Jarrett, 2008; Jarrett & Pan, 2009; Pan, 2005a; Pan, 2005b; etc.)
The limitations of the combined methods shown in this paper is that although SERVQUAL can help more
accurately identify the customer requirements inputs in QFD, however, the way to improve later steps of QFD
methods with SERVQUAL to make deeper combination of these two methods still leaves as issues for future
studies.
References
Agus, A., Barker, S., & Kandampully, J. (2007). An Exploratory Study of Service Quality in the Malaysian
Public Service Sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(2), 177-190.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710710722284
Aneesh, M. R., Dileeplal, J., & Abraham, M. A. (2014). An integrated fuzzy weighted SERVQUAL-QFD
approach for service quality improvement. International Journal of Engineering Research, 3(2), 774-776.
https://doi.org/10.17950/ijer/v3s12/1215
Bahill, A. T. (1993). Chapman, A tutorial on quality function deployment. Engineering Management Journal,
5(3), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.1993.11414742
Baki, B., Basfirinci, C. S., & Cilingir, Z. (2009). An application of integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s model
into QFD for logistics services: A case study from Turkey. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
21(1), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910926272
Baki, B., Basfirinci, C. S., AR, I. M., & Cilingir, Z. (2009). An application of integrating SERVQUAL and
168
Kano’s model into QFD for logistics services: A case study from Turkey. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, 21(1), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910926272
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),
1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bitner, M. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters the Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses.
Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251871
Bloemer, J., & Kasper, H. (1995). The Complex Relationship between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(95)00007-b
Bossert, J. L. (nd.). Quality Function Deployment: A practitioner’s approach, Center for Quality and Applied
Statistics. Rochester Institute of Technology
Caruana, A. (202). Service Loyalty: The Effects of Service Quality and the Mediating Role of Customer
Satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7), 811-828. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560210430818
Chu-Hua, K., & Min, H. L. (1997). An integrated approach to service quality improvement. International
Journal of Quality Science, 2(1), 24-36.
Diaz, A., & Ruiz, F. (2002). The Consumer’s Reaction to Delays in Service. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 13(2), 118-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230210425331
Ennew, C., & Binks, M. (1996). The Impact of Service Quality and Service Characteristics on Customer
Retention: Small Businesses and Banks in the UK. British Journal of Management, 7(3), 219-230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00116.x
Glaveli, N., Petridou, E., Liassides, C., & Spathis, C. (2006). Bank Service Quality: Evidence from Five Balkan
Countries. Managing Service Quality, 16(4), 380-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675711
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing,
18(4), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000004784
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.), Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River.
He, Y., & Song, H. (2009). A Mediation Model of Tourists’ Repurchase Intentions for Packaged Tour Services.
Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508321206
Horstmann, R. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Assessment in the Service Industry.
Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 39-54.
Hu, J. S., & Feng, T. (nd). Statistics for Practice (1st ed.). Peking University Press.
Jarrett, J., & Pan, X. (2009). Multivariate process control chart and their use in monitoring output quality: A
perspective. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 4(5), 471-482.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijise.2009.024154
Johnston, R. (1995). The Determinants of Service Quality: Satisfiers and Dissatisfies. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53-71.
Kotler, P., Ang, S., Leong, S., & Tan, C. (1999). Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective. Prentice Hall
Inc., Upper Saddle River.
Lee, M., & Cunningham, L. (2001). A Cost/Benefit Approach to Understanding Service Loyalty. Journal of
Services Marketing, 15(2), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040110387917
Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. (1982). Service Quality—A Study of Dimensions. Service Management Institute,
Helsinki.
Lewis, C., & Booms, B. (1983). The Marketing Aspects of Service Quality. In Berry, L. L., Shostack, G. and
Upah, G., (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives in Service Marketing. American Marketing Association, Chicago.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009207038501300332
McAlexander, J., Kaldenberg, D., & Koenig, H. (1994). Service Quality Measurement. Marketing Health
Services, 14(3), 34-40.
Mohsan, F. (2011). Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty and Intentions to Switch: Evidence
from Banking Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
169
Sciences, 2(16).
Mouawad, M., & Kleiner, B. (1996). New Developments in Customer Service Training. Managing Service
Quality, 6(2), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604529610109774
Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2001). Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation in Customers’ Retention
Decisions in Services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4), 227-236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0969-6989(00)00029-1
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Pan, X. (2005). An Alternative Approach to Multivariate EWMA Chart. Journal of Applied Statistics, 32(7),
695-705.
Pan, X. (2005). Notes on Shift Effects of T2-type Charts for Residuals of Multivariate ARMA Processes.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 49(3), 318-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2005.07.001
Pan, X. (2006). Computer-Aided SPC: The Cybernetic View on Quality Control. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 23(9), 1192-1203. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710610704276
Pan, X., & Jarrett, J. E. (2008). Estimating σ and Improving Control Limits with RWAV for Normal and
Nonnormal Processes. Quality Engineering, 21, 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08982110802450769
Paswan, A., Spears, N., Hasty, R., & Ganesh, G. (2004). Search Quality in the Financial Services Industry: A
Contingency Perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(5), 324-338.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040410548267
Sangeeta, S., Banwet, D. K., & Karunes, S. (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total quality education:
A student perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(2), 143-166.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410515043
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service Quality Models: A Review. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, 22(9), 913-949. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710510625211
Sui, P. L., & Rui, Z. (2016). SERVQUAL, the Kano Model and QFD. In Service Quality for Facilities
Management in Hospitals. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0956-3_3
Sureshchandar, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. (2002). Determinants of Customer-Perceived Service
Quality: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(1), 9-34.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040210419398
Tee, L. (2012). The Effects of Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction on Re-Patronage Intentions of Hotel
Existing Customers. International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences, 1(8), 60-73.
Zairi, M. (2000). Managing Customer Dissatisfaction through Effective Complaint Management Systems. The
TQM Magazine, 12(5), 331-335. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780010341932
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. Journal of
Marketing, 60(2), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251929
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
170

Combining SERVQUAL and QFD To Evaluate and Improve Airline Servic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combining SERVQUAL and QFD To Evaluate and Improve Airline Servic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combining SERVQUAL and QFD To Evaluate and Improve Airline Servic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Rhode Island

College of Business Faculty Publications College of Business

Combining SERVQUAL and QFD to Evaluate and Improve Airline

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

This article is available at DigitalCommons@URI: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/90

Combining SERVQUAL and QFD to Evaluate and Improve Airline

Table 1. Statistical result of our questionnaire collection

2.How many times 1-2times:38 3-5times:20 Above 5 tiems:32

3.Education bachelor:82 master:6 high school: 2

4.Reasons Business Trip:8 Visiting Relatives:17 Travelling:43 Others:26 (school, inexpensive)

2.3.3 Test for the Equality of Three or More Population Means

ANOVA table for Question1:

ANOVA table for Question2:

ANOVA table for Question3:

ANOVA table for Question4:

ANOVA table for Question5:

ANOVA table for Question6:

ANOVA table for Question7:

ANOVA table for Question8:

ANOVA table for Question9:

ANOVA table for Question10:

ANOVA table for Question11:

ANOVA table for Question12:

ANOVA table for Question13:

ANOVA table for Question14:

ANOVA table for Question15:

ANOVA table for Question16:

ANOVA table for Question17:

ANOVA table for Question18:

ANOVA table for Quesstion19:

ANOVA table for Quesstion20:

ANOVA table for Quesstion21:

ANOVA table for Quesstion22:

Airlines should delivery.

Table 2. SERVQUAL Analysis of 90 questionnaires

Table 3. Summary of service quality for the five dimensions

2.1 Analyysis the servicee quality of Aiir Macau

Figure 3. Strructure of Hou

3.2 Servicce improvemeent of Air Maccau by using Q

3.2.2 Buiild the “Housee of Quality”

relationshhip” and t mark the “sstrong negativve relationship

Figurre 4. The analyytical output of

8. Finall evaluation. The relative and

Let’s review our original output using rating (9, 3, 1):

You might also like