Arpin 2007
Arpin 2007
Arpin 2007
By
Justin Arpin
May 2007
Name
SUPERVISOR
DATE
SUPERVISORS APPROVAL
This research project has been reviewed by the undersigned and permission is
hereby granted for submission for examination.
Name of Supervisor
Peter Raap
Academic qualifications
MBA
Date
15 June 2007
ii
DECLARATION
This work has not been previously accepted in substance for any degree and is
not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed
Date..
STATEMENT 1
This dissertation is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Masters in Business Administration.
Signed
Date..
STATEMENT 2
This dissertation is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except
where otherwise stated.
Other sources are acknowledged by giving explicit references. A bibliography is
appended.
Signed
Date..
STATEMENT 3
I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for
photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made
available to outside organizations.
Signed
Date..
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Peter Raap, for his support and advice in
completing this dissertation.
Without these people, this dissertation would not have been possible.
iv
ABSTRACT
Interest in the quality of university education has grown considerably over the last
decade. Higher education institutions are increasingly placing greater emphasis
on meeting students expectations and needs. As universities become more
student orientated, student perceptions of higher educational facilities and
services are becoming more important. It is apparent that there is a need to
measure students perceptions of service quality at the Durban University of
Technology.
To investigate students perceptions of service quality, a study was conducted
which was guided by four objectives. These objectives were: firstly, to identify
students expectations in terms of higher educational services provided;
secondly, to ascertain the perceptions of students towards the service the
Durban University of Technology provides; thirdly, to measure the gaps between
the expectations and perceptions, using the SERVQUAL score, and fourthly, to
calculate and measure the score of the five SERVQUAL dimensions.
The instrument used to assess the students perceptions of service quality was
the SERVQUAL questionnaire, measuring expectations and perceptions
according to five quality dimensions.
Two hundred and sixty four students were surveyed using the SERVQUAL
questionnaire. Responses were collected via the group contact method and the
data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques.
The study shows that students expectations of service quality exceeded their
perceptions on the five service quality dimensions used in the SERVQUAL
questionnaire. The smallest dimension gap score proved to be tangibles, while
the largest gap score in the study proved to be reliability followed by
responsiveness.
Students felt that the Durban University of Technology should carry out promises
on time and staff should show sincere interest in solving their problems and
queries. In terms of reliability, students also noted the importance of services
being performed correctly the first time.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
ii
DECLARATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
ACRONYMS
xiii
KEY TERMS
xiii
Introduction
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Research objectives
1.6
1.7
1.8
Conclusion
Introduction
2.2
2.3
Characteristics of a service
2.4
Service quality
2.5
2.6
10
vii
2.7
11
2.8
12
2.9
Moment of truth
15
2.10
Conclusion
16
Introduction
17
3.2
17
3.3
Gap 1
19
3.4
Gap 2
19
3.5
Gap 3
20
3.6
Gap 4
21
3.7
Gap 5
22
3.8
Conclusion
23
Introduction
24
4.2
Instrument design
24
4.3
Target population
25
4.4
Sampling techniques
25
4.5
25
4.6
Data analysis
26
4.7
Instrument evaluation
31
4.8
Conclusion
32
Introduction
33
5.2
34
5.3
55
5.4
56
5.5
78
5.6
Gap analysis
78
5.7
Research discussions
80
viii
5.7.1
5.7.2
80
5.7.3
83
5.7.4
5.8
87
88
Conclusion
92
6.1
Introduction
93
6.2
Conclusions
93
6.3
Recommendations
93
6.4
97
Bibliography
98
Appendix 1 Questionnaire
101
108
109
110
112
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1
18
Figure 3.2
22
Figure 5.1
34
Figure 5.2
35
Figure 5.3
36
Figure 5.4
37
Figure 5.5
38
Figure 5.6
39
Figure 5.7
40
Figure 5.8
41
Figure 5.9
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Figure 5.21 Expect the university to have students best interest at heart
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Figure 5.29 DUT performs the service right the first time
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Figure 5.42 DUT has employees that give students personal attention
75
76
77
xi
79
87
89
xii
ACRONYMS
KEY TERMS
xiii
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1
Introduction
Interest in the quality of university education has grown considerably over the last
decade. Strong interest in the phenomenon has been stimulated and sustained
by a range of factors. Students need accurate information about educational
quality to help them choose between different courses of study. Academics and
university administrators need information to help them monitor and improve their
courses and programmes. Institutions need information about quality to help
them benchmark and market their performance. Governments and other bodies
need information to assist with funding, policy development and accountability.
For these reasons, quality assurance has become vital in the higher education
system (Coates, 2005).
South African higher education has followed the United Kingdom and Australia in
the development of external quality assurance agencies such as the Higher
Education Quality Committee (HEQC) and the Council on Higher Education
(CHE), who audit higher education and training facilities and accredit the
programmes of all public and private providers of higher education and training
(CHE, 2006).
1.2
As the question of quality has materialised and become the object of study,
feedback from students, as quality indicators in the quality assurance process,
has grown in acceptance (Walker-Garvin, 2003).
1.3
1.4
1.5
Research objectives
1.6
This study is limited to the Durban University of Technology. The findings of this
study can only describe service quality of this population, and it cannot be
generalised to service quality of other higher learning institutions or populations
outside the Durban University of Technology. The study is only valid for the
period in which the investigation is conducted. At best, this investigation can act
as a guide to further research in this field.
1.7
This study has been organised into six chapters. The first chapter contains an
introduction to the study; a description of its purpose as well as the rationale for
the study; and states the research objectives that guided the study. The
limitations of the study are also outlined in this chapter.
Chapter two contains a review of current literature relating to the study and
covers service quality literature in higher education, customers expectations and
perceptions of service quality, determinants and influences of customer
satisfaction and service quality dimensions.
Chapter three addresses the gaps model of service quality and the importance of
Gap 5 in measuring students perception of service quality. Chapter four
describes the research design, the methodology and the procedures followed in
the study.
Chapter five covers analysis and discussion of the findings, while chapter six
covers conclusions and recommendations for future research.
1.8
Conclusion
Chapter one discussed the background to service quality in higher education and
highlighted the observation that students are becoming more discerning
consumers of their educational programmes. The chapter highlighted the growing
acceptance of student feedback, as a quality indicator, in the higher education
quality assurance process at universities. This chapter outlined the rationale for
investigating students perceptions of service quality at the Durban University of
Technology and listed the objectives that guided the study.
CHAPTER TWO
SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2.1
Introduction
Characteristics of a service
According to Ziethaml et al. (2003), inherent differences exist between goods and
services resulting in different management challenges for service businesses,
such as the Durban University of Technology, that sell services as their core
offering.
2.3.1 Intangibility
According to Zeithaml et al. (2003) services are performances or actions rather
than objects that can be felt or seen as with tangible goods. For example,
lecturers at university provide information to students studying towards a degree,
and even after this service is performed, the students may not fully understand
the benefit received from the service itself. The only tangible component for the
student may be the lecture hall and other facilities or equipment they use on
campus.
2.3.2 Heterogeneity
Zeithaml et al. (2003) suggest that no services will be precisely the same
because they are produced by humans. This difference can be applied to the
university scenario, in that no two lecturers deliver their modules in the same
manner and no two students will experience the lecturer or the service delivery in
the same way.
2.3.3 Simultaneous production and consumption
Zeithaml et al. (2003) state that most services are sold first and then produced
and consumed simultaneously. An example of this characteristic would be a
university enrolling students, lectures commencing and information being
transferred from lecturer to student at the same time
2.3.4 Perishability
Zeithaml et al. (2003) state that services cannot be stored, saved, resold or
returned. In the university context, once a subject module has been presented to
a class of students, the service is complete and the students cannot return the
subject module or service delivered if they wish to withdraw from the university,
before completing the degree.
2.4
Service quality
Service quality is a concept that has stimulated considerable interest and debate
in research literature because of the difficulties in both defining and measuring it,
with no consensus on either (Wisniewski et al., 1996). Asubonteng (1996)
defines service quality as the extent to which a service meets customers needs
or expectations. Service quality can thus be defined as the difference between
customer expectations of service and perceived service. If expectations are
greater than performance, then perceived quality is less than satisfactory and,
therefore, customer dissatisfaction occurs (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
2.5
A performance that falls below the adequate service level will cause frustration
and dissatisfaction, whereas a performance that exceeds the desired service
level will please the customer. When service falls outside this range, customers
will either react positively or negatively.
10
2.7
Ziethaml et al. (2003) suggest that customer satisfaction with a service or product
is influenced significantly by the customers evaluation of product or service
features. For a service such as a university, important features to the students
may include; campus facilities, helpfulness and courtesy of lecturers and
administration staff as well as the variety of courses on offer.
Ziethaml et al. (2003), state that customers emotions can also affect their
perceptions of satisfaction with products or services. Specific emotions may also
be induced by the consumption experience itself. For example, the manner in
which a lecturer delivers his or her module to a class of students could possibly
influence the students overall satisfaction with that module.
11
2.8
12
Ziethaml et al. (2003) describe reliability as the ability to perform the promised
service dependably and accurately. Past research has shown reliability to be the
most important determinant of perceptions of service quality among consumers.
Ziethaml et al. (2003) suggest that customers want to do business with
organizations that keep their promises. Similarly, all service providers need to be
aware of customers expectations of reliability. Examples of reliability in the
context of this research would include students receiving services from the
university at the time it was promised to them, the university showing sincere
interest in solving students problems as they arise, performing services to
students correctly the first time and insisting on error-free records in terms of
administration at the institution.
13
For example, university students standard for prompt service delivery may differ
significantly from managements standards at the institution. Examples of
responsiveness in the context of this study would include university employees
telling students exactly when services will be performed, university employees
giving prompt service to students as well as being willing to help students when
required to do so.
14
2.9
Moment of Truth
Ziethaml et al. (2003), suggest that each service encounter presents the
organisation an opportunity to prove its potential as a quality service provider and
to increase customer loyalty.
15
2.10
Conclusion
The chapter highlighted the observation that students are viewed as primary
consumers of higher education programmes offered at universities and that it has
become increasingly important for universities to understand students
expectations and perceptions of service quality at the institutions. The chapter
also discussed the determinants and influences of customer satisfaction and was
related to students at a university.
Chapter 3 covers the Gaps Model of service quality and the importance of Gap 5
in measuring students perception of service quality.
16
CHAPTER 3
GAPS MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY
3.1
Introduction
3.2
The Gaps Model of service quality has been used since 1990. The Gaps Model
was originally developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). It has been widely used
by many researchers when analysing the gaps between customers expectations
and their perceptions (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The Gaps Model of service
quality serves as a conceptual framework for understanding service quality
delivery. Based on evidence that perceived service quality as a function of the
difference between consumer expectations and perceptions, Parasuraman et al.
(1988) conducted an exploratory study in an attempt to establish how consumers
evaluate service quality. The study suggested that, regardless of the service or
service industry, consumers use the same criteria in evaluating service quality
(Zeithaml et al., 2003).
17
The central focus of the Gaps Model is the Customer Gap, the difference
between customers expectations and perceptions. Firms need to close this gap
between what customers expect and receive, in order to satisfy their customers
and build long-term relationships with them (Ziethaml et al., 2003). Figure 3.1
relates to the Gaps Model of Service Quality and highlights the 5 Gaps of service
quality identified by Parasuraman et al. (1988). According to Parasuraman et al.
(1988), Gap 5 (Customer Gap) is the most important gap to close.
CUSTOMER
Expected
Service
Customer
Gap
Perceived
Service
COMPANY
Gap 1
Service Delivery
Gap 3
Gap 4
Customer-driven service
designs and standards
Gap 2
Company perceptions of
consumer expectations
18
External
Communications
to customers
3.3
3.4
Gap 2: Not having the right service quality designs and standards
19
Goal setting and the existence of a formal mechanism for setting the
quality of service goals (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
3.5
20
Employees should have clear goals and objectives concerning the company,
they should implement the correct strategies and obtain regular feedback on their
performance (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Management must recruit the correct people for the correct job and train them in
using technology and purchasing the equipment that will be appropriate to
increasing employee-technology job fit. Lovelock et al. (2004) adds to Zeithaml et
al. (2003) by suggesting that appropriate recognition and reward programmes
must be in place to help measure the performance expected from employees and
create team spirit among them. Lovelock et al. (2004) suggests by empowering
employees to take control of certain areas in the department will improve the
quality of service provided to the customer, minimize time wasted in obtaining
authorization and reduce the stress level.
3.6
Gap 4 is defined as the difference between service delivery and the service
providers external communications. Promises made by a service company
through its media advertising, sales force and other communications may raise
customer expectations that serve as the standard against which customers
assess service quality (Ziethaml et al., 2003).
21
3.7
Customer
Gap
Customer Perceptions
22
3.8
Conclusion
23
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1
Introduction
Chapter 4 discusses the research methodology that guided the research and
enabled the researcher to collect and analyse data. The chapter covers
instrument design, target population, sampling techniques, data collection
procedure and data analysis. Instrument evaluation, regarding the reliability and
validity of SERVQUAL, is also addressed.
4.2
Instrument design
Dimension
Tangibles
Statements 1-4
Reliability
Statements 5-9
Responsiveness
Statements 10-13
Assurance
Statements 14-17
Empathy
Statements 18-22
24
4.3
Target population
According to Creative Research Systems (2003), the larger the sample size, the
more sure the researcher can be that the respondents answers truly reflect the
population. According to the Durban University of Technology (2006), 22000
students are registered across the various faculties at the institution. The
researcher opted to use a 95% confidence level and based on the size of the
population, Creative Research systems (2003), suggested a sample size of
n = 264. The researcher decided to omit first year students as they would be new
to the institution at the time of data collection and would not have spent enough
time developing a perception of the service quality.
4.4
Sampling techniques
The researcher opted for quota non-probability sampling. According to Welman &
Kruger (2003), the advantage of quota sampling is that it is less complicated and
more economical in terms of time and financial expenses. Non-probability
sampling may be done on a spontaneous basis to take advantage of available
respondents, without the statistical complexity of a probability sample.
4.5
Firstly, the group contact method allowed the researcher to work with a captive
audience and this procedure corresponds to the administration of a group
measurement/test. Since a single person is required to give instruction to a group
of respondents, the cost per questionnaire is much lower than the personal
interview.
25
Thirdly, the researcher was available to answer any queries about the completion
of the questionnaire immediately.
The procedure which was followed in the collection of data started with the
researcher introducing himself and outlining the purpose of the research and its
significance. It was emphasised to the students that participation in the study was
completely voluntary and anonymous and withdrawal from answering the
questionnaire could be done at any time.
The questionnaire and its contents were carefully explained and reviewed with
the students and all queries were dealt with before handing out the
questionnaires. The acknowledgement of consent was also reviewed and
combined with the questionnaire.
4.6
Data analysis
According to Welman and Kruger (2003), after research has been conducted,
according to its planned design, the obtained results must be interpreted. The
purpose of coding data is to render data in a form which can be presented and
analysed (Birley and Moreland, 1998). The data from the questionnaires were
analysed using the appropriate statistical methods.
26
1. Firstly, the expectation score was subtracted from the perception score for
each question.
2. For each of the five dimensions, the score was averaged. For example,
the first four questions relate to tangibility and the individual score for each
question were added together and divided by four, which gave a score for
that dimension.
3. For each question the scores were added up and each was divided by the
number of total respondents in the study.
4. The scores for each dimension were then compared (refer to appendix 2).
Based on the data collected, the researcher was able to extract descriptive
statistics from the study and included the mean, which is the average score
summing over all the responses and divided by the sample size for every
variable (Parasuraman et al., 1988).The median, which is in the centre of the
data set, when arranged from highest to lowest, was also calculated for every
variable. According to Parasuraman et al. (1988), the mode is the most frequent
occurring value, and this was also calculated to indicate which score, on each
statement, the respondents selected the most. Finally, the standard deviation,
which is the square root of the variance, was calculated as part of the descriptive
statistics in this study (refer to Appendix 3).
From the results obtained in the descriptive statistics, the researcher was able to
calculate the expectation mean and perception mean, which were ultimately
applied to the SERVQUAL calculation to calculate Gap scores for each of the five
service quality dimensions (refer to Chapter 5, figure 5.45).
27
Data extracted from the descriptive statistics highlighted the dimension gap
scores and indicated which areas present the greatest challenge for the DUT.
The lowest dimension gap score proved to be tangibles, while the greatest gap
score emerged in the reliability dimension, enabling the DUT to focus attention
on the largest gaps first in order to improve students perceptions of service
quality at the institution.
4.6.3
Inferential statistics
(a)
The Paired sample t-test compares the means of two variables. It computes the
difference between two variables for each case, and tests to see if the average
difference is significantly different from zero (Archambault, 2000). A t-test was
carried out on each of the 22 questions to determine whether the mean rating of
perceptions is different from the mean rating of expectations. The paired sample
form of the t-test was applied since the same subjects were used to rate both
expectation and perception.
If the null hypothesis is rejected, it can be said that the mean rating of perception
is significantly different from the mean rating of expectation and not just by
chance alone.
28
From the results of this analysis (refer to appendix 4), it is seen that the mean
perception ratings and the mean expectation ratings for each area of service
quality are clearly different from each other and statistically significant at
p<.0005. Furthermore, the calculated test statistic (t) is positive which indicates
that the mean expectation rating is greater than the mean perception rating for
each question. One can deduce from this finding that students perceptions of
service quality in each dimension are less than their expectations, highlighting
the need for the DUT to focus attention on closing the gaps, thereby improving
student satisfaction at the institution.
(b)
H0:
From the results (refer to appendix 5), it is clear that for each of the expectation
questions, the rating of Agree or Strongly agree was given more that expected.
This finding indicates that all areas of service quality are important to the
students and are expected to be of a high standard.
29
For the perception ratings, it is clear that in many areas the rating of Strongly
agree was given less often than expected, thus indicating the perception that
services at the DUT are not as good as they should be. These areas include
equipment, physical facilities, timeous completion of a service, interest in solving
students problems, correct performance of a service the first time, providing
services on time, prompt service, behaviour of employees, safety in transactions,
employees courtesy with students and individual attention for students. These
areas present a challenge to the DUT. Therefore, attention should be focused on
improving service in these areas, thereby improving students perception of
service quality at the DUT.
The rating of Agree was given more often than expected for employees neat
appearance, visual appeal of service material, employees willingness to help,
employees knowledge, operating hours and personal attention given by
employees. These areas of service thus appear to be satisfactory with a small
room for improvement.
More than the expected number of respondents rated Disagree for knowing
exactly when a service will be performed and for employees having time to
respond to requests, thus indicating that these areas are underperforming and
need attention.
A rating of Undecided was given more often that expected for the areas of errorfree records, understanding of specific needs and employees having the
students best interests at heart. These results are all statistically significant at
p<.0005. It is thus clear that for each question regarding both expectation and
perception, there is a clear indication of how the students rate them.
30
4.7
Instrument evaluation
4.7.1 Reliability
Based on the fact that SERVQUAL has proven to be the most extensively utilized
instrument in the service quality field of study, the researcher opted to use
SERVQUAL as the basis for measuring students perception of service quality at
the Durban University of Technology.
4.7.2 Validity
The authors suggest that measuring a scales content validity is qualitative rather
than quantitative and involves examining the thoroughness with which the
construct to be scaled and its domain were explicated and the extent to which the
scale items represent the constructs domain.
31
4.8
Conclusion
32
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.1
Introduction
Chapter 5 graphically presents the data collected with the use of the SERVQUAL
instrument, which was used to investigate students perceptions of service quality
at the Durban University of Technology.
The research looked at what students perceive about the institution; it also
examined the gaps between students expectations and perceptions and
calculated and measured the score for the five SERVQUAL dimensions, namely:
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
Profiling the sample showed that 27% of respondents were from the Faculty of
Engineering, Science and Built Environment, 54% of respondents were from the
Faculty of Commerce, 11% of respondents represented the Faculty of Arts and
8% represented the Faculty of Health Sciences. The study showed that 71% of
the respondents first registered in 2006, 22% registered in 2005, 7% registered in
2004, while less than 1% of respondents registered in 2001 and 2000,
respectively.
33
The study highlighted that 71% of the respondents were in their second year of
study, 27% were in their third year of study, while 2% of respondents were
postgraduate.
5.2
The researcher used pie charts to display the respondents responses to the
expectation questions. The results were as follows:
Agree
23%
Strongly Agree
61%
Most students (83%) strongly agreed with this statement. Respondents expect
universities to have modern-looking equipment, so that staff can provide efficient
service to students. Only 5% of the respondents disagreed with the statement.
34
Agree
54%
Strongly
Agree
46%
According to the study, 46% of the respondents strongly agreed, while 54%
agreed that excellent universities should have visually appealing physical
facilities. No respondents disagreed with this statement indicating that students
expectations are very high regarding the appearance of physical facilities at a
university.
35
Uncertain
13%
Agree
28%
Strongly
Agree
59%
36
Uncertain
14%
Strongly
Agree
35%
Agree
51%
The majority of respondents (76%) agreed that materials such as brochures and
handouts, which provide information to students, must be visually appealing.
Only 14% of the respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
37
Disagree
11%
Uncertain
5%
Agree
7%
Strongly
Agree
77%
The majority of students (84%) agreed with this statement, i.e. they expect the
university to deliver services at certain times and then stick to that promise. Only
11% of respondents disagreed and did not expect staff to keep to their promises.
38
Uncertain
5%
Agree
23%
Strongly
Agree
72%
The majority of respondents (95%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to show sincere interest in solving their problems. Five percent of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
39
5.2.7 Excellent universities will perform the service right the first time.
Disagree
7%
Strongly
Agree
59%
Uncertain
17%
Agree
17%
The majority of respondents (76%) agreed with the statement that a university
must be thorough in their work and strive for quality outputs. Seventeen percent
of the respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement and 7% of
the respondents disagreed with the statement and did not expect a university to
deliver the correct service right the first time.
40
5.2.8 An excellent university will provide their services at the time they
promise to do so.
Disagree
7%
Agree
32%
Strongly
Agree
61%
The majority of respondents (93%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to meet deadlines that are set. A university is expected to act with a
sense of urgency. Seven percent of the respondents disagreed with the
statement and did not expect a university to deliver service at the time they
promise to do so.
41
Uncertain
11%
Agree
26%
Strongly
Agree
63%
The majority of respondents (89%) agreed with the statement and expects staff
to do work accurately and reduce error in records. Eleven percent of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
42
Uncertain
7%
Strongly
Agree
55%
Agree
38%
The majority of respondents (93%) agreed with the statement and expect
employees of a university to tell students exactly when a service would be
performed. Seven percent of the respondents were uncertain as to the
importance of clear communications from a university regarding service delivery.
43
Disagree
7%
Strongly
Agree
54%
Uncertain
6%
Agree
33%
The majority of respondents (87%) agreed with the statement that university staff
must give prompt service to students at all times. Six percent of the respondents
were uncertain in their response to this statement, while 7% of the respondents
disagreed and did not expect university staff to give prompt service to students.
44
Uncertain
5%
Agree
30%
Strongly
Agree
65%
The majority of respondents (95%) agreed with the statement and expect
employees at a university to be willing to help students. Five percent of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
45
Uncertain
12%
Strongly
Agree
35%
Agree
53%
The majority of the respondents (88%) agreed with the statement and expect that
university employees will never be too busy to respond to students requests.
Twelve percent of the respondents were uncertain in their response to this
statement.
46
Uncertain
5%
Strongly
Agree
38%
Agree
57%
The majority of respondents (95%) agreed with the statement that behaviour of
employees whilst performing their work should instill confidence in the students.
Five percent of the respondents were uncertain in their response to this
statement.
47
Uncertain
10%
Agree
23%
Strongly
Agree
67%
The majority of respondents (90%) agreed with the statement and expect
students to feel safe in their transactions with a university. Ten percent of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement. Safety relates to
both the physical environment and the absence of fraud at a university.
48
Disagree
6%
Uncertain
5%
Strongly
Agree
31%
Agree
58%
The majority of respondents (89%) agreed with the statement and expect
university employees to be constantly courteous with the students. Five percent
of the respondents were uncertain in their answer to this statement, while 6% of
the respondents disagreed and did not expect university staff to be constantly
courteous with them.
49
Uncertain
7%
Strongly
Agree
48%
Agree
45%
The majority of respondents (93%) agreed with the statement and expect
university employees to have the knowledge to answer students questions.
Seven percent of the respondents were uncertain in their response to this
statement.
50
Uncertain
24%
Strongly
Agree
53%
Agree
23%
The majority of respondents (86%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to give students individual attention. Twenty four percent of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
51
Disagree
11%
Uncertain
5%
Strongly
Agree
46%
Agree
38%
The majority of the respondents (84%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to have operating hours convenient to all their students. Five percent of
the respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement, while 11% of
the respondents disagreed with the statement and did not expect convenient
operating hours for all students.
52
Disagree
6%
Strongly
Agree
55%
Agree
39%
The majority of the respondents (94%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to have employees that give students personal attention. Six percent of
the respondents disagreed with the statement and do not expect a university to
employ staff that will provide individual attention.
53
5.2.21 An excellent university will have the students' best interest at heart.
Uncertain
16%
Strongly
Agree
55%
Agree
29%
The majority of the respondents (84%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to have the students best interest at heart. Sixteen percent of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
54
Uncertain
16%
Strongly
Agree
46%
Agree
38%
The majority of the respondents (84%) agreed with the statement and expect a
university to understand the specific needs of their students. Sixteen percent of
the respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement.
55
The highest expectation score on empathy was 4.44 and related to employees at
a university giving students personal attention, while the average score for this
dimension was 4.32. The average overall gap scores for each dimension was
4.39
5.4
Strongly
Agree
3%
Strongly
Disagree
14%
Agree
31%
Disagree
31%
Uncertain
21%
Based on the perception that students have of the equipment that the Durban
University of Technology uses, 34% of the respondents agreed that the
equipment was modern-looking, 21% were uncertain and 45% of the
respondents disagreed with the statement that the Durban University of
Technology has modern-looking equipment.
56
Strongly
Disagree
14%
Strongly
Agree
3%
Agree
32%
Disagree
26%
Uncertain
25%
Slightly more than a third (35%) of the respondents agreed with the statement
that the Durban University of Technology has visually appealing facilities, 25% of
the respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement; while 40% of
the respondents disagreed that the DUT has visually appealing facilities.
57
Strongly
Agree
14%
Strongly
Disagree
6%
Disagree
9%
Uncertain
21%
Agree
50%
The majority of the respondents (64%) agreed with the statement that the Durban
University of Technology has neat-appearing employees, 21% of the
respondents were uncertain in their response to this statement and 15% of the
respondents disagreed that the DUT has neat-appearing employees.
58
Strongly
Agree
9%
Strongly
Disagree
7%
Agree
40%
Disagree
16%
Uncertain
28%
Slightly less than half (49%) of the respondents agreed with the statement that
materials, such as brochures and pamphlets associated with the service at DUT,
are visually appealing. Twenty eight percent of the respondents were uncertain in
their answer to this statement and 23% of the respondents disagreed that the
DUT has visually appealing materials associated with the service.
59
Agree
12%
Strongly
Agree
5%
Strongly
Disagree
28%
Uncertain
26%
Disagree
29%
A minority of respondents (17%) agreed with the statement that the DUT delivers
on service promises timeously, 26% of the respondents were uncertain in their
response to this statement and the majority of respondents disagreed that the
DUT delivers on service promises timeously.
60
5.4.6 When you have a problem, DUT shows sincere interest in solving it.
Agree
14%
Strongly
Disagree
20%
Strongly
Agree
6%
Uncertain
29%
Disagree
31%
A minority of respondents (20%) agreed with the statement that the DUT shows
sincere interest in solving students problems, 29% of the respondents were
uncertain in their response to this statement and slightly more than half (51%)
disagreed that the DUT shows sincerity in solving students problems.
61
Agree
16%
Strongly
Agree
3%
Uncertain
30%
Strongly
Disagree
18%
Disagree
33%
A minority of respondents (19%) agreed with the statement that the DUT
performs services correctly the first time, 30% were uncertain in their response to
this statement and 51% of the respondents disagreed that services at the DUT
are performed correctly the first time and sometimes repeated effort is required in
completing the service.
62
Agree
13%
Strongly
Agree
3%
Strongly
Disagree
19%
Disagree
29%
Uncertain
36%
A minority of respondents (16%) agreed with the statement that the DUT
provides its services when promised, 36% of the respondents were uncertain in
their response to this statement, while 48% of the respondents disagreed that the
DUT provides its services at the time it promises to do so.
63
Agree
20%
Strongly
Agree
3%
Strongly
Disagree
13%
Disagree
20%
Uncertain
44%
Twenty three percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
insists on error-free records, 44% of the respondents were uncertain in their
response to this statement and 33% disagreed that the DUT insists on error-free
records.
64
5.4.10 Employees at DUT tell you exactly when services will be performed.
Strongly
Agree
10%
Strongly
Disagree
9%
Agree
28%
Disagree
33%
Uncertain
20%
Thirty eight percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
informs students exactly when services will be performed, 20% were uncertain in
their response to this statement and 42% of the respondents disagreed that the
DUT informs students exactly when services will be delivered.
65
Agree
30%
Strongly
Agree
6%
Strongly
Disagree
14%
Disagree
22%
Uncertain
28%
Slightly more than a third (36%) of the respondents agreed that the DUT gives
students prompt service, 28% of the respondents were uncertain in their
response to this statement and 36% of the respondents disagreed that staff at
the DUT give prompt service.
66
Strongly
Disagree
7%
Strongly
Agree
11%
Disagree
17%
Uncertain
19%
Agree
46%
Fifty seven percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
employees are willing to help students, 19% were uncertain in their response to
this statement; while 24% disagreed that the DUT employees are willing to help
students.
67
5.4.13 Employees at DUT are never too busy to respond to your requests.
Agree
20%
Strongly
Disagree
8%
Strongly
Agree
6%
Disagree
38%
Uncertain
28%
Twenty six percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
employees are never too busy to respond to students requests, 28% were
uncertain in their response to this statement, while 46% of the respondents
disagreed that employees are never too busy to respond to students requests.
68
Strongly
Disagree
9%
Strongly
Agree
8%
Disagree
27%
Agree
30%
Uncertain
26%
Thirty eight percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that behaviour
of the DUT employees instils confidence in students, 26% were uncertain in their
response to this statement and 36% disagreed that employees behaviour at the
DUT instils confidence in students.
69
Strongly
Agree
6%
Strongly
Disagree
17%
Agree
27%
Disagree
24%
Uncertain
26%
Thirty three percent of the respondents agreed that students feel safe in their
transactions with the DUT, 26% were uncertain in their response to this
statement, while 41% of the respondents disagreed with the statement and do
not feel safe in their transactions with the DUT.
70
Agree
27%
Strongly
Disagree
11%
Strongly
Agree
5%
Disagree
26%
Uncertain
31%
Thirty two percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
employees show courtesy to students, 31% were uncertain in their response to
this statement and 37% disagreed that employees show students courtesy.
71
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
8%
17%
Strongly
Agree
9%
Agree
39%
Uncertain
27%
Slightly less than half of the respondents (48%) agreed that the DUT employees
have the knowledge to answer their questions, 27% were uncertain in their
response to this statement and 25% disagreed that DUT employees have the
knowledge to answer their questions.
72
Strongly
Agree
9%
Strongly
Disagree
13%
Agree
24%
Disagree
27%
Uncertain
27%
Thirty three percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that DUT gives
you individual attention, 27% were uncertain in their response to this statement
and 40% of the respondents disagreed that the DUT gives personal attention
based on the large number of students on the campus.
73
Strongly
Disagree
14%
Strongly
Agree
14%
Disagree
19%
Agree
31%
Uncertain
22%
Fourty four percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that DUT has
operating hours convenient to all students, 22% were uncertain in their response
to this statement and 33% of the respondents disagreed that the operating hours
are convenient to all students.
74
Strongly
Disagree
9%
Strongly
Agree
8%
Disagree
20%
Agree
35%
Uncertain
28%
Fourty three percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that DUT has
employees who give you personal attention, 28% were uncertain in their
response to this statement and 29% disagreed that employees at the university
give students personal attention.
75
Agree
20%
Strongly
Disagree
12%
Strongly
Agree
9%
Disagree
21%
Uncertain
38%
Twenty nine percent of the respondents agreed that the DUT has students best
interests at heart, 38% were uncertain in their response to this statement and
33% disagreed that the DUT has students best interest at heart.
76
Agree
21%
Strongly
Disagree
17%
Strongly
Agree
6%
Disagree
22%
Uncertain
34%
Twenty seven percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that DUT
employees understand students specific needs, 34% were uncertain in their
response to this statement and 39% disagreed that the DUT understands the
specific needs of students.
77
The highest perception score on tangibles was 3.56 and related to the physical
appearance of staff, while the average for this dimension was 3.12. Reliability
rated 2.80, with an average score of 2.54. The highest perception score for
responsiveness was 3.36, with an average score of 3. The perception of
assurance at the DUT had a highest score of 3.22 and an average of 2.97. The
highest perception score on the empathy dimension was 3.13, with an average of
2.97. The average of overall gap scores for each dimension was 2.92.
Gap 5 is the difference between customers expectations of the service they will
receive and what they perceive they have received (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
In order to achieve this difference, an average score is calculated on a five-point
rating scale for each response to each statement. This calculation is done for all
statements in both the expectation and perception sections of the SERVQUAL
questionnaire (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Once the different scores have been
calculated, the score on each of the five dimensions can be computed, namely,
tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy (refer to
appendix 2).
The highest statement gap score for reliability (-2.16) linked to promises being
carried out on time and the smallest gap score (-1.72), related to error-free
records. The highest statement gap score for responsiveness (-1.52), related to
clear communication regarding the service, while the smallest gap score (-1.25)
linked to willingness of employees to help.
78
The highest gap score for assurance (-1.77) related to students feeling safe in
their transactions with the DUT, while the smallest gap score (-1.19) linked to the
DUT employees having the knowledge to answer students questions.
The highest gap score for empathy (-1.53) related to the DUT employees
understanding the specific needs of the students, while the smallest gap score
for this dimension (-1.06) linked to convenient operating hours for all DUT
students.
Question
Expectation
Mean
Perception
Mean
GAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4.41
4.46
4.47
4.21
4.50
4.68
4.28
4.47
4.51
4.48
4.35
4.61
4.23
4.33
4.56
4.16
4.41
4.29
4.19
4.44
4.39
4.30
2.78
2.86
3.56
3.29
2.34
2.55
2.53
2.51
2.80
2.97
2.91
3.36
2.76
2.98
2.80
2.89
3.22
2.89
3.13
3.11
2.93
2.78
-1.63
-1.60
-0.91
-0.92
-2.16
-2.13
-1.75
-1.96
-1.72
-1.52
-1.44
-1.25
-1.47
-1.35
-1.77
-1.27
-1.19
-1.40
-1.06
-1.33
-1.47
-1.53
79
Dimension
Score
Dimension
-1.26
Tangibles
-1.94
Reliability
-1.42
Responsiveness
-1.39
Assurance
-1.36
Empathy
5.7
Research Discussions
Expectations are formed before purchasing the service (Muddie and Cottam,
1999). Mc Coll et al. (1996) suggest that customers expectations form an
important element of quality; Parasuraman et al. (1988) reinforce this point by
stating that companies need to be aware of customers expectations and strive to
meet or exceed them.
Expectations of tangibles
Most students (83%) strongly agreed that universities have to have modernlooking equipment, so that staff can provide efficient service to students.
Students expectations are very high regarding the appearance of physical
facilities at a university. Most respondents (87%) expect employees at
universities to appear neatly dressed.
80
The majority of respondents (76%) agreed that materials such as brochures and
handouts, which provide information to students, must be visually appealing.
Students look at tangibles as quality indicators of the service quality at a
university.
Expectations of reliability
Expectation of responsiveness
University staff are expected to help students. Responsiveness was rated the
highest statement gap score (4.61) in relation to university staff willing to help
their students. Responsiveness refers to the willingness displayed when helping
a customer. To meet expectations of customers, staff should make provision for
timely services (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Expectations of assurance
81
Trust and confidence may be expected to be embodied in the person who links
the customer to the company (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Expectations of empathy
The highest expectation score for empathy was rated for students expecting
personal attention from university staff. Universities deal with a large student
base making it especially difficult to offer students individual attention. Staff must
understand the students needs and be willing to meet their requirements
efficiently. The majority of the respondents (94%) agreed that a university should
have employees that are able to give students personal attention.
Empathy implies that employees will pay attention, listen, adapt and be flexible in
delivering what individual customers need (Ziethaml et al., 2003).
The majority of respondents felt that a university should have operating hours
convenient to all students; universities should have students best interest at
heart and understand students specific needs.
82
Perception of tangibles
The appearance of the DUT staff was rated the highest perception score (3.56)
on the tangible dimension. Staff image portrays the image of the DUT. Staff has
to be well groomed and professional. The majority of the respondents (64%)
agreed that staff at the Durban University of Technology are neat-appearing.
The physical environment, along with the goods, can be seen as a tangible
element (Palmer, 2001). The design of the external and internal building can be
used by customers to compare the quality of service from one institution to
another (Palmer, 2001). Only 34% of the respondents agreed that equipment at
the DUT was modern-looking.
83
Perception of reliability
The highest perception score for reliability (2.80) was that the DUT insists on
error-free records. Only 23% of the respondents agreed that the DUT insists on
error-free records. A minority of respondents (17%) agreed with the statement
that the DUT delivers on service promises timeously, while 57% of respondents
disagreed with the statement, creating cause for concern on the reliability
dimension for the DUT.
A minority of respondents (20%) agreed that the DUT shows sincere interest in
solving students problems, and slightly more than half (51%) disagreed with the
statement, creating another area of concern that needs to be addressed by the
DUT.
Accuracy means that staff must actively attempt to do things correctly the first
time, as mistakes cost time and money (Dorian, 1996). A minority of respondents
(19%) agreed that the DUT performs services correctly the first time, while 51%
of the respondents disagreed that services at the DUT are performed correctly
the first time and sometimes repeated effort was required in completing the
service.
Perception of responsiveness
The highest statement score for responsiveness was that DUT has willing
employees to help students. Responsiveness is the willingness to help
customers and to provide prompt service (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Promptness also captures the notion of flexibility and the ability to customize the
service to customer needs. Slightly more than a third (36%) of the respondents
agreed that the DUT gives students prompt service, while 36% of respondents
disagreed that they receive prompt service from the DUT. Changing students
perception in this area may involve staff training and a focus on efficiency.
84
Thirty eight percent of the respondents agreed that the DUT informs students
exactly when services will be performed, while 42% of the respondents disagreed
with this statement. Communication skills and feedback systems may need
assessment, and if any weak areas exist, improvements should be implemented.
Staff shows willingness and prompt service when interacting with customers
(Jude, 1998). Fifty seven percent of the respondents agreed with the statement
that the DUT employees are willing to help students, while 24% disagreed with
the statement. Customer service programs for all staff dealing with students may
ultimately improve students perception in this area.
Twenty six percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
employees are never too busy to respond to students requests, while 46% of
respondents disagreed. Considering the size of the student base at DUT, this is
not an easy task and staff resources can only deal with a definite number of
student issues at any one particular time.
Perception of assurance
The highest perception score on assurance (3.22) related to the DUT employees
having the knowledge to answer students questions. Slightly less than half of the
respondents (48%) agreed that DUT employees have the knowledge to answer
their questions, while 25% disagreed. Correct recruitment and training are areas
that may need assessment in order to insure correct job-fit and proficiency in
dealing with students.
Assurance is the ability of the company and its employees to inspire trust and
confidence in what they do (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Staff should be sincere
and trustworthy, in order to build long-lasting relationships with their customers
(Canning, 1999). Thirty eight percent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that behaviour of the DUT employees instils confidence in students,
while 36% of the respondents disagreed.
85
Thirty two percent of the respondents agreed that the DUT employees show
courtesy to students, while 37% disagreed. Staff must make customers feel
important at all times (Jude, 1998).
Perception of empathy
The highest perception score (3.11) on the empathy dimension was that the DUT
has operating hours convenient to all students. Fourty four percent of the
respondents were satisfied with the operating hours, while 33% of the
respondents felt that more flexibility in operating hours was needed.
Thirty three of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT gives you
individual attention, while 40% of the respondents disagreed and felt more
individual attention is necessary from the institution.
Fourty three percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that the DUT
has employees that give you personal attention, while 29% disagreed that
employees at the university give students personal attention, linking back to the
sheer size and number of the student base.
Empathy implies that employees will pay attention, listen, adapt and be flexible in
delivering what individual customers need (Ziethaml et al., 2003). Twenty nine
percent of the respondents agreed that the DUT has the students best interests
at heart, while 27% agreed that the DUT employees understand students
specific needs.
The dimension of empathy is difficult to evaluate when the DUT staff have vast
numbers of students to deal with and deliver individual attention. Time and
resource constraints could hamper any large university delivering exceptional
service in this area. Private universities that have smaller classes may be able to
perform well in this dimension.
86
Objective 3 dealt with the overall gap scores of students expectations and
perceptions using the SERVQUAL instrument (refer to figure 5.46). The smallest
statement gap score (-0.91) for the tangibility dimension was that the DUT has
visually appealing physical facilities. The largest statement gap score for
tangibility (-1.63) related to the modern-looking equipment at DUT, which means
that students feel that the equipment looks out dated and should be replaced.
Q2
Q3
Tangibles
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Questions
Expectation
Perception
The smallest statement gap score (-1.72) for the reliability dimension was that
the DUT insists on error-free records. The largest statement gap score (-2.16)
was that the DUT carries out promises on time, which indicated the area of most
concern amongst the respondents.
The smallest statement gap score (-1.25) for the responsiveness dimension was
that the DUT has willing employees to help students, while the largest statement
gap score (-1.52) for responsiveness related to the DUT giving clear
communications regarding service delivery.
87
The smallest statement gap score (-1.19) for assurance, was that the DUT
employees have the knowledge to answer students questions. The largest
statement gap score (-1.77) for the assurance dimension related to the DUT
students feeling safe in their transactions with institutions.
The smallest statement gap score (-1.06) for the empathy dimension related to
the DUT having convenient hours for all students, while the largest gap score
(-1.53) highlighted the fact that students do not feel that the DUT employees
understand their specific needs.
Tangibility
When comparing students expected and perceived beliefs of the quality of the
service that is offered to them, it is evident that the gap does not appear to be
large, relative to the other dimensions. Tangibility was rated the best dimension,
at -1.26 (refer to figure 5.47 and figure 5.45).
88
Average rating
5
4
3
2
1
pa
th
y
Em
As
su
ra
nc
e
ty
R
es
po
ns
iv
en
es
s
el
ia
bi
li
R
Ta
ng
i
bl
es
Dim ension
Expectation
Perception
The lowest expectation on tangibles (4.21) relates to the DUT having visually
appealing service materials, such as brochures, pamphlets and handouts, while
the lowest perception score on tangibles was 2.78, which related to modernlooking equipment.
Although the results point to a shortfall in terms of what students expect from
tangibles at universities and what they actually receive, there is ample
opportunity for changing students perceptions regarding the appearance of
equipment at the DUT.
Reliability
Reliability was rated the worst dimension with a score of -1.94 (refer to figure
5.47 and figure 5.45). Excellent universities must show sincere interest in solving
students problems. This score was rated highest (4.68) for expectations, while
the same perception score of the DUT was rated at 2.55.
89
The lowest expectation score for reliability was 4.28, and related to a university
performing the service right the first time, while the lowest perception score for
the reliability dimension (2.51), related to the DUT providing its services when
promised.
Canning (1999) suggests that reliability is based on the ability of staff to provide
what they promise. The company must go to great lengths to close the gap
between the performance of their services and what customers expect (Dorian,
1996),
Ziethaml et al. (2003) suggest that a common fault that can be attributed to most
companies is over promising. This fault occurs when a service company makes
promises they cannot keep. Companies have to keep to their promises and do
things in a definite time period and staff must perform the service right the first
time. It is suggested that the DUT management and staff focus on reliability as a
matter of priority.
Responsiveness
In this study, responsiveness rated the second worst dimension with a score of
-1.42, when comparing expectations and perceptions. The highest score for
expectations was 4.61, and related to willing university employees helping
students, while the highest score for perception was 3.36 and related to the DUT
having willing employees to help students. The lowest score for expectation was
4.23, and related to university employees being never too busy to respond to
students requests, while the lowest perception score (2.76) occurred on the
same statement.
90
Assurance
Assurance rated the third worst service quality dimension (-1.39) when
comparing the difference between expectations and perceptions of students at
the DUT. The highest expectation score of 4.56 related to students feeling safe in
their transactions with a university, compared to the highest score (3.22) for
perceptions which referred to DUT employees having the knowledge to answer
students questions. The lowest expectation score (4.16) related to university
staff showing courtesy to students, while the lowest perception score (2.80) for
the assurance dimension referred to students feeling safe in their transactions
with the DUT.
Empathy
Empathy can be defined as having good communication with people and being
able to understand their needs (Mc Coll et al., 1996).
The results show that empathy rated fourth worst (-1.36) in terms of dimensional
scores. The highest score for expectation was 4.44 and related to university
employees that give students personal attention, while the highest perception
score was 3.13 and related to the DUT having convenient operating hours for all
students. The highest gap score for empathy was (-1.53) and related to university
employees understanding the specific needs of students.
91
5.8 Conclusion
The results have indicated that the majority of respondents expect a university to
deliver service that will exceed their expectations. The respondents rated
reliability the highest, followed by responsiveness, assurance, empathy and,
lastly, tangibles was rated the least important expectation according to the
respondents. The results have shown that students perception of service quality
at the Durban University of Technology falls below their expectations, presenting
a great challenge to the DUT, especially in such areas as reliability and
responsiveness.
92
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Introduction
Chapter 6 deals with the conclusions of the study and recommends what future
research can be done to improve the quality of service that the Durban University
of Technology offers its students. The following conclusions have emerged from
the study:
6.2 Conclusions
The results have shown that students expectations about the service they
receive from universities exceed their perceptions. These results present
challenges to the staff and management at the DUT as the institution is expected
to offer their students excellent service at all times. Excellent service can happen
if management and staff employ teamwork, communicate well and share ideas
on improving service quality, which will result in improving students satisfaction.
The service quality dimensions that showed the largest gaps proved to be
reliability and responsiveness. Management and staff need to focus their
attention on these dimensions so that they can increase the service quality that
they offer their students, thereby meeting or exceeding student expectations.
6.3 Recommendations
The gaps mean that the DUT should be willing to affect changes that would meet
or exceed the expectations of students. According to Mudie & Cottam (1999),
expectations are formed before purchasing the service and Mc Coll et al. (1996)
highlight the importance of expectations, by stating that expectations form an
important element in service quality.
The gap between managements understanding of customers expectations and
the translation of these expectations into service quality depends on a number of
93
The DUT should ensure that enough resources are allocated to tangibles at the
institution. Tangibles are defined as the appearance of physical facilities,
equipment, personnel and communication materials such as brochures and
handouts. Tangibles provide physical representations or images of the service
that customers will use to evaluate quality (Ziethaml et al., 2003).
Although tangibles was the best performing dimension at the DUT, with a gap
score of -1.26, the highest gap scores for the tangible dimension related to
equipment, and the appearance of physical facilities at the institution. It is
recommended that management focus attention and resources on the purchase
of new equipment and ensure that the facilities that students utilize are well
maintained and visually-appealing.
The empathy dimension rated second best with a gap score of -1.36. Empathy is
defined as the caring, individualized attention the organization provides its
customers (Ziethaml et al., 2003). Empathy is a difficult dimension to fulfil,
especially in a service organization like the DUT that has a large student
enrolment, proving very difficult to offer students individual attention. The highest
gap scores in this dimension were the DUT having students best interest at heart
as well as the institution understanding the specific needs of students.
94
Assurance proved the third best performing dimension in this study with a gap
score of -1.39. Assurance is defined as employees knowledge and courtesy and
the ability of the organization to inspire trust and confidence (Ziethaml et al.,
2003). The role attached to any position in an organization represents a set of
behaviours and activities to be performed by the person occupying that position
(Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Parasuraman et al. (1988) highlight the issue of perceived control and the
assurance dimension. If university staff do not have the authority to solve student
problems and are forced to deal with multiple layers of management before
student issues are resolved, perceived assurance as a quality dimension for
students may prove to be negative. Parasuraman et al. (1988) recommend
teamwork as a solution. Management and staff at DUT need to view servicing
students as a team effort and a good support service for all student-contact
personnel needs to be in place.
95
Students also need to consider the number of students that DUT employees
have to deal with and how this number impacts on responsiveness. The fact that
the DUT is a public tertiary institution, that has a large student base impacts on
the response time as university staff can only handle a certain number of student
issues at once. Individual attention for students at a university of this size is
almost impossible and very difficult to accommodate.
96
97
Bibliography
98
99
Tan, K.C. & Sei, W.K. (2004). Service Quality in Higher Education using an
enhanced SERVQUAL Approach, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.
17-24.
Walker-Garvin, A. (2003). Unsatisfactory Satisfaction: Student feedback and
closing the loop. Quality Promotion and Assurance. University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Wisniewski, M. and Donnelly, M. (1996). Measuring service quality in the public
sector: the potential for SERVQUAL, Total Quality Management, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp. 357-365.
Welman, J.C. & Kruger, S.J. (2003). Research Methodology. 2nd Edition. Cape
Town: Oxford University Press.
Wikipedia (2007). Customer. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer
[Accesssed 10 June 2007]
Williams, J. (2002). Student satisfaction: a British model of effective use of
student feedback in quality assurance and enhancement. Paper presented at the
14th International Conference on assessment and Quality in Higher Education.
Vienna, 24-27 July.
Zeithaml, V.A & Bitner M.J. (2003). Services Marketing: Integrating customer
focus across the firm. 3rd Edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
100
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Acknowledgement of Consent
The answers you will provide in the questionnaire will be for research purposes
only. Participation is completely voluntary and you may decide to withdraw from
the study at any time.
As a willing participant in this research can you please sign and date your
consent.
SignatureDate
101
Please provide the following information regarding your studies at the Durban
University of Technology:
FACULTY
YEAR OF FIRST REGISTRATION
CURRENT YEAR OF STUDY
1
2
3
4
5
RATINGS
STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE
UNCERTAIN
AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
102
EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONAIRE
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly Agree
Employees at an excellent
university will be neatappearing.
10
Employees in excellent
universities will tell
students exactly when
services will be performed.
11
Employees in excellent
universities will give
prompt service to students.
103
EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONAIRE
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly Agree
12
Employees in excellent
universities will always be
willing to help students.
13
Employees in excellent
universities will never be to
busy to respond to students'
requests.
14
15
Students of excellent
universities will feel safe in
their transactions.
16
Employees at excellent
universities will be constantly
courteous with students.
17
Employees at excellent
universities will have the
knowledge to answer
students' questions.
18
19
20
21
22
104
1
2
3
4
5
RATINGS
STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE
UNCERTAIN
AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
105
PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONAIRE
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
10
11
106
PERCEPTIONS QUESTIONAIRE
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
12
13
14
The behaviour of
employees at DUT
instills confidence in you.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Employees at DUT
understand your specific
needs.
107
Question
Expectation Mean
Perception Mean
GAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4.41
4.46
4.47
4.21
4.50
4.68
4.28
4.47
4.51
4.48
4.35
4.61
4.23
4.33
4.56
4.16
4.41
4.29
4.19
4.44
4.39
4.30
2.78
2.86
3.56
3.29
2.34
2.55
2.53
2.51
2.80
2.97
2.91
3.36
2.76
2.98
2.80
2.89
3.22
2.89
3.13
3.11
2.93
2.78
-1.63
-1.60
-0.91
-0.92
-2.16
-2.13
-1.75
-1.96
-1.72
-1.52
-1.44
-1.25
-1.47
-1.35
-1.77
-1.27
-1.19
-1.40
-1.06
-1.33
-1.47
-1.53
108
Exp1
Exp2
Exp3
Exp4
Exp5
Exp6
Exp7
Exp8
Exp9
Exp10
Exp11
Exp12
Exp13
Exp14
Exp15
Exp16
Exp17
Exp18
Exp19
Exp20
Exp21
Exp22
Per1
Per2
Per3
Per4
Per5
Per6
Per7
Per8
Per9
Per10
Per11
Per12
Per13
Per14
Per15
Per16
Per17
Per18
Per19
Per20
Per21
Per22
Mean
Median
Mode
Std.
Deviation
Variance
4.409
4.462
4.466
4.208
4.496
4.682
4.280
4.473
4.511
4.485
4.348
4.610
4.235
4.333
4.564
4.155
4.409
4.292
4.186
4.443
4.394
4.303
2.777
2.864
3.561
3.292
2.341
2.553
2.527
2.511
2.795
2.970
2.905
3.364
2.761
2.985
2.799
2.886
3.223
2.890
3.125
3.114
2.928
2.777
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
0.863
0.500
0.708
0.669
1.013
0.556
0.977
0.813
0.692
0.623
0.868
0.575
0.645
0.561
0.672
0.752
0.622
0.829
0.963
0.768
0.748
0.729
1.110
1.119
1.034
1.058
1.146
1.139
1.053
1.039
1.011
1.176
1.155
1.101
1.039
1.120
1.177
1.062
1.103
1.179
1.271
1.104
1.116
1.137
0.745
0.250
0.501
0.447
1.027
0.309
0.955
0.661
0.479
0.388
0.753
0.330
0.416
0.314
0.452
0.565
0.387
0.686
0.927
0.590
0.559
0.531
1.231
1.251
1.069
1.120
1.313
1.298
1.110
1.080
1.023
1.383
1.333
1.213
1.080
1.255
1.385
1.128
1.216
1.391
1.615
1.219
1.246
1.292
109
Paired Differences
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
df
Sig.
(2tailed)
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pair 1
Expect modern-looking
equipment - DUT has modernlooking equipment
1.63
1.361
0.084
1.47
1.8
19.486
263
Pair 2
1.6
1.217
0.075
1.45
1.75
21.344
263
Pair 3
Expect neat-appearing
employees - DUT has neatappearing employees
0.91
1.209
0.074
0.76
1.05
12.163
263
Pair 4
0.92
1.209
0.074
0.77
1.06
12.323
263
Pair 5
2.16
1.58
0.097
1.96
2.35
22.163
263
Pair 6
2.13
1.29
0.079
1.97
2.29
26.814
263
Pair 7
1.75
1.458
0.09
1.58
1.93
19.546
263
Pair 8
1.96
1.308
0.08
1.8
2.12
24.383
263
Pair 9
1.72
1.284
0.079
1.56
1.87
21.711
263
Pair
10
1.52
1.322
0.081
1.35
1.68
18.616
263
Pair
11
1.44
1.458
0.09
1.27
1.62
16.082
263
110
Mean
Paired Differences
Std.
95% Confidence
Error
Interval of the
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Difference
Lower
Upper
df
Sig.
(2tailed)
Pair
12
1.25
1.235
0.076
1.1
1.4
16.398
263
Pair
13
1.47
1.189
0.073
1.33
1.62
20.135
263
Pair
14
Expect behaviour of
employees to instill confidence
in students - The behaviour of
DUT employees instills
confidence in students
1.35
1.215
0.075
1.2
1.5
18.04
263
Pair
15
1.77
1.316
0.081
1.61
1.92
21.794
263
Pair
16
1.27
1.279
0.079
1.11
1.42
16.126
263
Pair
17
1.19
1.251
0.077
1.03
1.34
15.393
263
Pair
18
1.4
1.416
0.087
1.23
1.57
16.08
263
Pair
19
1.06
1.588
0.098
0.87
1.25
10.853
263
Pair
20
1.33
1.279
0.079
1.17
1.48
16.888
263
Pair
21
1.47
1.328
0.082
1.3
1.63
17.938
263
Pair
22
1.53
1.311
0.081
1.37
1.69
18.923
263
111
Question
Exp1
Exp2
Exp3
Exp4
Exp5
Exp6
Exp7
Exp8
Exp9
Exp10
Exp11
Exp12
Exp13
Exp14
Exp15
Exp16
Exp17
Exp18
Exp19
Exp20
Exp21
Exp22
Per1
Per2
Per3
Per4
Per5
Per6
Per7
Per8
Per9
Per10
Per11
Per12
Per13
Per14
Per15
Per16
Per17
Per18
Per19
Per20
Per21
Per22
Asymp. sig
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
<.0005
Occurred
significantly more
than expected
Occurred
significantly less
than expected
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree
Undecided
Undecided
112