MASTERS THESIS IN SERVICE MANAGEMENT

The effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring

service quality and the impact of technology on

customer satisfaction

Prepared by:

Kungaba Cedric Pefok

Mikhailov Andrey

Supervisor:

Dr.Per Skalen

Service Research Center (CTF)

Hand in Date: 24 May 2010

1

Abstract

Service quality and customer satisfaction is becoming increasingly important in today‟s

business environment which is characterised by fierce competition between the service

providers. In this regard it is very imperative that companies assess themselves by measuring

service quality. Consequently, areas of the service with low service quality would be

identified and improved. Therefore, this thesis focuses on the effectiveness of SERVQUAL in

measuring service quality and reveals the positive impact technology has on customer

satisfaction in public transportation. To do this, we developed a questionnaire within the

framework of the SERVQUAL dimensions of reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy

and tangible. With a scale of 1 to 7, respondents of our questionnaire who are users and

customers of the public bus companies; Karlstad city bus which we labelled business level

1(B1) and intercity buses like Swebus and Värmland Trafik which we labelled business level

2 (B2) were able to evaluate the service quality of these companies by grading them. Based on

the results of our research in which we asked respondents to mention some of the areas of the

service process in which they had encountered unfavourable service experiences, we were

able to determine the areas of the service process from which the customer complaints came

from. We compared these results with the customer complaints received by the management

of the public Bus Company and noticed that they were similar. Majority emerged from areas

of the service process whereby the customer came in contact with the employees or the

service failure could be directly associated with the employee. After comparing these

complaints with the results of questions in our questionnaire developed within the framework

of the SERVQUAL dimensions, we noticed that those questions with larger GAP 5 implying

lower service quality were actually a reflection of the areas of the service process from which

customer complaints came from. In this regard, we were able to conclude that SERVQUAL

was effective in measuring the service quality in public transportation. In addition, we ranked

the questions in the questionnaire and noticed that those areas of the service process whereby

the employees and the customers interact (come in contact) or whose service failure can be

directly associated with an employee had low grades and ranked below the mean and median

of all the questions in the various dimensions, whereas those areas of the service process

where technology is used or customers had the opportunity to make use of Self Service

Technology ranked above the mean and median. This was a clear indication that technology is

a service quality driver and positively impacted customer satisfaction in public transportation.

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Theoretical backgrounds ......................................................................................................... 9

2.1 What is Service Quality? .................................................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Services and service quality in Public transportation .............................................. 10 2.1.2 Customer expectation and Perceived service value ................................................ 12

2.1.2.1 What is customer expectation? ............................................................................. 12 2.1.2.1 What is perceived service value? ......................................................................... 12

2.2 SERVQUAL and Service Quality .................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 The Strength of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality ................................... 16 2.2.2 The limitations of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality ................................ 18

2.3 Technology and Customer Satisfaction .......................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Self-Service Technology (SST) .............................................................................. 19

2.3.1.1 Types of Self-Service Technology ....................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Customer Readiness (CR) and Technology Readiness (TR) .................................. 22 2.3.3 Customer Value (CV) and Technology ................................................................... 23 2.3.3.1 Factors that make technology increase customer satisfaction in services (Public

Transportation) ................................................................................................................. 24 2.3.3.2 When something goes wrong – Attribution of blame while using SSTs ............. 26

2.4 Quality drivers in services and how technology could enhance the effectiveness and

efficiency of quality drivers ................................................................................................. 27 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 30

3.1 The Companies (City buses: Karlstad City Bus and Intercity buses: Swebus, Värmland

Trafik). .................................................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Data Collection (Questionnaire, sample size and data description) ............................... 34 3.2.1 Questionnaire design ............................................................................................... 34 3.2.1.1 Section 1: SERVQUAL Dimensions ................................................................... 34

3.2.1.2 Section 2 - Complaint Behaviour and Real Incident Question ............................ 39 3.2.2 Sample Size, sampling method and description of data set .................................... 40

3.2.2.1 Sample size ........................................................................................................... 40 3.2.2.2 Sampling Method and interviews ......................................................................... 41

3.2.2.3 Description of sample (Data set) .......................................................................... 42 3.3 Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 43

4 Results ................................................................................................................................... 45

4.1 Step 1: Results of questions data from section 1 of the questionnaire ........................... 45 4.1.1 Means according to the five dimensions ................................................................. 45

4.1.2 Raking at industry level ........................................................................................... 46 4.2 Step 2: Results of customer complaints from our survey and that received by the

management of SWEBUS. ................................................................................................... 54 4.3 Step 3: Comparison of results in step1 and step 2 to answer research questions ........... 57

4.3.1 Is SERVQUAL effective in measuring service quality? ......................................... 57 4.3.1.1 The perspective of the SERVQUAL dimensions at industry level and business

level .................................................................................................................................. 57

4.3.1.2 The ranking of the questions in section 1 at industry level and the comparison

with the complaints results ............................................................................................... 60 4.3.1.3 The effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality while taking into

consideration the impact of differences in service characteristics ................................... 64 4.3.2 Does the use of technology increase customer satisfaction in public transportation?

.......................................................................................................................................... 66

3

4.3.2.1 Ranking of the questions relating to technology at industry level ....................... 66

5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 71 5.1 What are the implications of the results and what can we learn from this research? ..... 71 5.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................................. 75

5.1.1 SERVQUAL ............................................................................................................ 75 5.1.2 Technology .............................................................................................................. 76

6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 77 6.1 Effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality ......................................... 78 6.2 The impact of technology on customer satisfaction ....................................................... 79

6.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 80 References ................................................................................................................................ 81

Appendix I ……………………………………………………………………………………95

4

1 Introduction

SERVQUAL is a 22-item instrument that includes the five service dimensions of tangibles,

reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1991)

postulated that the SERVQUAL items represented “core evaluation criteria that transcend

specific companies and industries, providing a basic skeleton underlying service quality that

can be supplemented with context-specific items when necessary”(Masood et al, 2003;2004,

p.819). SERVQUAL has emerged as perhaps the most popular standardized questionnaire to

measure service quality (Frost and Kumar, 2001, p. 372). It has been widely used in many

research studies to measure service quality in various sectors of the service industry including

the public transportation industry like the Airline (Fick and Ritchie, 1991; Young et al., 1994;

Frost and Kumar, 2001) and also transportation and shipping (Frost and Kumar, 2001; Sultan

and Merlin, 2000; Durvasula et al., 1999). According to Cavana, Corbett & Lo (2005), Badri,

Abdulla & Al-Madani (2004), it has been tested and used by many researchers in the field of

service quality in various research settings apart from transportation like Care hospital

(Bowers et al., 1994; Carman, 1990; Lam,1997), Bank (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Llosa et al.,

1998; Parasuraman et al., 1988,1991b), Hotel (Fick and Ritchie, 1991), restaurant (Fick and

Ritchie, 1991), Education (Oldfield and Baron, 2000; Kwan and Ng, 1999; Ekinci and Riley,

1999); Public services (Wisniewski, 2001; Brysland and Curry, 2001; Carman, 1990; Orwig

et al., 1997); Professional services (Hoxley, 2000; Philip and Hazlett, 2001; Bojanic, 1991);

Retailing (Mehta et al., 2000; Finn and Lamb, 1991); Catering (Johns and Tyas, 1996). Bruhn

& Georgi (2006) also acknowledge that SERVQUAL is the most accepted approach to

measure service quality. In addition, the GAP model has already gone through a complete

building process since 1985 and it has been fully tested afterwards. Many other researchers

have used the SERVQUAL dimensions as the basis for their research, and consequently

SERVQUAL “has undoubtedly had a major impact on the business and academic

communities” (Buttle, 1996, p. 24), and has been said to be “insightful and [to remain] a

practical framework to use in service quality management” (Christopher et al. 2002, p. 177).

Therefore, based on this argument, it is clear that SERVQUAL is an instrument that could be

used to fulfil the purpose of measuring perceived service quality from the customer‟s

perspective in this industry. The developers of SERVQUAL contend that the scale using the

expectation and performance gaps method is a much richer and effective approach to

measuring service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988, 1994). They point out that service

quality is a multidimensional rather than a uni-dimensional construct. In this regard, we

believe that the scales make it possible to measure every individual‟s perception of service

5

quality taking part in a survey, thus enabling the survey to capture and measure service

quality as perceived by a wide range of people. We also believe that it is only by so doing that

a survey can best capture the cultural, personality traits and other factors that may influence

customers‟ perception of quality. Remember, the view of every single customer counts,

especially if a service has to be improved and also when developing a service recovery plan.

In addition, the scaling method is responsive to the notion that service quality is a

multidimensional rather than a one-dimensional construct. In addition, service quality cannot

be viewed only from one item. It is a combination of several aspects as perceived by the

customer based on his or her experiences and knowledge and all these aspects go a long-way

to influence their expectations. So a gap between these expectations and current service

performance is a more appropriate way to read the minds of customers as well as their

emotional feelings towards a service. Remember, emotions also influence our perception of

quality and therefore measuring service quality from a broad base is the best way and we

think that SERVQUAL is the most appropriate instrument that can effectively „capture‟ these

aspects. This brings us to the first research question of our thesis which is as follows:-

Is SERVQUAL effective in measuring service quality in public transportation?

The improvement of information technology has inevitably led to the replacement of

conventional face-to-face services with innovative self-service technologies (SST), such as

digital bus tickets, on-line GPS schedule of bus lines, etc (Hensmans et al., 2001; Waite,

2006). According to the theory of service dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) the

application of self-service technologies (SST) with an idea of customers serving themselves

through technology-based systems are also applied in public transportation companies. In

recent years the importance of technology received recognition as being of critical importance

in the process of service delivery (Bitner, Brown, and Meuter 2000; Dabholkar 1994, 1996;

Parasuraman 1996; Quinn 1996). It is also suggested that the traditional marketplace

interaction is being replaced by a market space transaction (Rayport and Sviokla 1994, 1995).

The market space is defined as “a virtual realm where products and services exist as digital

information and can be delivered through information based channels” (Rayport and Sviokla

1995, p. 14). Self-service technologies are a classic example of market space transactions in

which no interpersonal contact is required between customer and service provider. SST allows

customers to complete entire services (service process) on their own without direct assistance

from employees (Bitner et al., 2002) and that is achieved with advanced technological

6

systems that access digital information (Lee and Allaway, 2002; Meuter et al., 2000). A self-

service model suggested by Globerson and Maggard (1991) is meant to predict customer

acceptance of SST based on seven factors: convenience, time saved, self-control, money

saved, self-image, risk, and self-fulfillment. Meuter et al. (2000) reported that the level of

customer satisfaction with technology-based services depend on its ease of use, ability to

avoid interference from employees, time savings, convenience, and financial savings, with the

most important factors affecting the adoption of SST being: ease of use and time savings. The

technology acceptance model (TAM) identifies two factors of major importance: ease of use

and usefulness as criteria that influence customers‟ acceptance of new technology (Davis,

1989; Davis et al., 1989). Dabholkar (1996) had further developed this model, proposing an

attribute-based model of SST consisting of five factors: speed of delivery, ease of use,

reliability, enjoyment, and control; the feeling of “self-control” makes is easier of customers

to accept new technology (Globerson and Maggard, 1991; Lee and Allaway, 2002). The

involvement of technology in the bus services enables customers to book, buy, and exchange

tickets without any direct interaction with the employees. In addition, recent studies capture a

rapid growth in Internet-based transactions (Hof 1999). The positive impact of technology on

customer satisfaction is a reality because self service technology has provided a „platform‟ for

customers to become co-producers of services, thus creating value from the customers‟

perspective. The potential customer has a choice: engage in self-service, (for example, do it

yourself activity) or go to the marketplace. To be successful at self-service, the entity must

have sufficient physical and mental skills and/or the appliances (embedded with knowledge)

to make self-service possible (Lusch and Vargo, 2004). Customers are also co-creators and

can contribute enormously towards value creation and cost reduction. The perceived cost

advantage of a service has a positive impact on a relationship value and overall perceived

service quality. The role of customers as co-creators and co-producers of value in services

gives the opportunity for cost reduction which reduces operational cost and strengthens bonds.

For example, some services provide the opportunity for customers to serve themselves, thus

reducing cost of operation which is then passed on to customers through lower prices. Hence,

this significantly increases customer perceived value. According to Bruhn and Georgi, (2006,

p.444) “Customers attribute a value to a service used according to the benefits (for example,

perceived service quality) and the cost (e.g price paid) they perceive in the context of using

the service.” Monroe (1991) claims that many customers value cost reductions more than

benefits when assessing value. The pursuit of operational cost savings is one of the primary

goals of relationship building in industrial settings or service processes (Cannon and

7

Homburg, 2001; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006; Woodruff, 1997). Lusch and Vargo (2004, p.11)

supported the views of Gummesson and Gronroos by stating that the “enterprise can only

offer value propositions; the consumer must determine value and participate in creating it

through the process of co-production.” “Interactivity, integration, customization and co-

production are the hallmarks of a service-centred view and its inherent focus on the customer

and the relationship”(Lusch and Vargo, 2004, p.11). Value potential is best translatable to

specific needs through co-production (Lusch and Vargo, 2004). A service-centred dominant

logic implies that value is defined by and co-created with the consumer rather than embedded

in output (Lusch and Vargo, p.6) and this being consumer oriented, dialogue and collaborate

with them, learn from customers and adapt to their individual and dynamic needs. Normann

and Ramirez (1993, p.69) state that “the key to creating value is to co-produce offerings that

mobilize customers.” In addition, “the customer is a co-producer of service. The customer is

primarily an operant resource, only functioning occasionally as an operand resource” (Lusch

and Vargo, 2004, p.7). In this regard, Self Service Technology (SST) can significantly

contribute to customer satisfaction through financial savings, speedy service delivery, ease of

usage of service, increases self-control as customers avoid service personnel, flexibility and

convenience (accessibility). Therefore, this brings us to the second research question of this

thesis which is as follows:-

Does technology have a positive impact on customer satisfaction in public

transportation?

To be able to determine whether SERVQUAL is effective in measuring service quality in

public transportation as well as confirm whether technology increases customer satisfaction in

public transportation, we developed a questionnaire within the framework of the SERVQUAL

dimensions of reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangible. With a scale of 1

to 7, with 1 indicating very bad and 7 indicating excellent, a total of 607 respondents

participated in this survey by grading the questions in our questionnaire. These respondents

were users and customers of the public bus companies; Karlstad city bus which we labelled

business level 1 (B1) and intercity buses like Swebus and Värmland Trafik which we labelled

business level 2 (B2). Based on the scale, we were able to determine the level of perceived

service performance of the bus companies and then used these measurements to determine the

Gaps in each area of the service. The difference between the service performance (perceived

service quality) and the highest possible rating a customer could rate a service (Customers‟

8

expectation) was the amount of quality improvements the customer still expects from the

company on that particular area of service. Business level 1 and 2 provided the results of

service quality as perceived by the customers at the firm or business level. We then

determined a mean result which was based on the average of the evaluation of both companies

(business level 1 and 2) for each question and established this as the result at industry level.

We ranked the questions according to the size of their GAP 5 (difference between actual

service performance and customer‟s expectation) at industry level in order to establish a mean

and median for all the questions based on their GAP 5 sizes. This enabled us to identify and

distinguish areas of the service process whose GAP 5 is larger or smaller than the mean

indicating lower or higher service quality respectively. Based on the results of our research in

which we asked respondents to mention some of the areas of the service process where they

had encountered unfavourable service experiences, we were able to identify the areas of the

service process where most customer complaints came from. We compared these results with

the customer complaints received by the management of the public bus company and noticed

that there were similarities because majority emerged from areas of the service process

whereby the customer came in contact with the employees or the service failure could be

directly associated to the employee. When we compared these areas of complaint with the

results of questions in our questionnaire developed within the framework of the SERVQUAL

dimensions, we noticed that those questions with larger GAP 5 indicating lower service

quality were actually a reflection of the areas of the service process from which customer

complaints were high. It must be noted that if service quality is low it might trigger customer

complaint behaviour. In this regard, we were able to conclude that SERVQUAL was effective

in measuring the service quality in public transportation. In addition, the ranking of the

questions in the questionnaire at industry level revealed that those areas of the service process

whereby the employees and the customer interact or whose service failure can be directly

associated with an employee were graded low and ranked below the mean and median

compared to other questions in the various dimensions. Most areas of the service process

where technology is used or customers had the opportunity to make use of self service

technology ranked above the mean and median. This was a clear indication that technology is

a service quality driver and positively impacted customer satisfaction in public transportation

services. Astonishingly, we also noticed that, if technology failed to function as expected,

customer satisfaction greatly declined, hence perceived service quality.

9

In the proceeding chapters, we use the literature of famous scholars and researchers in this

field in order to provide a vivid description of service quality and customer complaint. This is

aimed at revealing the importance of this topic as well as show the relationship between

service quality and customer complaint which we used in this thesis in order to reveal the

effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality as well as showing the impact of

technology on customer satisfaction. The report also „shed more light‟ on the role and types of

technology (SST) in services as well as the factors that positively drive customer satisfaction

when using technology in services. We would describe in greater depth the research methods.

We would then provide a discussion section comparing our research results with other

research findings in the field as well stating the implications of our findings to the current

business environment. We shall conclude the chapter by providing a final response to the

research questions highlighted at the beginning of this thesis.

2 Theoretical backgrounds

In this chapter we review existing literature and relate it to this thesis topic in order to develop

the arguments about the significance of our research and where it leads.

2.1 What is Service Quality?

In order to understand the SERVQUAL approach and its application, it is imperative to give a

clear definition of service quality. Service quality is the extent to which a service meets

customers‟ needs or expectations (Lewis and Mitchel, 1990; Dotchin and Oakland, 1994a;

Asubonteng et al. 1996; Wiesniewski and Donnelly, 1996). Service quality is when a “service

should correspond to the customers‟ expectations and satisfy their needs and requirements”

(Edvardsson, 1997, p.33). The GAP model defines service quality as the gap which can be

viewed as the difference between customer perceptions and expectations. This implies that

“service quality can thus be defined as the difference between customers‟ expectations of

service and perceived service” (Wiesniewski, 2001, p.381). If customers‟ expectations are

greater than performance, then perceived service quality is less than satisfactory and hence

customer dissatisfaction occurs (Parasuraman et al. 1985; Lewis and Mitchell, 1990).

However, it must be noted that customer dissatisfaction does not usually come from lack of

service quality alone (Day 1984; Oliver 1987; Singh and Howell 1985).

10

Quality is increasingly becoming a strategic issue in the Western world (Bergman and

Klefsjo, 2003). One of the main reasons for the successes of Japanese industry in the 1970s

and 1980s was that the Japanese realised early that quality concept should emanate from the

requirements and expectations of the customers (Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003). This perception

played a vital role in bringing about success (Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003). Technology is

transforming the way services are offered today because it has made it possible for customers

to become co-producers and co-creators of services, thus transforming the role and perception

of the customer in service creation, hence increasing service quality.

However, to achieve service quality, we must be able to measure it so that improvements

required can be determined and implemented. In this regard, the SERVQUAL instrument is

one of the tools used today in order to measure service quality. But is it effective in measuring

service quality? How effective is this instrument in measuring the quality of something that is

abstract like services? This is the reason why it is imperative to understand why services are

complex and perceived service quality can easily diminish during the service process.

2.1.1 Services and service quality in Public transportation

To understand the importance of service quality, we believe that it is vital to understand what

a service means. According to Lovelock & Wirtz (2004, p.9), a service is “an act or

performance offered by one party to another.” They added that “although the process may be

tied to a physical product, the performance is transitory, often intangible in nature, and does

not normally result in ownership of any of the factors of production.” Lusch & Vargo (2004,

p.2) define services as the “application of specialised competences (knowledge and skills)

through deeds, processes and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity

itself.” “Service is the link between the producer and customers, both internal and

external”(Anton, p.129). The service process cannot be conducted without the customer

involvement. Therefore the “customer is the co-producer of the service”(Bruhn and Georgi,

2006, p.14).

Based on the definitions above, we view services as an activity, intangible in nature, which

contributes value to consumers. It is highly customer focus because it is only activated when a

customer demands and uses it. This therefore makes services to be „delicate and sensitive‟

both from the customer and service provider perspective because services are consumed at the

very instance of production, thus making mistakes encountered during the service process to

11

be felt immediately by the customer and diminish the value of the service from the

perspective of the customer. Contrary, if mistakes (failures) are not made when delivering the

service, value is created and this greatly contributes to the customer‟s satisfaction and it is felt

on the spot by the customer. This is different with tangibles because customers buy and

consume later, failures in the product are not felt on the spot and can therefore be corrected

before the customer consumes the product. Service failures are a “critical element within

value-oriented service marketing because of various negative value effects” (Bruhn and

Georgi, 2006, p.93). This is the reason why in any service system, the front-line employees

should be well trained to perform their duties as well as know how to listen to and solve

customers‟ complaints as soon as they occur. We therefore view services as a framework for

value creation because it provides a „platform‟ on which value can be created. In this regard

services must be designed and developed very carefully. Employees should be well trained to

observe and detect as well as record and assist to remedy problems on the spot.

Silcock (1981) conceptualized service quality for public transport industry as the measures of

accessibility, reliability, comfort, convenience and safety. Pullen (1993, p. 261) defined

quality of service for local public transport industry as a concept that involves “those

attributes of the service which affect its fitness for purpose” and “the attributes, and indeed

fitness for purpose, require detailed definition in relation to local objectives and

circumstances.” According to (Cavana & Corbett, 2005, p.1) traditionally, the performance

indicators for public transport industry are divided into two categories: efficiency and

effectiveness. Under the efficiency category, the measures are concerned with the processes

that produce the services while the measures in the effectiveness category are used to

determine how well the services provided are with respect to the objectives that are set for

them (Pullen, 1993). As it is proven in this report in the example of Karlstad city bus

Company (B1) one will notice that consumers‟ rate the quality of the bus company in

respected to some of the objectives that are set for a bus company. Quality of service is one of

the performance indicators under the effectiveness category because when the right things are

done the right way, service quality is high. Passenger‟s waiting time, lost mileage and

characteristics of each journey mode (time of arrival, time spend, time of arrival at the

destination) are some of the commonly used measures in the transport industry to measure

quality of service (Pullen, 1993). More recently, output quality measures that have been used

for the rail system in Britain include train performance (delays per passenger train), train

overcrowding, asset condition and infrastructure (broken rails per train mile), and safety or

12

accident risk like signals passed at danger per train mile (Pollitt and Smith, 2002). All these

measures greatly impact the service quality in the transportation industry including bus

service companies and these measures are clearly reflected in our questionnaire.

2.1.2 Customer expectation and Perceived service value

Due to the fact that service quality depends on the extent to which customers‟ expectations are

met, we think that it is imperative to distinguish customers‟ expectation from customer‟s

perceived service value so that a clear gap can be identified which represents the gap the

service provider must close in order to fully attain the customer‟s expectation, hence attain

high service quality.

2.1.2.1 What is customer expectation?

According to Bruhn & Georgi (2006, p. 442) “Expectations represent an individual‟s

psychological state that relates to future behavioural consequences for that person. Customer

expectations are this state regarding future service usages.” They postulated that Customers

have normative expectations, which indicate the customer‟s requirement s regarding a service

provider and predictive expectations which indicate the service level which is probable from

the customer‟s perspective”( Bruhn & Georgi, p.442). A customer‟s expectations are

influenced by their experience, personality traits as well as the environment within which the

service is being delivered. Therefore, with the aid of the SERVQUAL instrument, it is

possible to identify as well as measure the elements of his or her expectations in such a way

that a customer‟s psychological state and views about a service can best be captured, analysed

and understood.

2.1.2.1 What is perceived service value?

Customers evaluate the performance of a service used based on several factors which can be

grouped under cost and benefits. Bruhn & Georgi (2006, p.444) postulate that “Customers

attribute a value to a service used according to the benefits (for example, perceived service

quality) and the cost (for example, price paid) they perceive in the context of using the

service. Cost could also include time and effort used or invested in order to obtain or consume

the service while benefits could include rewards obtained from consuming the service.

However, other factors experienced by the customer during the service process and service

encounter could significantly influence his/her perception of the service value (perceived

13

service quality). Some researchers stress that service encounter is the focal source of service

quality (Czepiel et al. 1985) the so-called moments of truth (Carlzon, 1987). This is due to the

fact that customers evaluate a service according to the service‟s characteristics with their

expectations regarding these characteristics and some of these characteristics include for

example friendliness of employees, empathy, convenience, which within the SERVQUAL

instrument are grouped under the five dimensions in order to make them operational.

2.2 SERVQUAL and Service Quality

In order to become “customer-focused, companies must set in place a measurement system

that includes the voice of the customer” (Anton, 1996, p.13). SERVQUAL is a measuring tool

developed by Parasuraman et al. (1985), aimed at measuring service quality. It is customer

oriented. Earlier scholars like Lehtinen & Lehtinen (1982) argued that service quality

comprised of three main components namely: physical quality, corporate quality and

interactive quality.

1. Physical quality: it referred to all the physical issues of the service

2. Corporate quality: it referred to the image of the organisation, that is, the image or

reputation-related quality dimension which relates to the overall perception customers have

about the service organisation.

3. Interactive quality: it referred to the contacts or interactions amongst the people including

contacts between the employees and the customers.

Three years later, Parasuraman et al (1985) argued and were convinced that service delivery

contained two main components namely: the outcome of the service and the process during

the service delivery. Based on this ideology and perspective, they developed what is today

known as the Five-GAP model of service quality and also called SERVQUAL. SERVQUAL

approach according to Parasuraman et al. (1985) is based on the assumption that service

quality is the difference between customer‟s expectations and the actual service performance

of the service being consumed. Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, and 1991) operationalized

service quality using this instrument. This implies that service quality is basically determined

by the customer because service quality is assumed to be the difference between customers‟

expectations and their perceptions of the service actually delivered. In this regard,

SERVQUAL conforms to the definition of services as postulated by many recent scholars like

Edward Deming (1986, p.5) who emphasised that “quality should be aimed at the needs of the

customer, present and future”. This implies that the customers of today should be considered

14

as those of tomorrow. Therefore, their needs and expectations must be known by the service

producer in order for a service to redesigned and improved to meet their needs and

expectations. To achieve this target, companies or service providers must be able to measure

the current service quality of their services as perceived by the customers and then compare it

with their expectations.

Due to the intangible nature of service, it is very difficult to measure its quality. Due to the

fact that a service process cannot be conducted without the customer involvement thus

making the customer to be a co-producer of the service”(Bruhn and Georgi, 2006), service

quality has become more complex than product quality. Service quality is recognized by a

number of authors as both abstract and elusive (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Carman,

1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Lewis, 1994). This is because of the intangibility,

heterogeneity and inseparability characteristics of service industry outputs (Parasuraman et

al., 1985, 1988; Lewis, 1994). This also partly due to the fact that “the characteristics of

service quality are not objective, but subjective for each customer. As a consequence, major

efforts have been taken to conceptualise service quality”(Bruhn & Georgi, 2006, p.11). The

best known model in this context is the so-called GAP model of service quality that explains

the determination of service quality as the gap between service expectations and perceptions

by four internal gaps (Parasuraman et al. 1985). The widely known measurement instrument

based on the GAP model is the SERVQUAL approach that measures service quality using 22

items that are associated with the five service quality dimensions: tangibles, reliability,

responsiveness, assurance and empathy (Parasuraman et al. 1988). The Five-GAP model was

originally four gaps and according to the model, service quality is not attained if there is a gap

between:-

GAP-1: Customer expectations and management‟s perceptions of these expectations.

GAP-2: Management‟s perceptions of customers‟ expectations and the defined service

specifications.

GAP-3: The defined service specifications and the delivered service.

GAP-4: The communicated service and the delivered service.

“The above four gaps concern the causes of poor service quality in the way the organization is

managed” (Chau & Kao, 2009, p.110).

15

GAP-5: The difference between customers‟ expectations and service performance or

perception. GAP-5 measures the user quality. The five dimensions (reliability,

responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles) are “recognizable in the

SERVQUAL literature as gap-5” (Chau & Kao, 2009, p.110).Therefore it is very

customer oriented as it captures the customer‟s perceived value of the service being

offered. “Gap-5 depends on the size and direction of the four disconfirmations

associated with the delivery of service quality on the marketer‟s side”(Chau & Kao,

2009, p.110).

Therefore, it is evident that service quality is an integral part of the SERVQUAL instrument.

Many researchers and studies have acknowledged the fact that high quality service is essential

for firms that want to be successful in their business (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Rust and

Oliver, 1994). This is because high service quality leads to customer loyalty (Lewis, 1994),

higher profitability (Gundersen et al., 1996) and lower cost (Grant, 1998). This will lead to

higher competitive advantage for the service company and customer satisfaction.

The five dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles) of the

SERVQUAL instrument can be found in GAP-5 and when measured, the difference between

customer expectation (the importance) and perceived service (performance) can be

determined. Below is a diagram showing the five dimensions of the SERVQUAL instrument

and the additive effects service process quality and outcome quality. According to Bardy and

Cronin Jr. (2001), Parasuraman et al. (1988) outcome attributes such as reliability are more

important determinants of service quality than process attributes such as responsiveness,

empathy and assurance on post consumption behaviour. Bardy and Cronin Jr. (2001),

Parasuraman et al. (1988) together with other researchers have suggested that an additive

effect of service process quality and outcome quality exist on post consumption behaviour.

16

Figure 1: SERVQUAL dimensions and service quality attributes

2.2.1 The Strength of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality

SERVQUAL is service and customer oriented, thus making it very suitable to measure service

quality in the service industry. SERVQUAL is commonly used in the public transport

industry-based (Cavana et al., 2005). “Those commonly used in the public transport industry

are more industry-based. SERVQUAL is much more humanistic, or customer-related, while

most of the measures used in public transport industry are much more mechanistic, or have a

technical focus, or use more objective measures” (Cavana et al., 2005, p.11). The three-

column format SERVQUAL instrument was the latest development by Parasuraman et al.

(1994a), and “it is claimed that this can be used for managers for diagnostic purposes and it

offers the opportunity for using the perception items separately for predictive

purposes”(Cavana et al, 2005, p.9). In the airline industry, Young et al. (1994) added the

industry-based measures to SERVQUAL measures, and according to his research, the

predictive power to satisfaction was significantly increased. Service quality is usually

regarded as the customer‟s impression of the relative inferiority/superiority of a service

provider and its services (Bitner and Hubert, 1994; Tsoukatos and Rand, 2006) to its

competing alternative, and is often considered similar to the customer‟s overall attitude

towards the company (Parasuraman et al., 1988). It has therefore been popular to

conceptualize and establish measures for service quality such as SERVQUAL and explain its

Service

Quality

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

Tangibles

Process

Attributes

Service

Environment

Outcome

Atrributes

17

relation to the overall performance of companies and organizations (Chau and Ngai, n.d.).

Management requires measurements in order to be customer focus as well as increase service

quality. “Customer-focus equation is emphasis on what today‟s customer considers important,

namely value” (Anton, 1996, p.17). If a service company has to be customer-driven in

managing their customer relationships as well as their customers‟ perception about the

performance of their service organisation, they must learn to use new measurement tools like

SERVQUAL because the five dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy

and tangibles) provides numerical values which can serve as indicators for management to use

in order to assess their performance as perceived by the customer. In addition, in order to

include the voice of the customer in the management style of a service company, management

must include measurements that are indicative of customer satisfaction, hence service quality.

SERVQUAL instrument can do just this. SERVQUAL items make it possible to measure

internal metrics of a service that are behaviourally anchored. “A behaviourally anchored

metric is one where we can alter the numerical value of the metric by a change in employee

behaviour” (Anton, 1996, p.45). This implies that a change in employee behaviour will

increase or decrease the numeric value of the metric, thus leading to customer satisfaction and

narrowing the GAP-5. In order for a firm to make improvements towards attaining high

service quality, the customer satisfaction must drive an internal corporate behaviour that can

be measured, changed and improved (Anton, 1996) so that management can make

adjustments. For example employees‟ willingness to assist passengers find solutions to their

problems relating to their trip. If customers rate them low, management can quickly identify

the source of the problem and then motivate employees to change their behaviour by

demonstrating greater willingness to assist customers (passengers). Items in SERVQUAL

instrument rated low should be the focus of improvement. After receiving customer

complaints, companies must be able to link those complaints to the root causes in the firm.

They must figure out a way to measure these causes. According to Anton (1996, p.44) “the

reason so many companies fail to ultimately use data gathered from customer comment cards,

surveys and the like is that there is no direct connection between the outside measures and

what to change internally. You cannot improve externally what you do not measure

internally.” Customer relationship implies: Respond to individual customers, identify sources

of dissatisfaction, conduct root cause analysis and from root cause analysis give feedback to

getting the right job done right the first time (Anton, 1996).

18

2.2.2 The limitations of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality

Some researchers like Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) argue that measuring service quality

using SERVQUAL, which is based on performance-minus-expectations (or gaps), is

inappropriate and suggest that SERVPERF, which is a performance-only measurement, is a

better method. The study of Cronin & Taylor (1992, 1994) was later replicated (Brady et al.,

2002) and both studies‟ findings suggest that in a number of industries such as fast food, pest

control, dry cleaning, but also in banking, SERVPERF outperforms SERVQUAL. Other

researchers have questioned the dimensionality of SERVQUAL (Bouman and Van der Wiele,

1992; Carman, 1990; Mels et al., 1997), and others have argued about its measurement of

perception and expectation (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brown et al., 1993; Carman, 1990;

Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Kamalanabhan, 2001).

To conclude this section on SERVQUAL, below is a brief description of the five dimensions

(reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles) of the SERVQUAL instrument

by Parasuramam et al. (1994, p.207). They are as follows:-

Reliability

Providing services as promised.

Dependability in handling the customers‟ service problems.

Performing services right the first time

Providing services at the promised time

Maintaining error-free records

Responsiveness

Keeping customers informed about when services will be performed.

Prompt service to customers

Willingness to help customers

Readiness to respond to customers‟ requests

Assurance

Employees who instil confidence in customers

Making customers feel safe in their transactions

Employees who are consistently courteous

Employees who have the knowledge to answer customer questions

19

Empathy

Giving customers individual attention

Employees who deal with customers in caring fashion

Having the customers‟ best interest at heart

Employees who understand the needs of their customers

Convenient business hours

Tangibles

Modern equipment

Visually appealing facilities

Employees who have a neat, professional appearance

Visually appealing materials associated with the service.

It must be noted that we developed the questions in our questionnaire within this framework

described by Parasuramam et al. (1994, p.207).

2.3 Technology and Customer Satisfaction

In this chapter of the report, we describe how technology can be used to increase customer

satisfaction in services. We make some particular references to public transportation. We

review the role of self service technology in services as well as evaluate customer readiness to

embrace new technology. We also identify those factors (monetary benefits, time/speed, ease

of usage, self control, flexibility/convenience and reliability) that would be vital in boosting

customer satisfaction when using technology in service processes.

2.3.1 Self-Service Technology (SST)

Self-service technologies are a classic example of market-space transactions in which no

interpersonal contact is required between customer and service provider. The market-space is

defined as “a virtual realm where products and services exist as digital information and can be

delivered through information based channels” (Rayport and Sviokla 1995, p. 14). Market-

space environment no longer has conventional foundations of customer-company interactions.

This raises a question of user profile development involving SSTs. Several studies have

investigated this issue (Bateson 1985; Darian 1987; Eastlick 1996; Greco and Fields 1991;

Langeard et al. 1981; Zeithaml and Gilly 1987). For example, a study of Langeard and

colleagues (1981) has made a market segmentation of participants on the basis of their

20

willingness to use SST as an alternative service delivery. Results show that participants tend

to be younger, single, better educated and have a lower income level. Bateson (1985)

examined the customers‟ choice between options of a self-service and an interpersonal service

delivery system, while having and not having the usual monetary or time-saving incentives.

Results show that a significant group of people choose to use a self-service option even

without monetary or time-saving benefits. However, it should be mentioned that no

distinction between technology-based self-service scenarios and more labor-intensive self-

service situations have been made in either studies. Therefore the technological aspect in the

recent and future studies might influence consumer‟s perceptions, and thus affect the results.

However, another aspect after customers accept SST is their decision to continue using it,

which may be affected by different factors. According to Curran and Meuter (2005),

perceived usefulness or customer value, as well as self-control affect customers‟ intentions to

continue use SST. The majority of scholars that focus on continuous SST use intentions of

customers postulate in importance of the following attributes: ease of use, usefulness, self-

control (Globerson and Maggard, 1991; Meuter et al., 2000).

2.3.1.1 Types of Self-Service Technology

There had been nearly no attempts to research a broad range of SSTs available to consumers

nowadays. Most of the studies had a focus on either a single type of technology used (e.g.,

Dabholkar 1992, 1996) or, in the case of the early studies, a low-technology self-service

(Bateson 1985; Langeard et al. 1981). In the current study we will cover a variety of modern

SSTs and show their impact of level of customer satisfaction in service. For this purpose SST

categories will be used from the study of Meuter, et al (2000) – “Categories and Examples of

SSTs in Use”, slightly modified in order to suit the current study. These categories of SST

options have been developed based on an extensive review of the academic literature, trade

press, observation, and direct interaction with companies. The Interface row represents the

types of technologies available to customers, the purpose column represents the purposes of

the technologies from the customer perspective - the end result the customer is looking for

while using the technology.

21

Interface

Purpose

Telephone/

mobilephone -

sms

Online/

Internet/

mobile internet

Interactive

kiosks

Magnetic/chip

cards

Customer Service Sms tickets Online

bookings,

Online

timetable

Card Reader,

Ticketm

machine,

Digital

timetable

Charge cards

Transactions Buy tickets Buy/change

tickets

Buy tickets

Buy tickets

Communication Via phone Via email Travel

information

Credit status

Figure 2: Categories and Examples of SSTs in Use”,

The types of technology interfaces (the columns in Figure 3) include tele (-mobile) phone-

based technologies, direct online, Internet and mobile internet-based interfaces, interactive

free-standing kiosks and magnetic/chip-cards. Sometimes these technologies are used in

combination. For example, a customer can see an interactive digital timetable for his bus, buy

a ticket in the interactive kiosk and validate the ticket in the bus ticket machine. There are a

variety of purposes for the companies to install SSTs in the service delivery process, broadly

captured by the rows in Figure 3.

First, a large number of services are now provided through technology, such as:

buying tickets with your mobile phone or internet, self managing a ticket validation

and making a „self route planning‟ with the help of digital timetable.

A second important purpose of using SSTs is direct transactions. The involvement of

technology in the bus services enables customers to book, buy, and exchange tickets

without any direct interaction with the employees. Recent studies capture a rapid

growth in Internet-based transactions (Hof 1999).

The third usage purpose of SSTs is the most widely used category called

communication, which refers to technologies that enable customers to get in contact

with employees of the service provider in the case of a complaint, feedback or in

search for information. In the original “Categories and Examples of SSTs in Use” of

Meuter, et al (2000) the last (third) category had been “Self-help”, however in order to

22

adjust the figure to our study this category had been replaced with “Communication”,

as it better represents the studied service.

2.3.2 Customer Readiness (CR) and Technology Readiness (TR)

Despite the global expansion of technology into the daily life of most people, there might still

be a fear and discomfort in dealing with new technology resulting in frustration (Lin and

Hsieh, 2006; Parasuraman, 2000). Studies have also shown that some people demonstrate a

certain degree of technophobia (Meuter et al., 2003) or are technology pessimists (Edison and

Geissler, 2003; Modahl, 1999). Technology cannot be accepted if consumers are not ready.

There had been an extensive research to identify the relationship between CR and SST

(Liljander et al., 2006; Lin and Hsieh, 2006; Meuter et al., 2005; Parasuraman, 2000;

Tsikriktsis, 2004), particularly in studying the effectiveness of SST associated with online

services, such as the e-reservation systems (Lin and Hsieh, 2006).

The concept of CR is a state of mind, a personal predisposition toward using new

technologies (Liljander et al., 2006). Meuter et al. (2005) referred to CR as a condition in

which a consumer is prepared and likely to try new technology services.

In order to highlight the technological impact in customer-company interactions, Parasuraman

(1996) proposed a “pyramid model” of services marketing, which is an extension of the

“triangle model” proposed earlier by Kotler (1994). This had been done in order to „capture‟

the added complexities of marketing services compared to marketing goods, reflecting some

of the ideas discussed by Grönroos (1996, 1998). The pyramid model includes technology as

a new dimension into the two-dimensional triangle model and highlights three new links –

interactions that need to be managed: company-technology, technology-employee, and

technology-customer (Parasuraman, 1996).

The technology-readiness concept refers to “people‟s propensity to embrace and use new

technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and at work” (Parasuraman, 2000), and is

based on four dimensions: optimism, innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity. Optimism

and innovativeness are the positive constructs of TR, encouraging customers to use

technology based services and to have a positive attitude toward technology. Discomfort and

insecurity, on the other hand, are negative constructs, making a barrier for customers to

engage in SSTs. Parasuraman and Colby (2001) found that TR profiles of customer segments

23

vary significantly in terms of internet-related behaviors. The study of Yen (2005) had shown a

different consumer readiness in using technology-based services.

An extensive qualitative study on peoples‟ reactions to technology, by Mick and Fournier

(1998), revealed eight technology paradoxes that consumers encounter: control/chaos,

freedom/enslavement, new/obsolete, competence/incompetence, efficiency/inefficiency,

fulfills/creates needs, assimilation/isolation, and engaging/disengaging. All of the paradoxes

above imply that technology may trigger both positive and negative feelings (e.g.,the

competence/incompetence paradox, facilitated by technology can create a feeling of

intelligence or efficacy, and further feelings of ignorance or ineptitude (Mick and Fournier,

1998).

People‟s attitude towards technology varies across individuals, including both positive and

negative feelings. Moreover, a strong positive correlation between consumers‟ attitude or a

feeling towards technology and their propensity to embrace and employ technology can be

expected (i.e.,their technology readiness). Dabholkar (1996) in his study of consumers‟

evaluations of and intentions to use technology-based self-service options, found that

consumers varied with regards to their beliefs/feelings about the different options and that

those beliefs/feelings were positively correlated with intentions to use. Technology triggers

both positive and negative feelings, resulting in anxiety. Types of anxiety include: computer

anxiety – with feelings of fear and apprehension, when considering possible or actual use of

computer technology (Igbaria and Parasuraman, 1989; Kay, 1993), and technology anxiety - a

general negative impression about technology tools (Meuter et al., 2003). Rockbridge

Associates had conducted a large number of focus group interviews on technology-related

topics with customers of companies in a variety of sectors (e.g., financial services, online

services, electronic commerce, telecommunications). General outcome from these interviews

was consistent and showed positive feelings as well as apprehensions of customers towards

technology. Examples of positive themes received from focus groups were: flexibility,

convenience, efficiency, and enjoyment. Security concerns, risk of obsolescence,

impersonalization, and lack of control were included in negative themes.

2.3.3 Customer Value (CV) and Technology

Customers recognize service value through desired purpose or goal achieved (Overby, 2005).

According to Woodruff (1997, p.142), “customer value is a customer‟s evaluation of product

24

attributes, attribute performances and consequences arising from use.” Holbrook (2006)

defined CV as an interactive relativistic preference experience that involves an interaction

between an object (e.g., a product/service) and a subject (e.g., a consumer). There are five

factors that determine CV: functional value, emotional value, epistemic value, social value,

and conditional value (Sheth et al., 1991) and are described as follows:-

1. Functional value refers to functional performance, economic utility, and the benefits

associated with use of the service. It is the economic benefits of the relation between

quality and price said to be the major driver of customer choice (Sheth et al., 1991;

Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).

2. Emotional value is based on customers‟ feelings while experiencing products or

services of an organization.

3. Epistemic value is the capacity of services or products to provide innovation or

curiosity and satisfy a desire for knowledge (Sheth et al., 1991).

4. Social value is narrowed to specific social groups (e.g., cultural-ethnic groups)

5. Conditional value describes specific personal cases and social situations (Sheth et al.,

1991; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).

2.3.3.1 Factors that make technology increase customer satisfaction in services (Public

Transportation)

The following criteria of customer value creation and satisfaction antecedents were

identified:-

1. Monetary benefits: Monetary or financial savings (Bateson 1985, Globerson and

Maggard 1991, Meuter et al. 2000), customers believe to save money while using

SSTs, which is done is two ways: first, the indirect savings, meaning the customer

does not have to spend money to go to the main bus station to buy his ticket, or come

to the office for a cancelation of the previously booked ticket; second, the direct

savings, when customer is able to get a special price by booking online, or using a pre-

charged bus card. Many firms offer financial incentives for customers to use SSTs.

2. Time/Speed: Time-saving or speed of service delivery (Bateson 1985, Globerson and

Maggard 1991, Meuter et al. 2000, Dabholkar 1996), the aspect of time is one of the

most widely used arguments while stating the advantages of SSTs. Customers believe

that they can perform the service not only faster than an employee (without the need to

explain the particular problem), but more efficiently than in case of interpersonal

25

communication as well; as there is less room for misunderstanding or

misinterpretation.

3. Ease of Usage: Easy to use or enjoyment (Globerson and Maggard 1991, Meuter et al.

2000, Rockbridge, Dabholkar 1996, Davis 1989), in some service encounters it is

easier for a customer to use SST. A simple and straightforward technology, with clear

user instructions, increase customer satisfaction. Thus making customers to prefer

technology to conventional interactions. Moreover, some customers state that it is fun

to use SST, and it increases their self-image in front of others as being knowledgeable

(Globerson et al, 1991).

4. Self-control: Self-control or avoid service personnel (Globerson and Maggard 1991,

Meuter et al. 2000, Dabholkar 1996), enables customers to gain control over the

quality and effectiveness of provided service by accomplishing most of the service by

themselves. Many customers believe that they can do the service better than the

employees. Moreover, some of the customers appreciate the fact that they do not have

to interact with the company‟s personnel, viewing it as a possible cause of annoyance

and dissatisfaction.

5. Convenience, accessibility and Flexibility: Convenience or anytime, anywhere

(Globerson and Maggard 1991, Meuter et al. 2000, Rockbridge), includes incidents

when SST enables customers to perform the service anytime of the day or night, as

well as to provide self-service from off-site locations. Customers demonstrate

appreciation of SST as they are not forced to travel to the firm in order for the service

to be delivered, or wait for the limited working hours offered by the firm. Unprompted

action or solution to the customer‟s requests had been proven to be one of the main

sources of dissatisfaction with interpersonal service encounters (Bitner, Booms, and

Tetreault 1990).

6. Reliablility: Reliability, including intensified needs (Dabholkar 1996, Meuter et al.

2000), SSTs are often stated by customers as being reliable means of service delivery.

“Intensified needs are defined as situations in which external environmental factors

add a sense of urgency to the transaction” (Meuter et al. 2000). SSTs are generally

easier available to customers disregarding the time and place of usage, providing an

26

immediate solution to the problem. According to Meuter et al. (2000), satisfaction was

caused by the ability of SSTs to rescue customers out of a difficult situation or resolve

the sensitive problem they were experiencing.

2.3.3.2 When something goes wrong – Attribution of blame while using SSTs

“The attribution theory of consumer satisfaction assumes that the consumer feels greater

dissatisfaction the more the inconsistency between the outcome and expectations is attributed

to external causes (i.e., outside the consumer„s control), stable causes and causes under

control of the producer” (Antonides, van Raaij, 1951, p.491). The attribution theory talks

about the causes to which individuals attribute certain events (Folkes, 1984). Plainly, the more

the customers blame the service provider (external-locus), believe that the dissatisfying

incident is likely to happen again (permanent-stability), and perceive that the service failure

could have been avoided (preventable-controllability), the higher is the probability to engage

in a complaint bahaviour (Folkes 1984; Krishnan and Valle 1979).

Research of interpersonal customer encounters suggests that people are likely to blame others

for a product or service failure. For example O„Malley (1996) found that car owners and car

mechanics blamed each other for car damage. In addition, Belk et al. (1981) found that only

3% of respondents (11 out of 359) blamed themselves for their problems. In the cases of

SSTs, the outcome is expected to be different, as customers deliver the service for themselves,

thus adopting a partial responsibility for the outcome (Mills, Chase, and Margulies 1983;

Zeithaml 1981). Research shows that 63% of incidents (both positive and negative) were

attributed to the technology, whereas 34% being negative incidents. Scholars postulate that

this outcome is not surprising, as customers acknowledge the critical role technology plays in

service provision. Overall, 25% of the respondents attributed the outcome equally to

technology and themselves. Thus, attribution findings indicate that in the case of negative

service experience, customers tend to blame the technology or the service provider more often

than themselves; however, being lesser than is conventional services.

27

2.4 Quality drivers in services and how technology could enhance the

effectiveness and efficiency of quality drivers Quality drivers could help bridge Gap-5 and increase customer satisfaction. Below is a broad

description of the service quality drivers under broad headings that describes their impacts on

the entire service. Some generic service quality drivers (lecture notes of Prof. Bo Edvardson,

2008) to consider when developing the services are as follows:-

1) Trust and reliability

To make customers trust and rely on the service, services must be provided as promised and

customers must be confident that their problems will be solved and this means that customer

care must be a priority. In addition, services should be delivered on time and in the maximum

quality and within the required time. Moreover, the service should have the capacity to satisfy

the essence of a customer‟s need, want or expectation. Technology implemented in the service

should be reliable and function as promised as well as expected. If this is met, customers will

develop a trust for the service and their satisfaction will increase. For example, Karlstad city

buses (B1) and intercity buses (B2) follow an electronic schedule planning system, based on

GPS function. The implementation of this technology allowed companies to execute a strict

control over each individual bus location and its arrival according to the planned timetable,

thus making the service more reliable to their customers.

2) Employee competence, commitment and willingness to serve customers

Employees should be skilled and knowledgeable about the service being offered so that they

can ensure quality services and motivate customers by being able to respond to their questions

as well as offer good advice on how use the service. Therefore, service providers must ensure

that they boost their service delivery drivers, “which is everything that actually happens when

the service strategy is carried out by the employees” (Anton, 1996, p.49).For example

customer‟s perception of employees attributes such as reliability, responsiveness, product

knowledge, accuracy, empathy (Anton, 1996). Technology should be implemented in the

service process to boost employees‟ knowledge to help serve customers as well as make the

service reliable. In addition, technology should enable employees have more time to serve

customers by listening and answering to the individual problems of the customer. For

example in Karlstad city buses (B1) and intercity buses (B2), the use of cash onboard had

prevented bus drivers (frontline employee) to interact with passengers as a result of fear of

being robbed or other violent physical action. Technology based services like the Card readers

are meant to reduce or even eliminate such problems because they enable customers to make

28

payments themselves while entering the bus, thus reducing the time of the service process if

the driver had to collect money and then issue them a ticket. This has also made the

transaction in the service process to be cashless, giving the employees a chance to entirely

focus on listening to customers‟ problems and interacting with them without being scared of

being robbed, thus increasing customer satisfaction. Many people get irritated by waiting and

being delayed because of other passengers who buy tickets in the bus. Moreover, the bus

drivers, being the only front line employee during the service delivery have to cope with the

problem of having not enough time to resolve or answer individual customers‟ question and

problems as well as selling tickets. Furthermore, after our interviews with the company‟s

management and some of the bus drivers, we came to realize that bus drivers have a highly

negative experience operating with cash onboard. According to the internal data of the

company, cases of valiant action to and robbery of the drivers of the company occur as often

as once a week! Thus, the drivers are simply scared to excessively interact with passengers.

3) Easy to do business

The service should be easy for the customer to understand and use. If the technology

implemented in the service process is easy to use, customers will like it and not resist usage.

For example, in Karlstad city buses (B1) and intercity buses (B2), the technology of providing

information over the bus location, based on the GPS system, is provided in two variants:

online, including mobile internet and at the digital timetable boards. This technology is very

easy in use, indicating the time interval of the next arriving bus of the given route number

(e.g. bus 1 to campus in 3min.). This technology allows passengers to easily plan their trip,

being nearly anywhere, while wasting no time looking for the printed copy of the timetable

somewhere at the bus stop. The simplicity of this SST results in enjoyment of its usage, hence

a greater number of customer users.

4) Time

Services should be delivered on time and customers should not wait for too long before being

served because they will perceive the service as inefficient and low in quality. Therefore, the

service strategy drivers “which includes all those plans and policies you make in anticipation

of the customer‟s arriving to purchase your product or service” (Anton, p.48) should be quick

as possible. For example in most of the SSTs introduced by the companies (B1 and B2) are

meant to reduce time for the customer during the service process. The introduction of SST

eliminates the use of cash onboard, making the frontline employee to be more customer-

29

focused, hence providing a higher quality service. Moreover, it reduces boarding time; hence

make buses arrive on-time at their intended destinations. In this regard, the company provides

financial incentives for using SST, such as lower ticket prices.

5) Management of dissatisfaction and complaints

It should be easy for customers to complain and whenever they do so, they should be given a

response. Feedback from customers must be taken serious and the process of giving feedback

should be easy and quick. Technology should be used in registering and analysing customer

complaint so that it can be sent to the right area of the company for it to be solved. For

example, companies should make available email addresses where customers could send a

complaint email.

6) The service environment driver

It is composed of all physical surroundings that facilitate the delivery of your product or

service (Anton, 1996, p.49). The elements of these drivers are:-

The ambient conditions-lighting, background music, temperature

The spatial layout-entrances, lobbies, restrooms, counters, seating arrangements

The signs and symbols-posters, flags, pennants

For example, in Karlstad city bus (B1) and inter city buses (B2), the ease to use or enjoyment

(Globerson and Maggard 1991, Meuter et al. 2000, Rockbridge, Dabholkar 1996, Davis 1989)

from usage of SSTs available at the bus stops, such as digital timetable board, ticket

machines, etc help make the bus stops comfortable and the process accessing tickets and

waiting for a bus less strainous. The above mentioned technologies are tested on their ability

to satisfy customer needs, proving an easy to use self-service. Apart from carrying out the

particular function, each of the provided SSTs adds overall value to the core service, creating

a positive attitude of the customer to itself. Customers need not have a watch in order to

know the exact time the bus will arrive.

SERVQUAL can be used to measure the extent to which these service quality drivers are

present in a service, their impact and how customers perceive them. In the subsequent

chapters, we shall reveal the extent to which these service quality drivers are contributing

towards a high service quality as well as increasing customer satisfaction in Karlstad city

buses (B1) and intercity buses (B2).

30

3 Methodology

In this chapter, we will describe the company we used to conduct our research. We shall

provide reasons for the choice of this company as well as explain why the companies are

suitable for this research. We shall proceed by describing the questionnaire, specifically the

design as well as the explanations of each of the questions and how the questions will help

provide answers to the research questions of this research. Thereafter, we shall describe how

the data for this research was collected, the sample size and sample description (information

about the sample like mean, age, gender and income), the type of interviews conducted (when

and where), and the response rate. We would round-up the chapter by describing the approach

used to analyse the data from our survey and this will involve an iterative process of

generating inferences that are related to emerging themes in the topic of this research.

3.1 The Companies (City buses: Karlstad City Bus and Intercity buses:

Swebus, Värmland Trafik).

For our field research, we chose the main public bus companies in Karlstad (Karlstad city bus,

intercity buses like Swebus, Värmland Trafik) due to the following reasons:-

1. Perfect examples of public transportation companies: These companies are a part

of the public transportation industry because they operate within the city and between

cities, thus providing a true reflection of the public transportation industry. Public

transportation companies that offer services within the city and between cities have

similarities and dissimilarities. The similarity may be viewed from the perspective that

their core service is transportation but their service characteristics as well as service

processes may differ because service requirements within the city and between the

cities may differ significantly. These differences may have an impact on customers‟

perception of service quality as well as the impact of technology on their satisfaction.

Moreover, their expectations may also be differ based on the service characteristics.

The various companies under investigation capture the relevant issues in public

transportation; hence can be used as a base to make generalizations in public

transportation especially in relation to bus companies.

2. Use technology in their service processes: Their service processes make use of

technology. For example, customers are able to use card readers to make payments

while entering the bus, customers can make payments for their trip online and

31

electronic timetables makes it easier for trips to be planned, just to name a few. In this

regard self service technology is highly made use of in these companies and thus

provides a perfect platform for us to measure its impact on service quality and

customer satisfaction.

3. Access to information: We had access to information because the management of the

company was willing to share information with us. Interviews with managers provided

an in-depth understanding of the companies and the corporate culture existing in them.

Therefore, this was an opportunity for us to obtain information on customer complaint

and their sources received by the company. In addition, information from the company

enabled us to „read the minds‟ of management, thus providing a perfect platform for us

to develop a theory on managerial implication in this report. The managers also gave

us internal documents which were very helpful. It must be noted that the companies

had the same management body.

4. Familiarity with the services of the company as well as access to customers: It was

quite interesting to carry out this research because we live and study in the city of

Karlstad and also use the services of these companies. Therefore, we were carrying out

a research on a company we knew well. In addition, we had access to customers or

people who had or are active users of the services of these companies. The cultural

diversity of respondents served as a perfect platform to make generalisations.

Moreover, many respondents (customers, users) had experience in public

transportation in other countries. Their feedback and comparisons based on their

experience was of great advantage to this research.

Therefore, based on the points mentioned above, we believe that these companies will serve

as an effective platform on which we can determine the effectiveness of SERVQUAL in

measuring service quality as well as the impact of technology on customer satisfaction in

public transportation. The differences in the service characteristics of city and intercity buses

that can have an impact on perceived service quality as well as the extent to which technology

can increase customer satisfaction can be summarised in the table below as follows (For

easier analysis, city buses are referred to as business level 1 (B1) and intercity buses are

referred to as business level 2 (B2). This will facilitate the differentiation between the

business levels and industry level):-

32

Differences between city and intercity buses service characteristics

Business Level 1

City Buses (Karlstad city buses)

Business Level 2

Intercity buses (SWEBUS)

1 Travel shorter distances Travel long distances

2 Monopolistic market structure

(Lower or no degree competition)

Loose monopolistic market structure

(Higher degree of competition)

3 Relatively lower prices for tickets Relatively higher prices for tickets

4 Frequency of usage is higher (Daily basis) Frequency of usage is lower (occasionally)

5 Direct buying of tickets from driver or

usage of charge cards

Frequent online bookings and buying of

tickets as well as usage of charge cards

Table 1: Differences in the service characteristics between city buses and intercity buses

Researchers (Landon and Laird, 1977) have also acknowledged and have tried to explain how

variations in product and service characteristics impacts consumer complaining behaviour

hence the pattern of customer complaint behaviour. Therefore, it is more likely that

customer‟s will complaint after a service failure in a particular business level than another due

to the service characteristics. Below is an explanation of how the differences in service

characteristics in business level 1 and 2 is likely to trigger a customer complaint behaviour

which will inevitably affect the results of this research because more complaints will reflect

low service quality and vice versa. Due to the fact that our research is aimed at evaluating the

effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality and the impact of technology on

customer satisfaction by comparing customer complaints obtained in our survey and also

those from the management of SWEBUS, it is imperative to understand how service

characteristics will impact customer complaint behaviour, hence the amount of complaint to

be made about a particular area of a service process in a business level. This will also reflect

the impact technology has on customer satisfaction which is also a vital component of the

service process. Therefore, more complaints will imply low service quality. The higher the

amount of complaints, the more likely is the level of perceived service quality low and vice

versa. However, it must be noted not all customers who encounter a negative service

experience complaint.

1) Travel Distances: City buses (B1) travel shorter distances compared to intercity buses

(B2) which travel between cities and in some cases to other cities across the national

boundary. For example Oslo in Norway which is travelled by SWEBUS. With increases in

33

distance, there is a higher probability of being dissatisfied because there is a higher

probability of unfavourable events in the service process to be encountered and vice versa for

shorter distances in city buses. For example, due to the long distances of intercity buses (B2),

the average duration of lateness is expected to be higher than those of city buses (B1).

2) Competition: Research has shown that customer complaint behaviour varies across

different market structures (Best and Andreasen, 1977). City buses (B1) operate in a

monopolistic market structure because there is only one company in Karlstad that offers

public bus services. In addition, alternative modes are very expensive. For example, taxi or

private cars are more expensive. Intercity buses (B2) operate in a loose monopolistic market

structure because some destinations can be reached by train. So passengers living in these

areas can use the train whose prices are comparatively almost similar.

3) Prices of tickets: The tickets of intercity buses (B2) are more expensive than those of city

buses (B1) because the distances of the latter are longer. This will have an impact on

complaint behaviour especially due to the fact that the prices of the tickets will have an

impact on the consumers‟ perception and expectations as well as his analysis of the cost

benefits of complaining. Variations in the costs and benefits of complaining have been

researched by Andreasen (1988) and Richins (1980) and it has been proven to influence

consumers complaining behaviours. Consumers will be more likely to complain if the prices

of their tickets are high and vice versa.

4) Frequency of bus usage: Passengers of city buses (B1) are more likely to use this service

more often than those of intercity buses (B2). However, passengers who live in the outskirts

of Karlstad use the intercity buses (B2) daily as they travel to and from work and for other

reasons. Consumers who use a service frequently are more likely to experience unfavourable

service encounters, hence complaint more and vice versa.

5) Bookings: Most passengers of intercity buses (B2) make travel reservations (purchase

tickets) online, partly due to the fact that their trips are usually planned in advance and also

due to the discounts on prices of tickets purchased online. On the contrary, most passengers of

city buses (B1) purchase their tickets directly from the driver or charge their tickets using the

card charging machines in the bus which are often out of use due to technical problems and

ageing. This has increased customer complaint as well as decreased perceived service

34

performance of city buses (B1). The use of the net increases flexibility (24 hour services) and

gives room for self-service (co-production and co-creation) which increases consumer

satisfaction.

3.2 Data Collection (Questionnaire, sample size and data description)

This section provides a detailed description of our questionnaire showing how and why it was

designed. In addition, we shall provide detailed explanations to the questions in the

questionnaire and their relevance to this research. We shall describe our data set (mean, age,

gender and income) and show the sample size and how it was determined. We shall also

describe the sampling method by explaining how respondents were selected and access

negotiated.

3.2.1 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire used in the survey was divided into four sections as follows:- Section 1:

SERVQUAL dimensions, Section 2: Complaint Behaviour, Section 3: Complaint barriers and

Section 4: Personal Questions. We shall focus the sections that are relevant to this research

and provide detailed description and purpose of the design and questions. We intentionally

avoided numbering the questions in order to reduce the likelihood of discouraging

respondents from participating in the survey. See questionnaire in appendix.

3.2.1.1 Section 1: SERVQUAL Dimensions

The questions in this section were designed within the framework of SERVQUAL. The

questions were modified in order to make them relevant to the public bus transportation

industry. Consequently, the broad areas within the entire service that are not or are doing well

as well as their importance to the overall evaluation of service quality as perceived by the

customer can be unfolded. Moreover, in order to take into consideration the fact that service

quality is subjective, designing the questions within the framework of SERVQUAL makes it

possible to assess the impact of service interaction, service experiences, service processes and

customer-employee relationships on overall service quality. In this regard the effectiveness of

SERVQUAL in measuring service quality will be fully „captured‟ while taking into

consideration the subjectiveness of service quality.

35

A total of 22 questions were asked and these questions were distributed amongst the five

dimensions as follows:-

1. Reliability (4 Questions) 4. Empathy (2 Questions)

2. Responsiveness (8 Questions) 5. Tangibles (4 Questions)

3. Assurance (4 Questions)

The respondents had the choice of rating service quality of each question based on a scale

from 1 to 7 with the following descriptions:-

1= Very Bad 5=Good

2= Bad 6= Very Good

3= Insufficient 7= Excellent

4= Satisfactory

The first column measures the service quality of business level 1 (Karlstad City Bus) and the

second column measures the service quality of business level 2 (Intercity Buses like Swebus

and Värmland Traffik).

Description of questions in the questionnaire

Group 1: (reliability dimension): These questions measure the reliability dimension of

SERVQUAL in public transportation.

Question 1: Are the bus services provided as expected?

This question measures the extent to which the bus services are provided as promised by the

service providers or as expected by the customer based on his experience or perception. This

will enable us to measure the difference between customer expectation and the current

performance of the service.

Question 2: Are the employees good at handling customers‟ problems?

This question measures the extent to which employees can be relied upon in handling the

customers‟ service problems.

Question 3: Are the buses punctual? This question measures the extent to which bus services

are provided at the promised time.

36

Question 4: Are the bus reservations and bookings reliable? This question measures the

extent to which the service company maintains error-free records. In addition, it also measures

the extent to which online bookings which makes use of technology are reliable. Based on

this, it would be possible to determine the impact of technology on customer satisfaction.

Group 2: (responsiveness dimension): These questions measure the responsiveness

dimension of SERVQUAL in public transportation.

Question 1: Is the timetable easy to understand?

This question measures the extent of the clarity of travel information published by the service

company. This question reveals the ease with which the customers can obtain information

about the bus departures and arrivals.

Question 2: Is the timetable always available and respected by buses?

This question measures the extent to which customers are well informed about travel times

and destinations and whether the service providers respect and fulfil their promises. Some

passengers complained that some buses arrive/depart either earlier or later than the time

mentioned on the time table. This can decrease service quality from the customers‟

perspective.

Question 3: Does buying tickets in the bus by others delay your journey?

This question is aimed at measuring the efficiency of the service process (buying a ticket and

moving to the seats). It would determine whether passengers find this process efficient or not.

Sometimes, passengers have to wait for a long-time in the queue before being served by the

bus driver.

Question 4: Do the employees demonstrate willingness to help whenever you have a

problem?

This question is aimed at measuring the extent to which the employees demonstrate

willingness to help customers in the event of difficulties with the service. This measure is

from the customers‟ perspective.

37

Question 5: Are you satisfied with the number of bus stops?

This question investigates whether the customers are satisfied with the number of bus stops

available. Are the bus stops too many or too few? Fewer bus stops could mean that the

passengers have to walk for long distances before boarding the bus or too many bus stops

could mean that the bus stops too often. All these issues could significantly affect the quality

of the service from the customers‟ perspective.

Question 6: Are you satisfied with the bus intervals?

This question investigates the time interval between the arrivals/departure of each bus. If the

time interval is high, this could mean that the passengers wait for too long before a bus arrives

and this will decrease the quality of the service from the customers‟ (passengers‟) perspective.

Question 7: Are you satisfied with the closing time of bus services?

This question investigates whether the customers are satisfied with the times that the last

buses travel in the night and when the first buses start travelling in the morning. This could

significantly influence service quality from the customers‟ perspective because if this could

mean that they are not able to use the buses when needed at night or too early in the morning.

Question 8: Are you satisfied with the bus destinations?

This question investigates whether the buses travel to the desired destinations of the

customers. This will significantly determine whether customers‟ needs and wants (requests)

are readily responded to by the bus company.

Group 3: (assurance dimension): These questions measure the assurance dimension of

SERVQUAL in public transportation.

Question 1: Do you feel safe using the bus charge cards?

This measures the extent to which passengers feel safe and are confident with their

transactions with the company, for example when they use their electronic cards to make

payments on the bus.

Question 2: Are the bus drivers careful?

This question investigates the extent to which they feel safe during a bus trip. Some

respondents complained that the bus drivers were too fast and careless. If this is the view of

38

the majority of passengers, then this will significantly influence the quality of the service as

perceived by the customers.

Question 3: Do the employees always have a solution to your problems?

This question measures the ability of the employees in solving the problems of the customers.

A low rating would mean that the employees do not have adequate knowledge or skills to

solve the problems of the customers and this could significantly influence the quality of the

service as perceived by the customer.

Question 4: Do the employees always tell you to refer to someone else or someone

senior?

This question measures the efforts and determination of the employees in assisting customers

in using the services of the bus company. Referral to a senior employee would demonstrate

the willingness of the employee to guide the customer to the right department of the company

where he or she can get their problems solved.

Group 4 - (empathy dimension): These questions measure the empathy dimension of

SERVQUAL in public transportation.

Question 1: Do the employees assist handicap passengers, children and seniors?

This question investigates and measures the willingness and ability of the employees to assist

needy passengers in a caring fashion as well as offer individual attention. The way employees

handle other passengers could significantly influence the service quality of the customer

involved as well as another customer in the bus but who observes the behaviour of the

employee.

Question 2: Do the employees prevent disrespectful passengers from disturbing others?

This question measures the extent to which employees have the customers‟ best interest at

heart by preventing other passengers from hurting others. The behaviour of other passengers

can significantly influence the perception of service quality other passengers travelling in the

same bus.

Group 5: (tangibles dimension): These questions measure the tangible dimension of

SERVQUAL in public transportation.

39

Question 1: Are the buses clean and pleasant to be in?

This question measures the tidiness of the buses and the visually appealing facilities in them

like the seats. If low, the consumer may view the service as low in quality and vice versa.

Question 2: Are there often problems with the Card Punching Machines?

This question measures the effectiveness of the card punching machines in the bus. There

were cases of functional defects and this can significantly decrease the quality of the service

as perceived by the customer.

Question 3: Are the bus stops comfortable (seats, roof, timetable, board, ticket machines)?

This measures the comfort and beauty of the visual facilities at the bus stops. This can

significantly influence the customers‟ perception of quality of the service because the events

during the period of waiting can have a significant impact on his or her perception before

using the core service (bus ride).

Question 4: Do you like the design of the tickets (shape and material, and information)?

This measures the quality of the paper and the information on the tickets as perceived by the

customer. These visually appealing materials can have a significant influence on the service

quality as perceived by the customer.

3.2.1.2 Section 2 - Complaint Behaviour and Real Incident Question

In this section, the Real Incident Questions (Yes and No Question) are relevant to this

research. These questions are aimed at identifying the number of respondents who have

actually encountered a negative service experience. What exactly was it and how did they

react?

Question 1: Have you ever had an unfavourable experience using public buses (within the

last 12 Months)? (Yes or No).

This question measures the number respondents who had actually encountered an

unfavourable service experience within the last 12 months.

Question 2: If yes, what kind of problem occurred?

In this question, the respondents describe the problems they experienced. This was an open

end question so that we could obtain as much information as possible about the problem that

occurred.

40

3.2.2 Sample Size, sampling method and description of data set

Below is a brief description of how we determined the required sample size for this research.

In addition, we also described the sampling method and finally the data set we used which is

basically our sample.

3.2.2.1 Sample size

Our sample was drawn from the population of Karlstad City. We made sure that our sample

size should be large enough so that the results from the sample can be extrapolated to the

entire customer group of business level 1 and 2. We consider extrapolation to be very

important in producing valid results. Based on the results from our sample, we want to be

able to say with 95% confidence interval that the whole target customer base is acting,

feeling, behaving or complaining about this industry in the same manner as the survey

sample. We used the formula below in determining the sample size needed so that the survey

results should be accurate at the 95% confidence level which literally means that the

possibility of the results occurring by chance is 5 percent. According to Anton (1996, p.89)

the formula to determine the sample size required is as follows:-

Sample Size = 2500* N * (1.96)2 / (25(N-1)) + (2500 * (1.96)

2)

N: Total Population (Population of Karlstad City).

(1.96): The confidence coefficient: Z-score.

The population of Karlstad (Municipality) is 82,096 inhabitants (Statistiska Centralbyrån,

Sverige: 2005). Based on the above formula, the minimum sample size required for this

research should be 382 respondents determined as follows:-

2500*82096*3.8416/ 25(82,096-1) + (2500*3.8416) = 382.4 respondents

However, our sample was well above this minimum requirement by 224.6 (607- 382.4). Due

to the fact that some respondents did not provide answers to all the questions in the

questionnaire, the number of respondents who answered some questions could be lower than

607.

41

3.2.2.2 Sampling Method and interviews

To ensure that our sample actually included the customer base of business level 1 and 2, we

handed in our questionnaire to people who actually use the public transportation. In this

regard we decided to use a judgmental sampling method because this would ensure reliable

answers since the respondents would be people who actually use the services of the

companies (business level 1 and 2). We did not hand in questionnaires to people who had not

used the services of the companies in the last 12 months (that is we included only those

people who had used the bus companies within the last 12 months from the day we

interviewed them). Therefore our criteria for selecting respondents were as follows:-

1. Active users: Respondent should be a regular user of business level 1 or 2

2. Passive user: If the respondent is not an active user, he should have used the bus

companies in question at least once in the last three months (From the date of

interview).

3. Gender: We also tried to guarantee a balance in gender proportion.

Based on the criteria above, the appropriate sampling method for this survey was judgmental

sampling method.

In order to ensure that our sample included a wide range of respondents with different

demographic and socio-economic characteristics, we made sure that there was no wide

discrepancy between the proportion of male and female. We also made sure that our sample

included people of all age groups who use the public transport in Karlstad. In addition, we

interviewed people who were students as well as fully employed so that the respondents

should have a wide distribution of income. We also interviewed students as well as people in

different parts of the city like Parks and shopping centers like Bergvik where we knew that

there is a high chance of interviewing people with higher income levels. We also interviewed

passengers in the bus to be sure that they were users of public buses as well as meet those

people who are living in the outskirts of Karlstad city (Locality/Urban area).

Interviews

We interviewed and conducted our field survey over a period of three months so that we

could increase the chances of meeting/interviewing different people from different

backgrounds and with different demographic and socio-economic characteristics. We

42

conducted face-to-face interviews with respondents who had encountered problems in order to

get an insight of the problems and understand their feelings as well as assess their experience

with the use of technology in the service. Their feedback and feelings could not be obtained or

detected from the questionnaires. With regards to face-to-face interviews with the

respondents, we used the questionnaire described above as a base for our interview. We asked

them to give us reasons for their answers in the questionnaire which we used as a base to

make interpretations and inferences about the results in the questionnaire. We proceeded by

using some of their (customers, passengers) feedbacks and reasons for their answers to

interview the manager of customer and employee complaint management of SWEBUS. The

interview with the manager was conducted at the headquarters of the SWEBUS in Karlstad

and it lasted for approximately two hours including a 30 minutes break. We conducted the

interview twice on two different days. The first interview was conducted after we had carried

out our field survey interviewing the customers and analyzed their responses. The second

interview was conducted a week after the first interview and this interview was based on the

customer complaint (From 02 June 2008 to 02 June 2009) the management of SWEBUS had

received and handed to us by the management of the company. We also used the

comments/feedback of the manager to have an insight of some of the problems facing the

company and also the reasons why some customer complaint have not been solved by the

company until the time of the interview. We also got vital information from management

regarding the effectiveness of technology in boosting employee and service performance,

hence customer satisfaction.

3.2.2.3 Description of sample (Data set)

As mentioned before, the total number of respondents who participated in our survey was

607. The socio-economic characteristics respondents of the sample are as follows:-

Gender: 49.59% (301) were female and 50.41% (306) were male.

Age: The age distribution of respondents ranged from 17 to 62 years (46 years being

the difference between the maximum and the minimum age).

Income Level: Our respondents were divided into three income groups as follows:-

Income level 1 (0- 10.000 SEK): Income Level 2 (10.001-20.000 SEK) and Income

Level 3 (20.001 SEK- above) on monthly basis. Percentage of respondents in each

income level:- Income Level 1: 62.83%, Income Level 2: 27.79% and Income Level 3:

9.36%

43

Frequency of bus usage: Below are the percentages of the frequency of bus usage by

the respondents:- Active Users: 71.87%; Passive Users: 28.12%

3.3 Data analysis

In this section, we shall describe how the data from our survey was analyzed in order to

provide answers to the research questions in this report. The analysis was done as follows:-

Step 1: Analyses of data from section 1 of the questionnaire

In step 1, we analyzed the results of the questions in section 1 of the questionnaire. The

respondents were allowed to rate (1 to 7) the service quality (perceived service quality) of the

questions. It must be noted that each question measures the service quality of a particular area

of the service process. In this regard, a low rating will imply a low perceived service quality

and a wider Gap-5 and vice versa. The mean of each question at business level 1 and 2 were

obtained by determining the sum of all the ratings apportioned to that particular question

divided by the number of respondents who answered that question (607 respondents). The

mean of both business level 1 and 2 were added together and divided by two (B1+B2/2) to

obtain the mean at industry level which implies service quality at industry level. Based on the

mean of each question at industry level, Gap-5 at industry level was determined. We then

ranked all the questions according to the size of their Gap-5 (from those with small Gap-5

implying higher means or service quality and down to those questions with large Gap-5 and

lower means implying lower service quality). Based on the sizes of Gap-5, we would

investigate whether more customer complaint from both our survey and those received by the

management of SWEBUS came from those areas (questions) with large Gap-5 and vice versa.

For easier analyses and interpretation of results of the questions, we converted the means at

industry level into percentages so that the size of Gap-5 can easily be distinguished from the

maximum of 100%. For example, if the mean at industry level is 6, this implies that perceived

service quality is 85.71% (6/7*100) and Gap-5 would be 14.29% (100-85.71% or 1/7*100).

We preferred to consider the means/Gap-5 of each question at industry level because the

analyses will take into consideration the differences of the service characteristics of both

business levels. This will provide a reliable platform to interpret the results of the

questionnaire and make generalisations about the public transportation industry which is more

relevant to the research questions of this thesis.

44

Step 2: Analyses of customer complaints from our survey and that received by the

management of SWEBUS.

In this step, we created a table of customer complaints in section 2: Real incident questions in

the questionnaire, where we grouped the complaints from respondents into 10 categories.

Similarities in complaints depending on the area of the service process in which they occurred

were grouped under the same category. The complaint categories were ranked according to

their frequency (highest to lowest) and in this regard it was possible to identify the areas of

the service process where complaints were high, hence service quality will be perceived by

the customers as low and vice versa. We also ranked the complaints from customers received

by the management of SWEBUS from 02 June 2008 to 02 June 2009. It must be noted that the

complaints were already grouped into 11 categories before handed to us. We ranked them

from those with the highest frequency down to the lowest frequency of complaints.

Comparisons between the two tables were made in order to confirm accuracy of our survey.

The question in section 2 of our questionnaire was an open end question because we wanted

the respondents to be able to describe the problems the encountered so that we would be able

to get as much information as possible as well as be able to use this information to identify the

areas of the service process from which the problem may have originated.

Step 3: Comparison of results in step1 and step 2

We compared Customer complaints from our survey and those received by the management

of SWEBUS with the questions in section 1 of questionnaire in order to investigate the

effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality and the increase customer

satisfaction through the use of technology. We began by analysing the questions according to

the five dimensions of SERVQUAL, thus providing an overview of the performance of the

dimensions at both business levels by revealing the areas of the service process which had the

highest service quality and down to the lowest. In this regard we would be able to already

identify those areas from which more complaints are likely to come from and that the

questions from the dimensions with the lowest means are likely to rank low indicating low

service quality and customer satisfaction.

After analysing and ranking the complaints from our survey and that of management of

SWEBUS, we compared both complaint tables in order to identify similarities, patterns,

trends as well as determine whether our complaint survey was similar to that received by the

45

management of SWEBUS. This was important because we used these complaint tables as a

platform to investigate the research questions developed within the framework of

SERVQUAL dimensions in order to assess their effectiveness in measuring service quality in

public transportation. We compared the complaints from both tables and determined whether

the areas of the service process with large Gap-5 were related to the areas of complaint from

customers. Based on this comparison, we were able to provide a response to our research

questions. We also compared the differences in perceived service quality between business

level1 and 2 in order to confirm the effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service

quality as well as the impact of technology on customer satisfaction while taking into account

the differences in service characteristics of both business level 1 and 2. This provided an in-

depth understanding of the impact of service characteristics on service quality and customer

satisfaction.

4 Results

The results presented here follow the sequence described in the analysis in chapter 3.3 above

and they are as follows:-

4.1 Step 1: Results of questions data from section 1 of the questionnaire

In this section we provide the results of the questions in section 1 according to the five

dimensions and thereafter we list the results according to their rankings at industry level.

4.1.1 Means according to the five dimensions

This section is aimed at giving us an overview of the performance of the dimensions at both

business levels so that we can already have a clue of the areas of the service process which

had the highest down to the lowest service quality. In this regard we would be able to already

identify those areas from which more complaints are likely to come and that the questions

from the dimensions with the lowest means are likely to rank low indicating low service

quality and customer satisfaction.

46

5,15,2

4,7

4,44,6

4

4,5

5

5,5

Quality Dimens ions K arls tad C ity B us es

R eliability R es pons ivenesAs s urance E m pathyTang ibles

Graph 1a: Means of service quality

dimensions of business level 1

5,155

4,8

4,6

4,9

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

Quality dimentions of Interc ity bus es

R eliability R es pons ivenes As s uranceE m pathy Tang ibles

Graph 1b: Means of service quality

dimensions of business level 2

The graphs above shows the ratings of business level 1 and 2 service performance (service

quality) according to the five dimensions as perceived by the customers. These means could

be interpreted as the level of customer satisfaction/service quality according to the five

dimensions. The smaller the size of Gap-5 for each dimension the higher the level of

perceived service performance (satisfaction) it contributes to the overall service quality in

public transportation (bus companies) and vice versa. The SERVQUAL dimensions for city

buses (business level 1) scored the following points (ranked from highest to lowest):-

1) Responsiveness 5.2 (74.29%); Gap-5 25.71% 4) Tangibles 4.6 (65.71%); Gap-5 34.29%

2) Reliability 5.1 (72.86%); Gap-5 27.14% 5) Empathy 4.4 (62.86%); Gap-5 37.14%

3) Assurance 4.7 (67.14%); Gap-5 32.86%

The SERVQUAL dimensions for business level 2 scored the following points (ranked from

highest to lowest):-

1) Reliability 5.15 (73.57%); Gap-5 26.43% 4) Assurance 4.8 (68.57%); Gap-5 31.49%

2) Responsiveness 5 (71.43%); Gap-5 28.57% 5) Empathy 4.6 (65.71%); Gap-5 34.29%

3) Tangibles 4.9 (70%); Gap-5 30%

4.1.2 Raking at industry level

Below is the ranking of the questions in section 1 based on the sizes of Gap-5 from the

smallest down to the largest.

1) Q1=79.5%; Gap-5:20.6% (Responsiveness) 12)Q6=71%;Gap-5:29% (Responsiveness)

2) Q1=78.5%; Gap-5:21.5% (Assurance) 13)Q4=70.7%;Gap-5:29.3%(Responsiveness)

3) Q8=78.3%: Gap-5:21.7% (Responsiveness) 14)Q2=69.5%;Gap-5:30.5% (Assurance)

4) Q5=76.5%: Gap-5:23.5% (Responsiveness) 15)Q3=68.3%;Gap-5:31.7% (Assurance)

47

5) Q1=75.5%: Gap-5:24.5% (Reliability) 16)Q3=65.9%;Gap-5:34.1% (Tangible)

6) Q2=73.7%: Gap-5:26.3% (Responsiveness) 17)Q1=65.6%;Gap-5:34.4% (Empathy)

7) Q3=73.5%: Gap-5:26.5% (Reliability) 18)Q7=65.2%;Gap-5:34.8%(Responsiveness)

8) Q4=73.4%: Gap-5:26.6% (Reliability) 19)Q2=62.8%;Gap-5:37.2% (Tangible)

9) Q1=72.2%: Gap-5:27.8% (Tangible) 20)Q2=62.6%;Gap-5:37.4% (Empathy)

10) Q4=71.9%: Gap-5:28.1% (Tangible) 21)Q3=62.2%;Gap-5:37.8%(Responsiveness)

11) Q2=71.2%; Gap-5:28.8% (Reliability) 22) Q4=57.2%; Gap-5:42.8% (Assurance)

1) Q1- Responsiveness: Is the timetable easy to understand? At industry level Q1=79.5%;

Gap-5:20.6%. Gap-5 of Q1 was smaller (20.14%) and in terms of perceived service quality

(satisfaction) ranked first in the responsiveness dimension of business level 2 (B2). In

business level 1 (B1) Gap-5 was larger (21%) and ranked second in the responsiveness

dimension, indicating that consumers find it easier to understand the time table of B2 than B1.

This question ranked first in terms of perceived service quality (customer satisfaction) for the

responsiveness dimension in B2. Consumers complained that the timetable of B1 was more

complicated to understand because of regular departures. However, it must be noted that

most users of B2 purchase their tickets online and therefore view the time table as well online

and this could have an impact on them. Therefore, a more crowded and complicated timetable

is more likely to decrease perceived service quality and increase customer complaint and vice

versa.

2) Q1-Assurance: Do you feel safe using the bus charge cards? At industry level

Q1=78.5%; Gap-5:21.5%. Gap-5 of Q1 was smaller (20.14%) and in terms of satisfaction

ranked first in the assurance dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was larger (23%) and also ranked

first, indicating that consumers feel safe using the bus charge cards in both B1 and B2. This

question ranked first in terms of customer satisfaction for the assurance dimension in B2 but

customers feel safer in B1 than B2. Therefore, less reliability of charge cards are more likely

to decrease perceived service quality and increase customer complaint and vice versa.

3) Q8-Responsiveness: Are you satisfied with the bus destinations? At industry level

Q8=78.3%: Gap-5:21.7%. Gap-5 of Q8 was smaller (20.43%) and in terms of satisfaction

ranked first within the responsiveness dimension of B1. In B2, Gap-5 was larger (23%) and

ranked second within the responsiveness dimension of B2, indicating that consumers are more

satisfied with the destinations of B1 than of B2. Based on consumers‟ complaints this is

48

because B1 travel to more destinations within the city than B2 does between cities and towns

around Karlstad city and within Sweden. Therefore, fewer bus destinations are more likely to

decrease perceive service quality and increase customer complaint and vice versa.

4) Q5-Responsiveness: Are you satisfied with the number of bus stops? At industry level,

Q5=76.5%: Gap-5:23.5%. Gap-5 of Q5 was smaller (21.14%) for B1 and in terms of

satisfaction ranked third within the responsiveness dimension B1. In B2 Gap-5 was larger

(25.86%) and also ranked third within the responsiveness dimension of B2. This implies that

consumers are more satisfied with the number of bus stops for B1 than for B2. Consumers

complained that B2 does not stop in some places they would wish. Therefore, fewer bus stops

will more likely decrease perceived service quality and increase customer complaint and vice

versa.

5) Q1-Reliability: Are the bus services provided as expected? At industry level

Q1=75.5%: Gap-5:24.5%. Gap-5 of Q1 was smaller (23%) in B1 and in terms of satisfaction

ranked first within the reliability dimension in B1. In B2 Gap-5 was larger (26%) and ranked

second within the reliability dimension in B2. More consumers agree that the bus services of

B1 are provided as expected than in B2. Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to be

increase and perceived service quality decrease if consumers perceive that bus services are not

provided as expected and vice versa.

6) Q2-Responsiveness: Is the timetable always available and respected by buses? At

industry level Q2=73.7%: Gap-5:26.3%. Gap-5 of Q2 was smaller (24.86%) in B1 and in

terms of satisfaction ranked fifth within the responsiveness dimension in B1. In B2 Gap-5 was

larger (27.57%) and ranked fourth within the responsiveness dimension in B2. It implies that

consumers are more satisfied with the availability and respect of the timetable by the city

buses than by the intercity buses. Based on the fact that the average that the average duration

of lateness by the intercity buses is longer than that of city buses, consumers perceive intercity

buses as paying less attention to their schedules. Therefore, the absence of a timetable as well

as paying less attention to the timetables is more likely to increase customer complaint and

decrease perceived service quality and vice versa.

7) Q3-Reliability: Are the buses punctual? At industry level Q3=73.5%: Gap-5:26.5%.

Gap-5 of Q3 was smaller (24.43%) for B1 and in terms of satisfaction ranked second within

49

the reliability dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was larger (28.71%) and ranked fourth within the

reliability dimension of B2. This implies that B1 are more punctual than B2. Consumers

complained that B2 buses are often on average 10 to 15 minutes late whereas the B1 buses are

usually 5 to 10 minutes late. Based on the theory of zone of tolerance (Woodruff et al, 1983)

which “characterises customers‟ service expectations by a range of levels rather than a single

level”(Tronvoll, 2008:14, appendix p.5) one gets the impression that bus users in this survey

are more likely to tolerate lateness of 5-10 minutes than 10-15minutes or more. However, it

must be understood that intercity buses (B2) travel longer distances and usually when there is

a delay; they would require more time to catch-up than the city buses (B1) would meanwhile

city buses stop more often and as a result can easily reduce the time of lateness between bus

stops. Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to be high if lateness of a bus exceeds 10

minutes and vice versa.

8) Q4-Reliability: Are the bus reservations and bookings reliable? At industry level

Q4=73.4%: Gap-5:26.6%. Gap-5 of Q4 was larger (28.57%) for B1 and ranked third in terms

of satisfaction within the reliability dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was smaller (24.57%) and

ranked first within the reliability dimension of B2. Consumers are more satisfied with the bus

reservations and reliability of bookings in B2 buses than in B1 buses. This is because most

reservations and bookings for B2 buses are done online whereas in B1 buses, passengers

mostly purchase tickets from the drivers or from the city bus (B1) offices around town. This

reveals that Gap-5 is more likely to be wider if more customers interact with the employees

and vice versa. There are more moments of truth and these increases the chances of mistakes

to be made, hence more customer complaints. Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to

be increase if the bus reservations and bookings are not reliable. In addition, this research

seems to suggest that the higher the level of automation or technology, the higher the level of

perceived service quality and customer satisfaction and the smaller the size of Gap-5 and vice

versa.

9) Q1-Tangible: Are the buses clean and pleasant to be in? At industry level Q1=72.2%:

Gap-5:27.8%. Gap-5 of Q1 was larger (31.14%) for B1 and in terms of satisfaction ranked

second within the tangible dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was smaller (24.57%) and ranked

first within the tangible dimension of B2. Passengers agreed and gave high ratings that B2

buses are cleaner and pleasant to be in than B1 buses. B2 buses are cleaner and look newer

and more comfortable especially due to the fact that they are used for long distances and the

50

passengers are all seated during the trip/journey and are more disciplined or quiet. Therefore,

customer complaint is more likely to be higher and service quality lower, if passengers

perceive a bus to be dirty, less comfortable and unpleasant to be in and vice versa.

10) Q4-Tangible: Do you like the design of the tickets (shape and material, and

information)? At industry level Q4=71.9%: Gap-5:28.1%. Gap-5 of Q4 was larger (30.71%)

for B1 and in terms of satisfaction ranked first within the tangible dimension of B1. In B2

Gap-5 was smaller (25.57%) and ranked second within the tangible dimension of B2.

Passengers agree and give high ratings that they like the design of the tickets of B2 than of B1

buses. The tickets of B2 buses have a nicer design and usually have more information about

the trip on them. This is also due to the fact that passengers of B2 buses pay higher fares than

in B1 buses. Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to be higher and perceived service

quality lower, if passengers do not like the design of the tickets and vice versa.

11) Q2-Reliability: Are the employees good at handling customers’ problems? At

industry level Q2= 71.2%: Gap-5: 28.8%. Gap-5 of Q2 was larger 30.71% in B1 and ranked

fourth within the reliability dimension of B1. Gap-5 of Q2 was smaller 26.86% in B2 and

ranked third within the reliability dimension of B2. Based on feedback of respondents, they

said that drivers of B2 take time to listen to their complaints as well as offer information about

their destinations than the drivers of B1. This is obvious because the drivers of B1 buses

usually have more passengers boarding at the same time during the journey and as a result

cannot have enough time to listen to every complaint put before them. Respondents also

complained of overcrowding in B1 buses. Moreover, due to the fact that passengers of B2 pay

more money for the service, the level of attention given to the passengers is higher than that

of B1. During our survey, we realised that there was a significant difference in the number

passengers boarding B1 buses and B2 buses at every stop. That of B1 buses was on average 5

times more than B2 buses. In this regard, customer complaint is more likely to increase and

perceived service quality decrease if employees do not listen to the customers due to over

crowded buses.

12) Q6-Responsiveness: Are you satisfied with the bus intervals? At industry level,

Q6=71%; Gap-5:29%. Gap-5 of Q6 was smaller (22.43%) for B1 and in terms of satisfaction

ranked fourth within the responsiveness dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was larger (35.71%)

and ranked seventh within the responsiveness dimension of B2. It implies that consumers are

51

more satisfied with the bus intervals of B1 than B2. Consumers complained that they usually

have to wait for as long as 30 minutes or more for B2 buses in the event that they missed one.

We noticed that the average time interval between each B2 bus was on average between 30-60

minutes compared to B1 buses which have average time intervals of 10 minutes. Therefore,

longer time intervals of buses are more likely to increase customer complaint and decrease

perceived service quality and vice versa.

13) Q4-Responsiveness: Do the employees demonstrate willingness to help whenever you

have a problem? At industry level, Q4=70.7%; Gap-5:29.3%. Gap-5 of Q4 was larger

(29.71%) for B1 and ranked sixth in terms of satisfaction within the responsiveness dimension

of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was smaller (28.86%) and ranked fifth within the responsiveness

dimension in B2. This implies that consumers perceive the employees of B2 to demonstrate

more willingness to help than in B1, whenever they (consumers) have a problem. It must be

noted that consumers of B1 buses have more interactions with the employees (more

passengers buy tickets in the bus) than in the B2 buses (more passengers buy tickets online).

As a result, drivers may be over stressed to solve the problems of many customers. In

addition, because customers of B1 buses buy tickets on the bus, drivers usually have a lot of

money in the bus. Consequently, they are scared of interacting or talking to the passengers for

fear of being rubbed. According to the feedback of the manager of customer and employee

complaint Mr Peter Enquist at SWEBUS, a driver is being rubbed on average every week in

Karlstad and the nearby towns. This therefore discourages drivers to assist passengers because

they do not know who could be a rubber. Therefore, customer complaint is likely to increase

and perceived service quality decrease whenever consumers perceive employees as being less

willing to solve their problems. It is more severe when the customer believes that the

employee is able to solve the problem but shows little interest.

14) Q2-Assurance: Are the bus drivers careful? At industry level Q2=69.5%; Gap-

5:30.5%. Gap-5 of Q2 was smaller (32.71%) in B2 and in terms of satisfaction ranked second

within the assurance dimension in B2. In B1 Gap-5 was larger (28.43%) and also ranked

second within the assurance dimension in B1, indicating that consumers perceive the drivers

of B2 buses to be more careful than those of B1 buses. However, it must be noted that B2

buses use the highways more and as a result travel on higher speed than B1 buses which drive

in the city with more traffic. Therefore, customer complaint behaviour is more likely to

52

increase and perceived service quality decrease if consumers perceive drivers as not being

careful and vice versa.

15) Q3-Assurance: Do the employees always have a solution to your problems? At

industry level Q3=68.3%; Gap-5:31.7%. Gap-5 of Q3 was larger (32.71%) for B1 and in

terms of satisfaction ranked second within the assurance dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was

smaller (30.71%) and ranked third within the assurance dimension of B2. More consumers

agree that the employees of B2 always have a solution to their problems than in B1.

Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to increase as well as become more severe, if

consumers perceive that employees do not always have a solution to their problems and vice

versa.

16) Q3-Tangible: Are the bus stops comfortable (seats, roof, timetable, board, ticket

machines)? At industry level Q3=65.9%; Gap-5:34.1%. Gap-5 of Q3 was larger (34.57%) for

city buses and in terms of satisfaction ranked third. In B2 Gap-5 was smaller (33.71%) and

also ranked third within the tangible dimension in B2. Passengers agree and give high ratings

that the bus stops of B2 are more comfortable than those of B1. Generally B2 have larger and

well built buildings. This is probably because these buses travel long distances and as a result

departure intervals are wider, hence passengers require more comfortable environment to wait

for these buses. The bus stops of B1 are usually built for convenience, thereby making them

very simple and less comfortable. Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to be increase

and perceived service quality decrease if passengers perceive the bus stops as uncomfortable.

17) Q1-Empathy: Do the employees assist handicap passengers, children and seniors?

At industry level Q1=65.6%; Gap-5:34.4%. Gap-5 of Q1 was larger (34.86%) for B1 and in

terms of satisfaction ranked first within the empathy dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was

smaller (33.86%) and also ranked first within the empathy dimension of B2. More

respondents agreed that the employees of B2 buses often assist handicap passengers, children

and seniors more than in B1 buses. Therefore, customer complaint is more likely to increase

and service quality decrease, if passengers perceive employees as not being willing to assist

handicap passengers, children and seniors and vice versa.

18) Q7-Responsiveness: Are you satisfied with the closing time of bus services? At

industry level, Q7=65.2%; Gap-5:34.8%. Gap-5 of Q7 was larger (36%) for B1 and ranked

53

seventh in terms of satisfaction within the responsiveness dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was

smaller (33.57%) and ranked sixth within the responsiveness dimension of B2. Consumers are

more satisfied with the closing time of B2bus services than that of B1. Many respondents said

that when they travel out of Karlstad and return late, they are obliged to use a taxi to get home

which is larger. However, from an economic point of view, the manager said that during the

week the B1 buses close earlier because after mid-night very few people use the bus, hence

would be uneconomical to allow drivers drive empty or almost empty buses around town.

However, on Fridays and Saturdays, the buses travel until the next day because many people

go out in the night on weekends. Customer complaint is more likely to increase, if consumers

are not happy with the closing time of bus services.

19) Q2-Tangible: Are there often problems with the Card Punching Machines?

At industry level Q2=62.8%; Gap-5:37.2%. Gap-5 of Q2 was larger (38.14%) for B1 and in

terms of satisfaction ranked fourth within the tangible dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was

smaller (36.43%) and also ranked fourth within the tangible dimension of B2. Passengers

agreed that there are often problems with the card punching machines in B1 buses than in B2

buses. However, it must be noted that most passengers of B2 buses buy their tickets online

and by so doing avoid using the card punching machines in the bus. An increase in the use of

the net in public transportation is more likely to increase customer satisfaction. Therefore,

customer complaint is more likely to increase and perceived service quality decrease, if the

card punching machines are not reliable and vice versa.

20) Q2-Empathy: Do the employees prevent disrespectful passengers from disturbing

others? At industry level Q2=62.6%; Gap-5:37.4%. Gap-5 of Q2 was larger (40%) for B1

and in terms of satisfaction ranked second within the empathy dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5

was smaller (34.86%) and also ranked second within the empathy dimension of B2. More

passengers agreed that the employees of B1 buses do not often prevent disrespectful

passengers from disturbing other passengers. Based on passengers‟ feedback as well as the

managers of the bus companies Peter Enquist (Swebus) confirmed that there are more cases of

drunken passengers in B1 buses than in B2 buses. They said it is more frequent on weekends.

Customer complaint is more likely to increase because of the negative comportment of other

passengers in the bus.

54

21) Q3-Responsiveness: Does buying tickets in the bus by others delay your journey?

At industry level Q3=62.2%; Gap-5:37.8%. Gap-5 of Q3 was larger (39.29%) for B1 and

ranked eighth in terms of satisfaction within the responsiveness dimension of B1. In B2 buses

Gap-5 was smaller and also ranked eighth within the responsiveness dimension of B2. This

question scored the lowest points in both companies. Many consumers in both companies

agreed that buying tickets in the bus by other passengers delays their journey. However, the

impact is greater in B1 buses than in B2 buses. As mentioned before, this is due to the fact

that more passengers of B1 buses buy their tickets in the bus, hence longer delays as

compared to passengers of B2 buses who mostly buy their tickets online. Therefore, buying

tickets in the bus is more likely to increase customer complaint and decrease service quality

and vice versa.

22) Q4-Assurance: Do the employees always tell you to refer to someone else or someone

senior? At industry level Q4=57.2%; Gap-5:42.8%. Gap-5 of Q4 was smaller (42.57%) in B1

and in terms of satisfaction ranked third within the assurance dimension of B1. In B2 Gap-5

was larger (43%) and ranked third within the assurance dimension of B2, indicating that more

respondents agreed that employees of B1 buses always tell them to refer to someone else or

someone senior than in B2 buses. Consumers will always be happy if they are referred to

employees who can solve their problems. However, it must be noted that this might be a sign

that the frontline employees do not have the knowledge to solve their problems which may

lead to dissatisfaction especially in a situation where a passenger has little time. It must also

be noted that in the previous question (Q3-assurace) many passengers agreed that the

employees of B2 buses always solved their problems, hence less referrals are needed. Due to

the fact that many passengers would want to have their problems solved, customer complaint

is more likely to increase and perceived service quality decrease if passengers are not referred

to employees who have the knowledge to solve their problems.

4.2 Step 2: Results of customer complaints from our survey and that

received by the management of SWEBUS.

Below are two tables showing the number of complaints and their percentages in relation to

the total number of complaints made by respondents in our survey as well as those received

by the management of SWEBUS.

Question 1: Have you ever had an unfavourable experience using public buses (within

the last 12 Months)? Yes: 102 (16.80%) No: 505 (83.20%)

55

16.8% of the respondents had actually encountered an unfavourable service experience within

the last 12 months. 83.2% had not encountered an unfavourable service experience within the

last 12 months. However, those who had not experienced any unfavourable service said they

had witnessed other passengers encounter unfavourable service experiences which influenced

their perception of service quality in public transportation in B1 and B2.

Question 2: If yes, what kind of problem occurred?

The problems experienced by the respondents (16.8%) and the problem areas have been

grouped in the table below as follows (From the highest to the lowest):-

R Areas of complaint (Problem areas) Number of respondents %

1 Punctuality (Late arrivals or early departures) 34 33.33%

2 Rude drivers 14 13.73%

3 Bus did not stop 10 9.8%

4 Drunken passengers 9 8.82%

5 Card machine 8 7.84%

5 Noisy passengers 8 7.84%

6 Lack of driver‟s assistance 7 6.87%

6 Crowded Bus 7 6.86%

7 No Travel Information 4 3.92%

8 Passenger evicted from the bus 1 0.98%

10 TOTAL 102 100%

Table 2: Areas of the service process where complaints were made and number of

respondents who complained

R: Refers to the ranking of the problem areas based on the number of respondents who

encountered an unfavourable service experience in that domain.

%: Percentage of the number of respondents who encountered an unfavourable service

experience in that particular domain.

Below is a table showing the customer complaints received by the management of Karlstad

city bus, Värmland Trafik and SWEBUS from the period of 02 June 2008 to 02 June 2009. It

was made available to us by the manger of customer and employee complaint department Mr

Peter Enquist. This can be compared with table 1 above in order to see the difference between

our survey and the reality on the ground (Bus companies in question).

56

R Areas of complaint (Problem areas) Number of

respondents

%

1 Employees - (driving too fast, service, did not stop) 80 60%

2 Punctuality - (too late, too early) 16 12%

2 Traffic planning - (bus routes) 16 12%

3 Vehicles - (loud noise, vandalized seats) 8 6%

4 Prices and tickets (why are there no pensioner discount) 6 4.5%

5 Bus stops - (too far between, not suitable for wheel-

chairs)

4 3%

6 Travel guarantee - (very late) 1 0.8%

6 Technique - (homepage, electronic signs 1 0.8%

6 Rules - (why can‟t i take my bicycle on-board) 1 0.8%

11 TOTAL 133 100%

Table 3: Complaints received by the management of SWEBUS from the period of 02

June 2008 to 02 June 2009

R: Refers to the ranking of the problem areas based on the number of users of Karlstad city

bus, Värmland Trafik and Swebus who encountered an unfavourable service experience in

that domain.

%: Percentage of the number of respondents who encountered an unfavourable service

experience in that particular domain.

When comparing table 1 and table 2 above, it is evident that most complaints in both tables

came from those areas of the service process that directly involves the employees that is areas

of the service process that customers (passengers) can directly associate the blame for the

unfavourable service experience to an employee. This is due to the fact that services are

intangible and therefore any failure or unfavourable experience will always be associated with

the employee providing it. For example, in table 2, 33.33% of unfavourable service

experience was due to lack of punctuality, 13.73% due to the rudeness of the drivers, 9.8%

because bus did not stop, 6.8% due to lack of drivers‟ assistance and 0.98% due to eviction of

a passenger from the bus. This makes a total of 64.64% of problems coming from areas of the

service process in which a failure can be directly associated to an employee. In Table 3,

complaints made by customers were 60% due to employees (driving too fast, service, did not

stop), 12% due to lack of punctuality - (too late, too early) and 1% due to no travel guarantee -

(very late). This makes a total of 72.8% of problems coming from areas of the service process

57

in which a failure can be directly associated to an employee (frontline employees). In this

regard, we can conclude that both complaint tables have similarities in terms of patterns,

trends of complaints and areas of the service process from which complaints originated.

Therefore, both tables provide a suitable and reliable platform to investigate the effectiveness

of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality and whether technology increases customer

satisfaction.

4.3 Step 3: Comparison of results in step1 and step 2 to answer research

questions

In this section, comparisons between section 1 and 2 is made in order to confirm the research

questions.

4.3.1 Is SERVQUAL effective in measuring service quality?

After comparing the results of section 1 and 2, we were able to confirm that SERVQUAL is

effective in measuring service quality in public transportation based on the following

reasons:-

4.3.1.1 The perspective of the SERVQUAL dimensions at industry level and business

level

From the perspective of the five dimensions, the service quality (service performance) at

industry level was as follows (from highest perceived service quality with smallest Gap-5 to

lowest perceived service quality :-

1) Reliability: 73.21% service quality and Gap-5 was 26.79%

2) Responsiveness was 72.86% service quality and Gap-5 was 27.14%

3) Assurance and Tangibles were 67.86% service quality and Gap-5 was 32.14%

4) Empathy was 64.29% service quality and Gap-5 was 35.71%

Empathy (Gap-5: 35.71%) ranked the lowest at industry level indicating that Gap-5 of the

questions of this service area was larger hence customer complaints came from these areas of

the service process as well. Evidence of this is that complaints sent to managers, 60% of them

came from employees either due to the fact that they were driving too fast, poor services by

them, or drivers did not stop. In table 2, 13.73% of complaints were due to rude drivers, lack

of driver‟s assistance, 9.8% because bus did not stop, and 0.98% passenger was evicted from

the bus all indicating inadequate service performance on the part of the employees. This

confirms that our questionnaire was able to „capture‟ and reveal this service deficiency in the

58

overall service performance of both companies. At business levels, Gap-5 of the empathy

dimension was smaller (34.29%) for B2 (business level 2) and in terms of satisfaction ranked

fifth. In B1 (business level 1) Gap-5 was larger (37.14%) and also ranked fifth. This implies

that passengers are more satisfied with the level of empathy in the services of B2 than of B1.

Although empathy has the largest Gap-5 in both companies, it is more likely that more

complaints will come from the items of empathy dimension of B1 than from B2. Therefore,

empathy has a significant influence on service quality in public transportation. However, it

must be noted that the dimension empathy had a total of two questions and this may have

contributed to it having the lowest score. In this regard, SERVQUAL was effective in

measuring service quality.

Assurance and responsiveness equally had large Gap-5: 32.14% and 27.14% as well as ranked

third and second in terms of service quality respectively at industry level, indicating that some

of the complaints came from this area and that these areas of the service process do not have a

high performance as expected by the customers. As mentioned before, assurance and

responsiveness also deals with employees which according to parasuraman et al (1994)

describes the way employees instil confidence in customers, employees courteousness,

employees answer customers‟ questions as well as help them, keep customers informed and

offer prompt services, clearly indicating the vital role of the employees. For example, in the

complaints received by the management (table 3), the complaint bus did not stop was amongst

the 60% of the complaints received by management indicating that drivers are not conscious

in performing their duties. At industry level, Gap-5 of the assurance dimension was smaller

(31.49%) for B2 and in terms of satisfaction ranked fourth within the assurance dimension of

B2. In B1 Gap-5 was larger (32.86%) and ranked third within the assurance dimension of B1.

This implies that passengers are more satisfied with the level of assurance of the services of

B2 than of B1. Therefore, it is more likely that more complaints will come from the items of

assurance dimension of B1 than from B2. Gap-5 of the responsiveness dimension was smaller

(25.71%) for B1 and in terms of satisfaction ranked first within the responsiveness dimension

of B1. In B2 Gap-5 was larger (28.57%) and ranked second within the responsiveness

dimension of B2. This implies that passengers are more satisfied with the degree of

responsiveness of the services of B1 than of business level B2. Therefore, it is more likely

that more complaints will come from the items of responsiveness dimension of B2 buses than

from B1 buses. It must also be noted that the dimension responsiveness had a total of 8

59

questions (items) in our questionnaire and this may have contributed to it having a higher

ranking than assurance and empathy.

Tangible had a Gap-5 of 32.14% and ranked third at industry level in terms of service quality.

Tangible dimension which according to Parasuraman et al (2004) describes modern

equipments used in the service as well as visually appealing facilities associated with the

service also had complaints coming from this area. For example, in the complaints received

by management (table 3), 6% was due to vandalised seats and 0.8% due to techniques like

home page and electronic signs. Complaints from our survey (table 2) revealed that 7.84%

was due to technical break down of the card machine and this was fifth highest complaints in

our survey. Consequently it is evident to see why Gap-5 of the question measuring the service

quality of the effectiveness of this machine was one of the largest (37.2%) ranking nineteenth

out of twenty two in terms of service quality. In this regard, we agree that SERVQUAL is

effective in measuring service quality in public transportation. Gap-5 of the tangible

dimension was smaller (30%) for B2 and in terms of satisfaction ranked fourth. In B1 Gap-5

was larger (34.29%) and ranked third. This implies that passengers are more satisfied with the

quality of tangibles of B2 than of B1. Therefore, it is more likely that more complaints will

come from the items of tangible dimension of B1 than from B2.

Reliability dimension had a Gap-5 of 26.79% and ranked first in terms service quality at

industry level. Reliability dimension which according to Parasuraman et al (2004) describes

the ability of the service provider to provide services at the promised time and as promised,

had complaints coming from this area. For example, 12% of the complaints received by

management were due to lack of punctuality and it was the second highest, travel guarantee

1% while in our survey, 33.33% of complaints were due to lack of punctuality and it was the

highest amount of complaints made by respondents. However, it must be noted that this

dimension ranked first in terms of quality because although respondents agreed that bus

services were late, they believed that the bus services were provided as expected and rated

this as 75.5% in terms of service quality and this boosted the performance and ranking of this

dimension. Gap-5 of the reliability dimension was smaller (26.43%) for B2 buses and in terms

of satisfaction ranked first within the reliability dimension of B2. In B1 Gap-5 was larger

(27.14%) and ranked second within the reliability dimension of B1. This implies that

passengers are more satisfied with the level of reliability of the services of B2 than of B1.

60

Therefore, it is more likely that more complaints will come from the items of reliability

dimension of B1 than from B2.

4.3.1.2 The ranking of the questions in section 1 at industry level and the comparison

with the complaints results

We ranked the questions in section 1 from highest to lowest based on their service

quality/customer satisfaction. This implies that questions with large Gap-5 will be at the end

of the ranking while those with smaller Gap-5 at the beginning. In order to give more meaning

to the ranking, as mentioned in the analysis section, we determined the mean (average) and

the median of Gap-5 of all questions in the section 1 of the questionnaire in order to identify

the service areas with performance below and above the mean and median so that we can

compare them with the complaints received (table 1 and 2) in order to assess the effectiveness

of SERVQUAL in „capturing‟ and „diagnosing‟ the relevant deficiencies and strengths of the

service process. The mean (average) of Gap-5 at industry level is 29.8% (654.1%/22) and the

median is 28.4% (28.1%+28.8%/2). This implies that questions whose Gap-5 is larger than

29.8% will have service performances below the average and vice versa. Questions above the

median will indicate those areas of the service process above the mid-point performance and

vice versa. Based on this ranking, it would be easier to determine the amount of questions per

dimension below or above the mean and median and then compare them with the complaints.

All dimensions had a question whose Gap-5 was larger than the median and all except

reliability had questions whose Gap-5 was larger than the mean (average). In comparison with

the median, reliability had 1(out of 4 questions in questionnaire) question whose Gap-5 was

larger than the median, responsiveness had 4 (out of 8), assurance had 3 (out of 4), tangible 2

(out of 4) and empathy 2 (out of 2). In comparison with the mean (average), responsiveness

had 3 (out of 8), assurance 3 (out of 4), tangible 2 (out of 4) and empathy 2 (out of 2).

Therefore, based on the mean (average) responsiveness, assurance, tangible and empathy had

more questions whose Gap-5 were larger than the average, thus indicating that these areas of

the service process required greater performance from the employees. In addition, the

employees were expected by the customers to have performed better in order to increase

service quality.

Below we shall provide detailed analysis of the questions from this dimension and compare

them with complaints on both tables in section 2. With regards to the median, we shall

compare with the complaint tables 1 and 2, the question in reliability Q2 and Q6

61

responsiveness whose Gap-5 was larger than the median but smaller than the mean. They are

as follows:-

Q4 responsiveness ranked 13th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 29.3% (0.5% >mean

and 0.9%>median) indicating that the performance of the in demonstrating their

willingness to help passengers whenever they had a problem was not good enough.

Evidence of this is clear in the complaint table 3 from the management where 60% of

complaints were related to areas directly involving the employees. In our survey, rude

drivers which triggered 13.73% of complaints could be related to this question because

if passengers perceive them as rude, they are more likely to believe that drivers who

are frontline employees are not willing to help them.

Q2 assurance ranked 14th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 30.5% (0.7%>mean and

2.1>median) indicating that the customers perceive the drivers as not careful in

performing their duties. In the complaint table 3 received by management traces of

complaints from this area was amongst the 60% complaints received by the

management of SWEBUS and this ranked first. This is evidence that such service

failures are caused by employees.

Q3 assurance ranked 15th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 31.7% (1.9%>mean and

3.3%>median) indicating that passengers have not often had their problems solved by

employees. Complaints from this service area can be seen in the table 3 of complaints

received by management where 60% of their total complaint included complaints due

to inadequate services from employees, thus including this measure (question).

Q3 tangible ranked 16th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 34.1% (4.3%>mean and

5.7%>median) indicating that respondents did not find the bus stops comfortable

enough. For example, 3% of the complaints (table 3) received by management were

due to the fact that the bus stops were not suitable for wheel chairs, thus indicating

customers‟ frustrations with this service.

Q1 empathy ranked 17th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 34.4% (4.6%>mean and

6%>median) indicating that respondents believe that employees do not do enough to

assist handicap passengers, children and seniors. For example, in our survey 6.87% of

complaints was due to lack of driver‟s assistance, 4.5% of complaints received by

management was related to issues relating to seniors such as why are they not

pensioner discounts, thus reflecting the concern for seniors.

62

Q7 responsiveness ranked 18th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 34.8% (5%>mean and

6.4%>median) indicating that respondents are not that satisfied with the closing time

of bus services. For example, this is indicated in the complaints on services

represented in the 60% complaints (table 3) received by management. In addition,

0.8% a complaint was also made on travel guarantees especially late hours indicating

that some passengers are not satisfied with the fact that it is not possible to use the bus

services very late at night.

Q2 tangible ranked 19th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 37.2% (7.4%>mean and

8.8%>median) indicating that respondents often have problems with the card

punching machines. For example the percentage of complaints corresponding to this

service area in our survey was 7.8% and ranked fifth in relation to the total number of

complaints (table 2) in our survey.

Q2 empathy ranked 20th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 37.4% (7.6%>mean and

9%>median) indicating that respondents believe that employees do not do enough to

prevent disrespectful passengers from disturbing them. For example, evidence of this

can be seen in the numerous complaints (table 2) in our survey revealing that

numerous complaints were due to disturbance from other passengers. 8.82%

complaints in our survey were due to the disturbance of drunken passengers, 7.84%

due to noisy passengers and in the complaints received by management 6% included

due to loud noise, thus revealing the disturbance by other passengers. This is the

reason why this question ranked very low, thus revealing the effectiveness of

SERVQUAL in measuring service quality.

Q3 responsiveness ranked 21st at industry level and Gap-5 was 37.8% (8%>mean and

9.4% median) indicating that respondents are unhappy with the fact that other

passengers buy tickets in the bus because it delays their journey. Complaints from this

process would be found in the 60% complaints (table 3) received by management

specifically under service. It must be noted that this complaint was the highest

received by management.

Q4 assurance ranked 22nd

at industry level and Gap-5 was 42.8% (13%>mean and

14.4% median) indicating that employees do not always refer them to someone else or

someone senior to solve their problems thus evidence that employees do not assist

them in getting their problems solved. In our survey (table 2), 13.73% of the

complaints were caused by the fact that drivers were rude, thus indicating that

passengers could not have been referred to someone senior for help. In addition, most

63

respondents perceived the employees as unwilling to help them and therefore will not

refer them to someone senior for help. 60% of complaints (table 3) were due to

employees which also comprises this question.

The Gap-5 of two questions was larger than that of the median but lower than the mean. The

questions and complaint areas are as follows:-

Q2 reliability ranked 11th

and Gap-5 was 28.8% (0.4%>median) indicating that

respondents believe that employees are not quite good at handling customers‟

problems. Complaints relating to this question would be found in the 60% complaints

(table 3) received by management which was directly related to employees handling of

customers related issues in the service.

Q6 responsiveness ranked 12th

and Gap-5 was 29% (0.6%>median) indicating that

respondents were not quite satisfied with the bus intervals. Complaints relating to this

question would be found in traffic planning which made up 12% of the total number of

complaints (table 3) received by management as well as ranked second.

To conclude, more than 60% of the complaints in both tables came from areas of the service

process that involved employees. For example, in table 2, 33.33% of unfavourable service

experience was due to lack of punctuality, 13.73% due to the rudeness of the drivers, 9.8%

because bus did not stop, 6.8% due to lack of drivers‟ assistance and 0.98% due to eviction of

a passenger from the bus. This makes a total of 64.64% of problems coming from areas of the

service process in which a failure can be directly associated to the employees. In the table 3 of

complaints received by management, complaints made by customers were 60% due to

employees (driving too fast, service, did not stop), 12% due to lack of punctuality - (too late,

too early) and 1% due to no travel guarantee - (very late). This makes a total of 72.8% of

problems coming from areas of the service process in which a failure can be directly

associated to an employee (frontline employees).This is evident because majority of the

questions whose Gap5 were larger than the mean and the median were principally from

dimensions like empathy, responsiveness and assurance that required higher performance on

the part of the employees when offering the service. In addition, the dimension reliability

whose questions relatively performed better except Q2 actually measured employees‟

effectiveness in handling customers‟ problems. In this regard we concluded that SERVQUAL

was effective in measuring service quality in public transportation.

64

4.3.1.3 The effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality while taking into

consideration the impact of differences in service characteristics

Another aspect of SERVQUAL instrument that reveals its effectiveness in measuring service

quality is that it is able to show how service quality differed from one business level to

another due to differences in their service characteristics. The questions below are some

examples:-

Travel distance and punctuality: Q3 reliability measured the punctuality of B1 and

B2 and due to the fact that B2 buses travel long distances, they are often less punctual

than B1 buses which travel relatively short distances within the city. In this regard

SERVQUAL dimension was able to bring out the differences (4.28%) in the service

performance or perceived service quality in terms of punctuality of both B1 (75.57%)

and B2 (71.29%). It was logical that B2 buses will be less punctual because delays for

a bus travelling long distances requires more time to catch up, hence is more likely to

be late. In addition, there are speed limits on the highways.

Bookings (buying of tickets): Due to the fact that most passengers of B2 make their

travel reservations and bookings or purchase tickets online, it is evident that service

performance or perceived service quality relating to booking or purchase of tickets

would be more efficient and reliable in B2 than B1. Evidence of this was captured by

SERVQUAL in several questions which measured service processes whose

performance is influenced by the nature of bookings. For example, Q4 reliability

measured the reliability of bookings in B1 and B2. B2 was more reliable than B1

(service performance of B2: 75.43% and B1: 71.43%, difference: 4%). Q3

responsiveness measured the extent to which passengers believe that purchasing

tickets on the bus delayed their journey. It is logical that the delay in B2 was less

because most passengers buy their tickets online compared to B1 passengers who buy

their tickets in the bus thus making the driver to sell more tickets thereby delaying the

journey. SERVQUAL was able to capture the impact of the difference in this service

process (Service performance B2: 63.71% and B1: 60.71%, difference: 3%).

Frequency of usage: Due to the fact that the frequency of usage of B1 is higher than

B2, B1 buses has more bus stops than B2, B1 travels regularly thus having less time

interval between each bus than in B2, and B1 travels to more destination within the

city than B2 does to other cities. For example Q5 responsiveness was higher in B1

than in B2 in terms of service performance indicating that consumers were more

65

satisfied with the number of bus stops for B1 than B2. This is because B1 buses travel

within the city and are frequently used than B2 buses. In this regard, due to economic

reasons and less frequent usage, B2 buses only stop in important areas of the city

where they are more likely to pick up more passengers. The service performance and

difference of both business levels were (B1: 78.86% and B2: 74.14%, difference:

4.72%). In Q6 responsiveness service performance was higher in B1 (77.57%) than B2

(64.29%) indicating that consumers are more satisfied with the bus intervals of B1

than B2. Due to the fact that fewer passengers travel between cities on daily basis than

within the city, the travel intervals in B2 are 30 to 60 minutes on average whereas in

B1 which has a higher frequency of usage, travel intervals are 10 minutes on average.

In this regard SERVQUAL was able to measure the difference (13.28%) in service

quality thus revealing the difference in service quality or satisfaction. In Q8

responsiveness, respondents were more satisfied with the bus destinations of B1

(79.57%) than B2 (77%). They complained that B1 buses travel to more destinations

than B2 buses do between cities. Due to the lower frequency of usage and also

economic reasons, it is logical that B2 buses will travel mostly to profitable

destinations than less profitable than destinations where economic loss will be

incurred due to low frequency of usage. This difference in service performance in

terms of this question was 2.57%.

Price differences: It is logical that when the price of a service is higher, the comfort,

beauty of the service scape and the design of the tickets should be better than those of

a service whereby customers pay less. This is the reasons why B2 performed better in

these service areas than B1. For example, the service performance of Q1, Q3 and Q4

tangible were better in B2 than B1. In Q1 tangible, respondents agreed that B2 buses

were more comfortable and pleasant for travels and this is partly due to the fact that

the buses travel long distances and so all passengers have to be seated. Moreover,

passengers pay more for the tickets and as a result expect and receive a better service.

SERVQUAL was able to measure the difference in the service quality (B2:75.43%

and B1: 68.86%, difference: 6.57%). In Q3 tangible, respondents agreed that the bus

stops of B2 are more comfortable than B1 which was true after our investigation. Due

to the fact that the departure intervals for these buses are greater, the bus stops are well

built with comfortable waiting rooms for the passengers to wait for the bus. In

addition, these passengers pay more for their tickets and so should receive better

services. The difference in service performance in this service area was (B2: 66.29%

66

and B1: 65.43%, difference: 0.86%). The difference is not quite much because some

bust stops are shared between B1 and B2 and so this also boosts the performance of

B1. In this regard SERVQUAL has been able to „capture‟ the differences in service

quality with regard to the situation on the ground (reality). In Q4 tangible, respondents

preferred the design of the tickets of B2 than B1. This is evident because the tickets of

B2 buses have a nicer design with a more qualitative paper material. These tickets are

more expensive an as a result should be more appealing. The difference in service

quality for this domain was (B2: 74.43% and B1: 69.29%, difference: 5.14%).

To conclude this section, it is worth mentioning that SERVQUAL instrument has been

effective in measuring service quality in public transportation by revealing the impact of

service characteristics on service quality.

4.3.2 Does the use of technology increase customer satisfaction in public transportation?

In this section, we would provide evidence to prove that an increase in the use of technology

in the service process in public transportation increases customer satisfaction. We would

prove this by analysing the ranking of the questions in section 1 and also by comparing the

impact of the use of technology on the service performance of B1 and B2.

4.3.2.1 Ranking of the questions relating to technology at industry level

It is worth noting that the service performance hence customer satisfaction of most of the

questions measuring the impact of the use of technology in the service process ranked above

the mean and median indicating that their performances were well above the average in

relation to other questions measuring service performance in other service areas. The rankings

were as follows:-

Q1 responsiveness ranked 1st at industry level and Gap-5 was 20.6% (9.2%<mean and

7.8%<median) indicating that respondents find it easier to understand the timetable of B2

than B1. It must be noted that most passengers of B2 buy their tickets online and as a

result they are able to look at the timetable online. Online timetables are for more detailed

and informative than those at the bus stations. In this regard, passengers are able to plan

their trip more effectively. On the contrary, the passengers of B1 buy the tickets from the

driver in the bus and as a result often look at the timetable at the bus stops. Often these

timetables are complicated at have less information to explain details. Moreover, most

passengers who look at this are usually in a hurry and as a result are less focus. It must be

67

also noted that some of the timetable of the B1 bus stations which is also used by some B2

buses have electronic timetables which indicate the time interval of the next arriving bus

of the given route. This could also be a reason for the relatively small difference in

customer satisfaction. Although this question ranked 1st at industry level, there was a

difference in the service performance between B2 and B1 (B2:79.86% and B1:79%,

difference: 0.86%). This is evidence that the increase use of technology (online booking

and timetable) by B2 customers increased customer satisfaction by 0.86% over those of

B1.

Q1 assurance ranked 2nd

at industry level and Gap-5 was 21.5% (8.3<mean and 6.9%

<median) indicating that generally speaking respondents feel safe using the bus charge

cards. This question measures the attitude of customers when using self service

technology to buy tickets. Some customers feel that technology is not usually safe and

reliable when buying tickets. However, this was not the case in our survey because as

mentioned before, this service area (question) had the second highest service performance,

hence customer satisfaction than others indicating that technology increases customer

satisfaction. Respondents agreed that they felt safer using the bus charge cards in B1 than

in B2 (B1:79.86% and B2:77%, difference: 2.86%). This is because of the following:-

1. Price of tickets and amount of money pro transaction: The prices of tickets in B1 are

cheaper than in B2 and as a result customers in B1 have to feel their cards with less

money compared to B2 in order to be able to use them in B1 buses. Moreover, due to the

fact that the prices of tickets are cheep, less money is involved pro transaction (buying a

ticket or paying for a trip using a charge card) thus making the users less scared. On the

contrary, each ticket in the B2 buses cause 3 times on average more than those of B1

buses, thus making the transaction in B2 buses more riskier because more money can be

lost in case of a failure in the technology.

2. Booking online and frequency of usage: Most of the customers or users of B2 buses

purchase their tickets online and as a result do not have to use the bus charge cards. On the

contrary, more customers of the B1 buses use the charge cards and as a result are more

familiar with it, thus confirming that these cards really increase customer satisfaction.

Q4 reliability ranked 8th

at industry level and Gap-5 was 26.6% (3.2<mean and

1.8<median) indicating that respondents generally agree that bus reservations and

68

bookings are reliable and therefore increase customer satisfaction. The service

performance (service quality) of both B1 and B2 were high but that of B2 was higher than

B1 (B2:75.43% and B1:71.43%, difference: 4%). This is because majority of the

customers of B2 buy their tickets online and in this regard do their bookings and

reservations online. Therefore, increase use of technology (booking and reservations

online) increases reliability, hence customer satisfaction. In addition it must be noted that

an increase usage of technology (booking and reserving tickets online) increased customer

satisfaction in other areas of the service especially for B2 over B1 as follows:-

1. Employee performance and interaction with customers: Due to the fact that

customers make use of the internet to buy their tickets, we noticed that the positive

impact on customer satisfaction in B2 was greater than in B1 because more B2

customers use this technology than B1 customers. For example, customer satisfaction

was higher in B2 than B1 for the following questions (Q2 reliability- B2: 73.14% and

B1: 69.29% and difference: 3.85%, Q4 responsiveness- B2: 71.14% and B1: 70.29% and

difference: 0.85%, Q3 assurance- B2: 69.29% and B1: 67.29% and difference: 2% and

Q1 empathy- B2: 65.14% and B1:60% and difference: 5.14%) because customers of B2

buy their tickets online and as a result the drivers (frontline employees) have more time

to listen and solve customers‟ problems, willing to help whenever customers have a

problem and assist handicap passengers, children and seniors instead of selling tickets to

passengers. So SST has increased employees‟ performance in serving customers which

has consequently boosted customer satisfaction. In Q2 reliability, Q4 responsiveness,

Q3, the service performance was higher in B2 (73.14%) than in B1(69.29%) thus having

a performance difference of 3.85% because most B2 passengers buy tickets online and

as a result the bus drivers have less work selling tickets in the bus. Consequently, they

are more focus on handling customers‟ problems specifically regarding their

destinations. Moreover, these drivers hold little or no cash on board because most

passengers buy tickets online. As a result, they are more confident to interact with the

passengers. On the contrary, B1 drivers are busier selling tickets on the bus and cannot

focus on handling or solving passengers‟ problems. Moreover, payments from the sale of

their tickets make them accumulate a lot of cash on board which makes them be at risk

of being robbed. This fear makes them less willing to interact with passengers, hence

cannot solve their problems or assist those passengers who need help like seniors,

children and handicap passengers.

69

Q2: reliability, B1/B2 (69.29%/73.14%= 0.95%:1%), when service performance

(service quality) increases in B2 by 1%, in B1 it increases by 0.95% for the same

service process. This is because the increase in the use of technology (SST) to buy

tickets online by B2 passengers increases the ability of frontline employees like drivers

in handling customers‟ problems. Technology makes it possible for the drivers to be

relieved from the burden of selling tickets and can focus on handling customers‟

problems. Based on the difference in service performance between B1 and B2 of

3.85%, a minimum increase of an average of 4.1% (3.85%/0.95%) in the number of

passengers of B1 using technology like booking online would be required in order to

„bridge‟ the gap of service performance between B1 and B2.

Q4: responsiveness, B1/B2 (70.29%/71.14%=0.99%:1%), when service performance

increases in B2 by 1%, in B1 it increases by 0.99% for the same service process. This

is because as more passengers of B2 use technology in buying tickets, the service

performance of drivers in demonstrating willingness to help passengers increases. The

relieve of the burden to sell tickets makes the drivers to be more willing to help

passengers who have problems. Based on the difference in service performance

between B1 and B2 of 0.99%, a minimum increase of an average of 0.86%

(0.85%/0.99%) in the number of passengers of B1 using technology like booking

online would be required in order to „bridge‟ the gap of service performance between

B1 and B2.

Q3: assurance, B1/B2 (67.29%/69.29%=0.97%:1), when service performance increases

in B2 by 1%, in B1 it increases by 0.97% for the same service process. As more

passengers of B2 use technology in buying tickets, the service performance of

employees in finding a solution to the problems of passengers will increases more.

They are able to focus on customer care instead of selling tickets and at the same time

try to solve the problems of passengers like in the case of B1. Based on the difference

in service performance between B1 and B2 of 2%, a minimum increase of an average

of 2.1% (2%/0.97%) in the number of passengers of B1 using technology like booking

online would be required in order to „bridge‟ the gap of service performance between

B1 and B2.

70

Q1 empathy: B1/B2 (60%/65.14%=0.92%:1), when service performance increases in

B2 by 1%, in B1 it increases by 0.92% for the same service process. As more

passengers of B2 use technology (SST) in buying tickets, service performance of

employees in assisting handicap passengers, children and seniors will increase. Based

on the difference in service performance between B1 and B2 of 5.14%, a minimum

increase of an average of 5.6% (5.14%/0.92%) in the number of passengers of B1 using

technology like booking online would be required in order to „bridge‟ the gap of

service performance between B1 and B2.

To conclude this section, the impact of technology (Self Service Technology) will increase

customer satisfaction through boosting employees‟ performance. This can only be guaranteed

if the customers increase the usage of self service technology thus reducing the work load on

employees so that employees can concentrate on offering counselling or assistance to

passengers by answering questions regarding their trip and destinations or assist handicap

passengers enter the bus.

2. Improved service processes: Some service processes have been improved significantly

due to the increase in the use of technology. For example, some passengers prefer to buy

their tickets in the bus and consequently the process of collecting money and giving the

balance as well as the ticket takes time which usually delays the departure of the bus.

This annoys other passengers in the bus who want to get to their destination on time. The

use of technology has made it possible for passengers to buy their tickets online and as a

result just walk into the bus faster, thus reducing the time wasted in buying a ticket. For

example in Q3 responsiveness service performance was higher in B2 than B1

(B2:63.71% and B1:60.71%, difference: 3%) indicating that passengers in B1 agree that

buying tickets in the bus by other passengers delays their journey. This is because most

passengers in B2 buy their tickets online and therefore do not have to buy a ticket in the

bus, thus increasing the performance and efficiency of this service process. It can be

clearly seen that the difference in service performance between B1 and B2 was quite

wide (3%) indicating the impact of technology in increasing customer satisfaction in this

service area. Q3 responsiveness: B1/B2 (60.71%/63.71%=0.95%:1), when service

performance in B2 increases by 1%, in B1 it increases by 0.95% for the same service

process. As more passengers of B2 use technology (SST) in buying tickets, service

performance and customer satisfaction of other passengers who may not be buying

71

tickets in the bus increases more than in B1. Based on the difference in service

performance between B1 and B2 of 3%, a minimum increase of an average of 3.2%

(3%/0.95%) in the number of passengers of B1 using technology like booking and

buying tickets online would be required in order to „bridge‟ the gap of service

performance (service quality) between B1 and B2.

Although technology increases customer satisfaction, this may turn around if the technology

is not reliable or constantly breaks down. In Q2 tangible, service performance at industry

level was 62.8% and ranked 19th

out of 22 questions, thus indicating a poor performance. This

is because the card punching machines often have problems, thus are not reliable. The

manager of customer complaints in SWEBUS Mr Peter Enquist told us in the interview we

had with him that the machines were old and are currently being replaced with new and more

efficient ones. However, the breakdowns were more frequent in B1 than in B2 (B2: 63.57%

and B1:61.86%, difference: 1.71%). This is because most of the passengers in B1 use the card

punching machines in the bus while most B2 passengers buy tickets online and so avoid or do

not have to use the card punching machines in the bus.

5 Discussion

The results of our survey has proven that SERVQUAL instrument is effective in measuring

service quality and indicating that technology increases customer satisfaction in public

transportation.

5.1 What are the implications of the results and what can we learn from this

research?

According to Bardy and Cronin Jr. (2001), Parasuraman et al. (1988) outcome attributes such

as reliability are more important determinants of service quality than process attributes such

as responsiveness, empathy and assurance. In this regard, our survey was able to support this

assertion because the overall service performance (service quality) of business level 2 was

higher and was 69.86% and Gap-5 was 30.14% and of business level 1 was lower and was

68.57% and Gap-5 was 31.43%. Reliability dimension had a higher service quality in B2

(73.57%) than in B1 (72.86%), thus contributing to a higher overall service quality for B2. In

this regard SERVQUAL instrument has been effective in measuring service quality in the

public transportation industry.

72

Pullen (1993, p. 261) defined service quality for local public transport industry as a concept

that involves “those attributes of the service which affect its fitness for purpose” and “the

attributes, and indeed fitness for purpose, require detailed definition in relation to local

objectives and circumstances.” This implied that customers could evaluate service quality in

public transportation differently and based on local circumstances and objectives. The

differences in the results of B1 and B2 clearly indicated that different circumstances in the

service characteristics of B1 and B2 contributed to the differences in perceived service

quality. For example, due to the fact that B2 buses travelled long distances, the duration of

lateness was wider for B2 (10-15minutes on average) buses than B1 (5-10minutes on average)

buses thus making service quality for punctuality to be lower in B2 than in B1 (B1:75.57%

and B2: 71.29%, difference: 4.28%). This reflects the high diagnostic value of SERVQUAL

in measuring service quality because it is able to capture as well as bring out the broad areas

within the entire service that are not doing well while taking into consideration the

circumstances such as service characteristics by showing how it may boost or hinder high

service quality.

The predictive power of SERVQUAL was also reflected in our research. For example, based

on our result, we found that employees‟ performance greatly decreased perceived service

quality. Dimensions measuring employees‟ performance in the service process such as

empathy, assurance and responsiveness had several of their questions ranking low behind the

industry median and mean. When compared to the complaints received from companies, a

significant amount of the complaints came from these areas, thus reflecting the predictive

strength of SERVQUAL. For example, as evidence of the predictive strength of

SERVQUAL, in the airline industry, Young et al. (1994) added the industry-based measures

to SERVQUAL measures, and according to his research, the predictive power to satisfaction

was significantly increased. The results of our survey reveal that if employees‟ performance

can be improved by increasing the use of technology in the service process, customer

satisfaction will be increased.B2 had a higher service quality than B1 partly because the

customers have greater access to technology and they make use of it. This is because service

quality is usually regarded as the customer‟s impression of the relative inferiority/superiority

of a service provider and its services (Bitner and Hubert, 1994; Tsoukatos and Rand, 2006) to

its competing alternative, and is often considered similar to the customer‟s overall attitude

towards the company (Parasuraman et al., 1988). It has therefore been popular to

conceptualize and establish measures for service quality such as SERVQUAL and explain its

73

relation to the overall performance of companies and organizations (Chau and Ngai, n.d.). In

this regard, it was evident that due to the fact that B2 performed better in reliability dimension

as well as the process variables relating to employee performance, the overall service quality

of B2 was better than B1.

In the domain of technology, the results revealed that technology, especially self service

technology actually increases service quality. Our results revealed that customers actually

embraced technology because of the benefits associated with its use including the overall

improvement of service performance and quality of the service being consumed. For example,

according to Bateson (1985), Globerson and Maggard (1991), Meuter et al. (2000), customers

believe to save money while using SSTs. In our report this was evident because we noticed

that due to the fact that the prices of B2 tickets are more expensive than B1 tickets, more

passengers of B2 bought their tickets online because of the huge discounts based on the fact

that the tickets are expensive and so the discount margin is wider meanwhile in B1 where the

tickets are very cheap, more passengers bought their tickets online. According to (Globerson

and Maggard (1991), Meuter et al.( 2000 ) convenience with regards to the fact that services

could be accessible anytime and anywhere motivated customers to use technology and this

actually increased their satisfaction and perceived service quality. Technology like buying

tickets online saves time an ensures speedy and prompt service delivery just like Globerson

and Maggard (1991), Meuter et al. (2000), Rockbridge, Dabholkar (1996) and Davis (1989)

postulated that the aspect of time and ease of usage of the technology was vital in increasing

the ability of that technology (SST) to increase service quality. In our survey customers who

bought their tickets online said they did so because it was convenient and easy to use and they

could buy tickets anytime at their convenience. Moreover, a lot of them have access to

internet which makes the process easier and less expensive. This has therefore increased

perceived service quality. Evidence of this was in Q4 reliability which ranked 8th

with

perceived service quality being 73.4% at industry level indicating that customers find the bus

reservations and bookings reliable. In this regard, the results of technology related questions

in our survey have proven that technology is a service quality driver aiding employees

perform their job more effectively and efficiently, saves time by ensuring quick and prompt

services. Unprompted action or solution to the customer‟s requests had been proven to be one

of the main sources of dissatisfaction with interpersonal service encounters (Bitner, Booms,

and Tetreault 1990). In our survey, the use of technology (SST) had a positive multiplier

effect with regard to increased service quality in other areas of the broad service process. This

74

is because passengers were able to co-produce by buying tickets themselves, thus enabling the

employees to focus on other service functions such as interacting more with passengers

thereby creating more value from the customers‟ perspective. This supports the views of

Normann and Ramirez (1993, p.69) who argued that “the key to creating value is to co-

produce offerings that mobilize customers.” In addition, “the customer is a co-producer of

service. Marketing is a process of doing things in interaction with the customer. The customer

is primarily an operant resource, only functioning occasionally as an operand resource”

(Lusch and Vargo, 2004, p.7). By making it possible for more passengers to act as operant

resources in B2, service quality in the questions below were higher than in B1. For example,

due to the fact that a greater percentage of B2 passengers use technology to buy tickets

(online purchase), the service quality of B2 in the following service areas were higher than in

B1 (Q1 responsiveness- B2: 79.86% and B1: 79% and difference: 0.86%, Q2 reliability- B2:

73.14% and B1: 69.29% and difference: 3.85%, Q4 responsiveness- B2: 71.14% and B1:

70.29% and difference: 0.85%, Q3 assurance- B2: 69.29% and B1: 67.29% and difference:

2% and Q1 empathy- B2: 65.14% and B1:60% and difference: 5.14%). Therefore, co-

production through the aid of technology (SST) actually increases service performance in

other broad service areas, hence boosting overall service quality.

However, it must be noted that technology is sometimes not always reliable and accepted by

all in the same way. This is because despite the global expansion of technology into the daily

life of most people, there might still be a fear and discomfort in dealing with new technology

resulting in frustration (Lin and Hsieh, 2006; Parasuraman, 2000). Studies have also shown

that some people demonstrate a certain degree of technophobia (Meuter et al., 2003) or are

technology pessimists (Edison and Geissler, 2003; Modahl, 1999). Technology cannot be

accepted if consumers are not ready. For example, another study show that while nearly 80%

of bank customers use ATM self-service with a purpose to withdraw money (Curran and

Meuter, 2005), only 10% of customers use the same technology to deposit money into their

accounts (Bruce, 2003). In our survey the some results revealed that there was a difference in

the attitude of customers using the charge cards to buy tickets. This behavioral difference is

explained by the fact that customers do not think that technology is very reliable or

trustworthy. At industry level Q1 assurance ranked 2nd

with a service performance (service

quality) of 78.5%; Gap-5:21.5%. Service quality was higher in B1 than in B2 (B1: 79.86%

and B2: 77%, difference: 2.86%) indicating that although passengers feel safe using the bus

charge cards in both B1 and B2, passengers of B2 felt less safe or had less confidence in the

75

technology. Based on feedback from the passengers, B2 tickets are more expensive and

require that more money be stored in these cards. This increases the risk of losing more

money in the event whereby there is a problem with the system that records the amount of

money in the card and also the card punching machine which deducts the fare per trip. On the

contrary, B1 customers load money on their cards as well as use them regularly because the

tickets in B1 are cheaper and as a result they do not have to load their cards with much

money. In addition, due to the fact that the prices of the tickets are lower in B1, the amount of

money to be lost if the system breaks down is lower, hence perceived risk is also low thus

encouraging B1 passengers to use this technology more frequently than B2 passengers. This

leads us to question Q2 tangible which ranked 19th

at industry level having a service quality of

62.8%. In B1 service quality was lower than in B2 (B2: 63.57% and B1:61.86%, difference:

1.71%) indicating that there are often problems with the card punching machine in B1 than in

B2. This is because more customers of B1 use the card punching machines and as a result

they break down regularly meanwhile in B2 most passengers buy their tickets online and

therefore do not have to use the card punching machine. Therefore, if technology is reliable as

more people use it like in the case of B1, the perceived service quality will be rated low by

users.

5.2 Managerial implications

This section offers proposals on what management should do in response to the results of this

survey and the impact on service quality.

5.1.1 SERVQUAL

The results obtained from SERVQUAL instrument in our survey revealed several information

that the management of public transportation companies can use in order to measure service

quality as well as improve it. They are as follows:-

Importance of reliability dimension: The reliability dimension of SERVQUAL

instrument has a positive impact on the overall service quality in public transportation.

In this regard management should ensure that the service performance (service

quality) of those service areas that impact reliability should meet customers‟

expectation because as Bardy and Cronin Jr. (2001), Parasuraman et al. (1988)

outcome attribute like reliability is a very important determinant of service quality.

This was reflected in B2 over B1.

Predictive capabilities: The results of this survey have revealed that management can

use SERVQUAL as a predictive instrument in order to increase their ability to satisfy

76

customers by increasing service quality. The areas of the service process which

perform poorly can be known earlier and measures can be taken to improve them. For

example, many complaints received in our survey and also by the management of

SWEBUS had larger Gap-5 than the mean and median. Moreover, research has proven

that this can be possible. As mentioned before, in the airline industry, Young et al.

(1994) added the industry-based measures to SERVQUAL measures, and according to

his research, the predictive power to satisfaction was significantly increased. In

addition, according to Baumann et al, (2006) SERVQUAL dimensions can provide

insights which can be used to predict future behavioural intensions of customers

towards a company. The importance of customers‟ behavioural intentions to predict

customer retention has been recognised by many researchers (Godin et al., 2004;

Luarn and Lin, 2005; Norman and Smith, 1995; Patterson, 2004). This can have great

impact on a company‟s growth.

High diagnostic value of SERVQUAL and service characteristics: The high

diagnostic value of SERVQUAL can provide clues to management to understand how

the service characteristics of their industry can impact service quality. Necessary

action can be taken to limit the negative impact of these characteristics on overall

service quality.

The role of employees: SERVQUAL dimensions can reveal to management how the

role of employees impact customer satisfaction and overall service quality. For

example, in our survey the areas of the service process whereby the failures could be

directly be associated with an employee scored some of the lowest points in perceived

service performance or customer satisfaction. This is an indication that employees are

partly responsible for the low service quality in public transportation.

5.1.2 Technology

The results in our survey revealed that technology increases service performance and

customer satisfaction. Based on this, management can use technology to increase overall

service quality and customer satisfaction because technology can do the following in public

transportation:-

Improve service process: This can be done by ensuring that technology reduces time

needed to perform a service which would have taken much longer for an employee to

perform.

77

Cost reduction through co-production: By enabling customers do the service

themselves, managers should make sure that the cost reductions achieved through this

process should be passed on to customers through lower prices in the form of

discounts. This will not only motivate customers to use that technology, it would

increase perceived service quality and this will ultimately increase customer

satisfaction. For example, more customers of B2 buy tickets online because the

discount margin is wider due to the fact that the tickets are more expensive in

comparison to B1. This has led to the improvement in service performance in other

areas of B2 over B1.

Improve employees’ performance: As our survey reveals, employees are a vital

determinant of service quality and customer satisfaction in public transportation.

Therefore, technology should be used in such a way that it assist employees to be

more effective and efficient in performing their tasks. For example, in B2 the

increased usage of online tickets relieved the employees of the burden of selling

tickets in the bus and in return increased their performance in serving customers in

domains like providing solutions to their problems. This is one of the major reasons

why employee performance in B2 for the following questions were higher than in B1

(Q2 reliability- B2: 73.14% and B1: 69.29% and difference: 3.85%, Q4

responsiveness- B2: 71.14% and B1: 70.29% and difference: 0.85%, Q3 assurance-

B2: 69.29% and B1: 67.29% and difference: 2% and Q1 empathy- B2: 65.14% and

B1:60% and difference: 5.14%). In this regard customer satisfaction was higher in B2.

In addition, management feedback stipulated that one of the major reasons why drivers

do not usually want to interact with customers was due to the fact that they (drivers)

could be robbed. Management should make use of technology in order to reduce

drivers‟ handling of cash so as to reduce their fears and then boost their confidence in

interacting with passengers. This will increase service quality and customer

satisfaction.

6 Conclusion

In this section, a brief summary will be provided while taking into consideration some of the

points made in the introduction, in order to answer our research questions. Recommendations

based on the results of this research would also be provided.

78

6.1 Effectiveness of SERVQUAL in measuring service quality

This research and its results is evidence that SERVQUAL has the ability to capture most or all

relevant dimensions within the service process. It has a highly diagnostic value because it is

able to assess the broad service areas, showing those areas which are performing adequately

or inadequately. It is highly predictive because it can reveal areas of the service process from

which complaints are most likely to come from. In this regard, adjustments can be made to

improve the service area, hence increase service quality and customer satisfaction. In addition,

it takes into consideration the impact of the service characteristics on service performance,

service quality and customer satisfaction which is vital when comparing service quality across

an industry like public transportation. Although “some transport service quality literature

pointed out that several methods could be used for measuring service quality” (Cavana et al.,

2005, p.11), this will depend on the type of users, purpose for using the measure and the

environment in which the service is provided. SERVQUAL‟s high diagnostic value minimises

makes it appropriate for measuring service quality while taking into account these differences.

The developers of SERVQUAL contended that the scale using the expectation and

performance gaps method is a much richer and effective approach to measuring service

quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988, 1994). They pointed out that service quality is a

multidimensional rather than a uni-dimensional construct. In our survey, the scale method was

effective because we realised that the scales made it possible to measure every individual‟s

perception of service quality taking part in the survey, thus enabling the our research to

capture and measure service quality as perceived by these wide range of respondents. In

addition, due to the fact that “the characteristics of service quality are not objective, but

subjective for each customer the scale was the most appropriate way to consider everybody‟s

opinion.

SERVQUAL also reveals the impact employees‟ performance has on service quality. Some

researchers stress that service encounter is the focal source of service quality (Czepiel et al.

1985) the so-called moments of truth (Carlzon, 1987). In our survey, we found that customer

interaction with employees was a point of failure, that is had a low mean. So this view is true.

In our survey, low or inadequate employee performance is a source of service failure and

customer dissatisfaction. Therefore, employees should be equipped with the tools especially

technology that will enhance their performance. In addition, SERVQUAL has also revealed

the synergy between technology and employee performance. Technology can increase

79

employee performance if the technology relieves them of certain work load while at the same

time enable them (employees) to focus on those services customers value more.

To conclude, the points mentioned above make SERVQUAL effective in measuring service

quality in public transportation. Based on this research and its result, we support the views

many other researchers who have used the SERVQUAL dimensions as the basis for their

research and have confirmed that SERVQUAL “has undoubtedly had a major impact on the

business and academic communities” (Buttle, 1996, p. 24), and has been said to be “insightful

and [to remain] a practical framework to use in service quality management” (Christopher et

al. 2002, p. 177).

6.2 The impact of technology on customer satisfaction

Meuter et al. (2000) reported that the level of customer satisfaction with technology-based

services depend on its ease of use, ability to avoid interference from employees, time savings,

convenience, and financial savings, with the most important factors affecting the adoption of

SST being: ease of use and time savings. The technology acceptance model (TAM) also

identified two factors of major importance: ease of use and usefulness as criteria that

influence customers‟ acceptance of new technology (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989).

Dabholkar (1996) had further developed this model, proposing an attribute-based model of

SST consisting of five factors: speed of delivery, ease of use, reliability, enjoyment, and

control; the feeling of “self-control” makes is easier of customers to accept new technology

(Globerson and Maggard, 1991; Lee and Allaway, 2002). These views were well reflected in

our survey and therefore we agree with these researchers because our respondents told us the

same. Based on the results of the survey, many used the net and the charge cards because of

the above mentioned benefits like speed of delivery, convenience, avoidance of interference

with employees and above all financial benefits. These reasons contributed to the higher

usage of technology by customers of B2 over B1 and also a higher service quality and

employee performance and customer satisfaction in B2 over B1.This survey has proven as

well as support the views of (Lusch and Vargo, 2004, p.7) that “the customer is primarily an

operant resource, only functioning occasionally as an operand resource” (Lusch and Vargo,

2004, p.7) and in this regard, co-production will enhance service quality and customer

satisfaction. This evident in the survey whereby increase use of online purchase of tickets by

B2 customers, had a positive multiplier effect on employee performance in B2 than in B1.

80

6.3 Recommendations

SERVQUAL should be used to measure service quality, but managers or users must make

sure that they adapt the questions as well as measurements to appropriately relate to the

service and industry being studied. In addition, comparisons should be made with outside

measures like customer complaint data in order to determine the extent of its effectiveness in

capturing and diagnosing all relevant areas within the service process that could impact

customers‟ perception and evaluation of service quality. Results should be used to make

improvements. It is only in this regard that the benefits of SERVQUAL would be fully

utilised.

Public transportation companies should invest in technology especially internet-based

technologies because according to Hof (1999) recent studies capture a rapid growth in

Internet-based transactions. This provides a platform for co-production. Since co-production

has been made possible through the advancement of technology, service providers should

invest more in self service technologies to boost service quality and customer satisfaction.

Investment in technology should be geared towards increasing the value of the core service

and achieving synergies with employee performance. As seen in the this survey, employee

performance also has a significant impact on service quality in this industry. Technology

should also be used in order to facilitate the complaint process. Technology is cheap and fast

and as a result is a preferable mode of complaint by customers. If this is done, much data on

customers likes and dislikes about the service can be gathered and analysed in order to be

used during the decision making process. In addition, this data could be used to assess the

effectiveness of SERVQUAL in capturing all relevant areas in the service process within the

company. Technology has a triple positive effect on services because it reduces cost, increases

customer satisfaction through co-creation and co-production and finally it relieves the

employees from the burden of some tasks and enables them to focus on other vital tasks in the

service process. In addition, it can also enhance customer relationship management (CRM),

thereby improving the relationship between the service provider and the customer. The

survival of the company will be assured. This is because high service quality leads to

customer loyalty (Lewis, 1994) hence higher profitability (Gundersen et al., 1996) through

lower cost (Grant, 1998).

However, service providers must ensure that technology is reliable, easy to use, fast and cost

saving both from the customers‟ perspective and the company. If this is not done, technology

81

can contribute enormously towards customer dissatisfaction, hence decrease perceived service

quality. For example, in the bus systems, the card punching machines often break down. Our

survey revealed that customers were really disappointed with this service. The question Q2

(Tangibles) ranked 19, having one of the largest Gap 5:37.2% compared to other questions in

the SERVQUAL section of our questionnaire.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963b), “Toward an Understanding of Inequity”, Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 67 (November), 422-36.

Alfans, L. and Sargeant, A. (2000), “Market segmentation in the Indonesian banking sector:

the relationship between demographics and desired customer benefits”, International Journal

of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 64-74.

Andreassen William Tor (1997), Dissatisfaction with Services: The impact of satisfaction

with service recovery on corporate image and future repurchase intention. Stockholm

University, School of Business Research Report 1997:5.

Anton, Jon. (1996). Customer Relationship Management: Making Hard Decisions with Soft

Numbers. Prentice Hall.

Antonides G and W Frat van Raaij (1951), Consumer behaviour: a European perspective. A

European Perspective, 1998, Erasmus University, Rotterdam; Published by John Wiley &

Sons Ltd, Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex P019 lUD, England

Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K.J. and Swan, J.E. (1996), “SERVQUAL revisited: a critical

review of service quality”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 62-81.

Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.

Badri, A. Masood, Abdulla, M and Al-Madani, A, (2004); Information technology center

service quality: Assessment and application of SERVQUAL; College of Business and

Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.

82

Bateson, J.E.G. (1985), “Self-service consumer: an exploratory study”, Journal of Retailing,

Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 49-76.

Bergman Bo and Klefsjö Bengt (2003), Quality, From Customer Needs to Customer

Satisfaction. Studentlitteratur.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and

employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, April, pp. 69-82.

----Bernard H. Booms, and Lois A. Mohr (1994), “Critical Service Encounters: The

Employee‟s View,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 95–106.

---- and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990), “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and

Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 71–84.

Bitner, M.J. and Hubert, A.R. (1994), “Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction

versus quality”, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in

Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London, pp. 72-94.

Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., Meuter, M.L. (2000), "Technology infusion in service

encounters", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No.1, pp.138–49.

Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Meuter, M.L. (2002), “Implementing successful self-service

technologies”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 96-108.

Bojanic, D. (1991), “Quality measurement in professional service firms”, Journal of

Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 27-36.

Bouman, M. and Van der Wiele, T. (1992), “Measuring service quality in the car service

industry: building and testing an instrument”, International Journal of Service Industry

Bowers, M.R., Swan, J.E. and Koehler, W.F. (1994), “What attributes determine quality and

satisfaction with health care delivery?”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4,

pp. 49-55.

83

Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. (2001), „„Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived

service quality: a hierarchical approach‟‟, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 34-50.

Brady, M.K., Cronin, J. Jr and Brand, R.R. (2002), “Performance only measurement of

service quality: a replication and extension”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp.

17-31.

Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A. Jr and Peter, P.J. (1993), “Improving the measurement of service

quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 127-38.

Bruhn Manfred and Georgi Dominik,(2006) Services Marketing: Managing the service value

chain. Pearson Education Limited.

Brysland, A. and Curry, A. (2001), “Service improvements in public services using

SERVQUAL”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 389-401.

Buttle, F. (1996), “SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda,” European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp.8-32.

Cannon, J.P. and Homburg, C. (2001), “Buyers-supplier relationships and customer firm

costs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 29-43.

Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the

SERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.

Cavana Y. Robert, Corbett M. Lawrence and Lo. Y. L. (Glenda) (2005); Developing zones of

tolerance for managing passenger rail service quality; Victoria Management School, Victoria

University of Wellington, Transpower New Zealand Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand.

Chau V. Sum and Kao Yu-Ying (2009); Bridge over troubled water or long and winding

road?: Gap-5 in airline service quality performance measures, Norwich Business School,

University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Managing Service Quality Vol. 19 No. 1, 2009, pp.

106-134 Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0960-4529.

Chau, V.S. and Ngai, L.W.L.C. (n.d.), “The youth market for internet banking services:

84

perceptions, attitude and behavior”, Journal of Services Marketing (in press).

Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (2002), Relationship Marketing – Creating

Stakeholder Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Jordan Hill, Oxford.

Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-

based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurements of service quality”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-31.

Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a re-examination and

extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.

Curran, J.M. and Meuter, M.L. (2005), “Self-service technology adoption: comparing three

technologies”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-13.

Curry, A and Herbert, D. (1998); Continuous improvement in public services – a way

forward: Managing Service Quality Volume 8 · Number 5 · 1998 · pp. 339-349 © MCB

University Press · ISSN 0960-4529.

Dabholkar, P.A. (1994), “Technology-based service delivery”, in Advances in Services

Marketing and Management Research and Practice, T.A. Schwartz, D.E. Bowen and S.W.

Browns, eds. JAI Press, 241-271.

Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), “Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service

options: an investigation of alternative models of service quality”, International Journal of

Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.

Daft, R. L. (2000), Management (5th

ed. Ed.). Orlando: Dryden Press, Harcourt College.

Darian, Jean C. (1987), “In-Home Shopping: Are There Consumer Segments?” Journal of

Retailing, 63 (2), 163–86.

Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-39.

85

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer

technology: a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 982-

1003.

Day, R.L. (1984), ``Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction'', in

Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Association for Consumer

Research, Provo, UT, pp. 496-9.

Deming, W.E (1986), Out of the crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Dotchin, J.A and Oakland J, S (1994a), “Total quality management in services: part 2 service

quality”, International Journal of Quality and reliability management Vol. 11 No.3, pp.27-42.

Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. and Mehta, S. (1999), “Testing the SERVQUAL scale in the

Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 132-50.

Eastlick, Mary Ann (1996), “Consumer Intention to Adopt Interactive Teleshopping,”

Marketing Science Institute Working Paper No. 96-113. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science

Institute.

Edvardsson, B. (1997), Quality in New Service Development: Key concepts and a frame

of reference, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 52, No 1-2, 31-

46.

Edison, S.W. and Geissler, G.L. (2003), “Measuring attitudes towards general technology:

antecedents, hypotheses and scale development”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and

Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 137-56.

Ekinci, Y. and Riley, M. (1999), “Measuring hotel quality”, International Journal of

Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 287-93

Fick, G.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991), “Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism

86

industry”, Journal of Travel Research, Fall, pp. 2-9.

Finn, D. and Lamb, C. (1991), “An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in a retailing setting”,

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 83-90.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction

to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Folkes, V. S. (1984), “Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (4), 398-409.

Frost, F.A. and Kumar, M. (2001), “Service quality between internal customers and internal

industry”, Journal of Travel Research, Fall, pp. 2-9.

Globerson, S. and Maggard, M.J. (1991), “A conceptual model of self-service”, International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 33-44.

Godin, G., Gagne, C. and Sheeran, P. (2004), “Does perceived behavioural control mediate

the relationship between power beliefs and intention?”, British Journal of Health Psychology,

Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 557-68.

Greco, Alan J. and D. Michael Fields (1991), “Profiling Early Triers of Service Innovations:

A Look at Interaction Home Video Ordering Services,” Journal of Services Marketing, 5 (3),

19–26.

Grønhaug, K., Zaltman, G. (1980), "Complainers and non-complainers revisited: another look

at the data", in Monroe, K. (Eds),Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer

Research, Washington, DC

Grönroos, Christian (1996), “Relationship Marketing Logic,” Asia- Australia Marketing

Journal, 4 (December), 7-18.

----(1998), “Marketing Services: The Case of the Missing Product,” Journal of Business and

Industrial Marketing, 13 (4/5), 322-38.

87

Hanlon, P. (1999), Global Airlines: Competition in a Transnational Industry, Butterworth-

Heinemann, Oxford.

Hanrahan, Timothy (1999), “Price Isn‟t Everything: Companies Scramble to Make Sure

Customer Service Doesn‟t Get Lost in Cyberspace,” Wall Street Journal, July 12, R20.

Hensmans, M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. (2001), “Clicks vs bricks in the

emerging online financial services industry”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, pp. 231-47.

Hirschman, Albert. L. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty: responses to decline in firms,

organisations, and states (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press)X, 162s.

Hof, Robert D. (1999), “A New Era of Bright Hopes and Terrible Fears,” BusinessWeek,

(October 4), 84–98.

Hoxley, M. (2000), “Measuring UK construction professional service quality: the what, how,

when and who”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,

pp. 511-26.

Hunter, G. and Taylor, S. (2003), “An exploratory investigation into the antecedents of

satisfaction, brand attitude and loyalty within the (B2B) eCRM industry”, Journal of

Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 19-35.

Huppertz, J. W., S.J. Arenson, and R. H. Evans (1978), “An Application of Equity theory to

Buyer-Seller Exchange Situations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 250-60.

Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J. (1996), “A motivation model of microcomputer

usage”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 127-43.

Johns, N. and Tyas, P. (1996), “Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between

food service outlets”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 321-46.

Kay, R.H. (1993), “An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing

attitudes toward computers: the computer attitude measure (CAM)”, Computers in Human

88

Behavior, No. 9, pp. 371-86.

Kotler, Philip (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and

Control, 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 470.

Krishnan, S. and Valle, A.V. (1979), “Dissatisfaction attributions and consumer complaint

behaviour”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 445-9.

Kwan, P. and Ng, P. (1999), “Quality indicators in higher education – comparing Hong Kong

and China‟s students”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-77.

Lam, S.S.K. (1997), “SERVQUAL: a tool for measuring patients‟ opinions of hospital service

Langeard, Eric, John Bateson, Christopher H. Lovelock, and Pierre Eiglier (1981), “Services

Marketing: New Insights from Consumers and Managers,” Report No. 81-104. Cambridge,

MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Lee, J. and Allaway, A. (2002), “Effects of personal control on adoption of self-service

technology innovations”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 553-72.

Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1982), “Service quality: a study of quality dimensions”,

Levitt, Theodore (1960), “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review, 38 (July-August),

26-44, 173-81

Lewis, B.R and Mitchell, V.W (1990), “Defining and measuring the quality of customer

service,” marketing intelligence and planning, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp.11-17

Lewis, B.R. (1994), “Managing service quality”, in Dale, B.D. (Ed.), Managing Quality,

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 233-50.

Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J. and van Riel, A. (2006), “Technology readiness and

the evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 177-91.

89

Lin, J.C. and Hsieh, P.L. (2006), “The role of technology readiness in customers, perception

and adoption of self-service technologies”, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-517.

Llosa, S., Chandon, J. and Orsingher, C. (1998), “An empirical study of SERVQUAL‟s

dimensionality”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 16-44.

Lovelock, C. and Wirtz, J (2004) Service Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy. Hamilton

Printing Co.

Luarn, P. and Lin, H.-H. (2005), “Toward an understanding of the behavioural intention to

use mobile banking”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 873-91.

Lusch, R and Vargo, S (2004), Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 68, p 1-17.

Mehta, S., Lalwani, A. and Han, S. (2000), “Service quality in retailing: relative efficiency of

alternative measurement scales for different product-service environments”, International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 62-72.

Mels, G., Boshoff, C. and Nel, D. (1997), “The dimensions of service quality: the original

European perspective revisited”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 173-89.

Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I., Bitner, M.J. (2000), "Self-service technologies:

understanding customer satisfaction with technology based service encounters", Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 64 No.July, pp.50–64.

Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J. and Roundtree, R. (2003), “The influence of

technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies”, Journal

of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 899-907.

Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W. (2005), “Choosing among

alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service

technologies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 61-83.

90

Mick, D.G. and Fournier, S. (1998), “Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance,

emotions, and coping strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 123-44.

Mills, Peter K., Richard Chase, and N. Margulies (1983), “Motivating the Client/Employee

System as a Service Production Strategy,” Academy of Management Review, 8 (2), 301–310.

Modahl, M. (1999), Now Companies Must Change Today to Win the Battle for Internet

Consumers, Harper Business, New York, NY.

Mohr, L. A. and M. J. Bitner (1995), “The Role of Employee Effort in Satisfaction with

Service Transactions,” Journal of Business Research, 32 (3), 239-52.

Norman, P. and Smith, L. (1995), “The theory of planned behaviour and exercise: an

investigation into the role of prior behaviour, behavioural intentions and attitude variability”,

European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 403-15.

Normann, Richard and Rafael Ramirez (1993), “From Value Chain to Value Constellation:

Designing Interactive Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, 71 (July-August), 65-77.

Oldfield, B. and Baron, S. (2000), “Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university

Oliver, R. L. (1987), “An Investigation of the Interrelationship Between Consumer (Dis)

Satisfaction and Complaint Reports,” Advances in Consumer Research, 14 (1), 218-22.

Orwig, R.A., Pearson, J. and Cochran, D. (1997), “An empirical investigation into the validity

of SERVQUAL in the public sector”, PAQ, Spring, pp. 54-68.

Overby, J.W. (2005), “An integrative review of customer value management and national

culture: France and the United States”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,

pp. 166-75.

91

Parasuraman, A. (1996), “Understanding and Leveraging the Role of Customer Service in

External, Interactive and Internal Marketing,” paper presented at Frontiers in Services

Conference, Nashville, TN (October).

Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C.L. (2001), Techno-Ready Marketing: How and Why your

Customers Adopt Technology, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991a), “Understanding customer

expectation of service”, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 39-48.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991b), “Refinement and reassessment of

the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.

Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1985), “A Conceptual Model of Service

Quality amd its Implications for Future Research, “ Journalof Marketing, 49 (4), 41-50.

---(1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of

Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994a), “Alternative scales for measuring

service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria”,

Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-30.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994b), “Reassessment of expectations as a

comparison standard in measuring service quality: implication for further research”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 111-24.

Patterson, P.G. (2004), “A contingency model of behavioural intentions in a services context”,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1304-15.

Philip, G. and Hazlett, S. (2001), “Evaluating the service quality of information services using

a new „P-C-P‟ attributes model”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 900-16.

92

Pollitt, M.G. and Smith, A.S.J. (2002), “The restructuring and privatisation of British Rail:

was it really that bad?”, Fiscal Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 463-502.

Pullen, W.T. (1993), “Definition and measurement of quality of service for local public

transport management”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-64.

Quinn, James Brian (1996), “The Productivity Paradox Is False: Information Technology

Improves Service Performance,” in Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 5,

Teresa A. Swartz, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. Brown, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,

71–84.

Rayport, Jeffrey F. and John J. Sviokla (1994), “Managing in the Marketspace,” Harvard

Business Review, 72 (November/December), 2–11.

---- (1995), “Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain,” Harvard Business Review, 73

(November/December), 14–24.

Reichheld, F.F. (2003), “The one number you need to grow”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.

81, No. 12, pp. 46-54.

Rockbridge Associates, Inc., 1999.

Rust, R. T. and R. L. Oliver (1994), “Service Quality: Insights and Managerial Implications

from the Frontier,” in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Roland T.

Rust and Richard L. Oliver, Eds. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Rust, Roland (1998), “Editorial: What Is the Domain of Service Research?” Journal of

Service Research, 1 (November), 107.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of

consumption values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-70.

Singh, J. and R. D. Howell (1985), “Consumer Complaining Behavior A Review and

Prospectus,” in Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, H. Keith

Hunt and R. Day, Eds.: Indiana University Press.

93

Singh, J. (1988), “Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: definitional and taxonomical

issues”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 (1), pp. 93-107.

Sultan, F. and Merlin, C. (2000), “International service variants: airline passenger

expectations and perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No.

3, pp. 188-216.

Sureshchandar G.S., Rajendran C. and Kamalanabhan T.J.(2001), Customer perceptions of

service quality: A critique, Total Quality Management, Volume 12, Number 1, 1 January,

pp.111-124 (14), Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a

multiple item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 203-20.

Tronvoll, Bärd. (2008); Customer Complaint Behaviour in Service; Dissertation, Karlstad

University Studies 2008:14.

Tsikriktsis, N. (2004), “A technology readiness-based taxonomy of customers: a replication

and extension”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 42-52.

Tsoukatos, E. and Rand, G.K. (2006), “Path analysis of perceived service quality, satisfaction

and loyalty in Greek insurance”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 501-19

Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), “Value-based differentiation in business relationships:

gaining and sustaining key supplier status”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, January, pp. 119-

36.

Vargo, S and Lusch, R (January 2004), Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, p 1-17.

Waite, K. (2006), “Task scenario effects on bank Website expectations”, Internet Research,

Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 7-22.

94

Wisniewski, M (2001); Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sector

services: Managing Service Quality, Volume 11, No. 6, 2001. pp. 380-388. MCB, University

Press. ISSN. 0960-4529.

Woodruff, R. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage”, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.

Woodruff, R. B., E. R. Cadotte, and R. L.Jenkins (1983), “Modeling Consumer Satisfaction

Processes Using Experience-Based Norms,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (3), 296-304.

Yen, H.R. (2005), “An attribute-based model of quality satisfaction for internet self-service

technology”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 641-59.

Young, C., Cunningham, L. and Lee, M. (1994), “Assessing service quality as an effective

management tool: the case of the airline industry”, Journal of Marketing – Theory and

Practice, Spring, pp. 76-96.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Gilly, M.C. (1987), “Characteristics affecting the acceptance of retailing

technologies: a comparison of elderly and nonelderly consumers”, Journal of Retailing,

Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 49-68.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1981), „How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ between Goods and

Services‟. In J.H. Donnelly & W.R. George (Eds.), Marketing of Services (181-190),

Chicago: American Marketing Association.