The Quality of Customer Service and Satisfaction Levels at Koforidua Polytechnic Restaurant, EasternRegion, Ghana

7/30/2019 The Quality of Customer Service and Satisfaction Levels at Koforidua Polytechnic Restaurant, EasternRegion, Gha

1/13

Research on Humanities and Social

ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 222

Vol.3, No.5, 2013

The Quality of

Koforidua Polyt

SamuelA

1. School of Managemen(UESTC)

2. School of Business an*E-mail of

AbstractThe study was undertaken to asses

reviewed and primary data were

percentages, tabulations, cross-tab

revealed, among other things, that

There were indications of negativeRestaurant actually delivered to c

responsiveness, assurance, and emp

important attribute, the Restaurant i

were made to help improve the Rest

Key words:Service; Quality; Tech

IntroductionKoforidua Polytechnic Hospit

Amissah, the Head of Department

difficulty meeting their lunch need

had difficulties in getting good lunc

premises for lunch.Prior to the esta

the popular mango and pear trees ne

Higher National Diploma (HNfor practical work in preparation fo

academic, non-academic staff, stud

of rice (jollof, vemiciline, and ste

ampesi with palaver sauce, and

day operations, the restaurant under

special occasions such as committe

Statement of theproblem

However, a lot of questions ar

perception and belief among acad

customer service quality and satisf

investigate the quality of customer

must be addressed to enable the rest

Research ObjectivesThe study was undertaken speci

a. To assess reliability anb. To assess the assurancc. To assess the quality od. To assess the level of

Research Questions

The study sought to address the

a. What is the quality ofb. What factors determinc. What is the level of cud. Is there the need for i

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

150

ustomer Service and Satisfacti

echnic Restaurant, EasternRegi

ddae-Boateng1,2*, SamuelAyittahKwabena2,YawBre

t and Economics, University of Electronic Science an

, No.4 Section 2, North Jianshe Road, Chengdu, Chin

Management Studies, Koforidua Polytechnic, P. O.

Eastern Region, Ghana.corresponding author: [email protected]

s the level of customer satisfaction. Literature on cu

gathered through observations, interviews and q

lations,pie and bar charts were used to analyse and

regular customers who patronize the restaurant on

gaps between customers service quality expectationsstomers. On the more important service quality at

athy, the Restaurant is rated average; on tangibles (p

s rated high.Based on the findings and the conclusio

aurants performance and customer satisfaction levels

nical quality;Functional quality; Gaps

ality Restaurant (KPHR) was established in 2006 by

of Hospitality. Until its establishment, both teaching

and wants. Similarly, a section of the students fro

. Visitors and guests of the Polytechnic had to go far

lishment of KPHR, all food vendors on the Polytech

ar the Engineering block popularly called the Bush

) Hospitality and strokes 1 and 2 students needed aboth internal and external examinations. Thus,the re

nts and guests of the Polytechnic. Common foods s

) and Ghanaian dishes like fufu with light, gro

ice balls) with any of these soups on request. In ad

takes contract jobs from outsiders and the Polytechni

meetings, end-of-year get-together, seminars and co

raised in respect of the restaurants customer servic

emic staff, non-academic staff, and students who

ction levels leave much to be desired. This researc

service and discuss key customer service gaps and o

aurant build capacity and ability needed to give client

fically:

d responsiveness of the restaurant staff in serving cus

e and empathy of the restaurant staff in serving custo

f tangibles (physical evidence) of the Restaurant.

ustomers satisfaction of the Restaurant services

following research questions:

customer service at the Restaurant?

e customer satisfaction levels?

stomer satisfaction at the Restaurant?

provement in customer service delivery?

www.iiste.org

n Levels at

on, Ghana.

2

d Technology of China

a 610054.ox KF 981, Koforidua,

m

stomer service quality was

estionnaire. Frequencies,

presentthe data.The study

aily basis were about 120.

and the service quality theributes such as reliability,

hysical evidence), the least

s drawn, recommendations

.

a team lead by Mrs. Agnes

and non-teaching staff had

affluent backgrounds also

away from the Polytechnic

ic premises operated under

anteen.

hotel or restaurant facilitystaurants services targeted

erved include various types

ndnut, or palm nut soups,

ition to its normal dayto

c community in general for

ferences.

e quality. Specifically, the

atronise the KPHRis that

h work therefore sought to

ther challenging issues that

good value for money.

omers.

ers.


2/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

SERVICE EXPECTATIDependent on price/word-

mouth/advertising.

TECHNICThe RestaurStandard of

speed of ser

Figure 1: Consumers p

practice (base

Literature Review

Service quality is influenced bservice is defined by customers wh

judgement (Chen et al., 2001). Custhardly talk about one without the

between technical and functional

i. Technical quality refers tointeraction with a service f

measured by both custome

a restaurant and the relia

perceived service quality.

ii. Functional quality: Becauinfluenced by how the tec

quality and cannot be mea

at a restaurant, functional

place and customers perce

Gronroos also sees an importaquality, with corporate image being

Service Quality Management

According to Palmer (2008) q

perceived level of actual performa

procedures, culminating in quantit

(Parasuramanet al., 1985). The SER

The SERVQUAL model can be

customers. It is applicable across athe specific requirements of a co

investigatory instrument, which can

22-item questionnaire, which is de

consolidated from their original qu

each of them are as follows:

Dimensions for Evaluating Servic

Based on this service-quality

quality in order of importance (Berr

i. Reliability: Ability to permeans performing the servi

ii. Responsiveness: The williiii. Assurance: The knowledg

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

151

ONSf-

SERVICE QUALITYDifference between serviceexpectations and perceived

standard of delivery

PERCEIVOF DELIWhether hi

good or po

CORPORATE IMAGEQuality judgment alsoinfluenced by the

Restaurants image

L QUALITYants knowledge,equipment, and

ice, etc.

FUNCTIONAL QUALITY

Attitudes of staff, Appea

of staff, and Atmos here

rception of technical and functional quality applied to the

on Gronroos, 1984b).

expectations, process quality and output quality. Ino have experienced that service and used their expe

omer service quality and customer satisfaction are soother. A development of service quality by Gron

quality:

the relatively quantifiable aspect of a service that

irm. It forms important bases for judging service qual

and service provider. Examples of technical quality

bility of its services. This, however, is not the on

se services involve direct consumer-producer inter

nical quality is delivered to them. This is what Gron

ured as objectively as the elements of technical quali

quality is influenced by such factors as the environm

ptions of the manner in which queues are handled by

t role for a service firms corporate image in defininbased on both technical and functional quality. See fi

uality is determined by the difference between what

ce. These findings have evolved from a set of qu

ative technique for measuring service quality that

VQUAL model has been widely applied in the servic

used by companies to better understand the expectati

broad range of services industries and can be easilympany. In a nutshell, the model provides a fram

be adapted or added to as needed.SERVQUAL is o

igned to cover five broad dimensions of service qu

alitative investigations. The five dimensions covere

Quality

model, researchers have identified the following fi

and Parasuraman, 1991):

orm the promised service dependably with consisten

ce right the first time.

gness to help customers and to provide prompt servi

e and courtesy of employees and their ability to conve

www.iiste.org

D STANDARD

ERY

h or low; excellent,

r, etc.

rance

of

estaurants

ther words, the standard ofience and feelings to form

closely related that one canroos (1984a) distinguishes

consumers receive in their

ity because it can easily be

include the waiting time at

ly element that makes up

ction, consumers are also

oos describes as functional

ty. In the case of the queue

ent in which queuing takes

he restaurant staff.

customers perceptions ofure1.

a customer expects and the

litative marketing research

is known as SERVQUAL

industry.

ons and perceptions of their

odified to take account ofwork or guideline for an

iginally based on a generic

lity that the research team

, with some description of

e determinants of service

y and accuracy. Reliability

e.

y trust and confidence.


3/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

iv. Empathy: The provision ov. Tangibles: The appearanc

the building, equipment, p

Inability of any firm to meet tshown in figure 2, identifies five (5)

Gaps that cause unsuccessful Qua

Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and

SERVQUAL Model/framework, th

i. Gap between customer experceive what consumers

always want continental di

ii. Gap between managemeperceive customers wants,

may tell attendants to give

iii. Gap between service-quaincapable, poorly motivate

such as taking time to listeiv. Gap between service delstatements made by co

advertisement and brochur

cheap and tacky looking, e

v. Gap between perceived seservice quality. For examp

but some of them may in

which the restaurant mana

According to McDaniel, Lam

perceive service quality to be low.

implies that managers of service or

they are detected.

This framework was used to

among customers of KPHR. Lite

service quality is a vital anteceden

there is also evidence to suggest

Irrespective of which view is taken,

strong when examined from either d

Thus, satisfaction affects asses

(McAlexanderet al., 1994). This i

intentions. In an empirical study of

(1995) concluded that the key diffe

the service while satisfaction refl

important argument that quality i

customer satisfaction.

Essentially, the Five Determina

the Gap model of Service Quality pthe study.

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

152

f caring and individual attention to customers proble

of physical facilities, such as cutlery and furniture sersonnel, communication materials, etc.

hese criteria causes unsuccessful quality customer sgaps that cause unsuccessful quality customer servic

lity Service Delivery

Berry (1985) identified five gaps, as shown in

t cause unsuccessful quality service delivery:

pectation and management perception: Management

want. For example, management of the restaurant

hes, but customers may want local dishes with more

t perception and service-quality specification: Ma

but not set specific performance standard. For exam

fast service without specifying it in minutes.

ity specifications and service delivery: Personnel

d, unwilling to meet the standard; or they may be h

to customers and serving them fast.ivery and external communications: Customer ex

pany representatives and advertisements. For ex

e show a beautiful building, but customers arrive and

ternal communications have distorted the customers

vice and expected service: This gap occurs when the

le, a top-official of the restaurant may keep visiting k

erpret this as an indication that something is really

ement perhaps wants to find out.

b, and Hair (2006) when any one or more of thes

As the gaps shrink, customers perceive improveme

anizations such as KPHR should always endeavor to

uide this study in measuring customer service qua

ature on the topic indicates that, while the majorit

t to customer satisfaction (Parasuramanet al., 1985;

that satisfaction may be a vital antecedent of serv

the fact remains that the relationship between satisf

irection.

sment of service quality and assessment of service

ndicates that both are vital in helping buyers dev

he relationship between satisfaction and quality, Iaco

ence between the two constructs is that quality relat

cts customers experience with that of service. T

provements that are not based on customer needs

nts of Service Quality model as published by Berry a

ublished by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985

www.iiste.org

s.

ts, television and radio sets,

ervice delivery.The model,delivery.

figure 2 below,called the

does not always correctly

may think that customers

ersonal services.

nagement might correctly

ple, the restaurant manager

might be poorly trained,

ld to conflicting standards,

ectations are affected by

mple, if the restaurants

find the interior decor to be

expectations.

customer misperceives the

ey customers to show care,

wrong with their business

gaps are large, customers

t in service quality. This

close these gaps as soon as

lity and satisfaction levels

of research suggests that

Cronin and Taylor, 1992),

ice quality (Bitner, 1990).

ction and service quality is

quality affects satisfaction

elop their future purchase

ucci, Ostrom, and Grayson

s to managerial delivery of

ey also advanced a very

will not lead to improved

d Parasuraman (1991) and

formed the framework for


4/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Figure 2: SERVQUAL MODEL/

Scope and Methodology of the St

The study focused on KPH

investigations were conducted, que

140 customers over two weeks. R

offices, staff common rooms, etc.

Administered questionnaires were

interviewed in their offices or ho

restaurants service quality and sati

to watch how frontline staff attende

The survey research method

open-ended, close-ended, and aLikbetween 1 and 15 minutes per indivi

Restaurant and observations were

information to supplement data ga

tabulations were used to analyse dat

Discussion of Results

Questionnaire Administration102 (88%) of the 116 question

staff were retrieved. However, 9

respectively, representing 14 (22%)

rates were high, especially among t

A distribution of Gender

78% of the 102 respondents w

the fact that Ghanaian ladies general

Reliability and Responsiveness of

15% of the respondents indica

indicated that it takes an attendant

between 5 to 15 minutes to serve cu

Word of mouth

communications

GAP

GAP

GAP 1

GAP

Consumer

The Restaurant

Source: A. Parasuraman, Valar

Quality and its implicat

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

153

RAMEWORK

dy

R and its clients (students, lecturers and non-a

tionnaires tested, a sample size of 116 was selected

esearch Assistants administered questionnaires to r

and at the Restaurant on the instructions of researc

retrieved over a period of four (4) weeks. Also, so

mes to ensure confidentiality and expression of o

faction levels among customers. Observations too

to customers.

as used to purposively administer questionnaires o

ert 5-scale items to 102 regular customers. Persondual, were conducted involving 10 customers and 2

made to observe the interface between attendant

hered through questionnaires.Frequencies, percenta

a, while pie and bar charts were used to present infor

naires administered were retrieved. All questionnair

and 5 of them could not be retrieved from stude

of the total questionnaire administered. This shows

e teaching staff.

re males while only 22% were females. What proba

ly prefer eating at home to eating in public places.

staff

ed that it takes an attendant between 1 to 5 minutes

between 5 to 15 minutes to be served. This suggest

stomers.

Personal needs

and wantsPast Experience

Expected service

Perceived services

.

Service delivery

(including pre post-

contacts)

External

communic

consumerGAPTranslation of perception into

service-quality specifications

Management perception of

consumer expectations

e A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, A Conceptual mode

on for Future Research, Journal of Marketing, 49 (1985):

www.iiste.org

cademic staff).Preliminary

from a population of about

spondents in their homes,

ers for about two months.

me of the customers were

inion on the state of the

ere made in the Restaurant

f 24 questions comprising

l interviews, which lastedanagement members of the

and customers for more

es, tabulations, and cross-

ation.

s administered to teaching

ts and non-teaching staff

that response and retrieval

ly explains this situation is

to be served. 85% of them

s that it takes an attendant

ations to

of Service

1-50.


5/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

From the responses, 51% of the

be served in 5 minutes; and 14%served between 10 and 15; while no

(85%) of the customers would wantAssurance and Empathy of staff

Student-respondents rated atte

follows: of the 219 answers analyze

that it is Satisfactory, 18% rate it a

suggests that the frontline staff perf

Non-teaching staff-respondent

determinants as follows: of the 176

Satisfactory), 27% rate it as Good,

table 6, it means that the frontline st

Teaching staff-respondents rate

follows: of the 223 answers analyz

state that it is Satisfactory, 15% sta

of service is Excellent.This means tTangibles (physical evidence) thResponses showed that 87% of

not sure whether or not it is hygien

hygienic. This implies that custo

significant percentage of (8%) seem

not convinced that the place is hygi

Opinions on whether the interior

About 57% of the customers fe

Essentially, 31% of the customers d

(i) the place is usu(ii) the place is not(iii) student-respon

Opinions on whether provision ofAbout 89% of respondents fee

gadgets will make them more sati

television sets will make a differe

requesting for radio and television

relaxation while waiting for their

television set may attract others wit

to adding these gadgets argue that t

Opinions on whether provision of

About 78% of respondents feel

will make them more satisfied wit

having to ask attendants of types o

difference in their level of satisfacti

Levels of satisfaction with service

64% of the respondents patronithat they patronize the place as a m

lack of better alternatives on ca

expectations.

From the data analyzed, 80% o

any as against 20% who claim that

customers would switch to better al

loyal to the restaurant. That is to sa

worse than the situation presented iWhen respondents were asked

rated it low; 70% rated it average; 7

the restaurants rating on customer s

Conclusions and Recommendatio

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

154

respondents would want to be served in less than 5

ould want to be served between 5 and 10 minutes.ne of them would want to wait for more than 15 min

to be served within 5 minutes.

dants performance on the six (6) customer servi

d, 14% rate customer service quality as Very poor, 23

s Good, while 7% and 1% rate it as Very good and

rmance on customer service delivery is average.

s rated attendants performance on the six (6)

answers analyzed, 9% rate it as Very poor, 14% rat

hile 6% and 3% rate it as Very good and Excellent r

aff performance on customer service delivery is avera

d attendants performance on the six (6) customer ser

ed, state that the quality of service is Very poor, 13

e that it is Good, 6% state it as Very good, and nobo

at the frontline staff performance on customer service appearance of physical facilities, equipment, etcthe customers are of the view that the restaurant envi

ic, 2% and 4% disagree and strongly disagree respe

ers generally perceive the restaurant environment

not to be sure of the hygiene of the place. Another si

nic.

f the restaurant is a comfortable atmosphereel that the interior of the restaurant is relaxed and co

o not feel relaxed and comfortable at the restaurant fo

ally warm at lunch time

spacious enough

dents complained that they are not comfortable eati

radio and Television sets will increase level of satisthe absence of radio and television sets. Thus, they

sfied with the services of the restaurant. 4% are u

ce. About 7% do not want them. Reasons most o

sets are that they will be used for listening to ne

urns. An academic staff suggested that a radio set

no intention of eating. On the contrary, about 7% of

ey would make the place more congested because the

menu card will increase level of satisfaction

the absence of menu cards. Thus, they explained tha

the services of the restaurant because it saves custo

food available all the time. 16% were unsure whet

n or not. About 6% of them do not see the need for it.

quality

ze the restaurant for lack of better options on campuatter of choice. This suggests that most of the custo

pus. That is to say that the restaurants overall p

the respondents would switch to better options on/or

they do not intend to switch to any substitutes. Thi

ternatives should they find any. In other words, only

y that the restaurants overall performance is below t

Table 12 above.o rate the restaurants overall service quality, 3% of t

% rated it high; but no one rated it very high. All the

ervice quality is average.

s

www.iiste.org

inutes; 34% would want to

nly 1% would want to betes. This implies that most

ce quality determinants as

% rate it as Poor, 36% state

xcellent respectively. This

customer service quality

e it as Poor, 42% rate it as

spectively. As indicated in

ge.

ice quality determinants as

state that it is Poor, 63%

dy believes that the quality

delivery is average.

onment is hygienic. 8% are

tively that the restaurant is

as hygienic. However, a

nificant percentage (6%) is

fortable. 13% are not sure.

the following reasons:

g among their lecturers.

faction.agree that providing these

sure whether radio and

f the respondents gave for

ws, for entertainment, and

might just be okay; that a

the respondents who object

place is already small.

availability of menu cards

mers the trouble of always

er menu cards will make a

.

as against 36% who claimers patronize the place for

erformance is below their

around campus if they find

s suggests that most of the

20% of the respondents are

heir expectations; and even

hem rated it very low; 20%

above seem to indicate that


6/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

From the findings, the followin

The Restaurants customer basthe findings that the restaurant rate

attributes in order of importance thprovision of television and radio set

important of all the attributes. This i

minutes but the study indicates that

negative gap of 10 minutes; lack

reliability. On responsiveness,assu

The study also indicates that m

which directly establishes that cu

quality and satisfaction. This sugges

the remaining four attributes will be

In view of this, the conclusion

resulting in equallyaveragesatisfa

delighted. This kind of consequen

literature.(McAlexander et al., 1994The conclusions drawn suggest

and delight them. In view of this, th

action plan should be developed im

i. Staff capacity developmeresponsive to facilitate ass

ii. High but realistic customeway of closing gaps identi

iii. The restaurant manager wcustomer service delivery r

iv. The restaurant manager widentify areas of successes

performance standards.

v. Staff of the restaurant shoand involvement in decisio

vi. One television and radio scustomers wait for their tur

vii. Management must endeavomeeting customers reques

viii. About four additional ceiliroom during launch time to

References

Anderson, E.W. and Fornell. C. (19

(eds) (1994) Service Quality: New

Bebko, C.P. (2000) Service intan

Service Marketing, 14 (1), 9-26.

Berry, L.L. and Parasurama16

Bitner, M. (1990) Evaluation of ser

Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 69-82.

Brady, M.K.andGronin, J.J.

hierarchical approach, Journal of

Chen, F.P., Chen, C.K.N.,

quality based on service time. Mana

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A

Marketing, 56 (3), 55- 68.

Crosby, P.B. (1984) Quality

Galloway, L. (1999) Hyster

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

155

g conclusions were drawn:

of about 120 is too small for a community of about 5s high on the tangibles, the least and the last of t

e five. This still presents little negative gaps becauss will increase customer satisfaction. It rather rates l

ndicates a big gap because most of the respondents

they are normally served between 5 and 15 minutes

f punctuality and disappointments also contributed

rance, and empathy, it is ratedaverage.

ost of the respondents rate the restaurants customer

tomers satisfactionlevel is equally average, give

ts that a restaurant that is able to perform satisfactoril

able to satisfy and delight customers.

could be drawn that the customer service quality o

ction. Therefore customers of the restaurant are

ial relationships between the two constructs was e

)that there are gaps that should be closed if the Restau

e following steps must be taken to gradually close the

ediately in which attention should be paid to the foll

t and trainingprogrammes should be pursued to m

rance and the trust customers expect from them.

service quality standards should be set on the five s

ied in the study.

ith staff should support and monitor one another in

ight the first time.

th staff should perform weekly customer service qu

and failures for the week as the bases for improveme

ld be better motivated through competitive conditio

n making.

ts each should be provided to serve as a source of en

n.

ur to release funds for operating expenses on tine enh

s and expectations speedily.

g fans and/or air conditioners should be provided to

make customers more comfortable.

94) A customer Satisfaction Research Prospectus, in

irection in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications,

ibility and its impact on consumer expectations of

, A. (1991) Marketing Services: Competing through

ice encounters: the effects of physical surroundings

Jr. (2001) some new thought on conceptualizing p

arketing, 65 (3), 34-49.

and Chen, S.K. (2001) the integrated evaluation

ging Service Quality, 11, 342- 349.

., (1992) measuring service quality: a re-examinatio

Without Tears, New American Library, New York.

esis: a model of consumer behavior?, Marketing Ser

www.iiste.org

,000 people.It is clear frome customer service quality

e the findings indicate thatw on reliability, the most

ould want to be served in 5

instead. This presents a big

to the big negative gap in

servicequality as average

the link between service

on tangibles and excel on

f the restaurant is average

ot yet satisfied let alone

tablished in the review of

rant must satisfy customers

in the next five years. An

wing issues:

ke staff more reliable and

rvice quality attributes as a

making sure that they get

ality delivery evaluation to

t on the subsequent weeks

s of service, empowerment

ertainment and news while

ance the staffs capacity for

reduce the warmness of the

Rust, R.T. and Oliver R.L.

housand Oaks, CA, 241-68.

service quality, Journal of

uality, New York Press, p.

and employees responses,

erceived service quality: a

odel for administration of

and extension, Journal of

ice Quality, 9 (5), 360-70.


7/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Getty, J.M. and Thompson,

behavior in lodging decision, JournGronroos, C. (1984a) A service qu

(4), 36-44.Gronroos, C. (1984b) Strategic Man

Gwynne, A., Ennew, C. an

analysis, proceedings of the 28th E

Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Gr

voice of the customer, Journal of C

Juan, J.M. (1982) Upper Manageme

Kotler, P., and Keller, K.L. (2009)

McAlexander, J.H., kaldenberg, D.

Marketing, 14 (3), 34-9.

McDaniel, C., Lamb Jr. C.

Higher Education.

Oliver, R., (1997) Satisfacti

Palmer, A. (2008a) Principles of SePalmer, A. (2008b) Principles of Se

Parasuraman, A., Zeithmal, V.A.

consumer perceptions of service qu

Parasuraman, A., Zeithmal, V.A. a

for future research, Journal of Mar

Rust, R.T. and Oliver R.L.

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2

Swan, J.E. and Coombs, L.J. (

of Marketing, 40 (2), 25-33.

Notes:

Table 1: Gender Distributi

Source: Field survey, 2010

Table 2: A distribution ofQuestionnaireAdministration

Total

Freq

Retrieved 102Not retrieved 14

Total 116


Gender

Total No. of

Respondents

Freq %

Males 80 7

Females 22 2

Total 102 1

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

156

K.N. (1994) The Relationship between quality, sati

a of Hospitality and leisure marketing, 2 (3), 3-22.ality model and its marketing implications, Europea

agement and Marketing in the Service Sector,Chartw

d Devlin, J. (1999) Service quality and customer

ropean Marketing Academy Conference, 25.

yson, K. (1995) Distinguishing service quality and

onsumer Psychology, 4 (3), 277-303.

nt and Quality, Juran Institute, New York.

arketing Management, 13th ed., Pearson Education,

. and Koenig, H, 91994) Service quality measurem

. and Hair Jr., J. F. (2006) Introduction to Marketi

on: A Behavioural Perspective of the Consumer, McG

vice Marketing, 5

th

ed., UK McGraw-Hill Education.vice Marketing, 5th ed., UK McGraw-Hill Education.

and Berry, L.L. (1988) SERVQUAL: A multiple

lity, Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.

d Berry, L.L. (1985) A Conceptual model of servic

eting 49 (4), 41-50.

(eds) (1994) Service Quality: New Direction in

41-68.

9176) Product Performance and Consumer Satisfacti

n of Respondents

uestionnaire AdministrationStudents Non-Teaching Staff

% Males Females males females

88 25 11 22 822 5 4 4 1

100 30 15 26 9

Students

Non-Teaching Staff Teac

Freq % Freq % Freq

25 69 22 73 33

11 31 8 8 3

0 36 100 30 100 36

www.iiste.org

faction and recommendind

Journal of \marketing, 18

ll-Bratt, Bromley.

satisfaction: a longitudinal

customer satisfaction: the

Inc., New Jersey.

nt, Journal of Health Care

ng 8th ed., Ohio, Thomson

raw Hill, New York.

-item scale for measuring

quality and it implications

heory and Practice, Sage

on: a new concept, Journal

Teaching Staff

Males Females

33 30 0

33 3

ing Staff

%

92

8

100


8/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Table 3: How many minute

ResponsesTotal no.Responde

FreqLess than 5 7

5 8

6 to 10 44

11 to 15 43

Total 102


Table 4: In how many min

Responses

Total no.

Responde

Freq

Less than 5 52

5 35

5 to 10 14

11 to 15 1

More than 15 0

Total 102


Table 5: How students rate tResponses Total no. of

respondents Co

Freq % M

Very poor 32 14 1Poor 51 23 5

Satisfactory 79 36 10

Good 37 17 7

Very good 15 7 2

Excellent 2 1 0

Total 219 100 25


Table 6: How non-teaching staff r

Responses Total no. ofrespondents C

Freq %

Very poor 15 9 1

Poor 28 16 2Satisfactory 74 41 1

Good 47 26 7

Very good 10 5 1

Excellent 5 3 1

Total 180 100 2

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

157

s does it take an attendant to serve you?

ofnts

Students Non-Teaching staff

% Males Females Males Females7 2 1 0 1

8 2 0 4 1

43 12 2 10 3

42 9 8 8 3

100 25 11 22 8

tes would you expect to be served?of

nts

Students Non-Teaching staff

% Males Females Males Females

51 10 7 10 6

34 11 4 7 0

14 4 0 4 2

1 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0

100 25 11 22 8

he attendants on customer service quality attributCustomer Service Quality Attribute

rtesy Warmth Friendliness Care

F M F M F M F

2 2 3 1 2 1 31 6 1 5 4 5 4

5 9 5 10 3 12 3

2 7 1 6 1 6 1

1 3 0 2 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0

11 27 10 24 11 25 11

ate the attendants on customer service quality attr

Customer service quality Attribut

ourtesy Warmth Friendliness Care

F M F M F M F

1 1 0 1 1 1 1

0 3 2 2 0 3 20 5 10 4 5 4 8 4

1 6 2 8 2 9 1

1 2 0 4 1 0 0

0 0 0 2 0 1 0

2 8 22 8 22 8 22 8

www.iiste.org

Teaching Staff

Males Females3 0

1 0

17 0

12 3

33 3

Teaching Staff

Males Females

18 1

12 1

3 1

0 0

0 0

33 3

s

reativity Urgency

F M F

4 5 73 11 1

2 2 6 2

1 2 0

0 1 1

1 0 0

5 11 25 11

butes

es

Creativity Urgency

M F M F

2 1 3 3

4 4 5 211 2 9 2

4 1 5 1

1 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

22 8 22 8


9/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Table 7: How teaching staff rate t

Responses Total no. ofrespondents

Freq %

Very poor 8 4 0

Poor 28 13 0

Satisfactory 132 62 2

Good 34 16 5

Very good 14 6 3

Excellent 0 0 0

Total 216 100 3


Table 8: Opinions on whether the

Responses

Total no.

respondents

Freq %Strongly Agree 21 21

Agree 67 66

Not Sure 8 8

Disagree 2 2

Strongly Disagree 4 4

Total 102 100


Table 9: Opinions on whether t

ResponsesTotal no.respondents

Freq %

Strongly Agree 9 9

Agree 49 48

Not Sure 13 13

Disagree 25 25


102 100


Table 10: Opinions on whether pr


Freq %

Strongly Agree 63 62

Agree 28 27

Not Sure 4 4

Disagree 3 3


102 100


Sciences

-2863 (Online)

158

e attendants on customer service attributes

Customer Service Quality Attrib

ourtesy Warmth Friendliness CareF M F M F M F

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 3 0 4 0

5 2 25 0 18 1 22 2

0 6 1 8 1 5 0

1 1 2 4 1 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 22 3 33 3 33 3

restaurant environment is hygienicf Students Non-Teaching Staff

Males Females Males Females10 2 2 2

13 8 14 5

0 1 3 1

1 0 1 0

1 0 2 0

25 11 22 8

e interior of the restaurant is a comfortable atmosof Students Non-Teaching staff

Males Females Males Females

4 1 2 1

10 1 12 3

3 0 4 2

7 9 2 1

1 0 2 1

25 11 22 8

ovision of radio and TV will increase level of satisfof Students Non-Teaching staff


13 6 13 6

9 3 6 2

1 0 2 0

1 0 1 0

1 2 0 0

25 11 22 8

www.iiste.org

tes

Creativity

Urgency

M F M F

3 1 1 2

7 2 12 0

20 0 15 0

4 0 3 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

33 3 33 3

Teaching Staff

Males Females5 0

24 3

3 0

0 0

1 0

33 3

phereTeaching Staff

Males Females

1 0

20 3

4 0

6 0

2 0

33 3

ction.Teaching Staff

Males Females

24 1

8 0

0 1

1 0

0 1

33 3


10/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Table 11: Opinion on whether pr


Freq %Strongly Agree 45 44

Agree 35 34

Not Sure 16 16

Disagree 3 3


Total 102 100


Table 12: Do you patronize


Freq %Yes 65 6

No 37 36

Total 102 10


Table 13: Are you searchin


Freq %

Yes 82 80

No 20 20

Total 102 10


Table 14: Level of satisfacti

Responses

Total no

respondents

Freq

Very low 3

Low 21

Average 71

High 7

Very high 0

Total 102


Sciences

-2863 (Online)

159

vision of menu card will increase level of satisfacti

f Students Non-Teaching staff

Males Females Males Females15 6 5 5

6 3 8 3

1 1 8 0

0 1 1 0

3 0 0 0

25 11 22 8

the Restaurant for lack of better options on campof Students Non-Teaching staff T

Males Females Males Females16 3 13 6 2

9 8 9 2 9

0 25 11 22 8 3

for a substitute?

of Students Non-Teaching staff T


22 8 17 8 2

3 3 5 0 9

0 25 11 22 8 3

on with the overall service quality. of Students Non-Teaching staff

% Males Females Males Females

3 1 1 1 0

20 3 4 6 3

70 21 5 10 5

7 0 1 5 0

0 0 0 0 0

100 25 11 22 8

www.iiste.org

on

Teaching Staff

Males Females13 1

15 0

4 2

1 0

0 0

33 3

s?eaching Staff

ales Females4 3

0

3 3

eaching Staff

ales Females

4 3

0

3 3

Teaching Staff

Males Females

0 0

4 1

28 2

1 0

0 0

33 3


11/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Figure 3: Student-responde

Figure 4: Non-teaching staf

Figure 5: Teaching staff-re

Figure 6: Opinions on whet

050

100

PERCENTA

GE

0

50

100

PERC

ENTAGE

0

50

100

PERCENTAGE

0

Strongly Agree

Agree

Not Sure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

RESPONSES

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

160

nts rating of the Restaurants Service Quality

f-respondents rating of the Restaurants Service

pondents rating of the Restaurants Service Quali

her the restaurant environment is hygienic

RESPONSES

RESPONSES

RESPONSES

20 40 60 80 100PERCENTAGE

www.iiste.org

uality

ty


12/13



Vol.3, No.5, 2013

Figure 7: Pie Chart showin

campus

Figure 8: Pie Chart showin

Figure 9: Bar chart showin

No

No

0

Very low

Low

Average

High

Very high

RESPONSES

Sciences

-2863 (Online)

161

g whether customers patronize the Restaurant fo

whether consumers are searching for an alternati

customers level of satisfaction with the overall s

Yes

Yes

20 40 60 80 100

PERCENTAGES

www.iiste.org

lack of better options on

ve restaurant

rvice quality


13/13

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,

Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access

Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is

Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTEs homepage:http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR PAPERS

The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and

collaborating with academic institutions around the world. Theres no deadline for

submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission

instruction on the following page:http://www.iiste.org/Journals/

The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified

submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the

readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than

those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the

journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische

Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe DigtialLibrary , NewJour, Google Scholar
http://www.iiste.org/http://www.iiste.org/http://www.iiste.org/Journals/http://www.iiste.org/Journals/http://www.iiste.org/Journals/http://www.iiste.org/Journals/http://www.iiste.org/

Documents

The Quality of Customer Service and Satisfaction Levels at Koforidua Polytechnic Restaurant, EasternRegion, Ghana